Commons Sitting of 8 August 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Epping Forest* [71]; Irish Church Act Amendment (No. 2)* [284]; Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* [285], and passed.
The House met at half after Three of the clock.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION—STANDING ORDERS.
MR. BONHAM-CARTER, in rising to move certain Amendments in the Standing Orders, said, they were of a simple character, being, in fact, generally, adjustments which had become necessary in consequence of the changed conditions arising from legislation in regard to tramways, and some other steps which had been taken in consequence of the establishment of Local Government Boards.
Standing Order 16 was read, and amended, by inserting in line 6, after the word "street," the words
"and whether or not, and if so, at what point or points it is proposed to lay such Tramway so that for a distance of thirty feet or upwards a less space than nine feet six inches, or if it is intended to run thereon carriages or trucks adapted for use upon Railways, a less space than ten feet six inches shall intervene between the outside of the footpath on either side of the road and the nearest rail of the Tramway."
Standing Order 41 was read, and amended, by leaving out in line 7, after the word "waters," the word "and."
In line 9, by inserting after the word "department," the words
"and a printed copy of every Bill whereby application is made by or on behalf of any municipal corporation, local board, improvement commissioners, or other local authority in England or Wales, for power to borrow money for any purpose to which the several Acts specified in Part I. of the Schedule to 'The Local Government Board Act 1871' relate, at the Office of the Local Government Board:"—
Amendment made to said proposed Amendment by leaving out in line 4 the words "to borrow money for," and inserting the words "in respect of:"—(Mr. Francis Sharp Powell:)—Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Standing Order 64 was read, and amended, by inserting in line 1, after the word "Bill," the words "or a Tramway Bill."
In line 2, by inserting after the word "Company," the words "or Tramway Company."
In line 6, by inserting after the words "Railway Bills," the words "and Tramway Bills."
New Standing Order 71a:—
Ordered, That every Bill originating in this House, and empowering or requiring any Company, Association, or Co-partnership formed or registered under the Companies Act 1862, or con-
690
stituted by Royal Charter, Letters Patent, Deed of Settlement, Contract of Co-partnery, Cost Book Regulations, or other Instrument other than Act of Parliament, and under the management of Directors or Trustees, to do any act not authorised by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of such Company, or other Instrument or Instruments constituting or regulating the same, shall, after the First Reading thereof, be referred to the Examiners, who shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following requirements:
In the case of a Company formed or registered under the Companies Act 1862,
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced in this House shall be approved by a special resolution of the Company.
In the case of any other such Company, Association, or Co-partnership as aforesaid,
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced in this House shall be consented to by a majority of three-fourths in number and value of the shareholders or members of such Company, Association, or Co-partnership present, in person or by proxy, at a meeting convened with notice of the business to be transacted; such consent to be certified in writing by the chairman of the meeting.
A copy of such special resolution or certificate of consent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
New Standing Order 71b:—
Ordered, That in the case of every Bill brought from the House of Lords, in which provisions have been inserted in that House empowering or requiring any Company, Association, or Co-partnership formed or registered under the Companies Act, 1862, or constituted by Royal Charter, Letters Patent, Deed of Settlement, Contract of Co-partnery, Cost Book Regulations, or other Instrument or Instruments other than Act of Parliament, and under the management of Directors or Trustees, to do any act not authorised by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of such Company, or other Instrument constituting or regulating the same, the Examiner shall report as to compliance or non-compliance with the following requirements:
In the case of a Company formed or registered under the Companies Act 1862,
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced into this House shall be approved by a special resolution of the Company.
In the case of any other such Company, Association, or Co-partnership as aforesaid,
The Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced in this House shall be consented to by a majority of three-fourths in number and value of the shareholders or members of such Company, Association, or Co-partnership present, in person or by proxy, at a meeting convened with notice of the business to be transacted.
A copy of such special resolution or certificate of consent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, such consent to be certified in writing by the chairman of the meeting: Provided always, That if by the terms of such special resolution or consent the Bill as introduced or proposed to be introduced into the House of Lords shall have been approved or consented to, subject to all such

691
additions, alterations, and variations as Parliament may think fit to make therein, then it shall not be necessary for the purposes of this Order to obtain any further approval or consent in respect of any provisions inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords; Provided nevertheless that it shall be competent to the Committee on the Bill, if they shall think fit, having regard to the nature and effect of such provisions to require any further evidence of the approval or consent to such provisions on the part of the shareholders or members of the Company, Association, or Co-partnership.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
Standing Order 153 was read, and amended, by inserting in line 1, after the word "Bill," the words "and Tramway Bill."
In line 2, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 4, by inserting after the word "Company," the words "or Tramway Company."
In the same line, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 11, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 14, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 29, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 39, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 42, by inserting after the word "Company," the words "or Tramway Company."
Same line, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In page 48, line 2, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 10, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 26, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 28, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In lines 29 and 30, by leaving out the words "Lords of the Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations," and inserting the words "Board of Trade."
In line 35, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 37, by leaving out the words "Lords of the said Committee," and inserting the words "Board of Trade."
In lines 40 and 41, by leaving out the words "Lords of the said Committee," and inserting the words "said Board."
In line 46, by inserting after the word "Bill," the words "and Tramway Bill."
In line 47, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In page 49, line 6, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 10, by inserting after the word "paid," the words—
"And also in the case of Tramways in compensating all road authorities for the expense incurred by them in taking-up any Tramway, or materials connected therewith, placed by the Company in or on any road vested in or maintainable by such road authorities respectively, and in making good all damage caused to such roads by the construction or abandonment of such Tramway."
In line 22, by leaving out from the word "be" to the word "recovered," in line 26, inclusive, and inserting the words—
"Either be forfeited to Her Majesty and accordingly be paid or transferred to or for the account of Her Majesty's Exchequer, in such manner as the Court of Chancery in England (or Court of Exchequer in Scotland, or Court of Chancery in Ireland, as the case may be), thinks fit to order on the application of the solicitor of Her Majesty's Treasury, and shall be carried to and form part of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or, in the discretion of the Court, if the Company is insolvent and has been ordered to be wound up, or a receiver has been appointed, shall wholly or in part be paid or transferred to such receiver, or to the liquidator or liquidators of the Company, or be otherwise applied as part of the assets of the Company for the benefit of the creditors thereof."
In line 37, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 38, by leaving out from the word "such," to the word "line," in line 40, inclusive.
In line 42, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramways respectively."
In line 44, by inserting after the word "completed," the words—
"The period limited shall not exceed five years in the case of a new Railway line, and two years in the case of a new Tramway line, and three years in the case of extension of time for completing any Railway line, and one year in the case of extension of time for completing any Tramway line. In the case of extension of time the additional period shall be computed from the expiration of the period sought to be extended."
In line 45, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
In line 48, by inserting after the word "Railway," the words "or Tramway."
Standing Order 163 was read, and amended, by inserting in line 1, after

693
the word "Bill," the words "by which any money is authorised to be raised."
In line 2, by leaving out the words "any Railway," and inserting the word "the."
In same line, by leaving out from the word "the" to the word "Act," in line 4, inclusive.
In line 4, by inserting after the word "Act," the words "such money."
New Standing Order 164b:—
Ordered, That in every Railway Bill and Tramway Bill the length of each Railway and Tramway be set forth in miles, furlongs, chains, and yards, or decimals of a chain in the Clause describing the works, with a statement in the case of each Tramway whether it is a single or double line.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
New Standing Order 164c:—
Tramway Bills.
Ordered, That no powers shall be given to any Municipal Corporation, Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, or other local authority to place or run carriages upon any Tramway, and to demand and take tolls and charges in respect of the use of such carriages.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
New Standing Order 164d:—
Local Government.
Ordered, That in the case of all Bills whereby any Municipal Corporation, Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, or other local authority in England or Wales, are authorised to borrow money for any purpose to which the several Acts specified in Part I. of the Schedule to the Local Government Board Act, 1871, relate, without the sanction of the Local Government Board, estimates showing the proposed application of the money for permanent works within the meaning of the 57th section of the Local Government Act, 1858, or as defined by any subsequent Acts, shall be recited in the Bill as introduced into Parliament, and proved before the Select Committee to which the Bill is referred.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
Notice to frontagers (Notices No. 2), page 20 of Standing Orders.
Ordered, That on or before the 15th December immediately preceding the application for a Bill to authorise the laying down of a Tramway along any public highway, notice in writing shall be given to the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers of all houses, shops, or warehouses abutting upon any part of the said highway, where for a distance of thirty feet or upwards it is proposed that a less space than nine feet six inches shall intervene between the outside of the footpath on either side of the road and the nearest rail of the Tramway, or a less space than ten feet six inches, if it is intended to run on the Tramway carriages or trucks adapted for use upon Railways.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
Consents in case of Tramway Bills.
Ordered, That in cases of Bills to authorise the laying down of a Tramway along any public highway, the promoters shall obtain the consent of the local authority of the district or districts through which it is proposed to construct such Tramway, and where in any district there is a road authority distinct from the local authority, the consent of such road authority shall also be necessary in any case where power is sought to break up any road, subject to the jurisdiction of such road authority. For the purposes of this Order, the local and road authorities shall be the local and road authorities mentioned in Section 3 of "The Tramways Act, 1870:" Provided that where it is proposed to lay down any Tramways in two or more districts, and any local or road authority having jurisdiction in any such districts does not consent thereto, the consents of the local and road authority or the local and road authorities having jurisdiction over two-thirds of the length of such proposed Tramway shall be deemed to be sufficient.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.
MR. HINDE PALMERmoved a new Standing Order providing—
"That where a Bill is promoted by a public representative body, which Bill has for any of its objects the imposition or increase of rates or taxes upon the inhabitants of the district over which the power or authority of such representative body extends, it shall be competent to the Referees on Private Bills to admit Petitioners, being ratepayers, vestries, or local boards of the district, or any of such Petitioners, to be heard before the Committee in opposition to such Bill, notwithstanding the representative character of the body promoting such Bill."
He stated that much inconvenience had arisen in consequence of ratepayers being unable to oppose Bills promoted by representative bodies of the district in which they resided. Under the present Standing Orders those parties were precluded from any locus standi; and, as an example of the effect of the existing Standing Order, he referred to the Bill promoted during the present Session by the Metropolitan Board of Works to raise £2,500,000 by taxation. A great number of Petitions were presented against that Bill by ratepayers, who could obtain no locus standi to be heard in opposition to it. There ought to be a new Standing Order to meet the new circumstances which had arisen. The Chairman of the Committee on that Bill in the House of Lords (Earl Beauchamp) had expressed himself strongly to that effect on the third reading of the Bill. The "Municipal Corporations Borough Funds Bill," passed this Session, rendered the new Order still more necessary.
MR. BONHAM-CARTERwas of opinion that a subject of such great importance could not be properly discussed at that late period of the Session. If a small minority of ratepayers, and in some cases individuals, were to be allowed to contest Private Bills, much of the time of the House would be occupied with the consideration of details which it could not satisfactorily deal with. At the same time, he admitted that in special cases a modification of the ordinary practice of the House might be advantageously made. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press the matter on that occasion.
MR. HINDE PALMERexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Motion, but said he should bring the matter forward again next Session.
COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN, as Chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, undertook that the subject should receive due attention.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION—INCLOSURES.

  NEW STANDING ORDER.
  MR. BRUCE (for Mr. WINTERBOTHAM)moved the following Resolution:—
  "That whenever a Private Bill contains any provisions relating to the Inclosure of Land, which might be comprised in a Provisional Order, under the Acts for the Inclosure and Improvement of Land, the Committee do a make a Special Report thereon to the House."
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.

INDIA—COURT OF INQUIRY AT MADRAS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRAVESasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the decisions of the Madras Court of Inquiry suspending the certificates of the Commanders of several ships lost at that port during the late cyclone, and if the same have received the approval of the Board of Trade; and, if the said Court of Inquiry was duly constituted?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, he was unable to give the hon. Member any information at the present moment on the subject of his Question. The report of the Court of Inquiry was expected by the next mail.

THE NEW FOREST.—QUESTION.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, in the next Session of Parliament, a Bill for the disafforestation of the New Forest?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he could not undertake, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to introduce a Bill of the nature indicated in the Question, although he admitted that at the present moment the greater part of the land composing the New Forest was of no greater advantage to the nation at large than it would be if submerged in the waters of the sea.

FRANCE—FISHERY CONVENTION OF 1867—FRENCH AND ENGLISH FISHING BOATS.—QUESTION.
MR. SEELYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, under Article 31 of the Convention entered into by England and France of the 11th November 1867, the fishing boats of either country are now allowed to enter the ports designated in the Convention for the sale of fish?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: The Fishery Convention with France of November 11, 1867, has never yet been brought into operation. The present practice is, that French and Dutch fishermen are allowed to enter English ports for trading purposes. They may sell their fish, provided they report their boats, and enter the fish as merchandize at the Custom House.

ARMY—THE VOLUNTEERS—CASE OF PRIVATE PORTER.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to his reply to a Question on Monday last, Whether such an exercise of authority by a commanding officer of Volunteers, as that of dismissing Private Porter from the 18th Perthshire Highland Corps, for attending two political meetings as a citizen, and not in uniform, meets his approval?
MR. CARDWELL: The only answer I can give to my hon. Friend is that, as I stated on Monday, the Question is one which it appears to me the statute intended to leave in the discretion of the commanding officer.

PARLIAMENT—SHEFFIELD PETITION—THE PERMISSIVE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the hon. Member for Walsall, Whether, as Chairman of the Select Committee of Public Petitions, his attention has been called to the statement made in this House respecting a Petition from Sheffield, presented on May, in favour of the Permissive Bill; and, whether he considers it a genuine Petition?
  MR. C. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had made inquiries respecting the Petition referred to, and he was glad to assure his hon. Friend that the Petition was genuine and exceedingly well-signed, though it was no doubt characterized by the informality that the signatures of the clergy and gentry had been cut out and placed on a separate sheet.

POST OFFICE—SUNDAY DELIVERY OF LETTERS.—QUESTION.
MR. REEDasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances connected with the restoration of a Sunday Post in the district of Fairlight and Ore, in the county of Sussex; and, whether it is true that the rural messenger has been required to perform Sunday duty upon the memorial of two persons, one of whom ceased to reside in the district before the order in question was issued by the Department?
MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, the post referred to in the Question of his hon. Friend had been restored not on the memorial of two persons, but on the memorial of more than 100 persons, who complained of the inconvenience they suffered from the non-delivery of their letters on Sunday. The letters would be delivered by a postman who was not otherwise employed by the Department. He did not complain of the Question of his hon. Friend; but he would venture to point out that any attempt to enforce rules of morality and religion against the will of the majority of the people must be attended with consequences injurious to the public good.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHwished to ask, Whether the Postmaster General received a requisition from the receivers of two-thirds of the letters before causing the restoration of the delivery?
MR. MONSELLsaid, a discretionary power was left in the hands of the Postmaster General, to cause the Sunday delivery of letters to be resumed, whenever it could be shown that inconvenience arose from the absence of the delivery.

CUSTOMS ESTABLISHMENTS—EXETER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWRINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is intended to extend to the other Ports of the Country the inquiries lately made into the Customs Establishments of London and Liverpool; and, whether in that case due consideration will be given to the claims of the Out-door Establishments at Ports such as Exeter?
  MR. BAXTER, in reply, said, the inquiry would be extended to other ports, and due consideration would be given to the claims of Exeter.

DOMINION OF CANADA—COPYRIGHT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the intention of the Government with regard to a settlement of questions that have arisen on the subject of Copyright in the Dominion of Canada?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Her Majesty's Government have been and are considering suggestions for the settlement of these copyright questions as embodied in a Bill passed by the Dominion Legislature and otherwise put before them. While they would feel much satisfaction if the difficulties surrounding this somewhat complicated subject could be solved by some reasonable and practical arrangement, they are not at this moment in a condition to state positively the course which they may think it their duty to take.

CAPE COLONY—CROWN LANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACFIEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any lands now under the control of the Crown will be transferred to the control of the Cape Colony, in case responsible government shall be established there; and, if so, what arrangements it is intended to make for the purpose of securing that such lands shall be avail-

  699
  able for emigration, and the proceeds of sale be applied to emigration and to public improvements in connection with those lands?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: When responsible government is established the control of such Crown lands in the Cape Colony as are not specially reserved will be vested in the Governor in Council, and such lands will be leased, sold, or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the responsible Ministers may advise. Her Majesty's Government do not contemplate enforcing any special conditions or restrictions differing in principle from those applied to other colonies under responsible government.

METROPOLIS WATER SUPPLY—SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER COMPANY.—QUESTION.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, What steps he has taken regarding the Report by Mr. Netten Radcliffe (Parliamentary Paper, No. 362,) on a nuisance from a dustyard adjoining the open reservoirs and filter beds of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, and leased by
"one of the contractors engaged in the removal of the dry, house, and other refuse, and of the stable manure from part of the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, for the purpose of deposit of this refuse, and of sifting such portions of it as are usually submitted to that process, previous to the refuse being placed in barges for carriage from the metropolis;"
how it has happened that, although this Report is dated 25th April, Mr. Netten Radcliffe had to report on 3rd July that this nuisance still existed, that on that day it caused a most offensive stench at a distance of eighty yards from the dustyard, and that
"the accumulation of 'dust' and of stable manure was greater than at the time of his visit on 22nd April, and that the yard was altogether in a fouler state;"
whether the promised measures were taken in April by the Wandsworth Board of Works "to obtain an abatement and prevent a recurrence of the nuisance;" whether the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square has taken any action; and, whether "the indifference of the Water Company to the nuisance" still continues?
MR. STANSFELD: Upon the receipt of Mr. Radcliffe's Report the Board communicated copies of it to the District
700
Board of Works and the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, at the same time requesting to be informed by the District Board of Works what steps they proposed to take. They also subsequently transmitted a copy to the Board of Trade, in order that they might communicate with the water company. On the 2nd of July, after a second application, the District Board informed the Board that the delay had arisen solely from the difficulty in obtaining evidence. On the 9th of July the case was heard before the magistrate, Mr. Radcliffe being examined as a witness, but the case was dismissed on the ground that—
"The accumulation or deposit had not been kept longer than was necessary for the business or manufacture, and the best available means had been taken for protecting the public from injury to health thereby."
The Board have not received any communication from the Vestry of St. George's on the subject. With respect to the water company they allege that the purity of the water is not in any way affected by the proximity of the works. I understand, however, that they made an application to the District Board so long ago as the 18th of May to take proceedings to put an end to the nuisance. If the Wandsworth District Board had failed to prosecute under the Nuisances Removal Act, they would have been in default, and the Board might have appointed a person to institute proceedings before the magistrates; but the District Board having prosecuted and failed, the Local Government Board have no authority to require them to take any further proceedings.
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention was called to the Report of Mr. Netten Radcliffe in April, in which he described a nuisance "offensively compromising the water supply given by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company; whether he is aware that on 3rd July Mr. Netten Radcliffe further reported of the screen then in process of construction to be placed between the dust yard and the Waterworks—
"It is not probable that a screen of this altitude (ten to twelve feet) will perceptibly diminish the nuisance from the 'dust yard' as affecting the Water Company's works;"
and, if he would state to the House what communications he has addressed to the Water Company on this subject?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: My contribution to this history is, that on the 24th of May the Report mentioned was sent by the Local Government Board to the Board of Trade, and I find that the Board of Trade forwarded a copy of it to the company. They replied that the Wandsworth District Board of Works had informed them, in regard to the nuisance complained of, that they had ordered proceedings to be taken for its removal. The water company, believing that action should be taken by the local authority, were anxious to get the District Board to remove the nuisance; but they added that, in their opinion, the purity of the water was in no way affected by the proximity of the dustyard. This communication was transmitted to the Local Government Board by the Board of Trade, which has heard nothing of the matter since.

EDUCATION—PRIVY COUNCIL GRANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLEYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, as Article 32a (3) of the New Code of 1872 (which provides, for the first time, that any grant made to a school shall be "reduced by its excess above one-half of the expenditure on the annual maintenance of the school,") involves a considerable reduction in the grant, especially to poor schools worked economically, he will consider the expediency of apportioning the grant so that the new reduction may apply only to that portion of the year which is subsequent to the publication of the New Code, and not operate so as to deprive a school of the additional amount that would have been earned under the Code of 1871, if the New Code had not a retrospective effect?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that at the beginning of each Session a new Code was placed upon the Table of the House, and was put into operation on the 1st of May. That course had been adopted in regard to this Minute, and he did not think it would be fair to other schools, or in accordance with right policy, to alter it in this particular case, and therefore he could not hold out to the hon. Member any prospect of its being put in force. With regard to the Minute itself, it merely carried out the expressed policy of the Department, that the annual grant should be proportioned to the annual expenditure.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD—PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether a Bill "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the districts of Bristol, Cardiff, Ealing, Idle, Lincoln, Newport (Monmouthshire), Shipley, Warrington, Wigan, and Wrington," which passed unopposed through this House, is likely to become Law during the present Session; and, if not, whether the failure of the Bill will not inevitably postpone the sanitary arrangements dependent upon the confirmation of those Provisional Orders?
  MR. STANSFELD: The Bill cannot become law this Session, and its failure will probably postpone the sanitary and other arrangements dependent upon the confirmation of the Provisional Orders which it contains. The statute requires that the notices to be given by the local Boards shall be given in the months of November and December. When these notices have been given the local Boards have to frame their Petitions to be laid before the Local Government Board. The Petitions are then to be considered by that Board, and if the Board think proper to entertain the Petitions, inquiries are to be held on the spot by Inspectors of the Board duly appointed for this purpose. The inquiries frequently take much time and are often matter of very serious contest. The Inspector in each case has to make his Report to the Board. When the Report is presented the Board might, no doubt, act upon it at once, and issue the order as a mere Ministerial act. They have not deemed it right to do so. They have examined the Report thoroughly; they have communicated with the Petitioners or their agents. They have heard persons who have to make opposition or to suggest proposals, and they have taken means to prevent the occurrence of contests in the Committees of either House. The result has been that all the Orders which they have issued could not be executed in sufficient time to enable them to be introduced into one Bill which could be read a second time before the 25th of June, the time fixed by the Standing Order of the House of Lords.

ARMY—STAFF APPOINTMENTS—ROYAL WARRANT, 1871.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state to the House why all vacancies caused in Regiments by Officers having been appointed to Staff Appointments have not been filled up in accordance with Clause 207 of the Royal Warrant of October 1871?
  MR. CARDWELL: It has always been the custom to permit, within certain limits, regimental officers to serve on the Staff, without becoming supernumerary. The recent Royal Warrant enables the Secretary of State to fill up the places of, and make supernumerary officers filling certain appointments; but in some cases, it has not yet been thought necessary to exercise this power.

PORTUGAL—CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.—QUESTION.
MR. T. E. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received from the Portuguese Government any communication expressing their readiness to discharge the claims of British Subjects which are admitted to be due to them in respect of the Royal Union Mercantile Company?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, the claims referred to had been unofficially brought under the notice of the Portuguese Government by Sir Charles Murray, and also through the instrumentality of the Portuguese Minister in this country, but as yet no definite reply had been received.

FRANCE—THE COMMERCIAL TREATY-MINERAL OILS.—QUESTION.
MR. M'LAGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps the Government have taken and intend to take with the view of obtaining redress to those British Subjects who have suffered loss from the French Government raising the import duty on mineral oils from five per cent. ad valorem to eighty-eight per cent. ad valorem, in spite of the French Treaty?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Mineral oils were not mentioned in the Treaty with France of 1860, the trade having hardly come into existence. We claim that
704
25 per cent is the maximum import duty which can be placed by the French on all articles of British produce. The French maintain that this limit only applies to articles actually specified in the Treaty. The question of duties upon mineral oils has been the subject of much diplomatic Correspondence between the two Governments, and is not yet concluded.

IRELAND—ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Commission, part of whose duty it will be to inquire into the complaints of the Royal Irish Constabulary, is to be appointed and to commence its operations; whether the causes which induce the alleged abandonment of the service, and migration to America and elsewhere by so many of the force, if the allegations are well founded, is to be attributed solely to dissatisfaction arising from inadequacy of pay; and, whether he would recommend the appointment of a Commission to inquire exclusively into all the complaints or alleged grievances of the force, or authorise the Commission which is to inquire into the position of the Irish Civil Servants to institute a comprehensive inquiry into the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and report specially thereon?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that the Commission would be appointed immediately, and commence its operations in about six weeks. He was not aware that the dissatisfaction and discontent prevailing among the constabulary were due to inadequacy of pay. It was not any part of the duty of the Commissioners to institute inquiries into any grievances other than those relating to pay; but if they discovered that there were grounds of complaint in reference to other matters it would, of course, be a matter of consideration whether further inquiry should be made.

GLOUCESTER AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY—SPEECH OF THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

705
ment, Whether Ms attention has been drawn to a report of a speech alleged to have been made by a prelate at the Gloucester Agricultural Society's meeting on Friday last, in which the following expressions appear:—It was not
"for him, a man of peace, to say anything stronger than that he hoped all his friends would keep the peace, and remember that their Bishop advised them, if the village horsepond stood invitingly near, not by any means to put their men into it;"
and, if the report is substantially accurate, whether he intends to take any steps to prevent a breach of the peace in consequence of these proceedings?
MR. BRUCE: I have seen the report in question, but I am unable, of course, to say whether it is accurate or not. Some hon. Friends of mine, who were present at the meeting and who are now in this House, assure me that it is inaccurate, in one important matter, and that the expression "put their men into it" should be "put these men into it," alluding to itinerant agitators. I do not think it is the business of a Minister, or of the House, to inquire into the accuracy of the language reported to have been used by post-prandial orators, clerical or otherwise. I am informed by my hon. Friends to whom I have alluded that these words were taken as a jocular application of a very venerable joke; that no importance was attached to them at the time; and that, in their opinion, the peace of the neighbourhood is not likely to be endangered by them.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868.

  QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state what course the Government propose to take next Session with respect to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, which has been this Session renewed for one year; and, whether the Government, in dealing with the question next Session, will introduce a separate Bill on the subject, not putting it, as in the present Session, in a Corrupt Practices Bill, and will introduce it at such a period of the Session as will enable the House to pass a deliberate judgment on the question?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that to begin at the end of the Question, he wished to say he thought the Government would be able to introduce next
  706
  Session a measure with respect to Corrupt Practices at Elections in time for the House to pass judgment upon it. With regard to the other point—whether it would be in one or two Bills—that would be a matter for deliberation before the business of the Session was determined upon, and he was not able at the present time to give an answer to that part of the hon. Member's Question.

ARMY—EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS IN HARVESTING—RELIGIOUS SERVICES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is anything in the regulations of the Army which prohibits a soldier taking part in religious services when off duty; and, whether he is aware that a Coporal at Gosport has been sentenced by Court Martial to eighty-four days' imprisonment with hard labour, to be degraded to the rank of a private, and to lose one conduct badge for taking part in religious services against his Colonel's wishes? He also asked, Whether it would be possible to make any arrangements whereby the military might be made available for asisting to secure the harvest in those agricultural districts where there is a great dearth of labour?
  MR. CARDWELL: The Queen's Regulations, Article 180, lay down as follows:—
  "There will be no objection to soldiers being allowed, at the discretion of general officers in command, to assist in collecting the harvest, when application is made for that purpose, provided that the employment of the population is not thereby interfered with."
  The proper course, therefore, is to apply to the general officer commanding the district. There is nothing in the Queen's Regulations of the nature suggested in the Question. The court martial referred to was held upon a corporal of Marines, and the sentence was confirmed at the instance of the Deputy Adjutant General of Marines, who is an officer of the Admiralty.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: What was the offence?
  MR. CARDWELL: The offence charged was disobedience of orders.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: In what respect?
  MR. CARDWELL: The hon. Member will have to address any further Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I give Notice that I shall to-morrow ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the offence of which the corporal of Marines had been guilty?

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT—COUNTY OF LOUTH, &c.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the eminently satisfactory condition of the borough of Dundalk and the county of Louth, as evidenced by the calendar of prisoners and the charges of every going Judge of Assize during the years 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872, both as regards offences against the person and against property, and the statement of Mr. Justice Lawson that "the county of Louth and borough of Dundalk, he might with truth say, challenged comparison for peace and order with any portion of Her Majesty's dominions," he is prepared to remove the Proclamation of that borough and county under the Peace Preservation Acts?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the hon. Member had asked him a similar Question some months ago, and in consequence of that Question and other explanations from districts in Ireland which had for some time been entirely undisturbed, the Irish Government had given instructions to the resident magistrates to relax in certain districts the stringency of the regulations with regard to the licensing of arms. He had stated on the former occasion his reasons why he did not think it expedient at present entirely to remove the proclamation from those counties, and he had not had reason to form a different opinion as yet. He could therefore only say that the subject of the condition of Louth and other counties in the same condition would be considered by the Government with the view of removing the proclamation as soon as possible.

NAWAB NAZIM OF BENGAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER: Sir, I wish to ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny a question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether he intends to bring forward early next Session the Motion which lately stood upon the Paper in his
  708
  name, relative to the Nawab Nazim of Bengal?
  MR. BRYAN: I shall certainly take the earliest opportunity of bringing this subject under the consideration of the House next Session; more especially in consequence of certain observations which fell from the Under Secretary of State for India the other night in Committee on the Indian Budget.

EX-LORD CHANCELLORS' ARBITRATIONS—QUESTION.
MR. EYKYNsaid, with the sanction of the First Lord of the Treasury, he wished to draw attention for a moment to a subject which was of considerable importance to the legal profession. It related to a Motion of his which he had had on the Paper for a considerable time. ["Order!"]
MR. OSBORNE: May I ask how this comes on? It is not on the Paper.
MR. SPEAKER: I was about to call on the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, and, the hon. Member for Windsor having risen, I was waiting to hear what the hon. Member's Motion was.
MR. EYKYNwas much obliged to his hon. Friend for setting him right. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question. The Motion of which he had given Notice was to the effect that it was inexpedient that ex-Lord Chancellors should receive pay for acting as Arbitrators or Referees unless instructed by the Government. Did the Government concur in the principle implied in that Motion?
MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that this subject had attracted much public attention of late, and he thought it was perfectly clear that his hon. Friend had exercised a sound discretion in not asking the House to proceed upon it by Resolution; because, in the first place, however reasonable any proposition of that kind might be, the House had no power to enforce it, and the House would expose itself to disparagement by passing such a Resolution; and in the second place, the passing of a reasonable Resolution upon such a subject might be made a precedent for passing conclusive and arbitrary Resolutions unduly interfering with private contracts. He was, therefore, of opinion—and he believed that his Colleagues concurred with him—that it was a subject that, if dealt with

709
at all, must be dealt with by legislation, and not by an expression of opinion, at least by that House, as they had no ex-Chancellors there, and were not likely to have any. If his hon. Friend asked him whether he thought such legislation ought to take place, that was not a matter upon which the Government had collectively deliberated, or arrived at any opinion. But he owned that there was a great deal to be said in favour of such legislation, provided that it could be put in a fair, equitable, and unexceptionable shape.

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY—ACCIDENT TO THE IRISH MAIL.
In reply to Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK,
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that a Report had been made to the Board of Trade in reference to the accident that happened to the Irish mail train on the 21st July last. The accident appeared to have been caused in this way. The Irish mail train was an hour late at Chester, and the foreman at Bangor blameably, as the Inspector thought, allowed a train of empty goods waggons to go on before it at an interval considerably less than that allowed by the company's time table. That train of waggons, from insufficient steam, appeared to have stopped in going up an incline near Holyhead, and the mail train ran into it. The immediate cause of the accident was the neglect of the lad who was acting on that occasion as breaksman, and who did not take the proper means to go back and stop the approaching mail train. The Inspector added that had the absolute block system been in force, this collision would in all probability have been prevented; but he stated that the absolute block system was being substituted for the permissive system by the company as fast as the arrangements could be perfected.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.—THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
THE ROYAL GARDENS, KEW—DR. HOOKER, AND THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that as this Bill appropriated the money voted by the Committee of Supply for the mainten-
  710
  ance of Kew Gardens and the payment of the staff, he was strictly in order in referring to the position in which Dr. Hooker was placed. He desired to avoid controversial matter, and merely wished to elicit some explanation from the Prime Minister showing an adequate appreciation of the eminent services of Dr. Hooker, and of what would be the great loss which the country would sustain if it should be deprived of the services of one who had served it so well and with so much distinction and with so much zeal as Dr. Hooker. It was of importance that what had been done should be made clear and intelligible. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had, no doubt, been actuated in the course which he had taken only by friendship and esteem for Dr. Hooker; but still it was necessary that the country should have some explanation as to what had been done. Last Monday week in "another place" a very distinguished nobleman who brought the matter forward said that he would not ask the opinion of that branch of the Legislature, because a Motion was going to be brought forward in the House of Commons in order to test the state of opinion there. As a decision had been avoided in the other branch of the Legislature, if this House were offered no opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the subject he was sure that the public might misunderstand the matter; and what he greatly feared was this—that some might think that the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), after reading the Papers upon the subject, had changed his opinion, and that this might have induced him not to bring forward the question. He (Mr. Fawcett) believed that this was not the case; but that the hon. Baronet was under the impression—which would probably be confirmed by the Prime Minister—that the personal element in the controversy being eliminated, the administrative question would be easily settled, and that it was in course of being settled. He believed that nothing more was required than that Dr. Hooker on his part should say that nothing in this Correspondence was intended to be personal, and that the Government should say on their part that nothing was intended that should, in the slightest degree, be discourteous to Dr. Hooker. This seemed to him to be the natural course to be adopted between

  711
  two gentlemen. He should carefully abstain from entering into any controversial matters, because he was afraid that if he entered into controversy he might do something which would render a settlement of the difference more difficult. He hoped to hear some statement from the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), and also from some Member of the Government, which the House would deem to be satisfactory; and he was quite certain that he was expressing the unanimous opinion of the House, and of almost everyone out-of-doors, when he said that considering the great services that Dr. Hooker had rendered to this country, and also to India; considering that Kew Gardens were an institution that we had a right to be proud of, and that every foreigner said that Kew was an institution which he had nothing to compare with in his own country; bearing all these things in mind, and that the Gardens had, to a great extent, been created by Sir William Hooker and his son, Dr. Hooker, he thought that he was but expressing the unanimous wish of the House, that few things would cause more disappointment and regret than that the public should lose the services of Dr. Hooker.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that the question before the House fell naturally into two divisions—the first, administrative; the second, personal. Into the first he should not enter at length; though the Treasury Minute, however satisfactory in other respects, left two questions still open—namely, the management of the heating apparatus, and of the so-called pleasure grounds; which were said not to form part of the botanical establishment. He thought it undesirable that the heating apparatus should be removed from the control of the Director of Kew; it had been well said that you might as well remove from a surgeon the control of his instruments. He pointed out that the pleasure grounds were the Arboretum, and that trees and shrubs formed a most important part of the botanical establishment. He was sure, however, that the Prime Minister was anxious the Gardens should be maintained in their present state of efficiency.
  Coming to the question as one between the Director of Kew Gardens and the First Commissioner of Works, he had been anxious, acting under advice,
  712
  that the matter should, if possible, be arranged without being brought publicly before the House. There were many things which, if privately explained, could be satisfactorily settled, which might become difficult to arrange amicably when once they had been made the subject of public discussion. He could not help feeling some regret that his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton had compelled him to address the House; but the hon. Member's remarks left no other course open to him. If the House would indulge him, he would state the circumstances which, in Dr. Hooker's opinion, were calculated to weaken his authority at Kew, and to render his position one of great difficulty, and he was anxious to do so in a manner which should not excite any greater amount of hostility and ill-feeling than already existed. He had not the slightest personal feeling towards the First Commissioner; he wished to avoid uttering a single word of which the right hon. Gentleman could have reason to complain; and he only hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give such an explanation as would be satisfactory to the House, to the public, and Dr. Hooker. There were few questions which had latterly excited more interest throughout the country than this. It was one which not only affected Kew Gardens, but it concerned the whole Civil Service of the country. He approached the matter from the point of view of those scientifically interested; resolutions had been passed by the principal societies connected with botany and horticulture; he had also received communications referring to the great value of the services Dr. Hooker had rendered to the Colonies and the West Indies, and expressing a hope that nothing done would prevent his continuing Director of Kew. It was only the other day that in that House a well-merited tribute was paid to Dr. Hooker on the part of the Indian Government. What, then, were the points with reference to which it was thought there was some reason to complain? The First Commissioner had been but a very short time in office when he sent Dr. Hooker a reprimand founded on a misapprehension. It was the first time in Dr. Hooker's long career that there had been anything but friendly communication between him and his official superiors.

  713
  Shortly afterwards arose a question about the appointment of a clerk. Dr. Hooker and the Treasury considered that this was an appointment which should be made under Clause VII. of the Order in Council—that is to say, that the candidates should be restricted to those who had had some preliminary training in a post of a similar character; on the other hand, the First Commissioner insisted on an open competitive examination. Without expressing any opinion of his own on the manner in which this correspondence was conducted, he would quote a letter which Mr. Lingen wrote from the Treasury to the First Commissioner. Mr. Lingen wrote—
  "No doubt, the First Commissioner of Works, and not the Director of the Gardens, is ultimately responsible for the expenditure of the Vote upon the Establishment at Kew, nevertheless it appears to My Lords that there should be very serious reasons, such as they do not see in this instance, before the latter's recommendations are overruled, and My Lords think that this is peculiarly the case as regards a Director of such standing, experience, and success in managing the Gardens, as Dr. Hooker."
  Still, in spite of that, the First Commissioner persevered and maintained his own view. The Treasury acquiesced; but a subsequent letter of the 26th of June to the First Commissioner contained these remarks—
  At the time when My Lords ordered their letter of the 2nd ultimo to be written, they had not seen Dr. Hooker's letter to yourself of the 6th of September, 1871. After having done so, they have to observe that your letter of the 8th of September, 1871, to the Civil Service Commissioners, does not enclose a copy of it, does not contain the whole of the recommendations which Dr. Hooker makes in it, and does not mention him by name or office."
  The result was that a gentleman was appointed by open competitive examination to the vacant post. He had previously been at Kew as under-gardener, and was well known to Dr. Hooker, who was satisfied that he was incompetent to do the work for which he was chosen. Dr. Hooker accordingly reported this to the First Commissioner, who, after some delay, sent his accountant to report upon the qualifications of the clerk, Mr. Robert Smith; and when the accountant asked Mr. Smith whether he was qualified to perform the duties of the office to which he had been thus appointed, to his credit, be it said, Mr. Smith at once candidly admitted that he was quite unqualified for
  714
  the duties he was called upon to perform. The next ground of complaint was, that the superintendence of the heating was taken out of Dr. Hooker's hands—that he was not informed of the change, but left to discover the fact by accident. Another was, that considerable changes were proposed in the Museum, without consulting him. On another occasion, the First Commissioner went down to Kew, had an important interview with the Curator, and gave him to understand that he was not to mention the object of his visit. The First Commissioner explained that what he said was merely that the Curator need not mention the matter to Dr. Hooker, as he would do it himself; but it was unfortunate that the First Commissioner did not carry out that intention. Although a considerable time elapsed between the ordering and the production of the Correspondence, it was so ill-arranged that reference was very difficult for anyone who had not gone into the matter thoroughly; but it appeared at page 59 that the First Commissioner, without communicating with the Director, instructed Mr. Smith to meet him in Hyde Park to undertake the control of some important works there. This appointment would have taken a great part of the Curator's time for some months; and yet in this case again, no communication whatever was made to Dr. Hooker.
  Without enlarging on that part of the case, he thought it natural that such circumstances, coming one after another, should have created an impression on Dr. Hooker's mind that there was an intention to give offence, and it could not be denied that the course pursued was calculated to raise difficulties and to embarrass him in his relations with his subordinates. Still, a courteous explanation from the First Commissioner would have put everything in a very different light. He had been told that Dr. Hooker was too thin-skinned, and took offence too easily. But that depended on whether there was any intention to give offence. The First Commissioner did not, in his Memorandum of the 15th July, take that line. On the contrary, the Memorandum seemed as if intended to confirm the impression on Dr. Hooker's mind. For instance, in the first page of the Memorandum, the following reference is made to the circumstances attending the publication of The Flora of Tropical Africa, as an instance

  715
  in which the First Commissioner had been bound to interfere:—
  "With the department of botany, it would seem that the Commissioners have not interfered, beyond deciding questions affecting expenditure, of which the following are examples:—On the application of the Director in 1864, the Commissioners communicated to him that the Treasury had sanctioned the publication of The Flora of Tropical Africa, through the medium of the Stationery Office, in whose Estimates the cost was to be charged. In 1868, the first volume was published, and in 1871 the second. It becoming necessary to apply to the Treasury respecting a payment on account of it, their Lordships directed that the stock, after deducting the presentation copies, should be transferred to the Stationery Office. This was communicated to Dr. Hooker on the 29th of September, 1871. A letter was then received by the Commissioners from the Stationery Office, asking for certain particulars relating to the work, with a view to the sale of the surplus stock. This was referred to Dr. Hooker for report, when he replied on the 22nd of February following, that in his opinion the copies ought not to be sold: a further correspondence took place, and ultimately Dr. Hooker was informed, in accordance with the views of the Treasury, that it would be inconsistent with their views that a work of the kind should not be kept for sale, as well as for occasional presentation, and that the principal stock should be kept at the Stationery Office."
  But at page 39, appeared a letter from the head of the Stationery Department, in which it was pointed out that Dr. Hooker was right in objecting to this arrangement, which would have been inconsistent with the contract made with Messrs. Reeve, and would have amounted to a breach of faith. The very next paragraph in the Memorandum was this—
  "In 1869 Dr. Hooker applied to be sent as a botanical commissioner to St. Petersburgh, at the public cost, but the Commissioners, in accordance with instructions from the Treasury, declined to comply with his application."
  If reference were made to the letters supposed to confirm this statement, it would be found that they did not bear it out in any way; but that, in fact, Dr. Hooker expressly offered to bear his own expenses in attending the Congress.
  Again, it is remarked in the next page that Kew Gardens were intended
  "as a nursery for the other parks and gardens under the control of the Commissioners. The result of this does not seem to have been satisfactory, as shown by a letter of the Director proposing to sell 10,000 elms, because the superintendents of other gardens had no use for them, whilst at the same time they were unable to find in Kew Gardens the trees they required."
  This passage was calculated to create an impression that Dr. Hooker's manage-
  716
  ment had been injudicious; he thought the First Commissioner must have been under the impression when he wrote the passage, that the circumstance referred to happened under Dr. Hooker's management, because, if not, the passage seemed quite irrelevant. As a matter of fact, however, the sale of the elms took place some years ago, and under the late Director. It is only fair to add that the closing remark, as to the absence of other shrubs, does not appear to be borne out by the Correspondence. Again, in the same page, the First Commissioner said—
  "When the First Commissioners have been of opinion that the amount asked for was excessive, it has been customary for them in communication, and in some cases without communication, with the Director, to strike out parts of the Estimates."
  So far, however, from Dr. Hooker's Estimates having been excessive, he believed that in no case had the First Commissioner found reason to reduce the expenditure he suggested to any material extent. Indeed, this was not a question of economy, for since Dr. Hooker took office the expenditure on the Gardens had been diminished rather than increased. In connection with the statement that it had been customary for the First Commissioner to strike out parts of the Estimates, reference was made to certain documents from which it appeared that the so-called excessive expenditure reduced itself to an order for a lawn-mowing machine. There was another paragraph in which Dr. Hooker was censured for having attended to give evidence before the Commissioners on Scientific Instruction. Now, he understood that everyone was bound when called upon to give evidence before a Royal Commission; although, no doubt, Dr. Hooker would have been quite ready to give notice of his intention to the First Commissioner if it had crossed his mind that it was his duty to do so. In consequence of Dr. Hooker's giving evidence, the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner wrote a letter to Professor Owen, dated the 16th of May last. He did not intend to follow up that branch of the subject; but, considering that this Memorandum reflected with some severity on the management of Kew Gardens, the right hon. Gentleman, before presenting it to Parliament, ought surely to have given his own subordinate an op-

  717
  portunity of answering the charges which were brought against him. He could not suppose that Professor Owen knew that his Memorandum would be published without Dr. Hooker's having had an opportunity of reply. In that case, Professor Owen would have had the opportunity of correcting several inaccuracies. For instance, he complained that some very fine araueariæ 20 feet high, had been transplanted from Richmond Park to Kew, and he said—
  "It is doubtful whether the transplanted araucariæ, of 20 feet high, will be a permanent gain to Kew; it is certain that they are a loss to Richmond Park."
  But Dr. Hooker was not responsible for this removal, which was determined on by the authorities of Richmond Park. Professor Owen also said—
  "It is notorious that the Gardens of Kew received the Araucaria Imbricata as early as did the Arboretum at Dropmore, if not at an earlier period. Also, that with ordinary care and proper culture, the Royal Gardens might now be ornamented with araucariæ, 40 feet or more in height, such as the lover of trees resorts, on permission, to the Arboretum of Dropmore, Holker Hall, or Percy's Cross, to enjoy the contemplation of."
  It should be borne in mind, however, that the araucariæ, referred to were planted in 1796, and that Dr. Hooker was not appointed Director of Kew Gardens till 1865.
  He could have brought forward other cases; but he thought he had mentioned a sufficient number to show that Dr. Hooker had good reason to think there had been on the part of the First Commissioner an intention to disparage him in his office, and to deprive him of his proper authority. He sincerely hoped, however, to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that such was not the case. If the instances he had quoted were unlucky accidents; if there had been no intention to pain Dr. Hooker; if they had misunderstood the tenor and object of the First Commissioner's Memorandum, it would be easy for the First Commissioner to say so. He made, therefore, no attack on the First Commissioner; he merely stated the circumstances which had created an uneasy impression on the minds of Dr. Hooker and scientific men generally. He knew that misunderstandings would occasionally arise, and he sincerely hoped that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman would be of a nature to remove them. It would, of course, be for the First Commissioner himself to state
  718
  what his intentions really were. Lest he should be led to say anything of which the right hon. Gentleman might have any cause to complain, he would confine his concluding remarks to the language of the Treasury Minute, for which he believed he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He had refrained from saying anything in praise of Dr. Hooker, because his merit was apparent on the face of this document itself. The Treasury Minute said—
  "It is essential to maintain the superior authority in all respects of the First Commissioner, but the nature of the case makes it evident that this authority should of course be exercised with due regard to the feelings and position of the officers under him. This Botanical Department has been formed by the exertions of Sir W. Hooker and of his son Dr. Hooker. It stands high in the estimation of men of science both here and abroad, and both these eminent men are entitled to the gratitude of the country for their services in this department of science."
  In another part of the same Minute the subjoined passage occurred—
  "But adverting to the facts contained in the Memorandum of the First Commissioner, their Lordships are not surprised that in various cases Dr. Hooker should have thought that he had just cause of complaint, though this may have grown, in some instances, out of arrangements for which the First Commissioner was not responsible, and in others they learn from the Memorandum of the First Commissioner that the cause of complaint has been removed."
  No one, indeed, who read that document could be surprised that Dr. Hooker should consider he had just reason for complaint, while Her Majesty's Government frankly admitted in the Treasury Minute that Dr. Hooker was entitled to the highest possible praise for the manner in which he had managed Kew Gardens. In conclusion, he hoped that the wish expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton would be realized—that there would be no danger whatever of our losing the services of so eminent a botanist: an honour to this country and one of the foremost scientific men in the world; who, so far from being open to reprimand or rebuke, was, according to the Treasury Minute itself, entitled to the gratitude of his countrymen for his devotion to the interests of science and of the public service.
  MR. OSBORNE: So far, Sir, from finding fault with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett),

  719
  I think the House is rather indebted to him for the statement he has provoked from the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock). When the House considers that for Royal Palaces and pleasure gardens a sum of upwards of £100,000 is expended by Votes of this House, I think it not unnatural that we should inquire very strictly into the management of those gardens. What has occurred? Here is a Return I hold in my hand of the Correspondence relating to the management of Kew Gardens. It consists of 177 pages, so put together that I have made notes in order to test the dates with great difficulty. There are 20 letters which are twice printed in the Correspondence. There is no sort of index; and, indeed, the whole Return reminds me of the old house described by Gray as having
  "Rich windows that exclude the light,
  And passages that lead to nothing."
  I do not know whether many hon. Gentlemen have at this time of the year had the patience to read through this voluminous Return. If they have, I think they will not be satisfied with the arrangement of Kew Gardens. Lord Bacon has laid down that a garden is the purest of human pleasures. I come then to ask—"How is it that Kew Gardens, in which the public so much delight, have become so fruitful a source of strife and bitterness?" The answer is at hand. There is nobody more willing than I to testify or acknowledge the valuable and efficient services of my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works. I believe him to be a valuable public servant. But it is clear that with his love of economy he combines a military abruptness which, I think, would render him more qualified to be transferred to the Horse Guards or to a military command in Ireland than to preside over matters connected with science and art. The style of his rule reminds one of that of the centurion in the Scriptures who said to his servant "Go, and he goeth," and I think that it is very unfortunate that he should have been thrown into communication with a man like Dr. Hooker, who, although undoubtedly scientific, may perhaps be at the same time rather over-sensitive. The consequence has been that there has been nothing but heart-burnings, bickerings, and bad feeling between them since these two gentlemen came into official communica-
  720
  tion, or, perhaps, I should rather say collision. I intend to touch but lightly on the principal points in the dispute. What is the first thing that these Papers disclose? In the first place, in my opinion, they deal a heavy blow at the system of competitive examination instituted by the Civil Service Commissioners. The Curator of Kew Gardens wants assistence in the shape of a clerk. To most people this would appear to be a very simple matter. So it would be if the Director of the Gardens were allowed to choose a clerk himself; but the House of Commons chooses that all civil servants shall be required to pass a competitive examination under the eyes of the Civil Service Commissioners. Mr. Smith, having passed a competitive examination under the eyes of the Civil Service Commissioners, is with the approval of the Treasury appointed to the office of Clerk to the Curator of Kew Gardens. In the words of Lord Russell—"Nowadays, these people must know Botany, Astronomy, German, French, Italian, and Political Economy." Well, Mr. Smith is examined in some or all of these things, and, having received a first-class certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, he obtained the appointment. But directly he is appointed, Dr. Hooker, who had known him as an under-gardener, declares him to be utterly incompetent, and asks that his appointment should be cancelled. Whereupon the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, with that stern sense of duty which characterizes him, refuses to cancel the appointment, but says—"Give him a probationary trial for six months." To that request Dr. Hooker replied that he was not there to teach a clerk his duties, that what was required was a person who was capable of discharging them at once; whereas Mr. Smith was utterly incompetent, being unable to, write, or to spell correctly, or to keep accurate accounts. Well, the appointment of this gentleman, who has passed a competitive examination before the Civil Service Commissioners, who have given him a first-class certificate, is eventually cancelled by the Treasury, after about 20 letters have been written with respect to it. The House is allowed to peep a little behind the scenes in these letters with regard to the merits of the Civil Service Commissioners. I have always had great doubts

  721
  of the advantages derived from competitive examinations even in the case of higher appointments; but in petty matters of this sort they are apt to degenerate into a job. Here is the brewing of a pretty quarrel as it stands, and now comes the "hot water" controversy for getting into which the right hon. Gentleman is so singularly well adapted. Dr. Hooker writes to the Board of Works to know what his duties and his responsibilities are with regard to the heating apparatus and the raising of tropical plants, and the answer he gets is that he is to take his orders from the First Commissioner of Works, and it concludes with the unnecessarily offensive expression—an expression that would cause a man of far less sensitiveness than Dr. Hooker to take fire—"and that he is to govern himself accordingly." Then there is a dispute as to the tropical plants and the orchids, and I must say the First Commissioner here shows himself not only audacious, but orchidacious. A long correspondence ensues upon this subject, and, as has been already remarked in one of these letters, this is the way in which public money is consumed in disentangling the science of botany from business matters. Then comes another correspondence respecting the publication of The Flora of Tropical Africa. It extends over five pages, which I cannot well understand; but eventually the First Commissioner gives way, and the whole thing, I believe, turns out to be a mare's-nest altogether. Now comes on the scene the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock). On the 20th of June, 1872, the hon. Baronet writes a letter to the First Minister of the Crown, enclosing a memorial signed by many of the most scientific men in the country, complaining of the treatment experienced by Dr. Hooker from the First Commissioner of Works, and giving the former a character which very few men can get from anyone. They appeal to the First Minister of the Crown, and they print a very curious letter from Dr. Hooker to the First Minister, dated the 31st of August, 1871. But there is a very curious omission in this book—namely, a letter from Dr. Hooker to the First Minister, which never appears at all. I should like to know something as to what that letter was about, as we are completely in the dark about it at pre
  722
  sent. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister returns an answer to that letter of the 31st of August; but, like many of his answers in this House, it is neither very precise nor very definite. Dr. Hooker thus is left in doubt as to what he is to do. He did not understand the answer, and he therefore waited upon Mr. West, the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary, asking him for some explanation of it. Mr. West replied that something was about to be done by the Cabinet. What then happens—why, with the arbitration at Geneva before them, it, of course, struck the First Minister that they should refer the case to arbitration. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I never said any such thing.] If the right hon. Gentleman will hear me out, I will give him chapter and verse. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not referred to arbitration? Why, there were three Members of the Cabinet appointed to act as arbitrators. Of course, Lord Ripon was one; but I have not heard that he has since been promoted. And the others were Lord Halifax and Mr. Cardwell. Well, they arbitrated; but I do not know to what decision they came. It comes out, however, that the arbitrators came to the conclusion that a verbal answer should be conveyed to Dr. Hooker through Lord Ripon, and in the presence of Sir Arthur Helps, to the effect that he was to consider himself Director of the Gardens in subordination to the First Commissioner. That was not very satisfactory to Dr. Hooker. I wish to hold the balance evenly between all parties. I think that Dr. Hooker here acted intemperately. I think he had no right to accuse the First Commissioner of evasion, misrepresentation, and mis-statement. I think that is a very hard thing to say of the First Commissioner, for with all his faults we love him still. After this most extraordinary part of the business, there appears a Memorandum, dated July 24, 1872, which occupies 14 pages. It is from the First Commissioner of Works as to the management of Kew Gardens, and it contrives to stick additional pins into Dr. Hooker. But I pass on to what I think is the most improper thing in the whole transaction. I allude to the statement of Professor Owen, in Appendix 3, in which he criticizes the evidence of Dr. Hooker given before the Royal Commission for Scientific Education, but

  723
  which has nothing whatever to do with the quarrel. I think it was a most improper thing to print that statement without first submitting it to Dr. Hooker. I say that these things ought to have been above-board from beginning to end. The hon. Baronet below me (Sir John Lubbock) was forced into making his statement by the patriotic Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), because a general impression had got abroad that the hon. Baronet, being young and soft, had been "got at" by the Members of the Treasury bench, and that his Motion would never be heard of. The hon. Baronet has, however, nobly refuted that impression. I cannot help thinking that Kew Gardens are about to be thrown into more intimate connection with the South Kensington Museum. There are passages here which are very suspicious. The Professor talks of a herbarium in terms which he ought not to make use of. He regards a botanist as a person without feeling as, in the words of Wordsworth—One who would peep and botanize upon his mothers's grave. He asks—"What is a herbarium?" I do not know what the quotation is from. It is something like the First Commissioner of Works'. He suggests that it is "attaching barbarous binominals to foreign weeds." That is the way in which he talks of the gentleman at the head of the herbarium at Kew. Let the House beware lest by reason of this Appendix we are to have the South Kensington business over again, and lest at this very time we should be engaged in constructing a "Cole-cellar" for the growing of tropical plants at South Kensington. I have read the correspondence with attention, and I have come to the conclusion that Dr. Hooker, although a very sensitive man, has much to complain of; but as I wish to see both gentlemen retain their situations, and referring to what I have said that the First Commissioner is a valuable public servant, I would rather, however, see him anywhere else than at Kew. But wishing to retain him and Dr. Hooker both in the public service, I would advise them to read that scene in the Beggars' Opera between Peachum and Lockit, where they each say—"Brother, brother, we are both in the wrong;" and let them in future endeavour to forward the public service by keeping on good terms with one another.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTsaid, he wished to refer to a matter personal to himself and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. Some time back he asked the right hon. Gentleman the following Qustion:—
  "Whether it is intended to continue the ornamental shrubbery ground on the left of Rotten Row, between Albert Gate and Knightsbridge Barracks; and, if so, whether he will re-consider such intention as being one leading to a serious encroachment on a space long used as a public recreation and children's playground, which space has also already been curtailed by the additional riding ground recently made in that locality?
  The right hon. Gentleman, with the humour which distinguished him, said—
  "I am happy to be able to assure the children who are interested in this matter that a 'serious encroachment' upon their playground is not intended. They will, therefore, be able to continue as heretofore to enjoy the playground in common with the Heavy Cavalry and the Light Volunteers, by whom it is used for drill."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 1683–4.]
  He was not going to enter the lists with the right hon. Gentleman in bandying discourteous expressions, because, in the first place, the contest would be unequal; in the second, he (Mr. Bromley-Davenport) might be betrayed into overstepping the bounds of Parliamentary license; and, if he succeeded, it would be like pouring water upon a duck's back or applying a lady's riding whip to the hide of a rhinoceros. What he wished to say was that the manner in which Questions were answered affected the honour of the House. An hon. Member rising in his place and putting a perfectly courteous and civil question ought to expect from the Treasury Bench—the occupants of which ought to set an example of good manners—at all events a decent reply, and not such as he received—namely, a concoction of words, carefully put together to escape, and just only to escape, the interference of the Speaker. Such a reply as he received was an insult to the House; and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on this—that if, as he had reason to suppose, the right hon. Gentleman had a yearly wager with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to which in the course of each Session should make the most discourteous answers to the most perfectly proper and orderly questions, to use a turf expression, the First Commissioner had this year "won in a

  725
  walk." If he might advise the First Commissioner of Works it would be to cultivate the Royal Parks less and himself more, and when next he felt disposed to be funny—or what he thought funny—at the expense of hon. Members in and out of the House, to ask some friend—assuming, of course, the very improbable fact that he had one—to give him some advice how to answer a question with propriety, and to point out to him the clear and distinct line of demarcation where "humour ends and insolence begins."
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he could not allow the attack that had been made upon Professor Owen by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) to pass unchallenged, especially as no opportunity had been offered to the Professor of meeting it.
  MR. OSBORNE: What charge? Name it.
  COLONEL BERESFORD: You made a charge against Professor Owen.
  MR. OSBORNE: What charge?
  COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he could not recollect the exact words which the hon. Gentleman used; but he made a most decided attack on, and complaint against, Professor Owen.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, in reference to the appointment of the clerk referred to in the Correspondence, it appeared that the unfortunate man was a countryman of his, and that what the First Commissioner had done with reference to his appointment redounded very much to the right hon. Gentleman's credit instead of its being a cause of complaint against him. Dr. Hooker wished to retain the appointment as a piece of patronage in his own hands. The First Commissioner of Works had no such desire, and, therefore, urged that the best man should be selected by means of a competitive examination by the Civil Service Commissioners. Such an examination showed the man to be efficient in the very particulars wherein Dr. Hooker alleged he was incompetent. The Commissioners were best able to judge, and the First Commissioner was quite right in acting on their decision. Much had been said about what had been done—botanically—in Kew Gardens; but he begged to say that the same things had been done in the Botanical Gardens at Edinburgh ever since they were opened.
  MR. BOUVERIEdesired to set the hon. Member right on one point. A memorandum by Mr. Gibbins, the accountant, appeared in the Correspondence at page 151, dated March 22, on the question of the fitness of Mr. Robert Smith. Mr. Gibbins said—
  "Referring to the First Commissioner's Minute of the 6th instant, directing me to inquire as to the fitness of Mr. Robert Smith for the duties for which I recommended a person to be employed to assist the Curator in keeping the accounts, &c., I have the honour to report that, by appointment, I had an interview yesterday (at Kew) with the Curator, and explained to him that when I made the investigation on June last, it appeared to me that the duties in respect of which assistance should be given to him were the following:—The preparation of the weekly pay-sheets; the posting of labour-book, cash-book, and ledger; the preparation of cash accounts, store accounts; register of orders to trades people; register of accounts (when delivered); to check bills with order book as to quantities and prices (not to check computations and additions); general correspondence; arrangement of papers and other clerical duties; to act as guide to visitors in the absence of the Curator, or when he is particularly engaged. I yesterday submitted this list of duties to the Curator, and inquired whether Mr. Robert Smith was competent to perform them. The Curator replied, that possibly he could, but, as he had not tried him, he was not prepared to offer any opinion on the subject. I then had an interview with Mr. Robert Smith, and, placing the list before him, asked him if he felt qualified to perform the duties therein set forth. Mr. Smith promptly replied that he did not understand anything of them, and that he knew nothing whatever of office business."
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he was not examined in that.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he should have been. Dr. Hooker wanted a man for this work, and he was supplied with a man who could not do it. It was instructive to read the First Commissioner's description of his mode of doing work, as contained in the peroration of the First Commissioner's Memorandum on the relation between the Board of Works and Kew Gardens. It ran—
  "The First Commissioner has now gone through the somewhat tedious examination of the questions which have arisen during the last two years and a half in relation to Kew Gardens. He has disentangled the science of botany, and the art and practice of horticulture from occurrences which have happened in the course of business, and it appears to him easy to conduct the science of botany and the art of horticulture, without recurring again and again to little official omissions, whether they have arisen from haste, zeal, or inadvertence. He has throughout confined his writing to the exigencies of current public business, and desired to avoid using business for the purpose of writing; all his communications have, therefore, been as brief as possible. In

  727
  fact, he has abolished letter-writing and substituted official memoranda, for the transaction of all departmental business under the Office of Works, and, with the concurrence of the Postmaster General, for most of the business with the Post Office."
  If the result of the First Commissioner's abolition of letter-writing was to bring about such controversies as appeared to have arisen in this case, and to bring before the House such an enormous mass of perplexed and confused Correspondence, the sooner the right hon. Gentleman reverted to the old method of conducting business the better it would be for the public service.
  MR. AYRTON: I am afraid that evil examples are somewhat catching, or I could not for a moment explain why the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Bromley-Davenport) without Notice should interpose in this debate, and refer to a subject of which he gave Notice two or three months ago, which was on the Paper again and again, but which he failed to bring before the House. [Mr. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: I could not get it on.] Yes, but not for the want of an opportunity, but because he did not take advantage of the opportunities which the forms of the House afforded. [Mr. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: At 3 o'clock in the morning?] If the hon. Member had given me Notice I should have been able to have shown him how easy it would have been to have brought it on, and then to have dealt with it more at large than at present. The hon. Member has been so obliging as to tender me advice how to answer questions—by taking counsel before I speak. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to remind him that it is exactly the advice I gave him when he showed me his Question in manuscript, and which he did me the honour to follow. If I were to go into questions that arise out of the House I should be able to inform hon. Members what the advice was that the hon. Member received, and it is perhaps unfortunate for him that he has not followed it. He will recollect that the gentleman to whom I referred him was a gentleman eminently qualified to give him advice whether or not he should put the Question. I stated at the time that the Question itself was an improper one, because it assumed that I was engaged in planting the Parks, to the injury of the public—a
  728
  question pregnant with a very grave and a very unfounded assumption highly prejudicial to myself, and the hon. Member is astonished that instead of my being exceedingly angry with the Question I was content to laugh at it, and to look on it as being so trivial as not deserving of serious consideration.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: May I be permitted to reply to the right hon. Gentleman? ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member, if he wished to make an explanation, must wait until the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works had finished his speech.
  MR. AYRTON: I shall be delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman answer, because I have a very accurate recollection of the circumstances, though Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench are not here to confirm my impression or to contradict it. But some hon. Gentlemen may perhaps think it is not the best way of treating a question, which, after remonstrance, is put, and which of itself is of a highly injurious if not of a highly offensive character. The hon. Member complains of the Answer that was given. I dare say it was not his intention to convey such an impression; but anyone reading the Question that was asked will see that the hon. Member assumes to be the protector of the people whose interests I was engaged in injuring. There never was a more unfounded assumption as regards the administration of Hyde Park; and when such assumptions and imputations are lightly made, the best way to treat them is not to give them an angry answer—still less to embark in a long expostulation—but to meet them in a very easy and good natured way. That was the treatment which the hon. Member's Question received. I may now pass to the subject, which comes before the House under most extraordinary conditions. Yesterday I was not in the House when it met; yet, without any communication whatever or notice whatever being conveyed to me that the subject was likely to come before the House, some remarks, I believe, were then made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett); indeed, my hon. Friend endeavoured to deliver the speech which he has delivered today, but found himself out of Order. Now, I must say that this is a very novel mode of conducting the business

  729
  of the House; but, as I have said, example is very infectious, and to-day we have such an example set yesterday extended by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), who without any communication having been made to me that he intended to make this attack upon me. or without the slightest intimation that he would even advert to this question, has risen in his place and brought the question forward as fully and as completely as if he had given formal Notice to impugn my conduct in the administration of the Office of Works. I venture to say that this is a proceeding unknown and unheard of in the House of Commons, that any Member should stand up in his place and impugn, in great detail, the administration of a Department by its Parliamentary head, without having given the smallest notice to that head of his intention to take that course. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, it is true he has put no Notice on the Paper; but, again, I say if an hon. Member intends to take the course of referring to the conduct of a Minister of the Crown it is his duty, according to the usages of the House, to give Notice of his intention, and not to leave it to the chance of the Minister reading something about the matter in the newspapers or hearing of it casually. I, however, acquit the hon. Member for Brighton of having taken any unfair course, because in private conversation yesterday he mentioned to me that he would put some question to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government on the subject. In this position it was by the merest accident that I happened to have any paper in this House relating to this question; but is it to be supposed every Minister of the Crown is expected to carry about him all the papers connected with the administration of his Department, and to carry in his head all the circumstances relating to that administration extending over some two years and a-half, and to stand up in the House and give a complete answer at a moment's notice to anything that may be alleged against him? I do not profess to be able to fulfil that duty; but, notwithstanding, I hope that, without any notice, if any Gentleman thinks fit to stand up and impugn my conduct, I shall be able to give an answer which, having regard to the circumstances under which it is made, will
  730
  be found satisfactory to the Members of the House. Sir, I was not surprised when the hon. Baronet brought forward this subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) should intervene, because anyone who looks at this mass of Correspondence must see that from its peculiar character it affords, perhaps, a better vehicle for the joking and the humour of my hon. Friend than any other set of Papers that have lately been laid on the Table of the House. As doctors always use the purest water for the vehicle of their medicines, so my hon. Friend has used my conduct as the vehicle of his jokes; and I am very happy to have afforded him the opportunity of exercising his abilities, for his opportunities have been so few of late that I was really afraid they would fall into disuse. Nevertheless, there is always in the observations of my hon. Friend some element of good sense, however much it may be obscured by the jokes that surround it. I must, I presume, take this matter seriously, though it turns on mere trifling incidents, which scarcely served as the topic of a serious debate. If you go through any man's affairs running over two years and a-half, I venture to say you will find in them many incidents which you may discuss again and again. Whether he was engaged in business or had only to look after his own household, you will find that you could not look back over that time without discovering that many things had gone in a way he did not exactly like, and which might, perhaps, give cause for regret. It is not, therefore, a matter of surprise that in this but very small section of the business of the Office of Works any gentleman who wishes to be highly critical should discover that some errors have been committed there of a greater or less degree. That this is but a small portion of the business of the Board of Works may be seen from the fact that, while the whole expenditure on Kew Gardens under Dr. Hooker amounts to £12,000, that of the whole Department under my superintendence is £1,200,000. Although the Correspondence which has been laid on the Table with reference to this question is somewhat voluminous, yet it is but a comparatively small fraction of the correspondence which is carried on in the Department in relation to a great variety

  731
  of subjects. Even where it is obvious that errors had been committed I have not thought it necessary to write in the language of censure in reference to those errors, because we know very well that officers of any Department are liable in the conduct of much business to commit occasional mistakes. But what we have a right to expect is that, when they do commit them, those working with them in the same Department should be quick and active to have the mistakes rectified in a quiet and friendly way, and not make every little omission the subject of a long letter, trying to inflame it into a matter of grave consequence. If, instead of acting as he had done, the Director of Kew Gardens had merely gone to the Office and spoken to the Secretary, or one of the clerks, he would have got half the questions that he has raised in those Papers adjusted entirely to his satisfaction. But when the complainant assumes a tone of querulousness and defiance in the letters he writes, of course he cannot get his business done in the same way as other people who are exposed to the errors and omissions of an official Department. Let us look for a moment at the sort of objections that have been stated by the hon. Baronet as his case in behalf of Dr. Hooker. I will take one example. First, it is said, immediately upon my appointment I sent him a reprimand; but what was really the fact? Dr. Hooker, or rather the officers of the Department of Works, had made out an an estimate, in which they stated that a certain sum was to be expended upon a certain work. I may here mention that when I came into this Office the Treasury, and the House of Commons itself, had long been contending against what was considered to be a very grave error in the administration of the Board of Works. The House and the Treasury were being led to sanction the expenditure of money on works; and after the money was spent it was discovered that the work, instead of having been finished, was only half done, and large sums were again and again required to complete it. No one has contended against that system more than I did myself before I wes connected with the administration of the Board of Works. Well, that estimate being placed before me, a request came from Dr. Hooker to spend more than double the amount that was sanctioned to carry
  732
  on the work. I therefore asked for certain information as to how it was that a request had been made for sanctioning a smaller sum when so much larger a sum was required, and how that fact had not been brought forward at an earlier period, as I think it should have been in the proper conduct of business. Of this Dr. Hooker complains as a grave censure upon himself. But it is no censure at all. It was merely a letter asking for information. It was found that Dr. Hooker had sent a letter on the subject before I succeeded to the office. Well, that letter was not brought under my notice, as was manifest from the application made to Dr. Hooker; and the moment I got an explanation how the error occurred, the sanction of the Treasury was obtained and I was allowed to spend that additional money. Yet that has been characterized as an uncalled-for reprimand on my part. Why, business cannot be carried on unless explanations are asked for and given. I had to write to the Treasury to explain how it came about that some £1,200, I believe, was really requisite where it had been previously represented some £500 would have sufficed. That is really an illustration of the frivolous nature of the imputations cast upon me by Gentlemen who do not choose to look at the documents and inform themselves as to the mode in which the business of the Department is conducted. The next complaint of the hon. Baronet was this—that I wished to have a clerk appointed to Dr. Hooker, without the qualifications which Dr. Hooker said were necessary. There is really not a word of foundation in the Papers before the House for that assertion. What really occurred was this:—Dr. Hooker was himself asked to state what his views were with reference to the appointment of a clerk. Dr. Hooker stated them; and, the Treasury having sanctioned the appointment of the clerk, Dr. Hooker was referred to in order to settle the conditions of the examination of the clerk. The whole transaction necessarily took place between the Secretary of the Office, Dr. Hooker, and the Civil Service Commissioners. It was a mere matter of official detail how the examination of this clerk should be arranged for the purpose of obtaining a person possessed of the requisite qualifications. All I had to consider was, shall the appointment be in

  733
  the patronage of Dr. Hooker, or shall it be, in accordance with the Order in Council, by open competitive examination?—which had my assent. I claimed no power of appointment for myself. I disclaimed it. I waived my right in favour of the Civil Service Commissioners, and to them the whole question was committed. Personally, I had nothing to do with the matter. Well, what happened? The Civil Service Commissioners, acting according to their own rule, selected the candidate, and then the candidate was sent to me. I was bound by the Order in Council to accept that candidate and forward him on to Dr. Hooker. Then arose a very interesting question to persons entering the public service. According to the Queen's Order in Council, a person is not reported fit for appointment or immediately qualified to undertake the duties of the office; he is appointed as a person to be employed in the office for six months, in order that at the end of that period he may be qualified to perform the duties. It is the same all over the service. An ensign sent into the Army is not then and there to be qualified to perform regimental duties; he is to remain two years as a probationer, and at the end of that time he is to be fit to perform them. The object of competition is to get a guarantee that the person having sufficient education and intelligence will, if employed in the office, in course of time be fitted for its duties, not that he is so at the time of appointment. A long controversy took place with regard to the nature of the duties to be performed; and I ended the correspondence by putting to Dr. Hooker the simple question—"Will you give me a certificate, stating that this person, if he is allowed a probation of six months, will at the end of that period be fit for the performance of his duties?" And when I got the reply from Dr. Hooker that he would not be fit the matter was referred to the Civil Service Commissioners. They refused to cancel the appointment, stating that the person appointed ought to be employed in the office for six months. The result was, the Treasury did not think it necessary to wait for the six months' probation; and I had authority, notwithstanding the Order in Council, to cancel the appointment. I cancelled it accordingly. In vindication of
  734
  the Civil Service Commissioners, I would remind the House of what appears on the Papers—that there were two appointments made at the same time. They were made by the same order of proceeding; but while in the case of one there was failure, in the other the person appointed was eminently fit, though not the person Dr. Hooker had privately nominated, and is now attaining a higher grade in the public service. In the Papers before the House I have stated why that failure took place. The next complaint that is preferred against me is, that I deprived Dr. Hooker of the great gratification of keeping the works for heating the hot-houses under his control. Let the House consider what is the nature of this complaint. The letter written to him was studiously framed so as to prevent giving offence to him, or giving to the, matter even the colour of anything personal; because it was there stated that the directions given were in accordance with the general arrangements recently made for conducting the works of the Department. Dr. Hooker complained that the letter concluded with the words "govern himself accordingly." All I can say on that point is, that I cannot hold myself responsible for the terms in which official letters are written. I only regard the substance. ["Oh, oh!"] I say that, for I think it would be imposing upon the head of a Department a most laborious duty indeed if he were required to settle the precise language in which every letter should be written from his Office. After the letter is written it is put before me, and I take it for granted that it is written in the ordinary way, and that there is nothing special in the style of composition. What is the meaning of "govern himself accordingly" I really do not know. I do not know where the phrase came from, or how far it is used in a Department of the public service. All I know is, that it contains no offensive meaning. Dr. Hooker asks for a distinct definition of the mode in which he is to conduct his duties. I give that definition, and the letter is closed with a phrase applicable to a general rule for the conduct of the Department. I wish to avoid any controversy on this point; but the Papers on the Table show that the Director of Works and the officers under him are the proper persons to

  735
  superintend the construction, maintenance, and repair of all works of a structural character; and it is absolutely necessary to maintain that principle in the administration of the Department. No doubt we are told by persons who say they have experience that this cannot be done; but the answer of the Office of Works is that it is done. We have the Royal Botanical Gardens in Edinburgh under a gentleman who has rendered immense service to the science of botany—a gentleman quite equal to Dr. Hooker, as a scientific botanist; and what, in this case, was directed to be done at Kew has been and is the practice in the Royal Gardens at Edinburgh. Therefore, I repeat, there can be no reference personal to Dr. Hooker in the direction given, but only to the proper administration of the Department. Another charge against me is, that I directed an alteration to be made in the museum without consulting Dr. Hooker, and that I sent it to the Treasury. Dr. Hooker alleges that he engaged in what may be called an intrigue with the then Secretary of the Treasury, my right hon. Friend now at the head of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld), inducing my right hon. Friend to alter the estimate I sent in behind my back. It so happened that Dr. Hooker was dissatisfied with what had been proposed; but when the proposal arrived at a certain stage I determined not to proceed with it. It was never put into the estimate sent to the Treasury, and my right hon. Friend the then Secretary never struck it out. What I directed to be, done was only in the performance of my duty, for the people frequenting the museum were overcrowded, and it is the particular function, I take it, of the First Commissioner of Works to direct that proper arrangements should be made for the public use of the establishment at Kew. The hon. Member also complains that I spoke to the Curator of Kew Gardens. I must remind the House that the Curator is a person who has many responsible duties to perform. He is recognised as having charge of the cultivation of these Gardens, and my object was, as I have stated in this Paper, to establish what I considered to be a better system for the administration of the Gardens by the Office of Works. That was a question much beyond Dr. Hooker's province, for it ex-
  736
  tended to the whole service; not to that for £12,000, but to arrangement costing upwards of £100,000 placed under the Office of Works. That being the service with which I had to deal, I thought that the proper mode of carrying it on would be to have an officer specially charged with the supervision of those Gardens, who possessed a competent knowledge of the cultivation of parks and gardens. And, therefore, desiring to promote to this office the Curator of Kew Gardens, it was my duty to see that gentleman, either by asking him to come to my Office for examination, or by going into the Gardens myself as a visitor, and interrogating him as to his qualifications for the office. There is nothing strange in that; but Dr. Hooker says—"You did not tell me that." What was stated to the Curator was—"You are not the person to report this matter to Dr. Hooker; when I have to deal with it Dr. Hooker will be communicated with by me;" it was not a matter between me and him, but it was one between Dr. Hooker and me. It was quite competent for the Curator to communicate privately—as, in fact, he did—what had occurred; but he would not have been justified in making an official Report on my behalf of what I intended to do in re-arranging the Department. Dr. Hooker wrote an official letter to me at the time, and in it there is not a word of complaint of any injunction to the Curator; this was not discovered as a ground of complaint until eight months afterwards, and I say the course he has pursued in attempting to set up such a complaint so long after the subject was officially disposed of, is wholly inconsistent with the proper administration of the public service. I could have given an explanation to Dr. Hooker had he mentioned the matter; but he only brought it forward afterwards when it suited his convenience, and the moment it came under my notice I stated what I have now related to the House. Allusion has been made to the charge that I deprived Dr. Hooker of his assistant in order to carry on the works in connection with the Albert Memorial. I think it is much to be regretted that Dr. Hooker's friends should have taken notice of this matter; but I have no cause to object to it. Everybody knows the peculiar circumstances connected with the Albert Memorial. It was

  737
  about to be finished at a time when it was absolutely necessary that the works of horticulture which had to be carried on about that Memorial, and had been too long delayed, should be instantly begun and prosecuted with the utmost vigour. As I was then advised, if that had not been done the Memorial would have been open to the public whilst the whole place around it presented the appearance of a ragged wilderness. One would have supposed, having regard to the fact that the Memorial was being erected partly by public subscription and partly by grants made by this House, largely supplemented by Her Majesty, that on the mere suggestion that there was a difficulty everybody would have sunk every cause or idea of dispute; that everybody would have been active and anxious to know how he could render assistance. Why, when hon. Gentlemen and Ministers were enjoying that festive season appropriate to the period of Christmas, I could find time to go myself at 8 o'clock in the morning to Hyde Park to meet these executive officers for the purpose of exciting them to a more energetic performance of their duty, while Dr. Hooker, in his Hortus Siccus, could only find time to write a lamentable account of the grievances he was sustaining because the Curator of Kew Gardens had been invited to meet me at 8 o'clock in the morning in Hyde Park. The telegram was sent direct to the Curator, instead of to him, and no doubt that is a point of official punctilio; but the clerks sometimes do these things inaccurately in a hurry when they are told to use dispatch. They may have sent the telegram in a wrong way; but a reasonable man would have come to the Secretary, and asked how it was that the telegram had been so forwarded. Dr. Hooker does nothing of the kind; but cherishes this up as a tremendous grievance, which is to agitate the mind of every botanist and gardener in the country. The next day, when I had the fact brought under my notice, I directed that a communication should be made to Dr. Hooker personally, showing how little I had to do with any desire to slight him; and there is my own Minute, in the printed papers, written the morning after I had seen the Curator. It is said that Mr. Smith, the Curator, was placed in an equivocal relation towards Dr. Hooker. Can there be anything
  738
  more absurd? Mr. Smith is asked to come early in the morning to give a general direction to a person whom he afterwards admitted to be competent to carry on the business without him, and it is said that because he is asked to do that the whole administration of Kew Gardens is disarranged. I believed that it would be a great public advantage to get the counsel of this superior officer of Kew Gardens, and supposed it would be as easy for him to make arrangements to run up to Hyde Park as for myself to be there at 8 o'clock in the morning, and then to return to his business at Kew. However, the Curator of Kew declared that he did not wish to give directions in that way, and if he dealt with the matter he must take it in hand entirely; and as the people, on his own showing, could do just as well without him, I said—"Let us at once put an end to this, and get on without the assistance of the Curator of Kew." The whole thing was explained to Dr. Hooker. It was an emergency with which I had to grapple, and I am happy to think that the work was carried out to the general satisfaction of the public. [An hon. MEMBER: Agreed!] I think when an attack of this kind is made without Notice the least that I can expect is that the House of Commons will allow me to reply to it as best I can on the spur of the moment without interruption. The next point which has been raised is that Dr. Hooker was slighted with regard to the publication of the Flora of Tropical Africa. I can only say that I had absolutely nothing to do with the matter, for it was purely a question between the Treasury, the Stationery Office, and Dr. Hooker; the communications passed through the Office of Works as a common centre. The whole thing was eminently trifling, relating to the right of the Stationery Office to sell surplus copies of the work, and the matter was disposed of by a Treasury direction, which was communicated to Dr. Hooker. Another question is the mission of Dr. Hooker to St. Petersburg, and with that, again, I had nothing to do, because the whole business occurred before I was Chief Commissioner of Works. But I cannot help remarking, when a gentleman is said to be so very sensitive as to the official language employed, that Dr. Hooker is capable of using, in the most gratuitous

  739
  and uncalled-for manner, words of the most offensive character. If you want an illustration you have only to look at Dr. Hooker's letter, in consequence of the decision at which the Treasury arrived in reference to his mission. The Treasury informed Dr. Hooker, through the late Chief Commissioner of Works, of its decision, and Dr. Hooker, not knowing the ground of that decision, because it was not communicated, or whether it had been arrived at by the head of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the whole Cabinet, writes a letter—which I have not by me at this moment—stigmatizing the conduct of the Treasury in the most unqualified and opprobrious terms. Of course, no one took any notice of it, because Dr. Hooker was looked upon as a scientific gentleman who does not make himself amenable to the ordinary exigencies and proprieties of the public service. ["Oh, oh!"] I say that advisedly, because there never was a more offensive letter written by a subordinate with reference to an official communication. Then it has been said that Dr. Hooker has not been sufficiently consulted with reference to the Estimates. I understand that Dr. Hooker has complained that he did not receive the decision of the Office of Works at an early period, and in a memorandum which I have made I have directed means to be taken to prevent such an occurrence in future. But the only question which arose was as to the change made in the Estimates, without any reference to Dr. Hooker; but this arose on the general administration of the whole Vote of £100,000 of which Dr. Hooker's portion was only £12,000. Therefore, it is idle to assert that it was done for his particular annoyance. If he had taken the trouble to go from time to time to the Secretary, as any person ought to do who was one of a number of subordinates affected by a new arrangement, the information which he would have obtained would have relieved his mind of any feeling of that kind. I do not undertake to carry out all the minute details of the Department any more than any other political head does. All I can do is to lay down general principles on which the general business of the Department is to be conducted, and then leave the subordinate officers to conduct the business in detail in order that those
  740
  general principles may be fully carried out. An hon. Friend has put into my hand Dr. Hooker's letter as to the mission to St. Petersburg I have already mentioned. In it he says—
  "I do not know whether this decision will be regarded as evidence of something more than indifference to the position which science holds in this country, or merely ignorance of that attained by the eminent men who have convened this Congress, and who will assemble at it, or mere disregard of international courtesy in scientific matters."
  I say that is a letter which contained the gravest reflections upon the Chief Department of the Government. A gentleman who can throw out these inuendoes and use such language has no right, I think, to be hypercritical as to the language addressed to himself. He cannot find throughout these Papers a word of mine which would bear the interpretation which anyone would give to that language applied to the Treasury. Well, Sir, Dr. Hooker is aggrieved that I should have obtained any evidence or information from Professor Owen; yet this gentleman, without any communication with me, could go before the Royal Commission and put forth a programme which gravely affected the whole administration of the Department of which he was a subordinate officer. I never heard of this evidence except by mere accident; but, finding what had been done, I was desirous of obtaining an opinion of some one disconnected with the office, and I knew no one more competent to offer an opinion than that distinguished Professor to whom I refer. He gave me an opinion. It is asked—"Why did you do nothing with it?" Because nothing was intended to be done with reference to these matters, nor were they intended to be made public. But when my acts were impeached it became necessary for my justification to show upon what grounds I was proceeding in the course which I advised the Government to take. There cannot be a more interesting or important question than that which was commenced but which could not be brought to a conclusion. I had been asked to supply the plans of the new Museum of Natural History. The Trustees of the British Museum did not take offence at my having to perform that duty, or having plans prepared on alterations which I suggested. On the contrary, they expressed satisfaction at the trouble taken

  741
  to bring the designs for the new Museum into their present condition, and I venture to think that those designs will produce for this country a building wholly unsurpassed by any Museum which exists in Europe or any other part of the world. The question to be considered was a large one, to be decided by the Cabinet, and all I had to do was to get the preliminary information necessary to enable me to show that I was proceeding upon the opinion of some one competent to advise on scientific subjects. Therefore I obtained the views of Professor Owen, and they would have been kept in confidence until the time arrived for entering upon an investigation of the subject. But I was forced into an expression of my own views by the attacks made upon me; and I am not sure that those attacks were not made because it leaked out that I was unfavourable to any separate department at Kew, and was favourable to carrying out a large and comprehensive scheme to complete the Natural History Museum within the building which Parliament had determined should be erected. I venture to say that no man of business who would take the trouble to carefully consider these Papers could come to the conclusion that there is a line in them conveying anything offensive. And I am happy to say that men of business on both sides of this House, who are not personal friends of mine, and whom I have only met within the walls of this House, have carefully read these through, and assured me that they have arrived at that conclusion. It is impossible always to carry on official correspondence in the style of correspondence of another kind. It is necessary that such communications should be written in clear and precise language; but if people write letters to me intended to provoke me into animosity I pass them by, for I have no kind of animosity in the conduct of public business, but carry it on in the most perfect good humour, with the desire of performing my duty in the manner which I consider best for the public interest. I am sorry I am not able to stop—as I should like to do—here; but, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) has thought fit to introduce into this discussion another topic, which, I think, at this moment might well have been passed over. I wish, however, before
  742
  mentioning it, to state that the Papers have been laid upon the Table of the House in such a way as to lead the public to suppose that my official Memorandum is an answer to the representation of the Doctor's. When my official Memorandum was written I had not seen that paper of the philosophers, because they thought it consistent with their philosophy or profession to print this document, mark it confidential, circulate it privately amongst their friends, and let it go into the channels of the Press, without commuicating it to me. The letter was then sent to the Treasury, and was brought under consideration. These gentlemen claim for themselves great weight and authority. They are gentlemen eminent for their knowledge of organic and inorganic matter. They have applied their minds to various branches of natural science connected with these material pursuits, and they pride themselves in consequence on being infinitely superior to me. Well, Sir, I do not wish to pride myself upon anything. I am but a humble member of a profession which, however, does pride itself on studying and practising a science far higher and deserving far more consideration than the science of organic and inorganic matter. It is the great moral science which has in civilized nations regulated the relations of man to man, and which tends to teach people how they may judge righteously and act justly—I mean the great profession of the Law, which has taught man how to exercise power, not only in this Assembly, but in every Assembly which has undertaken to administer the affairs of nations. And I venture to think that if amongst these Professors there had been a barrister of one year's standing—or I may say even a pupil of one year's standing in the Temple—he could have taught wisdom which would have astonished these Doctors. Before they passed an opinion they should have taken care to be in possession of all the facts; but of the necessity of this these gentlemen seem to have been unmindful—they contented themselves with mere ex parte suggestions to arrive at a conclusion. There are some philosophers who have persuaded themselves by an imperfect appreciation of facts and slip-shod reasoning, that they have extended the domain of human science, and have arrived at

  743
  extraordinary conclusions. If by a process of natural selection you can raise some object of nature to a higher position by continuous cultivation, yet if you omit that, it invariably goes back to the state of its original stock. Therefore there is always a difficulty in that theory, when it is applied to our race—according to the authority of those who profess such special knowledge on the subject, for you never can tell the exact period when cultivation stops and when man who has been evolved by cultivation begins to go back to his original stock. If we are to judge the writers by their letter, what do we find? That without troubling themselves to gain information upon the facts which should be known before a conclusion can be arrived at, they have written a scurrilous and most calumnious libel upon myself. Who is the author of this? I have endeavoured to find out. There is some difficulty in discovering who is responsible for this. I can only regard it as the abuse contained which any public man with duties to perform must expect at the hands of those disappointed by the course be pursues. What was the origin of the matter? Dr. Hooker is by law a subordinate officer of the Board of Works, the Commissioner being invested by Parliament with the duty of governing Kew Gardens. Dr. Hooker has no status by law. He is an executive officer of the Board, and to it he is responsible. Let us look to the terms of his appointment and see whether he does or does not understand what is his position. The terms of his appointment provide that he will be required to give his exclusive time and attention to the business of the office and to observe strictly such orders as may be given by the Chief Commissioners of Works. That is his status. The published Papers show that his predecessor, Sir William Hooker, was subject to the most peremptory orders by the Chief Commissioner, even in matters which might be supposed peculiarly under his control, as to the cultivation of the gardens and laying out of the grounds. A gentleman having large gardens told me, after reading the style of those orders, that he should not venture to write thus to his own gardener if he went down to his country house and found his gardens in confusion. In one letter, having undertaken to lay out £30, Dr. Hooker was told he must not do
  744
  so again, and could only spend with the authority of the Office of Works. That was a letter of a few lines, such as would be written to a subordinate, and numerous letters have been printed for the purpose of showing the nature and extent of the interference of the Chief Commissioner in accordance with the Act of Parliament and with the conditions which Dr. Hooker has been content to accept. Dr. Hooker and his father have been addressed from time to time in a most peremptory manner—so peremptory that he admits having been quite disconcerted on making a well-considered proposal on some matters of cultivation because the First Commissioner shook his head at him. There cannot be more complete dependence than that. This having been the legal and actual state of things, how can Dr. Hooker complain of my continuing to exercise the power? It is clear that Dr. Hooker thought the time had come when this state of things should no longer continue. It was thought that a new and independent department was to be organized under Dr. Hooker, assisted by a council of wise men. I do not state it as an admitted fact, but as a just conclusion from facts. That was their object and purpose, and it is not surprising that they should have taken every opportunity of resisting the Chief Commissioner's authority, knowing that his opinion was in favour of maintaining the existing state of things in its entirety until the erection of the great Museum of Natural History, when the whole subject would be reconsidered, with a view to the advancement of botanical science and the management of the Gardens as a place of public recreation. This explains a great deal of the agitation that has been going on. My hon. Friend has revived what he calls the accusation against myself. Now, I expected before the debate commenced, that the Government having definitely decided to make no change in the administration of the Gardens under the Office of Works, leaving the question open till the erection of the Museum, that there would have been an end to this contention, and the business would have gone on as heretofore, Dr. Hooker being regarded—as I have always regarded him—as head of the department, and receiving, of course, from me all the consideration due to his botanical knowledge and the

  745
  experience he might have gained in carrying on the affairs of the department. When appealed to by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, now nearly a twelvemonth ago, I denied that there was anything personal in these proceedings. I had no animosity against Dr. Hooker, but had shown the greatest respect for him—inviting his opinion, for instance, on the management of parks and gardens in the neighbourhood of the metropolis—what I had done was the mere prosecution of a public duty imposed on me by law. I regretted Dr. Hooker should find in every commonplace act of business a matter of personal contention, giving rise to personal expressions on his part. Not content with that, Dr. Hooker, doubtless in a moment of irritation and vexation at finding he was not likely to accomplish his end, wrote a letter to my right hon. Friend's private Secretary. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had written a letter which would have satisfied and gratified anyone in the public service; but finding Dr. Hooker not satisfied, he went further than he had perhaps ever done on a similar occasion, saying—"You had better go to my Secretary, and perhaps he will be able to arrange the matter with you to your satisfaction." To the Secretary Dr. Hooker accordingly went, and anyone aware of Mr. West's ability experience, and conciliatory manner must know that nobody better qualified for the duty could have been selected. It was a great thing for the First Minister of the Crown to take such trouble to satisfy a person occupying such a subordinate position; but what availed Mr. West's endeavours to please him? [Mr. OSBORNE: What did he propose?] I am not acquainted with the communications that passed between Mr. West and Dr. Hooker, for they did not come under my observation, but Dr. Hooker sent Mr. West a most offensive and calumnious attack on myself. That was his reward for the services Mr. West was disposed to render. Mr. West did what any gentleman of good feeling and judgment would have done; he told Dr. Hooker he had put his letter aside in the hope that he would have a better sense of the way he should treat the head of a public Department. For more than six months Dr. Hooker carried on his negotiations with Mr. West and with a
  746
  Committee of the Cabinet. In those negotiations I took no part; I had no personal feeling in the matter. But the negotiations went on with a Committee of the Cabinet on the basis of a written memorandum which had been delivered to them by Dr. Hooker. Throughout his communications with the Cabinet, however, he never made the slightest allusion to the charge which he had deposited privately with Mr. West. He went on in the hope, no doubt, that he would be able to induce the Government to alter the conditions of his appointment, and to set up an independent establishment at Kew. In saying this, I am merely drawing what I conceive to be the legitimate conclusion from all that has occurred. But having gone on in this way for six months, what does Dr. Hooker do? He publishes the charge to which I am referring, through his Professors, in order that they might circulate it confidentially behind my back. What sort of conduct, I should like to know, is it that a subordinate should in the first place lodge a charge with an individual in whose keeping he knows it will be wholly confidential, and that, after he has negotiated with the Government on an entirely different basis, he should then endeavour to revive that charge, and, when he does so, never venture to assert one single fact for the purpose of establishing it? In the paper signed by those Professors, although they make a charge, they do not state any facts by which it can be sustained. If I were to do justice to their intelligence, I should say that they never had any facts before them by which the charge could be supported. But if I were to do justice to their inconsiderate conduct, I should say that they were meddling with a business that did not concern them, and with respect to which they did not possess adequate information, and were not competent to express an opinion. Let the House just observe the nature of this charge, as also of that which has been solemnly preferred against me in "another place." The two charges are the very opposite of one another. The charge which has been made in "another place" is that I, conscious of my own knowledge and capacity, have been overbearing towards a subordinate officer. Such is the charge which it is attempted to support by those frivolous details to

  747
  which I have called the attention of the House. But the charge made against me by Dr. Hooker is that I have been guilty of evasion and misrepresentation and of all those errors that are used by a slave to escape from the anger of his master, but which a master, conscious of his power, is not in the habit of exercising against a slave. If I were a person who was, as has been represented, so overbearing and conscious of my power, I should not have resorted to evasion and misrepresentation and all those tricks that persons conscious of their weakness find themselves compelled to adopt. But there is, in point of fact, no foundation for the charge. It has got into the Parliamentary Papers. It has been sent by the Professors to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government; but the House must bear in mind that the letter that conveyed it has never up to this day been officially brought under my own notice, and that up to the time it was printed by order of the House I have never even read it. It is true I received a letter apparently written by a clerk, sending me the confidential printed paper long after it had been circulated, but I had no opportunity whatever given me of refuting the charge before it had been made public. I think the House, therefore, will agree with me that I only acted in a manner consistent with my position when I stated that circumstances did not admit of my receiving the letter just mentioned, and that I meant no discourtesy to those who wrote it when I sent it back. They gave me notice when notice was of no use; but to give me notice when it would be of use was what they avoided doing. When the charge was sent for publication to the newspapers, they appeared to have arrived at some notion of the rules of moral conduct, but I then declined to condone their conduct. The hon. Member for Brighton made a speech, to which I take no objection whatever. The House has a right to know what I have done; why no Motion has been brought under its consideration; and whether the course taken has been at my request and for my benefit. When any appeal has been made to me with respect to the course which was to be pursued in reference to it, I have invariably declined to give an answer. I have always said it was not for me to regulate the where and
  748
  the how the matter should be discussed, and that it was for those who objected to my conduct to take their own course on their own responsibility. From the day the question was first mooted until the present hour no notice whatever has been given that any Resolution impugning my conduct would be moved in either House. There were, indeed, Notices which would furnish ample scope for any amount of observations; but no man has a right to bring forward a question impugning the conduct of a Minister unless he is prepared to pledge himself to some definite Resolution, or, at all events, to have in his hands complete all the evidence by which he thinks he can support the imputation which he is about to make. It did not, therefore, depend upon the publication of a single paper in the correspondence whether a Motion of this kind was made or not. The publication is for my defence; and the materials—if any existed in support of the accusation—could have been obtained from Dr. Hooker. It was the duty of anyone who wished to impugn my conduct in either House of Parliament to state distinctly what he proposed to do, and I would then be in a position to ask my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government to afford me an opportunity of meeting any charge. But what has actually been done? It has been stated in "another place" that no Resolution would be propounded there because it was to be propounded in the House of Commons. I have waited for such a Resolution, but I have waited in vain; Notice of no Resolution of the kind has been placed on the Books of the House, and therefore my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, having regard to the Public Business, was by no means bound to entertain the question. Of the conduct of the hon. Baronet behind me I have had no reason to complain. He has acted throughout consistently up to the present day. I very much regret what he has done now, because he has compelled me to go into matters which I should have been contented to leave upon the Parliamentary Papers. As matters now stand, a grave charge has been made against me by a subordinate officer, from which it is incumbent upon me to defend myself, and the ultimate result of which I will

  749
  not now anticipate, more especially as it is not my intention to take any part in its final solution. The charge has been made against me in a communication to the First Minister of the Crown, and my duty in the matter was performed when I drew his attention to it, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will perform his duty also with respect to the subject. Whatever may be in the future, I can only say that the force of association of ideas, which is a source of the greatest pleasure, but which is also a source of the greatest prejudices and follies, has perhaps had too much influence on some gentlemen. No doubt, Dr. Hooker occupies a very important position as a botanist. He distributes thousands of interesting plants to persons who make botany their study, or who desire them for their gardens; and for years they have associated him with the benefits they have enjoyed. But this is the performance of a public duty, and it would be a grave reflection on all the greatest botanists of the country if it went forth that there is only one man in the kingdom who understands botany, and only one man who is competent to serve the Crown in this department. It would be a principle fatal to the administration of the public service if you were to allow it to be proclaimed that there is any one person who occupies such a position that he is entitled to dictate to his official superior, who is invested with the discharge of public duties, or to the Government, the course which they are to pursue.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTwished to make an explanation in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had said of him. It was quite true that he did ask the advice of several hon. Members whether he should put the Question which had been referred to to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was also true that they had all given him the same answer. They advised him not to put the Question, because, they added, "You will be quite certain to get an offensive reply."
  MR. GLADSTONE: Is the hon. Gentleman in Order in reciting in this House the statement made to him that if he put a certain Question he would get an offensive reply from any Member of this House?
  MR. AYRTON: In speaking of this I may explain—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The expression is undoubtedly out of Order, and ought to be withdrawn.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: I made use of the expression because it had been previously used by the First Commissioner of Works.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must again rise to Order. The hon. Member has quoted an expression that he states was used by some of his friends of whom we know nothing, and by doing so makes the expression his own. You, Sir, having ruled that the expression is un-Parliamentary, the hon. Member, instead of withdrawing the expression, has attempted to defend it by referring to some other expression which, if equally un-Parliamentary, ought to have been withdrawn.
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: I naturally withdraw at your bidding, Mr. Speaker, the expression; but I think there should be one law for all Members of this House.
  MR. AYRTON: The House will allow me to explain that the answer to which I referred was made in my presence—
  MR. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: I am not alluding to those only.
  MR. AYRTON: I am speaking of certain answers, and these answers were made in my presence by Gentlemen of authority and weight in this House; and hon. Gentlemen will recollect that that could not be the tenor of the answers, considering the Gentlemen from whom they came.
  MR. EASTWICKwished to recall attention to two matters of considerable importance to the public, which he feared might be lost sight of owing to the brilliant flashes of wit which had emanated from the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. Osborne) and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The public would read the speeches of those Gentlemen next morning, and would be much amused and interested; but the interest would be of an evanescent character. What the public was really interested in was—first, the competitive examination which was described in the printed Correspondence about Kew Gardens, which had been laid before Parliament. Competitive examinations were of serious and abiding importance to the public. Now,

  751
  a more complete case of failure had never occurred in all his experience than in the instance of the examination which had been referred to. At page 1 of the Correspondence, it was expressly stated by the First Commissioner that the assistance of a clerk was to be granted to the Curator, to relieve him of duties by which he was frequently detained in his office till midnight. But this aid was so injudiciously given that the Curator himself protested against it. Thus, at page 21 of the Correspondence, the Curator writes as follows:—
  "I therefore beg leave to protest against having any clerk thrust upon me for whom I have not full employment, and who would thus spend the greater part of his time in idleness, which is not to be elsewhere found in this establishment. I therefore beg that my duties, already onerous, may not be increased by having to superintend an officer of the Board doing next to nothing."
  It was easy to see how this failure had occurred. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that at the examination there were only three or five candidates—he did not remember which; and this paucity of candidates was owing to the default of the examiners in not making the fact that the examination was going to be held sufficiently public. Again, at page 9, there was a programme containing the conditions of the examinations, and it was expressly stated that—
  "Candidates would be required to show what preliminary training, or technical education, they had undergone to qualify themselves for a situation of that nature."
  But at page 17 of the Correspondence, there was a letter from the examiners confessing that they had altogether omitted to inquire what preliminary training the successful candidate had had. Again, at page 20, Dr. Hooker stated that this successful candidate wrote indifferently, spelt badly, composed unsatisfactorily, was quite incompetent to direct foremen, had had no preliminary training, and had never kept accounts or stores. It was of importance to the public that such an examination as this should not occur again. The next subject in which the public was interested was one which had reference to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Everyone admitted the great abilities and the zeal for the public good shown by the right hon. Gentleman, and even his imperturable good humour. Why was it, then, that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of all these great qualities, was
  752
  obliged to stand forward that night to defend his conduct? The reason was that there was something in his management of affairs, which certainly did—without his seeming to know it—give offence. He must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the French proverb—Qui s'excuse s'accuse. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Bromley-Davenport) had been deeply offended by an answer the right hon. Gentleman had given him; and on another occasion an old and respected Member of the House, the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), had received an answer which had evidently given him much pain. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of those answers as playful, but it was a sort of play that resembled the pelting of the frogs in the fable. He trusted that in future the right hon. Gentleman would leave off pelting the frogs, and adopt a different course in dealing with those with whom he came into official communication, otherwise the public interests must suffer, as was clearly shown by this controversy, which might have ended—might even now end—in the country being deprived of the services of one of two gentlemen who were both extremely useful in their respective ways. In conclusion, he trusted that in future the right hon. Gentleman would guide his lance with more discretion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot resist the impulse to mention the deep regret with which I have listened to this discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) has been pleased to sneer at the part which I took in reference to this question last summer, and he has been pleased especially to sneer at the part taken in the matter by the gentleman who was my private Secretary, and who has recently been rewarded for the arduous labours he had so well performed. From the first moment I heard of the differences that had unfortunately arisen between my right hon. Friend and Dr. Hooker, I felt that the matter was not one in which I was officially bound to interfere in my personal capacity. Indeed, it would be impossible for me personally to undertake the responsibility of settling all difficulties which might arise between Ministers and servants of the Crown acting under their directions. Feeling, however, that much mischief would be

  753
  likely to accrue were this matter to be allowed to run the usual official course, I did make an effort to bring the dispute to a satisfactory termination. In that endeavour, however, I entirely failed, and my private Secretary, Mr. West, full as he is of kindness, also failed in achieving that object—his only reward being that he has been made the subject of a taunt by the hon. Member for Waterford. [Mr. OSBORNE: I never uttered any taunt against Mr. West.] I am very glad to hear that, and I entirely withdraw what I have said; but I will not say whether I have not reason for misapprehending my hon. Friend. I am perfectly satisfied with what he has said. This proceeding became the subject of official communication, and I will say here that the object of the Government in all its endeavours has been to do what was well described by the hon. Member who last addressed the House—namely, to secure to the public the services of two men, each of them most able and valuable in their several capacities, the one as an important political officer of the Government; the other as a permanent officer in the public service, but subordinate to that officer who holds a political position of high trust and importance. That was our object, and I must say that three hours ago it was attained. I am not now going to make any vague or indiscriminate references to private communications; but I must allude to the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), and to the references to that position by the hon. Member for Waterford. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, whose agency in this matter has been characterized by the hon. Member for Waterford in terms not the most complimentary, was not sought by me or by any Gentleman sitting upon this bench—my hon. Friend sought us and entered into communication with us, and I, for one, very willingly and gladly communicated with him, because it appeared that his object was compatible with the honour of both parties. My hope was that this object would be obtained. I lay no blame on my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) for the course that he has taken, for his speech was a judicious one. I had intended to point out the actual state of affairs: It was this—if ever there was any ambiguity about
  754
  the position of Dr. Hooker at Kew, that ambiguity had been removed by a clear official explanation on the part of the Treasury. That explanation was understood and accepted by my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works; it was understood and accepted by Dr. Hooker; and no one has failed to see that that simple explanation appears to afford a basis for them to co-operate for the advantage of the public in the official positions in which they stand. I had communicated to my hon. Friend that I was perfectly convinced—and I made myself responsible for the statement—that there never had been on the part of the First Commissioner of Works the slightest intention to wound the feelings or disparage the character or position of Dr. Hooker; that his desire had been to acquit himself firmly and vigorously of his duties as a public servant; and if upon any occasion anything had been said or done—as might have been the case—which to Dr. Hooker might have conveyed an appearance different from the reality, it was far from the intention of my right hon. Friend. All that was perfectly clear. There was one other subject to which it would have been my duty to refer, and I will just mention it—namely, the special charge which has, most unfortunately and unhappily, been brought by Dr. Hooker against my right hon. Friend of "evasions and misrepresentations." That charge is, undoubtedly, a fact of the gravest character. But here I will express a belief more favourable to Dr. Hooker than that of my right hon. Friend. That charge was conveyed in a letter which Mr. West very prudently, as I think, treated—I will not say as waste paper—but as a document which ought not to have become part of the communication on this subject. Afterwards, to the great surprise of my right hon. Friend, he learnt from leading articles in the newspapers that this charge had been made. He brought it under my notice. I inquired where was it found, and discovered that it was in this private letter. It was certainly a matter of the greatest astonishment to me that it should have become a part of the citations in the leading articles of newspapers. It was a letter written to Mr. West, who was communicated with in his own personal capacity as one actuated by a friendly feeling between man and man. I am

  755
  convinced—unfortunate as the publication of this letter is—that it is totally impossible it could have been done by Dr. Hooker's agency or permission. I am bound also to add that the charge having been made, the whole House will see that it is absolutely necessary, if it cannot be sustained, that it should be distinctly and unconditionally withdrawn, and that regret should be expressed for its having been made. I feel that would be the wish of Dr. Hooker himself, and in that hope I will say that I think both these distinguished gentlemen may be able, without painful feeling on either side, to continue their co-operation in the public service. I must not refrain from expressing what deep regret I felt when I found my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone thought it part of his duty, in following the judicious and conciliatory remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, to enter upon matters of controversy with respect to charges against my right hon. Friend. I know too well the conciliatory disposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone to believe that he was actuated by any but the best of motives. He has been accused of being counselled by us. I do not know whether he was counselled by anybody else; but, if so, I do not envy that counsellor his reflections on the result. It is most unfortunate that this controversy should have been raised in this House. It was unfair to my right hon. Friend that, after seeing that no special Notice had been placed upon the; Paper, and that the general Notice which had been given had been withdrawn, without a moment's preparation, without any reference to documents, he should have been put upon his defence upon a matter as to which he was the butt of condemnation and abuse from various quarters. But was it fair to Dr. Hooker? On the contrary, it was not less unfortunate for his interests. There are many men in this House who take the most friendly and laudable interest in the character of Dr. Hooker, and hardly one of them is in his place to-night. No such discussion as this should have been brought forward as a controversial discussion, except with fair notice to all parties interested in what was to be done. Well, my hon. Friend having reiterated those charges, my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) having, as he says, held the
  756
  balance evenly between both—I should rather call it practising his surgery upon both—my right hon. Friend most naturally rose upon the moment to make his defence, met strong accusations with strong replies, and could not be expected to refrain from uttering what had been his own feelings in the course of this painful controversy. These feelings my right hon. Friend up to 5 o'clock had been perfectly content to bury,-and when I went to him on this bench, he said he would leave the matter in my hands. Now, I do hope—though affairs do not stand as well as they did awhile ago—that the error committed will be regretted as an error, and that we shall try to return to the point where we were. I must say that I think scientific men, as they are called by the exclusive appropriation of a title which I must protest against, have a great susceptibility. It is natural that it should be so. But independent of that, those who are not accustomed to enter into our sturdy conflicts take reproof in a much more serious manner than we who are hardened by long use are accustomed to do. Very possibly much allowance ought to be made for them; but I confess I am extremely sorry, on account of Dr. Hooker, for whose scientific attainments I have the deepest admiration, that this subject should be treated as it has been on the present occasion. As to the point affecting the personal character of my right hon. Friend, I understand that owing to the illness of Dr. Hooker he had not been able to make any communication to-day, bat which I hope will be received and put an end to the whole controversy. Assuming that it will be put an end to—for I am sure I cannot but assent to the sense of my right hon. Friend that if it is not the continuance of official relations cannot be considered to be anything but momentary—but assuming that it is got rid of in a satisfactory manner, I hope we will be able to take a practical view of this question. Those who have heard my right hon. Friend are, I am sure, convinced that his desire is to do his duty, and those who have known Dr. Hooker and his character will, I am certain, have exactly the same conviction of him. Well, let us say to Dr. Hooker and my right hon. Friend, if personal matters can be disposed of in the only way they ought to be disposed of—namely, in the way I have pointed out—let us say to

  757
  them—"Bury in forgetfulness the recollection of those differences," and if that can only once be done there will, I am sure, be no competition between such men except the anxiety of both to do their duty to the public, my right hon. Friend exercising his rule with mildness, and Dr. Hooker doing his duty in subordination to my right hon. Friend.
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEexpressed the hope that no change might occur in reference to Kew Gardens which would deprive that place of its scientific character; that they might not lose that which made it the centre of botanical knowledge for the whole world, nor the superintendence of the eminent Director who was foremost amongst the botanists of Europe. Of course, the First Commissioner had a right to defend himself with force; but he certainly did show a degree of bitterness against the scientific men which alarmed him (Mr. Cowper-Temple) greatly for the future of the establishment. His sneers against scientific men like Sir James Paget could harm no one but himself. He did not think that a Minister of the Crown should allude to a scientific man under the figure of a slave. Throughout the Correspondence, Dr. Hooker was not treated with that consideration and courtesy which were generally shown to gentlemen. He was treated in a tone that might be used to an under gardener; but surely people did not cease to be gentlemen because they were men of science. The Minute at the end of the Correspondence seemed upon the face of it to be satisfactory; it was satisfactory as an acknowledgment that Dr. Hooker had just cause of complaint, but by an artificial distinction between two parts of the Gardens it prepared the way for future annoyance, and withdrew from the Director the management of the arboretum, or pleasure gardens. He did not think that it was well to divide the Garden into two parts in this way, and to destroy the unity of responsibility and superintendence.
  MR. AYRTONexplained that the metaphor as to a "slave" had been misunderstood:—it was Dr. Hooker who put the slave upon him (Mr. Ayrton).
  MR. COWPER-TEMPLEsaid, if that were so he had made a mistake.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill (Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill) read the third time, and passed.

EPPING FOREST BILL— [Lords.]
[BILL 208.] THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEobjected to the measure that it contained the novel and arbitrary principle that the jurisdiction of the Law Courts was to be superseded by the action of a Commission of Inquiry formed for a totally different purpose. When the Bill was first laid upon the Table it contained the provision that any proceedings then being carried on either at law or in equity should be suspended, and the Commissioners were to dispose of the questions raised. The suits which had been instituted would ascertain the rights of commoners and lords of the manor, and the decision would have had an important bearing upon the Report of the Commissioners. The Bill was withdrawn; but it was re-introduced in the House of Lords, and altered so as not to apply to any suit then pending in the Court of Chancery. This changed it from a mischievous into an inconsistent Bill. It also provided that the Commissioners should have power to issue orders to prevent the destruction of trees and herbage, and to abate any encroachment made upon the Forest. But the Bill contained no provision by which the orders of the Commissioners could be enforced. The power, therefore, which was given to the Commissioners was entirely illusory. The Bill, in its present shape, was hardly worth while placing upon the Statute-book, and, as a protest against the admission of a bad precedent, he must move that it be read a third time that day month.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Cowper-Temple.)
MR. AYRTONsaid, the explanation of the course which had been taken was that delay, by reason of the forms of the House, would have arisen from in-eluding in the Bill any proposal which could interfere with private rights. When the Bill was before the House last Session, he undertook to give in the vacation such Parliamentary notices

759
as would make it possible in this Session to pass a Bill giving to the Commissioners the powers necessary to constitute them a Court for the purpose of dealing with private rights. At the beginning of the present Session he introduced a comprehensive measure, which would not have been forced upon individuals against their will, but would have given them an opportunity of expressing their desires and of arranging matters in such manner as other people had been able to arrange their affairs when dealing with joint-stock companies. His right hon. Friend thought proper to oppose that Bill on the ground, as he (Mr. Ayrton) understood, that it was so comprehensive; and as his right hon. Friend's obstruction endangered the passing of the Bill in any form he withdrew it, and it was immediately introduced in the other House of Parliament. The Bill gave somewhat diminished powers to the Commissioners, but it still enabled them to prohibit new inclosures. The Lords thought fit to amend the Bill in Committee. It was subsequently considered by a Select Committee of the Lords, and all parties had an opportunity of bringing their views under the consideration of that Select Committee. Her Majesty's Government had no personal interest in the matter. If he were speaking on behalf of his own constituents, he should regret that the Bill did not go further. The Bill would enable the Commissioners to repress all injuries done to the Forest since the passing of the Act of 1871. They could make orders for that purpose, and he was assured that, in accordance with the general administration of the law and the provisions of the Bill, those orders could be enforced. If it should be found that the Bill did not go far enough, that would be a good reason for coming to the House to get a more comprehensive measure. If he were compelled hereafter to ask the House to pass a more comprehensive measure, he hoped his right hon. Friend would assist him in passing it.
MR. LOCKE, presuming that the First Commissioner had good ground for saying that the orders of the Commissioners under the Bill could be enforced, was glad to hear that some fresh inclosures which had been made since 1871 would be annulled under the Bill.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to (Queen's Consent signified).
Bill read the third time, and passed.

GALWAY ELECTION PETITION—JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE KEOGH.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [25th July],
  "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the Report of the Address delivered by Mr. Justice Keogh on the occasion of delivering Judgment on the Trial of the Election Petition for the County of Galway, and the complaints that have been made of the partisan and political character of that Judgment and Address,"—(Mr. Butt,)—
  And which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "regrets that Mr. Justice Keogh, when delivering Judgment on the Trial of the Election Petition for the County of Galway, allowed himself to diverge into irrelevant topics, and to make use of intemperate expressions and language inconsistent with the dignity which ought to be maintained by a Judge, and therefore calculated to lower the character of the Courts of Justice in the estimation of the people of Ireland; but, on reviewing the whole circumstances, this House does not think that the case calls for any action with the view to the removal of Mr. Justice Keogh from the Judicial Bench,"—(Mr. Pim,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that before the debate was resumed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray)—who, he believed, was in possession of the House—he wished to take the opinion of the Speaker on á point of Order. On the last occasion when this debate was before the House, he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) moved the Adjournment of the debate, and the House divided upon it and resolved in the negative. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) then moved the Adjournment of the House, and that Motion also was negatived; but subsequently, at the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury, the House consented to the Adjournment of the debate moved by the hon. Member for

  761
  Kilkenny. He (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had been informed on high authority that in consequence of his having unsuccessfully moved the Adjournment of the debate, although he did not speak upon the Main Question at all, both himself and the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion were supposed to have spoken on the Main Question, and could not speak upon it again—which he confessed appeared to him to be an extraordinary rule. It was true that the rule was acted upon by the late Speaker, Lord Ossington; but Lord Eversley, who preceded the noble Lord as Speaker, acted upon a different rule. Under these circumstances, he wished to ask—first, whether he should be in Order in speaking upon the Main Question; secondly, if that was not in Order, whether he should be in Order in speaking on the Main Question in the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) being withdrawn or negatived; and, thirdly, whether he should be in Order in speaking on the Main Question in the event of a Motion being made for the Adjournment of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I will endeavour to answer the Questions upon points of Order which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just raised, and as those questions all relate to the debate on which the House is just about to enter, I may say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was quite in order in bringing them forward. The first and most important question raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, whether a Member having moved the Adjournment of the debate—and that Motion having been negatived by the House—he is entitled to speak on the Main Question? That point has already been conclusively determined by my predecessor, and is, in my judgment, governed by the general rules and practice of the House. It was brought under the notice of the House on the 16th of March, 1869, when the then Speaker gave a clear and deliberate decision, which, with the permission of the House, I will now quote; and in order to make that decision more clear, it is necessary that I should also quote the preliminary Question addressed to the Speaker. On the debate on the Second Beading of the University Tests Bill, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr.
  762
  Beresford Hope)moved the Adjournment of the debate, the Motion being seconded by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), neither addressing any speech to the House. The Motion being negatived, the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge rose to speak to the Main Question; but Mr. Speaker ruled that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Member for Whitehaven, who had also risen, were entitled to address the House. On a subsequent evening, the hon. Member for Whitehaven having put a Question to the Speaker on the point of Order, Mr. Speaker's reply was that though of late years, partly for the convenience of discussion, there had been a relaxation of the rule with regard to seconding Motions, the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the Adjournment of the debate were not entitled, by the practice of the House, to rise afterwards and speak on the Main Question or make another Motion. [3 Hansard, cxciv. 1450, 1467.] The principle on which this decision is founded is clear, and it is this—no Member is entitled to speak more than once while the same Question is before the House. While the present Question was under discussion on the 25th of July last, the right hon. and learned Gentleman rose in his place and moved the Adjournment of the debate, and according to the well-recognized rule of the House he must be held to have spoken on the Question which was before the House when he rose. Had his Motion been agreed to, he would have been entitled to pre-audience on the resumption of the debate—it being understood that on rising to speak he is in possession of the House; but if he moves the Adjournment of the debate it is agreed by the House, for the sake of convenience, that his remarks shall be reserved until another day. But, as it happened, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion was negatived, and therefore he has exhausted his right to speak until another Question is proposed from the Chair. This principle is the same as that applied to Motions of Adjournment. It is well known that a Member cannot move the Adjournment more than once in the same debate. This principle is well illustrated by a case which occurred on the 17th of June, 1870, when no fewer than 10 divisions were taken on the Question of Adjournment, in order

  763
  to defeat the Clerical Disabilities Bill. On that occasion the rule which prevents a Member who has already moved or seconded a Motion for Adjournment from making another similar Motion was strictly enforced. That practice of the House has now for many years been established, and until the House shall, by direct Resolution, alter that practice, I conceive I am bound to its observance. With respect to the other two Questions put to me, if the hon. Member for Dublin should think proper to withdraw his Amendment and the House acquiesces, then the Question put to the House would be under a new form, and, no doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to speak on that Question. As to the third Question of the right hon. and learned Member, I have to say that if the Adjournment of the debate were moved he would be at liberty to speak to that Question. The practice of the House of late years has been to allow much latitude on speaking to Motions of Adjournment; and although I do not commend the practice of speaking to the Main Question on Motions of Adjournment, I should not feel at liberty in calling him to Order if he thought proper to do so.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, * he wished to remind the House of the question on which it would have to pronounce its decision that night. No matter what collateral issues might be raised—no matter what importance might be attached to those issues—the real question which, in substance and in fact, the House had to decide and to vote "yes" or "no" upon was this—Was it, or was it not, of importance to the well-being of Ireland, the honour of the Crown, and the safety of the Empire, that the Irish people should have a well-grounded confidence in the administration of the law and in the impartiality of those who might be appointed by the Sovereign to dispense justice in the Irish Courts? Upon that question the House must that night vote "aye" or "no." There could be no evasion, no postponement; and upon the decision to which that House might come; upon the judgment of that House with regard to the manner in which Ireland was henceforth to be legislated for, dealt with, and governed, under the
  764
  direction of that House, would not only every Irishman living in Ireland, but every member of the Irish race, no matter in what country he might live, whether he was a forced or voluntary exile, or still remained in the land of his fathers, judge of and estimate the resolve of the Imperial Parliament with regard to the principles on which Ireland was to be governed in the future. That was a question with which he wished to deal calmly, and having regard to the important issue raised, he hoped hon. Members would not treat it lightly, but that they would each ask himself how the law should be administered in Ireland, and whether or not it was essential that the Irish people should have confidence not only in the equitable and impartial administration of the law, but also in the conduct, manner, tone, and demeanour on the Bench of those who were appointed by the Crown to dispense justice in that country. He (Sir John Gray) did not wish to place before the House his own definition of the language, the tone, and the manner which became a Judge. Fortunately for him, that task had been performed by one far more able and more accomplished, and one whom the House would recognize as a man whose intimate knowledge of mankind, and whose acquaintance with the springs of human action, eminently fitted for the task—the Rev. Sydney Smith. In a sermon preached by that eminent divine and scholar before two of the Justices—[Captain DAWSON-DAMER: In what year was that?]—In 1824, when preaching before two Judges of the English Court of Queen's Bench, who were then on circuit at York. His language on that occasion was so appropriate, and his description of a model English Judge differed so much from what they had recently experienced from the Judge at Galway—whose conduct, tone, and language was, he understood, to be that night declared by the Government and the House good enough for Ireland—that he would ask permission to read it to the House—
  "May I add the great importance in a Judge of courtesy to all men, and that he should, on all occasions, abstain from unnecessary bitterness and asperity of speech. A Judge always speaks with impunity and speaks with effect. His words should be weighed, because they entail no evil upon himself, and much evil upon others. The language of passion, the language of sarcasm, the

  765
  language of satire is not, on such occasions, Christian language. It is not the language of a Judge. There is a propriety of rebuke and condemnation, the justice of which is felt even by him who suffers under it; but when magistrates, under the mask of law, aim at the offender more than at the offence, and are more studious of inflicting pain than repressing error, the office suffers as much as the Judge: the respect for justice is lessened, and the school of pure reason becomes the hated theatre of mischievous passions."
  This was the description of a Judge given before English Judges by an English divine—from the Cathedral pulpit—that place in which they were told things divine only were to be spoken of. Was the language of Mr. Justice Keogh at Galway free from "bitterness," as English Judges were admonished theirs should be? Was it not rather full of bitterness? Was it not the language of "sarcasm" and of "satire?" To use the language of Sydney Smith, it was neither "the language of a Christian," nor "the language of a Judge." Did not the Judge who was deemed good enough for Ireland aim at the supposed offender and not the offence, and use the mask of the law to inflict pain on those against whom he railed? But the Rev. Sydney Smith did not stop there. He knew that Judges were men of human passions like other men. Mr. Justice Keogh was a man "Irish born," as the Attorney General for England said, and, therefore, allowance was to be made for him, as he spoke to Irishmen and of Irishmen. But hear what was said of English Judges in an English Cathedral by an English divine—
  "I admit," said the reverend preacher, "it to be extremely difficult to live amidst the agitations, contests, and discussions of a free people, and to remain in that state of cool, passionless Christian candour which society expects from their great magistrates; but it is the pledge the magistrate has given, it is the life he has taken up, it is the class of qualities which he has promised us, and for which he has rendered himself responsible. It is the same fault in him which want of courage would be in some men, and want of moral regularity in others—it runs counter to those very purposes, and sins against those utilities for which the very office was created—when, without these qualities, he who ought to be cool is heated, he who ought to be neutral is partial; the ermine of justice is spotted, the balance of justice is un-poised, the fillet of justice is torn off, and he who sits to judge after the law smites contrary to the law."
  By that English standard of what the deliverance of a Judge ought to be, and of what the Judge was always supposed to be, he (Sir John Gray) desired to
  766
  judge of the performance of Mr. Justice Keogh in Galway. He would ask—Did Mr. Justice Keogh so conduct himself at Galway as to inflict pain on individuals, not to correct offences? He would ask any hon. Member who had read the Galway Judgment, was it not the realization of the words he had just read which described an un-English Judge? The Irish people felt deeply on this question, and they, too, were desirous to ask that House—Was Mr. Justice Keogh's conduct at Galway that of the "neutral" or that of the "partial" Judge? Had he so conducted himself as to manifest to the people that it was the cool judment of a Judge, and not the passion of a partizan that was speaking to them from the Bench of Justice? Did he so demean himself as to satisfy those who heard him that the ermine of justice was not spotted by his conduct? Did he satisfy them that the balance of justice was evenly poised, and that he was not, under the mask of the law, sitting as if to judge under the law, but smiting contrary to the law. It was in this spirit that he wished to criticize the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh, and in that spirit he wished the House to consider it. The portraiture which had been given from the pulpit was that of the Judge whom the Irish people desired to have, and with whom alone they would be content. The Attorney General of one of our Sovereigns said, many centuries ago, after a careful survey of the geographical features of Ireland, and examination of the mental character of its people—"There is no people under the sun who love impartial justice more than do the Irish people." Those were the words of Sir John Davis, Attorney General to King James; and he recommended to his Sovereign that impartial justice should be provided by the law and administered impartially to all the people. Would the House accept and endorse that principle? Would it say that impartial justice should be henceforth the general rule in Ireland? Would the House say that the law should be administered with equity and justice, and that there should be no more of such exhibitions as they had heard of from Galway? In order that hon. Members might have the opportunity of contrasting the language, manner, and tone adopted in Galway with the description given of

  767
  the upright English Judge by the Rev. Sydney Smith, he would ask permission to recall some of the phrases used by Mr. Justice Keogh at Galway, though already quoted, in order that hon. Members should have, during that debate at least, some data for comparison before them when they came to vote that night. He would not trespass on the indulgence of the House by reading long extracts, as the terms used would suffice for the comparison to which he invited the House. Having cited those phrases, he would confidently ask the Government, who endorsed his Judgment by instituting prosecutions, and those who were about to vote that his conduct was good enough—perhaps they meant too good—for the Irish—Was Mr. Justice Keogh deserving of their confidence? Father Conway was described by the Judge as splendide mendax. The Judge even condescended to mimic his accent and his gesture, and wound up by saying "that the clapper of his tongue" was as odious as the lugubrious railway whistle which disturbed his rest nightly at Galway, and had occasionally to be silenced by a direct bribe. Was that the judgment of calm justice, or the language of mischievous passion? Father Conway's voice was silenced for ever. Death, encountered in the service of his people, claimed him as one of the first victims to duty; but all who knew him—his devotion to the poor, his anxious labours for their benefit, and his self-sacrifice—knew that his tomb would be the shrine for the pilgrimage of many a wearied and troubled heart, and that whenever his name was mentioned in the presence of any member of the Irish race, at home or abroad, it would be spoken of with reverence and respect. The whole body of the clergy were designated "ecclesiastical tyrants," and "a rabble rout." One was described as the vamper of "debauched" evidence. Another was singled out, and declared to be the direct instigator of assassination. One only was said to be an honest man; and the Judge, drawing upon his classic lore, said he had found one honest man among a rabble rout, as did Diogenes of old with the aid of his lantern. He would ask the House to consider the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh as a whole; his slanderous assertion that the Archbishop of Tuam and the Bishops of Galway and Clonfert
  768
  were dark "conspirators" against the free franchises of the people—that the priests would use the confessional to defeat the privacy of the Ballot—that "a Catholic ascendancy" was concocted by the ecclesiastics of Galway—that the three Prelates had constructed an ecclesiastical circumvallation of the county, and say whether such language was that of a Judge or of a heated partizan? It would not be tolerated in England. Would the Imperial Parliament vote that it was good enough for Ireland? That Judgment handed over the representation of the county from the 2,800 voters who elected Captain Nolan, to the 600 who voted for Captain Trench, making the seat a gift bestowed by the Judge, and not by the electors; but he would confine himself at first to the insults heaped on Prelates, priests, and people, and ask that Mr. Justice Keogh be judged by his language, his tone, and temper, apart from all other grounds for declaring his disqualification for the Bench. He had, however, other charges to advance than those against his language and his insults. He arraigned the Judgment as unjust in substance, as well as indecent in style. Everyone who had read the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh would recognize that one idea was developed at the very opening of the Judgment—ran through it from beginning to end, and was most consistently and elaborately worked out for the purpose of establishing the several conclusions to which the Judge eventually arrived. The one idea to which he referred, and which took possession of the Judge from the outset, was that there existed in the county of Galway what he called a Prelatical conspiracy against the free choice, the franchises, and the consciences of the electors. This theory guided and governed every proceeding of the Judge. This Judge-created conspiracy was put prominently forward by the Judge throughout his whole performance at Galway, in his opening and in his conclusions. There was not one particle of evidence to support or to prove that such a conspiracy as he described existed. There was nothing save the wicked imagination of the Judge himself to warrant the assertion that the Archbishop of Tuam—whom he, with taunting ridicule, called "the great Archbishop of the West,"—and the

  769
  Bishop of Galway, and the Bishop of Clonfert had combined and conspired to deprive the people of Galway of their free franchise. He devoted the opening of his Judgment to the assertion that such a conspiracy existed; but he (Sir John Gray) asserted that not a particle of evidence was adduced to show that there was such a conspiracy, or that there was even an arrangement for joint action for a common purpose. Such was not alleged in the Petition, nor by the counsel for the opposite side. It had no existence, save in the prurient fancy of the Judge. It was a theory of his own; and in the absence of evidence he elaborately drew upon his imagination to prove a conspiracy whereon to base his Judgment, and transfer the representation of the county from the electors to his own nominee. No man could read the Judgment without concluding that Mr. Justice Keogh based his entire fabric on the theory that the three Prelates had entered into a conspiracy against the franchises of the people. The Judge thus asserts his views—He had, he says, to combat "an ecclesiastical conspiracy against the free choice, the free franchises, the consciences of this Roman Catholic county;" and of this conspiracy, he says, the three Prelates having jurisdiction in Galway were the concoctors, the guides, and the moving power. Speaking of them, he says that the Archbishop of Tuam, the Bishop of Galway, and the Bishop of Clonfert were the "three right reverend Prelates whose conduct is said to have nullified the election." Who, he (Sir John Gray) would ask, had ever said anything of the kind, save the Judge himself? The rival candidate did not suggest it. The assertion was the Judge's invention. He substituted a chain of the most barefaced sophisms for evidence to sustain his vile doctrine of Prelatic conspiracy. He argued in a vicious circle, thus—The Archbishop was the Chief Prelate of the West. Dr. M'Evilly was president of the Tuam College, and was translated thence to the Episcopal See of Galway. Dr. Duggan was a priest in Tuam diocese, and he was translated to Clonfert as Bishop. The two latter were the suffragans of Tuam, and they all three agreed that Captain Nolan, who retired before at the suggestion of Dr. M'Hale, was the most eligible candidate; ergo, concluded the Judge as the perfection of logic,
  770
  those two Bishops conspired with Dr. M'Hale to defeat the free franchises of the people of Galway. Having thus established, on his own evidence and vicious reasoning, his pet theory of a Prelatic conspiracy as the basis of the Judgment which disfranchised Galway, he proceeds with all the formality of a prosecuting counsel, to concoct the several counts of the indictment, and connect together the overt acts in sustainment of each separate count. The Judge does not, indeed, use the word "count" in laying his indictment. He calls each overt act a fact, and they had fact the first, and second, and fourth, and so on, each being the overt act in support of a count in the monster indictment. He (Sir John Gray) repeated that not a particle of evidence was adduced to show any conspiracy; and so far from there having been any agreement or concurrence between the Prelates, he could state as a positive fact within his own observation—but which he was authorized to state on the best authority, that no communication of any kind either oral or written had passed between the Archbishop of Tuam and the Bishop of Galway in reference to this election; and he believed that the presence of the most Rev. Dr. Duggan at a meeting of the Tuam deanery was his only confederation with the Archbishop in the illegal design falsely and malignantly attributed to the three Prelates. The Bishop of Galway was, indeed, promoted from the presidency of St. Jarlath's College, Tuam; but he was made Bishop without the interposition of the Archbishop, who, no doubt, rejoiced at his merited elevation, though he was not the moving power. The Bishop of Clonfert was absolutely appointed before the Archbishop knew of his elevation; and it was a notorious fact that, so far from being appointed by or with the previous knowledge of the Archbishop, Dr. Duggan was not even consecrated by the Archbishop of Tuam. He would dismiss the doctrine of the Prelatic conspiracy by stating that the only evidence of its existence was the despicable sophism of the Judge, who did not even succeed in bringing the alleged conspirators in contact or in communication one with the other. Now, what were the facts? Those three Prelates exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the county of Galway, each in his own

  771
  sphere separately and distinctly, and they gave their support to a particular candidate because of his opinions. The Judge, however, linked them together by a chain of sophisms, and from the judgment seat he boldly asserted that they had combined together to deprive the people of Galway of their rights. He (Sir John Gray) would then proceed to deal with Mr. Justice Keogh's indictment, which he urged on Mr. Juror Keogh. Before dealing with the alleged overt acts by which each count was sustained, he (Sir John Gray) would place before the House a short sentence from the Judgment delivered in Longford by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and quoted with most extravagant laudation by Mr. Justice Keogh at Galway. That sentence was the deliverance of the calm and sound judgment of a man who was an ornament to the Bench, and would commend itself to all who heard it. He would, with the permission of the House, read it verbatim, in order that each hon. Member might have before him the Judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to compare it with the reputed criminal overt acts of the maligned Prelates. It ran as follows:—
  "I now refer to the Judgment in the Longford case, delivered by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, than whom, as we all know, there is no more accurate lawyer, no more experienced Judge, no man who commands—and justly—so thoroughly the confidence of the profession, and of his colleagues on the Bench; he says, referring to the question of undue influence—'In the proper exercise of that influence upon the electors the priest may counsel, advise, recommend, entreat, and point out the then line of moral duty, and explain why one candidate should be preferred to another, and may, if he thinks fit, throw the whole weight of his character into the scale.'"
  These then are the things which, according to Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, a Prelate or a priest may do not only with the consent of, but by the authority of the law—he may "counsel," "advise," "entreat." [Captain DAWSON-DAMER: Treat] No; "entreat." Point out "the line of moral duty," and throw all the weight of his character "as Prelate or priest" into the scale to show "why one candidate should be preferred to another." These things it is the duty of a Prelate or priest to do, and this explicit declaration of Judge Fitzgerald was cited—probably in the hope it would be lost in the cloud of verbiage at Galway—to show that the coming Judgment was in accord with these sentiments. By that
  772
  approved standard of duty he would wish the House by comparison to test the several illegal and unconstitutional overt acts attributed to the conspirator-Prelates. The first overt act was the letter of the Archbishop of Tuam to Captain Trench, refusing to support him, and stating that he had already promised his vote to Captain Nolan. The only "criminal" act deduced from the letter was the promise—or as Mr. Justice Keogh called it the "contract," to support Captain Nolan. He (Sir John Gray) would not waste the time of the House by reading the letter, which was admitted by the Judge-juror to contain only the one point—the "contract"—or as it in fact was, the statement of a previous promise to vote for Nolan. He would ask however the House to say, was that promise in excess of the duty of the Prelate as explained in the constitutional passage from Mr. Justice Fitzgerald's Judgment which he had just read? He (Sir John Gray) contended that the letter failed, if in anything, in not coming up to the full legal obligation imposed by law on a Prelate or a priest or any patriotic citizen to "advise," "entreat," and explain the reasons for "preferring" one candidate to another. The overt act or "fact" set forth in the second count he passed over altogether, as it amounted only, according to the Judge, to the crime of dining, in company with the candidate, at the Rev. Mr. M'Gee's—a curious overt act in a hospitable country like Ireland, to be woven into the sophistical web of the Judge, but a definite proof, he contended, of the utter absence of legal evidence, when the Judge-juror and supplemental witness who sat on the Bench, had to resort to it. He would now take the third count in the monster indictment—the resolutions of the deanery of Tuam. They were very long and would be found in full in page 388. He would select the strongest passage, and if any hon. Member could discover anything stronger, he (Sir John Gray) would read it. It occurred in the fourth resolution—
  "They (the tenant-voters) cannot, therefore, fail, in their own defence, to return Captain Nolan, the candidate, who, in a manner so peculiar and unprecedented, has so nobly identified himself with the fixed and permanent interests of his tenantry, thus advocating tenant-right in the sound and genuine sense of the term."
  Then followed another resolution advocating

  773
  "The complete and uncontrolled freedom of individual voting, which, when in full operation, will lead all the other important measures in its train."
  Was there, he would ask, anything in the whole series even amounting to the duty declared by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to have been imposed by the law on the ecclesiastical guides and friends of the people—"counsel," "entreat," cast the weight of your character into the scale, and point out the "line of moral duty" to your flocks? "The line of moral duty"—broad words and pregnant with meaning—which he contended the Tuam resolutions, at the adoption of which the "great Archbishop of the West" presided, did not fully come up to, much less surpass. He now came to the fourth overt act in sustainment of the fourth count in the Judge's indictment—the resolutions of Kilmacduagh and Galway, so dwelt upon by the Judge as another proof of the Prelatic conspiracy. These resolutions were, in fact, never written, and, of course, never printed, and amounted simply to an approval of the principles of Captain Nolan and an adoption of his candidature. The fact was announced in the Galway and other papers as an item of intelligence, and the fact that the Bishop and clergy were not divided, and distracted, and disunited, but agreed that the principles of Captain Nolan entitled him to support, is made the basis of a separate count in the indictment. Was there anything in the law as laid down by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald to prevent their making that fact known? Nay, was it not their duty as honest men to declare their opinion—to "advise," "counsel," "point out the line of moral duty?" But they stopped short of their legal duty, and merely announced the fact that they were united in opinion; and for that union of sentiment with his clergy and people the Bishop of Galway is described as a black conspirator against the liberties and free franchises of the people by Mr. Justice Keogh. The next count in this monstrous indictment was supported by the overt act of the Clonfert resolutions. These resolutions he had also in his hand. Great importance was attached to them by the fact that the Government had resolved to prosecute, as a criminal in the criminal dock, his valued friend the Bishop of Clonfert, who presided at the meet-
  774
  ing at which they were adopted. He would, therefore, read the principal—in fact all the practical—portions of the series, that the whole might be before the House—
  "1st. That as the spiritual no less than the temporal interests of our Socks are likely to be most seriously affected by the legislation of the coming Session of the Imperial Parliament, we deem it a sacred duty, as it is a constitutional right, to make every legitimate effort that our county may have such representation in Parliament as will most conduce to the advancement of those interests.
  "2nd. That with this object solely in view, we declare our full confidence in Captain Nolan; and we call on such of our parishioners as are privileged to vote to record their votes fearlessly and conscientiously for that gentleman in the coming struggle."
  Did those resolutions exceed the line of duty laid down by Judge Fitzgerald? The spiritual interests of the Catholic subjects of the Bishops were involved in the Irish education question so sneered and scoffed at by Judge Keogh as part of a vile conspiracy to seize on education—"our education"—and hand it over to ecclesiastics. The resolution pointed out that their line of duty—"of moral duty"—was, to use Judge Fitzgerald's words, to "record their votes fearlessly and conscientiously." Was that wrong? Was that illegal? Was that contrary to law? Was it not rather within the duty pointed out by the Judge at Longford, and felt and acted on by every freeman in England? Yet that was dwelt on by Mr. Justice Keogh as proof irresistible of the guilt of the Bishop of Clonfert, and for that the Government were about to place him in the criminal dock as junior Prelatic conspirator against the "franchises" and the "consciences of the Catholics of Galway." He now would come to the last of the formal counts, which was based on the celebrated "Sellars" letter which the Rev. Mr. Sellars, the secretary of the meeting, wrote, enclosing the resolutions, together with a brief statement of the Bishop's views, with reference to the course to be taken by the clergy. That was relied on by the Judge as conclusive proof of the illegal designs of the three Prelates, especially of the culprit selected by the Government—Dr. Duggan—to be made an example of. He would ask leave, therefore, to read it in full. It was as follows:—

  775
  "Loughrea, January 18th, 1872.
  "Rev. Sir,—I am instructed by the most Rev. Dr. Duggan to enclose resolutions adopted at the meeting of the clergy here on yesterday. The unanimous desire of the clergy, also, was, that his Lordship would request all the priests of his diocese to explain to their flocks, on next Sunday, the rights and responsibilities of the electors in exercising the franchise in the coming election; that it is a trust vested in them for the benefit of the people at large, and not to be used for private or personal purposes, but without fear or favour, according to the dictates of each man's conscience. His Lordship, therefore, expects that in this crisis, where the intention is explicitly avowed to crush "priestly dictation"—the parrot cry of the advocates of revolution and Communism, no clergyman will be found apathetic or indifferent. His Lordship is fully confident that the people will fearlessly sustain the united Prelacy and priesthood of this great Catholic country.—I am, Rev. Sir, your obedient servant,
  "JOHN SELLARS, C.A."
  That was the celebrated "Sellars" letter, said to be the most criminal overt act of all, dictated as the letter was by the Bishop, though signed by the curate, Did that letter exceed, nay, did it come up to the duties defined by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald—"counsel," "advise," "entreat," "point out the line of moral duty," "cast your personal weight into the scale?" It was weak as compared with the Judge's definition of duty, though it boldly expressed the good Bishop's expectation—that there would be no apathy in pointing out to the electors that the franchise was as yet a trust to be used for no private or personal purpose, but for the good of all—for the whole nation—as each man's conscience dictated. He fearlessly asked hon. Members to compare that letter called "the celebrated," because of its force and directness, with Judge Fitzgerald's dictum, and say was it not far, very far within the law? Yet it was upon trumpery facts or counts like this that the Galway Bishops were to be branded as conspirators against the free franchise and consciences of their people by Mr. Justice Keogh. He challenged all men to produce one elector in Galway who was forced to vote against his conscience for Captain Nolan at the late Galway election by either priest or Prelate. It was not even alleged that there was one instance of the kind. He asked the prosecutors, he asked the defenders and backers of the Keogh Judgment to produce one case of coercion of conscience or of opinion by a priest or Prelate—let them prove it, or even assert
  776
  its existence, if they could. He had read with scrupulous fairness all the counts in the indictment and all the overt acts so skilfully grouped together by Mr. Justice Keogh, and he challenged every lawyer who sustained him to say did any one of these overt acts, or all of them put together, amount to the full duty imposed on ecclesiastics in the shape of entreaty, exhortation, reasoning with and encouraging electors in the true line of their moral duty, as laid down in the Judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and quoted from the very Bench where such opposite views were advanced? He (Sir John Gray) would then proceed to another branch of the Judgment, and ask the House, was Mr. Justice Keogh rigidly "neutral" or was he "partial?" Did he hold the scales of justice evenly poised when dealing between the landlords of Galway and the tenants whom they sought to coerce? It was an established doctrine that a Judge occupying a seat on the Bench should be absolutely neutral and not partial. But did Mr. Justice Keogh exhibit that neutrality which kept the ermine unspotted, or did he exhibit that partiality towards one class and against another which sullied the lustre of the ermine, and changed the Bench from the seat of justice to the throne of injustice? At the meeting presided over by Sir Thomas Burke it was stated emphatically by every speaker who was favourable to the candidature of Captain Trench, that the reason why they opposed Captain Nolan, was that he had submitted a case in dispute between himself and his tenants to arbitration. That act was declared by the Lords and magnates who assembled at the bidding of Lord Clanricarde to be of evil example, and not to be countenanced, though arbitration was a leading feature of the Land Act passed the year before by the imperial Legislature. After the Loughrea meeting, all the landlords of the county took up the cry, and denounced Captain Nolan and the evil example of his submitting his case to the arbitrament of others. The tone which had been adopted created a strong feeling throughout the country that a choice lay between two candidates, one of whom was a nominee of the landlords, and the other of whom was not. Now, anyone who knew Ireland as his right hon. and learned Friend

  777
  the Attorney General for Ireland did, knew that one of the most bitter elements that could be introduced into a contested election in that country was a question between landlords and tenants; and that question was undoubtedly raised at the Loughrea meeting, inasmuch as the chairman of that meeting issued a notice to his tenants, telling them to vote with him; and other landlords followed his example. The crime of Captain Nolan was clearly stated, and for that he was to be punished. In the Appendix to the Evidence was given a Report of the Loughrea meeting, from which it would be seen that every landlord speaker, from Sir Thomas Burke to the Lord of Portumna Castle, denounced Captain Nolan, and said Galway must select some other candidate, because of the Portacarron arbitration case. Now, the submission to arbitration and the award were two different and distinct matters. For the submission Captain Nolan was responsible, but he was not responsible for the award. One was his act—the other the act of the arbitrators, over which he had no control. He (Sir John Gray) would therefore confine himself to the submission to the arbitration, and not then refer at all to the terms of the award made by the arbitrators, for which Captain Nolan was not responsible personally. [Ironical cheers.] He (Sir John Gray) understood those ironical cheers; they came chiefly from a noble Lord who was about to speak. He was prepared at any time to defend the award in the Portacarron case, if the noble Lord would give him Notice, or without Notice he would discuss it and maintain its principles. He did not enter into it now, because it was no part of the case before the House; but as Chief Secretary for Ireland the noble Lord had opportunities of learning all the facts. He (Sir John Gray) knew them fully, and would, if he liked, discuss them fully there or elsewhere.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I agree that the award has nothing to do with the case now under discussion.
  SIR JOHN GRAYcontinued: For submission to arbitration Captain Nolan was ostracised by the Lords and landlords, and thenceforth the contest became one between landlord and tenant almost exclusively. In trying the Petition, how did Mr. Justice Keogh hold
  778
  the balance between the two classes? He would ask the indulgence of the House while he went into this, the most important branch of the case. Landlord intimidation was met by the priest, the only man who sheltered the poor tenant, and bid him not to allow the law of force to overcome the law of right. "The line of moral duty" was pointed out by the priest, and that Mr. Justice Keogh called undue influence. One passage from the Judgment would show the true animus of the Judge, and the purpose with which he ascended the Bench. Those who had had the misfortune to wade through the celebrated document called a Judgment, as he had, would remember that the Judge, after dealing with the Prelates, whose "ecclesiastical circumvallation" was, he said, completed by the resolutions he (Sir John Gray) read to the House, who had shut up every "avenue of the Constitution," who manned "every embrasure," took each priest in detail, and enumerated his crimes and misdemeanours. First came the Rev. A. B., who was a debaucher of evidence. Next came the Rev. C.D., who was an assassin. Then came E. F., who was a polluter of the altar, and even of the parish soil. Each had his peculiar paragraph and denunciation allotted to him. In due course came the consideration of the Rev. Mr. Macdonough's case. He had one entire paragraph of the Judgment devoted exclusively to him, and that paragraph, in simple but conclusive words, tells the whole story of this Judgment. It was this—
  "Then comes the Reverend Mr. Macdonough; he said the landlords had no more right to the votes of their tenants than to their souls."
  Not one word more; yet he who runs can read, and understand the animus of the paragraph. The "audacious priest" had the criminality to declare that "the landlords had no more right to the votes of their tenants than they had to their souls!" What audacity, to proclaim so "illegal" and so unconstitutional a sentiment as that! He would ask the House was it illegal?—was it unconstitutional? Had the landlords a right to the votes of their tenants? Did the law give them that right? Did the Constitution recognize it? Was the priest criminal who said they had no such right, and that the vote of the tenant was as free from landlord domination as was the

  779
  soul of the Irish peasant? Judge Keogh dealt with such a sentiment as a crime, and it was for that House to say who was the real criminal against the Constitution—the priest who was pilloried, or the Judge who was ermined on the Bench. What meant the Reform Bill? What meant the Franchise Bill? What meant the Ballot? What had the Commons of England laboured for these 20 years? Was it to enfranchise the people, or to give votes to them to be used not as duty or conscience dictated, but at the bidding of, and as the property of the landlords, as Mr. Justice Keogh indicated in that paragraph, in assault upon the terrible priest who said "the landlords have no more right to the votes of their tenants than to their souls?" Had they? Let the vote that night give the answer. That one sentence told more clearly than words the spirit in which the Judge ascended the judgment seat, and the work he went there to perform. But he meant to quote the evidence of landlords and their agents, admitting that coercion was freely resorted to to force the tenants to vote as the landlords directed. And yet that impartial Judge, who reported John of Tuam for writing a letter of which no man need be other than proud, refused to report the men who raised the rents—who tore down the roof-tree—who deprived a trader of his living—because he would not vote as ordered by the master of soul and body and vote. Mr. Blake, agent to Lord Clanricarde, on being questioned, gave the following evidence, admitting that three half-years' rent were exacted at once, because the tenants refused to vote with the Lord:—
  "9057. You called upon the tenants to pay up to November a year and a-half's rent—was not that request addressed to the voters in consequence of the way in which they voted at the election?—I do not think it was.
  "9059. Did the circumstance of their voting against the wishes of Lord Clanricarde influence you in insisting upon the whole year and a-half's rent at once?—In some instances it might.
  "9060. In some instances did it not, upon your solemn oath?—It did."
  Mark, how slowly the witness arrived at truth. In another case, the Judge thus parried off the exposure that threatened the landlord who adopted another mode of coercion—the increase of the rent. But, of course, Judge Keogh failed in getting rid of the facts, and thought it all right to increase rents on recreant
  780
  voters, and would not report the party who did it. Here is Mr. Blake's evidence on this point—
  "Mr. Macdonogh asked for a list of the voters where rents were increased.
  "Mr. Justice Keogh: It is the valuation that determines the vote, and not the rent. You will see there the valuation.
  'Mr. Macdonogh: Yes, my Lord; but I want to show what the amount of increase was.
  "Mr. Justice Keogh: We are not trying a case between landlord and tenant, but as to the election.
  "Mr. Macdonogh: I want to show, my Lord, what the increase was. In one case it was from £50 10 s. to £82 5s.; in another from £28 8s. 8d. to £48 11 s.; in another, from £88 to £112."
  The list was eventually forced from the witness by the counsel, and verified every statement made in the question put by the defendant's counsel. The withdrawal of custom was also admitted to have been used as a punishment for voters who refused to vote. On that, too, he would cite the admissions of Lord Clanricarde's own agent, who reluctantly let out the truth. The evidence is thus reported in the Blue Book—
  "8987. Do you know any of the shopkeepers in Portumna who voted against the wishes of Lord Clanricarde?—I believe some of them did.
  "8988. Were not directions given from the Castle, that the custom of Lord Clanricarde should be withdrawn from those voters?—There were things got elsewhere, undoubtedly.
  "8997. Did you make that change since the election?—I did.
  "8998. I ask you, as a gentleman, was it not because they voted against your view, or Lord Clanricarde's view?—Well, I do not know.
  "8999. You made the alterations since the election?—I did; I dare say it may have operated a little.
  "9000. As a fair man, and looking to the serious sanction under which you are speaking, I ask you, did it not operate?—I dare say it did.
  "9001. Then the custom has been withdrawn?—Partly, I think.
  "9002. In consequence of the voting?—I told you exactly how it was before; that I considered it more beneficial to get things in quantity from Ballinasloe.
  "9003. I know that was your consideration; but I ask you, was it not partly in consequence of the voting that the custom was changed?—I told you before, that to a great extent it was.
  "9004. Do you know the baker, whose name is Mr. Burke, at Portumna?—I do.
  "9005. Has he been discontinued?—He has.
  "9006. Did he not vote for Captain Nolan?—I believe he did.
  "9007. Was that the reason, on your oath?—I think it was.
  Was that coercion, or was it not? Was that undue influence or not? Was the increase of rent—the withdrawal of cus-

  781
  tom —the enforcing of three half-years' rent instead of one—were these singly or in the aggregate "undue influence," and was the actual infliction of these penalties reported by Judge Keogh? If not, he asked why not? The answer was plain. The landlords who coerced were to be beslavered with adulation. The Prelates and priests who protected the people from coercion were to be sentenced to "seven years' penal servitude." Those were acts of oppression which Englishmen would not tolerate. Englishmen loved their country, and were proud of it; they loved their Constitution, and would make any sacrifice to defend it. Why should English Representatives encourage in Ireland acts of tyranny unknown in any other country in Europe save Ireland alone? He would not believe that English Gentlemen would by their votes that night endorse the conduct of a Judge who refused to treat such persecution as undue influence, and who tried to prevent its being developed in the evidence, as he had shown. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read the letter of Mr. Staunton, addressed to his tenants, threatening all kinds of evil—the raising of rent, the deprivation of bog, and other injuries, should they refuse to vote as ordered; and commented on it as a clear case of threatened injury. Having read the letter of Mr. Staunton and his sworn evidence, he continued]—Would the House believe that it was distinctly proved in evidence, that Mr. Staunton served a notice on his tenants, in which he stated that strict justice allowed the landlord to raise his rent to a point which no barrister and no Court under the Land Act could say was too high? The Peers and Commons of England had declared that tenants should be free; but here was a case of direct coercion, on the face of which it was declared by the Judge that landlord intimidation did not exist. More direct even than that was Mr. Staunton's own evidence. He admitted that one of the tenants purchased the goodwill of the holding some six or seven years before the election, continued to pay the same rent as his predecessor, and yet, because he would not vote according to his landlord's dictation, the houses were unroofed over his cattle. That was sworn to; it was admitted by the landlord himself; and yet Mr. Justice Keogh came to the conclusion that
  782
  there had been no intimidation on the part of the landlords, and that they had only exercised their legitimate rights by raising rents, depriving men of their means of living, levelling houses, and other such acts, to demonstrate that the votes were given by that Parliament not for the tenants' own use, but for the aggrandizement of the lords of the soil. He came then to another branch of the case—the prosecution of the Bishop of Clonfert and some 20 priests in sustainment by the Government of Mr. Justice Keogh's Judgment. Mr. Justice Keogh certified to the House that 36 persons, including three Bishops, had been guilty of undue influence. When the debate was fixed for the 25th of last month, within two days of its coming on, the House was startled by the announcement made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, that 23 or 24 of those named were to be prosecuted, including one of the three Prelates and some 20 priests. Other cases of undue influence had been reported to that House, and no prosecution followed. In the Drogheda case, it was reported to the House that the sitting Member was guilty of undue influence. The sitting Member was thereupon unseated; but no prosecution was ordered by the Attorney General of the day. Why not then prosecute, if it was right to sustain Mr. Justice Keogh by prosecuting a Bishop and 20 priests now? In the Dublin case 11 persons were reported as having taken bribes, and three or four as having administered the bribes, yet no prosecution was ordered by the Attorney General of the day, though a series of bribery cases was well established. He was far from attributing anything unfair to the Attorney General for Ireland; but he was bound to ask the Government how it came, in the face of these facts, that a Bishop, 21 priests, and two laymen were, under less weighty circumstances, even on the Government showing, directed to be prosecuted? It was an idle farce to call the prosecution a prosecution by the Attorney General. His right hon. and learned Friend was a shrewd man, and never wasted his money. Was he about to enter on that monster prosecution at his own cost? If not, who was to pay the bill? He would undertake for the Attorney General for Ireland that he would not pay it. Who, then, would?

  783
  It would be a costly proceeding. If the Treasury were to pay, why not avow that the prosecution was ordered by the Cabinet, who would pay the bill, and not by his right hon. and learned Friend, who would not pay one farthing of the cost. He would tell them Ireland would deal with the prosecution as a Government prosecution, and meet it as it deserved. One thing he would assure the House—that there would be no verdict obtained by the Government, and for the best reason, there was no evidence to warrant a conviction. No jury of Englishmen—not even if selected from Exeter Hall—could convict on the trumpery evidence relied on by Mr. Justice Keogh and Her Majesty's Ministers. He (Sir John Gray) had, in addition, to complain of the tone and manner in which the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) had addressed the House on this subject. Speaking of the evidence of the most Rev. Dr. Duggan, he said that he had been "compelled" to admit the restrictions imposed by the 19th statute of the Synod of Thurles in the case of political addresses from the altar. What was the fact? The evidence was volunteered by the right rev. Bishop, when Mr. Justice Keogh endeavoured to force the Bishop to see through his eyes, and discover that the Council of Trent, by one of its statutes, forbad the priest to address his congregation on any save Divine subjects from the altars or during mass. The Bishop could remember no such statute, and suggested that the Judge was probably thinking of something else of the same nature, which was decreed by the Synod of Thurles, but with reservations as to topics; and absolutely he volunteered to get the decrees, read them over, and furnish the Judge with the facts, and thus correct the Judge's memory. That this was so was manifest from the fact that, on the following day, the Bishop actually brought the original Latin and a translation, and supplied it to the Judge. But the worst of the case attempted to be made by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton was, that he suppressed the important part of the very decree he was referring to—breaking off in the middle of the sentence, as given in evidence by the Bishop, for no purpose that he (Sir John Gray) could discover, save that of misrepresenting the Bishop, and giving effect to the suggestion of Judge Keogh,
  784
  boldly expressed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton, to the effect that the Galway Prelates violated not only the law of the land, but the canons of their own Church. [Mr. JAMES: No, no!] He (Sir John Gray) said "Yes, yes," for he had the passage in his hand. But it would be better to see at once what his hon. and learned Friend did actually say. His words, as reported, were as follows, and he admits the report to be accurate:—
  "At page 514 in his evidence, Dr. Duggan admitted that he had himself preached to the people on the subject of the election in Ballinasloe parish church, and when asked this question—'Then you seemed to think the pulpit and the altar a judicious place from which to propound political opinions during a hotly-contested election?' His answer was—'Certainly.'… Now, he maintained that in this case the common law, the statute law, and even also the ordinances of the Roman Catholic Church had been broken. Dr. Duggan had declared that in his opinion the pulpit and the altar were proper places in which to enter into political matters.…. Let him next consider what was the view of the matter taken by Roman Catholic Prelates themselves. Even from that very Bishop himself who said that the altar and the pulpit were the right places from which to make appeals to his flock on political questions, these words which he was next about to quote were obtained. Dr. Duggan was compelled, while being examined, to refer to the 19th statute of the Synod of Thurles, of which he gave the following translation."
  The hon. and learned Member then quoted the translation of the decree, forbidding "dissertation" on "profane business" or "on political elections or other matters of this kind" which might excite contention between the pastor and the flock, "which, however, are not to be interpreted as that there would not be exposition or discussion"—and at this word the hon. and learned Member stopped. He never completed the sentence, but the Bishop did, and read on to the end of the sentence, thus—
  "Which are not to be interpreted as that there should be no exposition or discussion on actions taken or exposition ordered on not receiving bribes, about perjury to be avoided, about the rights of the Church, about the charity and care due to the poor."
  His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton omitted to read the conclusion of the sentence. Why? Because if he had done so, he could not have the brass to accuse the Bishop, as he did, of violating the canons of his own Church, for the very canon or decree which his hon. and learned Friend suppressed di-

  785
  rected action identical with the directions given by the Bishop of Clonfert in the "Sellars" letter; the decree said certain instructions ought to be "ordered," and the Bishop literally acted up to the decree of his own Church, instead of violating it, as his hon. and learned Friend asserted that he did. [Mr. JAMES: Read on.] Did his hon. and learned and theological Friend want him to read all the decrees of the Synod of Thurles for that House? He would only finish the sentence, in the middle of which his hon. and learned Friend conveniently broke off, and he objected to trouble the House with further quotations, even to gratify the theological tastes of his hon. and learned Friend. But it would not do to read the sentence in full; the Bishop was to be prosecuted, and if the friends of the prosecutors could make the Bishop odious as a violator of the decrees and canons of his own Church, public sympathy would be against him, and the object of the prosecutors would be gained. The Bishop of Galway gave the same information to the Judge on the previous day, yet the Judge endeavoured to misrepresent the whole of the facts, as did his hon. and learned Friend in that House. Having apologized for the heavy tax he had imposed on the indulgence of the House, he asked the House could they, with the facts he cited, consider the Judgment impartial, and that equal justice had been done, and he contended that the House ought to give its decision in favour of the Resolution, and that there should be the same impartial administration of justice in Ireland as in England. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would trespass only a short time upon the attention of the House, but he was desirous of addressing a few words to it on this subject. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) that the question raised was, whether the Irish people were to have a well-grounded confidence in the administration of the law. That was the exact point which was raised on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick City (Mr. Butt), and it was precisely on that point that he entirety differed from the conclusion arrived at by the hon. Member for Kilkenny; for he believed it would be found that the con-
  786
  duct of Mr. Justice Keogh in this case was not inconsistent, but consistent with the interests of the public and the dignity and honour of the Crown. He was inclined to think that as the Attorney General for Ireland had announced that it would be necessary for him, in his official capacity, to prosecute certain parties who had been reported upon by the learned Judge in the Schedule—some in both Schedules—it would have been better, perhaps, for the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to postpone this Motion. It was hardly fair to those persons who were to be tried that they should be canvassing and criticizing their cases, instead of having them fairly discussed in a Court of Justice. But as the question had been brought before the House, he was anxious to make a few observations upon it. He did think that the Irish Representatives had some just cause of complaint against the Government for not having given them a better opportunity of discussing the question than had been accorded to them. He thought it unfortunate that the discussion, by a long adjournment, should have been so disjointed; but if this was unfair to the Irish Representatives, how very unfair and unkind it was to Mr. Justice Keogh? He gave his Judgment on the 27th of May. The Report was made on the 11th of June. Was it fair to Mr. Justice Keogh to have all this time the discussion hanging over his head, and to have his conduct canvassed as it had been? The evidence before the Court had been given piecemeal, like the publication of a serial. Would it not have been much fairer to lay it on the Table at once in three volumes, which, with a little activity and zeal, might have been done? But what was still more important, looking to the observations of Baron Deasy, when presiding as Judge of Assize at Tralee, directed against the Government, he asked what explanation could be given of the lukewarmness and indifference of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? Here was a Judge of Assize referring to the burning of the effigy of Judge Keogh, and saying—
  "This disgraceful proceeding was allowed to go on from commencement to conclusion without any attempt on the part of the police to interfere with those concerned in it. The example, owing to the inaction in the capital, was followed in the provinces, and those scenes allowed to go on, for what reason I know not, without any attempt to

  787
  punish the perpetrators of them on the part of the authorities."
  That was a serious charge against the Government, which it was incumbent on the Government and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to meet, and rebut if they could. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick City had fairly raised the issue before the House. He said in his opening observations that he was glad—and the House and the country would be glad—that he had removed the question from the heated currents which prevailed in Ireland to the cooler atmosphere of the House of Commons. He thought every impartial person in Ireland as well as in England would be glad that those burnings of the effigy of Judge Keogh—civil as well as military—were no longer taking place with the connivance of the authorities. We had had enough of anathemas and denunciations, both clerical and civil. This agitation had been kept up for weeks, and he was glad—as he believed the majority of the House were—that the hon. and learned Member had brought it forward. The question had been cleverly dealt with by his hon. and learned Friend, of whose able assistance years ago he had a lively recollection; and the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he ever spoke ten times as strongly from the Bench as Mr. Justice Keogh had done, might depend upon his support. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the landlords were the head and front of the offending, and that it was the meeting at Loughrea which was the origin of all this; and the hon. Member for Kilkenny had endorsed thatview; but it was not correct. Judging from the evidence before the Court, we were bound to say that the landlords, at all events, were not the cause of this melancholy state of things, and that their case was not reported by the learned Judge. It was assumed that he was partial; but for the purpose of argument their case was not in the Judgment, nor upon the evidence before the Court, and, in his opinion, the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to bring it forward here. Whether it were landlord or whether it were priest, nothing had occurred for many a day which had excited so much feeling among certain classes in Ireland; nothing had so much disturbed the social harmony which existed in that country, and nothing had occurred for many a day which had
  788
  done so much to defeat what the Government had laboured earnestly to promote—the uniting and the knitting together of all classes and creeds—as this miserable Galway Election. The hon. and learned Gentleman had poured out the vials of his wrath upon Mr. Justice Keogh in language which was rather too strong. He said—
  "My bitterest complaint against him is partizanship, and intemperance, and injustice. He allowed himself to be the partizan of the landlord class; he branded Roman Catholics with crimes from which they are wholly free."
  With regret he heard the further expression that the Judge gave vent to the "hoarded spite of years." The hon. Member talked of the wicked imagination of the Judge. Knowing something of Mr. Justice Keogh, having had many opportunities of intercourse with him in 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864, when he himself had the honour of being connected with the Government of Ireland, he rejoiced that the opportunity was now afforded him, as a private Member of Parliament, of bearing his testimony to the merits of that learned Judge—to his zeal and intelligence, and to the fearless independence with which he had acted on many occasions. When he had seen, day after day, insults and injuries heaped upon his head, almost with the connivance of the authorities, as Baron Deasy had said, he should be ashamed to sit still without endeavouring to raise his voice in vindication of the character of the man whose judicial acts were unjustly maligned and traduced. He believed every impartial person considered Mr. Justice Keogh an ornament to his profession; his own experience of the Judge's conduct and character led him to entertain that opinion: in the discharge of his duties he had acquired the respect and esteem of all honest men; but he admitted that Mr. Justice Keogh's name was execrated by everybody whose evil deeds were exposed to the broad light of truth and justice. The learned Judge administered the law as he found it, and he had been blamed for it, and it was not true that his continuance on the Bench was inconsistent with the interests of the public or the honour of the Crown. No greater compliment could have been paid to the learned Judge than the decision of the Attorney General for Ireland as an officer of the Government, that out of a

  789
  certain number of persons reported by the Judge so many were to be prosecuted. Of all Judges in Ireland, Mr. Justice Keogh was the most competent to deal with Election Petitions; he had tried the most difficult of the Election Petitions in that country—Drogheda, Dublin City, Sligo, and Galway town. And this was the Judge who was accused of partizanship! The four decisions, so far from sustaining the imputation, absolved him from it. There could be nothing stronger than the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland—that of 36 persons guilty of using undue influence Government had determined, on the evidence, to prosecute 19 priests and five other persons. He wished the Government would say something more about Lord Granard's conduct. His observations about the scurrilous invective and insulting insinuations with which Mr. Justice Keogh had endeavoured to sully the honour and reputation of the local clergy were best answered by the conclusion of the Attorney General for Ireland—that the evidence warranted the Government in prosecuting. If the Government wanted to act in a straightforward and fearless manner they would not try these 24 persons in Connaught. [An hon. MEMBER: In England.] He quite agreed with the hon. Member who said that. If they were tried at Westminster, he believed they would be quite certain to have a fair trial. He did not say they would not get a fair trial in some places in Ireland; but considering the agitation in Connaught, he was sure that the trial could not be fairly conducted there before a jury. He wished to see the matter fairly tried and decided. All the Law Officers of the Crown, whether of England or Ireland, agreed in the course the Government ought to take. Although as the Attorney General (Sir John Coleridge) said, that this course was forced upon them, still the Government might have sought to avoid taking action. He wished, in the next place, to refer to the recent abuse of spiritual power in Ireland. Nothing had excited so much indignation in this country as that abuse on the part of the priests. The matter was a very serious one, for it must be borne in mind that those very priests wished to have the control of denominational education in Ireland entrusted to their hands, and when they were ask-
  790
  ing for £300,000 a-year it became a very important question whether they were persons in whom Parliament ought to place the exclusive education of Roman Catholic children in Ireland. It was the abuse of the very spiritual power of which he was speaking that had led to the action abroad of which so much had been heard, and he trusted that abuse would not be carried any further in Ireland. He held in his hand an extract which he had taken from the Papers before the House, showing to what extent the spiritual influence of the priests was pushed in that country. The extract was to the following effect—"The controversy is supposed to lie between Nolan and Trench, but," in the opinion of one reverend gentleman, "it lies between belief and unbelief," the belief being represented by Captain Nolan, and the unbelief by Captain Trench. Again, it was said that Captain Nolan was chosen by the Archbishop of Tuam, and that he should therefore be elected. Again, what were the words of the Bishop of Clonfert? He said—"Pat, be sure you vote for the Pope," which meant that he should vote for Nolan. [Cries of "What page?"] One of the pages in the book. If any hon. Member doubted the accuracy of the quotation, he would only say that he would not do so, if he had read the four volumes through which he himself had waded. On one of the banners which were displayed were the words—"Vote for Nolan and God," which it was hardly possible the House would think should have been inscribed on a flag at an election. But that was not enough, for Mr. Pox swore—page 40, if anybody wished to refer to the Papers—that Father O'Grady said from the altar—"You must return Nolan, because, if you return a Protestant, they will restore the penal laws." Now, let the House observe how grandly eloquent Mr. Justice Keogh was upon that point, whatever fault hon. Members might find with his reasoning sometimes. [Laughter.] It was all very well to laugh, but he recollected with what admiration the right hon. and learned Gentleman used to be listened to when he sat within those walls. In dealing with the point which he had just referred to, the learned Judge said—
  "Do the infatuated people of this country believe that there has ever been in this realm the

  791
  tithe of the persecutions for religion's sake which have been inflicted in France upon the Huguenots; in the valleys of Switzerland and Piedmont upon the Waldenses and Albigenses; in Spain upon the unhappy Jews and Moors, whose expulsion has left Spain in many places an arid, rocky, and un-productive waste?.… Through the whole of Germany hundreds and thousands of men have been sent to their last account in the sacred but polluted name of religious uniformity."
  The next point to which he would refer was one which had caused an immense deal of agitation in Ireland. Whoever had lived in that country, as he had done for some winters in Galway, must know Sir Thomas Burke. He was a real good fellow. He did not suppose there ever was a better fellow than Sir Thomas Burke; but he was abused for using the words "priestly dictation," and what upon that point were the words of Mr. Justice Keogh? "Sir Thomas Burke is traduced for using the words 'priestly dictation.'" Listen to what the Judge says—
  "I, from this bench, having examined the whole of the evidence in this case, I solemnly believe, with more care than I ever did anything before in the whole course of my life (and I now speak from an experience at the bar, on this circuit, where I was long known, and on the bench for now 16 years or 17 years, during which time I have never spared myself—and certainly I have not spared myself in this case, having worked at it 17 or 18 hours a-day since the case closed)—on a full review of the whole evidence, proclaim it to have been not 'priestly dictation,' but the most astounding attempt at ecclesiastical tyranny which the whole history of priestly intolerance presents."
  He should like some hon. Member to rise in that House, and, if possible, make out a better case against Mr. Justice Keogh than had been made out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick on the opening night of the debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman, indeed, must himself have felt that he had made out no case against the learned Judge, and if the opportunity again presented itself to him—as he presumed it would, for the discussion would now in all probability be prolonged for a fortnight or three weeks—he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to do something better in support of the view which he advocated than merely to throw the responsibility on the landlords. He wished now to say a few words with respect to the Press in Ireland. In discussing a question like the present, there was no use in mincing matters,
  792
  and Mr. Justice Keogh pointed out that Sir Thomas Burke had been maligned and slandered by the Irish newspapers in every way which the vocabulary of the foulest literature could suggest. [An hon. GENTLEMAN: Not by the Irish papers.] The hon. Gentleman did not mean to insinuate that it was by the London newspapers? but if there were any doubt on the matter he would give the House one or two samples. He might state in confidence that he had a collection of newspaper articles written during the time he had lived in Ireland, which caused him to deplore, seeing how ably Irishmen could write, the manner in which the Irish Press was conducted. It would be well if it were conducted on the model of the English Press, for it was not well, surely, that it should be employed in slandering men. Only the other day—such a thing could never have happened in England—The Dublin Gazette had been ordered by the Government to warn The Tuam News against the insertion of articles inciting to murder, and there was The Galway Vindicator, an old friend of his, which he looked upon with a very suspicious eye. He might also refer to The Freeman's Journal, from which every hon. Gentleman must have seen extracts in The Times newspaper, containing libels of the most infamous character against the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, because the Government had resolved to institute proceedings against certain of the parties reported by the Judge. The right hon. Baronet concluded as follows:—If ever there was a man during the last 40 years who has insisted upon Parliament undertaking measures for the benefit of Ireland, it is the Prime Minister. I do not believe there has ever been a man in the House or the country who has more earnestly endeavoured to do so much good for Ireland; and yet, because of the action of the Attorney General, this slanderous newspaper Press must attack the Prime Minister in the way it does. It is these articles, it is this Press—this slanderous Press—which I know, from my own official connection with Ireland, works incalculable ill in that country. I recollect the difficulty we always had in dealing with this rebel Press. ["Question."] "Question!" Why, it is the Question; and that very observation of "Question" makes me rejoice that I

  793
  have brought the subject before the House; because I am not afraid of bringing a matter of this kind before its attention. I know how dangerous the influence of the Irish Press is for creating disaffection. Only the other day, because I ventured to ask the Government a Question as regards the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, somebody sent me a provincial paper called The Cork Examiner, with an article dated from the House of Commons. Can anything be more indecorous than the system in practice in Irish newspapers—some of them, because I am only alluding to some of them, because there are as upright and honourable papers in Ireland as any in the United Kingdom—but there is The Cork Examiner. That article is dated "House of Commons, 11 o'clock at night." Because I chose to ask a Question the other day, somebody sent a copy of it to me. It attacked me in the vilest manner, because as a Member of Parliament, I had ventured to ask the Government what steps they proposed to take in a matter in which I was interested. I will not trespass any longer on the time and attention of the House. I thank the House for giving me an opportunity of expressing my vindication of the character of the eloquent Judge, who has been so maligned and traduced; and I hope that, at all events, the effect of this Election Petition and Report may lead to a better state of things in Ireland. One more observation—and only one—and what I am about to say I say with all sincerity and earnestness of heart. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick City has recently, with the eloquence with which he is familiar, dilated on the future of Ireland, and in glowing terms he traced the destiny of that country, in the hope that no narrow or illiberal prejudices would disqualify her from filling it. I cordially share in the hope that such may be the case; for it cannot be denied that it is these religious animosities upon political questions—these narrow and illiberal prejudices—which become a source of national weakness, and which degrade religion, love, and charity into what the learned Judge somewhere in his Report called an Aceldama of strife. Let it cease in future, and Ireland will see better days. It has been well said that history records nothing like the power and energy with which Germany is
  794
  welded together—populations professing as they do different creeds; and I am sure that I do but give expression to the universal sentiment of the House when I say that Parliament would rejoice to see the power and energy of the Irish people not marred by transactions and occurrences such as those which now unhappily form the topic of discussion, but presenting as they might so readily do, with all the genius and character of their race, to the eyes of Europe and the world, the spectacle of a harmonious and united state.
  MR. SYNAN *observed that the present painful subject had sprung from the transfer of the trial of petitions against election returns from that House to a single Judge, from whose arbitrary decision upon subjects of fact there is no appeal. Since the time of Wilkes and Lutterell no such outrage on the Constitution has been perpetrated as this. In that case it was done by a packed Parliament; in the present by a Judge whom a reformed Parliament has made omnipotent in this matter. Three great questions arise on this Motion—first, was the conduct of the case by the Judge impartial; second, was his Judgment one becoming the dignity of the Bench, and calculated to serve the administration of justice; and the third was, is the return of a candidate having 600 votes out of 5,000, his act substantially, and can it be constitutionally upheld? The question at the Galway election was not a religious question, it was a social question; it was a question between landlords and tenants on the subject of perpetuity of tenure. Captain Nolan entered into a consent to restore some evicted tenants to the very lands from which he evicted them several years before, and had made that consent and the award under it a rule of one of the Superior Courts. He was therefore the advocate not only of perpetuity of tenure for the future, but for the past; and the very moment he became so, the peasant voters and the priests gathered round his standard. The whole county is set in a flame; the landlords are alarmed—they start to their feet und unite for the purpose of maintaining their political power over their tenants, and stamping out the Portacarron award. Sir Thomas Burke, the chairman, in his speech at the meeting of landlords at Loughrea, on the 13th December, states—"We are

  795
  met—there is disguising it—to prevent Nolan and humbug from coming into the county." In his circular to his tenants demanding their votes he says—"If Nolan's system of restitution be-comes law some of you will have to give up your lands." What does Lord Clonbrock—one of the principal supporters of Mr. Trench—say? "The whole people were in favour of Nolan." What does Mr. Macdonogh say? "If landlords or priests did not interfere, Nolan would have been returned." Mr. Neary says—"The voters were never more unanimous on any subject." Captain Cowan says—"The frieze coats would not have a son of Clancarty." Mr. C. Blake says—"People would not have supported Trench." Some of the landlords at the Loughrea meeting knew the feelings of the people, and, being as much opposed to Nolan and restitution as their Conservative friends, proposed D'Arcy in preference to Trench. Now, here is the key to the whole of this election contest. Nolan and restitution on one side—Nolan and Communism and humbug on the other. It is easy to see what side the priests were obliged to take. Dr. M'Evilly says—"The people were determined that even if the priests were to ask them, they would not vote for Captain Trench." He then is pressed on cross-examination as to the instances, and he says—
  "The Rev. Francis Arthur, of Craughwell, stated to me that some of his people were so indignant with him for his supposed indifference, that they went to some of the neighbouring chapels rather than go to his chapel."
  Father Kilkelly says—"I believe the Archbishop's opinions were founded upon what he conceived to be the opinions of the people." The Rev. Mr. Conway, who has since died, says—"If landlords desist, we will desist." What does Captain Daly, a supporter of Captain Trench, say? "The tenants came to him and said, 'For God's sake, let us off voting for Captain Trench.'"—The alternative was then put to them by landlords of not voting at all. What do the tenants do? They send to the landlord or his agent threatening letters, which they said they received, against remaining at home. Those letters are written at their own instance and are sent to the landlords, because, in the words of one of the witnesses for petitioner—Mellady—"They wished to get up the best ex-
  796
  cuse they could." The questions are 4,639–40–42, page 128. [The hon. Member read the concocted threatening letter.] Now, why do I refer to this evidence? It is to show the extraordinary manner in which the Judge dealt with it. It went to prove conclusively that the voters would not vote for Captain Trench. What does the Judge say to that evidence, and to the argument that he could not give the seat to Captain Trench, inasmuch as the great majority of the electors were hostile to him?—
  "I was saying to myself every now and again, 'What is the value of all this, unless Captain Nolan is going to be unseated?' If Captain Nolan holds the seat, what business of his is it that Captain Trench cannot get it."
  The Judge ought to have known that there was a third party before him, much more important than either Captain Trench or Captain Nolan—that was the county of Galway. It was his duty to become the advocate for that county, and, in the discharge of the duty entrusted to him by this House, to take care that the electors of that county were not disfranchised. He has taken the opposite course. He has disfranchised that county, and he has returned to this House a man who had 600 votes out of 5,000; and this House cannot alter or amend that return. I come now to another question, most material for the Judge to decide, but which he has not decided, or decided against the evidence—I mean the acts of the landlords. On the 5th of December there was a preliminary meeting held in Loughrea, in the rent office of Lord Clanricarde. Lord Clanricarde drove to that meeting, and called on Lord Westmeath and took him with him. The agent, or his nephew, acted as secretary, and, with the aid of Captain Daly, drew up the circular. It was shown to Lord Clanricarde and approved of by him, and was to be sent to gentry only, and the priests and frieze-coated voters were to be excluded. This all appears on the evidence of Mr. Blake, the agent of Lord Clanricarde, and of Captain Daly. The circular stated that Lord Clanricarde would attend the meeting on the 13th. The meeting is held at Loughrea and Lord Clanricarde attends; Sir Thomas Burke, his relative, is in the chair, and tells them they were to keep Nolan and humbug out of the county. Mr. Blake, of Tower Hill, and

  797
  Mr. Redington express themselves in favour of a candidate accepted by priests and people. Sir Thomas Burke replies—"Accepted by the gentry, but not by the priests," and goes on to say that they are met to put down priestly dictation. Captain Daly says that Lord Clanricarde supported Trench, because he started on Liberal principles, and that he would vote the same as Lord Clanricarde. Resolutions are drawn up adopting Captain Trench, and the landlords issue forth to canvass and secure the votes of the tenants for him. Can any man doubt what this organization meant? Will any, except Judge Keogh, doubt that Lord Clanricarde organized that meeting, and by doing so violated the Resolution of this House and was guilty of a breach of the privileges of Parliament? Mr. Justice Keogh falsifies or forgets the evidence in his Judgment, and treats it only as a case of canvassing a few tenants while out shooting. No person denies the legitimate influence of a Peer as a landlord. But when a Peer of Parliament and a Lieutenant of a county gets up a preliminary meeting for the purpose of an election, and holds it in the house of his agent, issues a circular that he would attend a general meeting, and did attend such election meeting, such conduct is a clear violation of the Resolution of this House and of the privileges of the Commons. If it is not, you had better erase this Resolution from your Votes. But the matter does not rest there. Lord Clanricarde issues forth with his agent and canvasses the tenants. Mr. Justice Keogh says he went out shooting. He meets the tenants and canvasses them for Trench; they refuse, and supplicate to be left at home. And Justice Keogh decides that Lord Clanricarde is not guilty of any undue influence, and he does find the Bishops guilty of undue influence for being present when resolutions were passed for adopting Captain Nolan. But what is the conduct of Lord Clanricarde after the election? He takes away his custom from all the shopkeepers he dealt with, including his grocer, his iron merchant, and his baker. He raises the rents of some 12 or 20 tenants from 20 to 60 per cent. and he calls in what is called the dead gale in Ireland—that is, the half-year due the last gale day. How does the Judge treat this? He does so by simply falsifying or forgetting the
  798
  evidence. The Judge says he merely changed his baker. All the facts I have stated are admitted by Lord Clanricarde's agent, and the Judge says Lord Clanricarde changed his baker. I now come to Sir Thomas Burke, who told the priests at the meeting that he would have no selection or dictation by them, although he was always supported by them. Sir Thomas Burke, after presiding, issued the following circular and sent it to all his tenants:—
  "I wish all my tenants who have votes to give them to Captain Trench. He is as good a Liberal as his cousin, Mr. Gregory, your late Member. Give a wise vote now while you can, you may soon be without one. Recollect, when the election is over, you have no one to expect a favour from but your landlord or his agent."
  Does that contain a promise and imply a threat? Is it undue influence? What does Sir Thomas Burke do after the election? He dismisses his bailiff, and withdraws his custom from shopkeepers for not doing as he required. What does the Judge say to that? Does he report Sir Thomas Burke as being guilty of undue influence? He says that this House would consider him the strangest Judge in the world if he did anything of the kind. If that is the opinion of this House, then I must say that the freedom of election has but indifferent guardians. I now come to the case of Mr. Lynch Staunton. He canvassed his tenants, and they refused to vote for Trench. What does he do? He sends a letter to his agent, telling him that tenants would in future get only strict justice from him, and that he would never oblige or convenience them in any way, and that they could go to the priests for favours, and he deprives some of them of turbary. How does the Judge treat all this? He passes a eulogium on Mr. Staunton's ancestry. He sneers at counsel for respondent for pretending to act for public right. He says—
  "That the arguments were arguments in which the parties were not concerned, and that it is extraneous to the rights of the parties; and it is for the Judge to decide whether there is proper ground for such a report."
  He pronounces all these acts not to be undue influence, and he calls it safe, steady, and legitimate influence, while he convicts the Bishops of undue influence for consenting to resolutions supporting Nolan. If this is not using two weights and two measures in the admin-

  799
  istration of justice I do not know what is. But the Judge does not stop there; he not only pronounces a judgment like an advocate, but he conducts the case like an advocate. He cross-examines and brow-beats the witnesses after counsel has done with them. Take his examination of the Rev. Mr. Furlong, at page 660, and did any advocate ever go further in his cross-examination? Then take the admission of evidence—he admits all kinds of evidence—hearsay, and what a party thought. One farmer says another farmer told him that a priest said he would not give a man confession unless he voted for Nolan. The priest denies it, and he believes the hearsay evidence against the priest's oath. Lord Gough says that two tenants told him that one of the Gort priests would not give them absolution if they voted for Trench. The tenants are not produced, and the evidence is admitted. I am as satisfied as I am addressing this House that this was an excuse on the part of the tenants to be let off. I have no hesitation in pronouncing this Judgment as partial, partizan, and unjust towards the electors of Galway, and conducted more in the spirit of an advocate than of a Judge. There may have been evidence to unseat Captain Nolan, but there was much stronger evidence against giving the seat to Captain Trench. Upon all the evidence, he was in no way the elected of the county, but the rejected of the county; and to seat him, and to openly disfranchise the electors of Galway, was such a high-handed act of power and such a flagrant violation of the Constitution as to call for an immediate declaration of this House. I now come to the manner in which the Bishops are treated by this Judgment. The only evidence against the Archbishop is that, at a conference of his priests, on the 27th September, resolutions were passed adopting Captain Nolan; that the Archbishop had made him a promise to support him on his retiring in 1870, and that he performed his promise. Beyond these resolutions, he says that he did not canvass or write to priest or layman on the election, or publish a pastoral, or deliver any word of discourse. He left the whole matter to the free choice of the electors, merely recommending a particular candidate by the resolutions at Tuam. The Judge treats these resolutions as the commence-
  800
  ment of a "combination, to be carried out by illegal agencies," to return Captain Nolan. If the Archbishop of Tuam has the common rights of a British subject, his conduct is so far perfectly legal, and there is not a particle of evidence in the whole case making his conduct illegal. Of course, if the Archbishop of Tuam has not the rights of a British subject, this House can say so. But what is the evidence that this Judge gives us that his conduct was illegal? It appears that Sebastian Nolan, the brother of Captain Nolan, met a man named Peter Blake, on the 4th of November, and in a boasting way told Blake that he had all arrangements made—that he had now all the Bishops—that his brother had two of the best agents in every parish—the parish priest and curate—and that the Archbishop would propose his brother. And this boasting is to bind the Archbishop and Bishop of Galway who did not know the man. I say, if this be evidence against the Bishops, no man is safe; neither his life nor his liberty is worth a day's purchase—it is in the hands of every Judge who violates all rules of evidence. What is the language of this Judge on this evidence?
  "If I wanted anything to satisfy me upon the subject of this inquiry, it is furnished to me by that conversation."
  Are we living in the land where freedom exists—where the laws are a full security for the perfect enjoyment of life, liberty, and property; or are we transported to the tribunals of a Turkish cadi, or of a Russian judge with the knout in his hand; or are we taken back to the times of a Scroggs or a Jeffreys? Sebastian Nolan's conversation with Peter Blake subjects the Archbishop of Tuam to being a party to an illegal combination and to penal servitude for seven years—for that is the elegant language of this Judge. I ask the House to pronounce its condemnation not only of the language used, but of the injury done to the administration of justice in Ireland by such a Judgment. What is the evidence against the Bishop of Galway? Simply, that at a conference of his clergy he presided, when resolutions to support Captain Nolan were adopted. The clergy were not called together for the purpose, but being assembled for a religious conference, after their duties were over, adopted these resolutions. Do the resolutions contain anything illegal? Yes,

  801
  they contain the words "legitimate means," and the Judge laughs at these words, and says they mean illegitimate means. They contain the words that the franchise should be used by each man "according to his conscience," and the Judge laughs at the words, and insinuates that they were used in a sense opposite to their natural meaning, and he sneeringly calls it "the conscience clause." It is very clear that on the Bench at Galway these words had not much weight. You may say to that tribunal—
  "Conscience, avaunt! you threaten here in vain."
  Having got the Bishops together, and having, by the force of his own imagination, made them parties to an illegal organization, he launches forth into a most indecent attack upon priests and Bishops—
  "Talk," he says, "of the French Revolutions having led to horrors, because they did not follow the advice of their priests."
  That is not true.
  "There were profligate priests, there were profligate cures, there were profligate abbes—aye, and there were profligate Bishops."
  Why were these words introduced? Was it not for the purpose of gratuitously insulting the Bishops? And is it to be wondered at if such language has stirred the Catholic mind of Ireland to its depths? Does this House approve of this language, and of the idea contained under it? Does it think that there has been any evidence of profligacy against these eminent and holy men? If there is not—and I challenge its production—I call upon the House to condemn the Judgment. I now come to the priests, and the charges and attacks upon them. The Judge repeatedly states that the meeting of landlords at Loughrea had nothing to do with the action of the clergy. And the Judge is wrong, and partizan here as in every other part of the case. The general meetings that were held and attended by the clergy did not commence until the 19th December—six days after Sir Thomas Burke's challenge that they would have no selection or interference by priests. The priests took up the challenge, and, I admit, used strong and violent figurate language. They seem to have modelled themselves upon the style of the learned Judge. Let any person compare the language of the speeches of
  802
  these gentlemen and that of the learned Judge, and decide for himself which is the more violent, the more indefensible. In my opinion, the Judge has beaten them hollow. But let us remember that these gentlemen spoke on political platforms, where great license is always allowed—and properly allowed—for the sake of freedom of opinion. But the Judge spoke from the Bench, and he has degraded that Bench as no Judge has done since the time of Jeffreys. But I wish to know this—is violent language at the time of an election, no matter from what platform it may be uttered, to be construed as undue influence? And if it is, what becomes of our liberties? We place them in the keeping of one man—perhaps the most politically profligate in the community—and erect the Judges into being the masters of the constituencies of the United Kingdom. I think the words "renegades," "brand of Cain," "black sheep," "political death-knell," may be used in elections or at any time without exposing the utterer to penal servitude for seven years. But if punishment is to be inflicted for the use of violent and hard language, how can the learned Judge escape, whether we judge him by this Judgment or his previous performances in political life? Oh, human folly and inconsistency! why has this Judge been exalted to the highest and most envied station, and these men who imitate his example condemned to be prosecuted as felons? Of that prosecution, I have no fear for the result. I have examined this evidence rather closely, and, with few exceptions, have discovered no evidence of spiritual threats even attempted to be proved. And in the few exceptions it is of so weak, so suspicious, so self-contradictory a character, and so strongly and conclusively contradicted, that, for myself, I have no fears for the result of such prosecutions. Pending them, however, I will not enter on that part of the case. But there is one topic connected with this subject that I cannot pass over, and that is the conversation between Father Coen and Mr. O'Flaherty. [The hon. Member then read the evidence of Mr. O'Flaherty.] Now, what does that evidence come to? It comes to this—that a curate in the wilds of Connemara, at the house of a friend, answers the question of that friend in a loose and general manner, not apparently

  803
  attending to it, and the witness not having taken any notes of the actual words used, which would make all the difference in the case. But what does the answer come to? Simply this—that if a penitent in the Confessional disclosed that he was going to vote, or had voted, against his conscientious opinions and his religious convictions, that the priest would advise just the same as if he did the same under the open voting. What is the language of the Judge? It is that the Roman Catholic clergy—if Father Coen was a representative of them—were going to use the Confessional for the purpose of election intimidation. Is that language warranted? Is the charge against the Catholic clergy warranted? I say it is not. The language did not hear the meaning the Judge put upon it. As a Catholic, he ought to know it; as a Catholic, he ought to know that a priest in the Confessional would not, and dare not, ask about political matters. And he ought to know that if the penitent asked advice in the Confessional, the duty of the priest would be to give it, if it related to moral or religious matters. But the Judge makes Father Coen a representative of the Church, and at the same time calls him an insane disgrace to that Church. Now, I am at loss to know how this poor curate in the mountains could fill both characters. Suppose I wanted to make the Irish Bench responsible for the language of Mr. Justice Keogh, and treated him as a representative of it, what would the Irish Bench say to me? Probably they would complain of my libelling them. I now come to the great constitutional question in this case. Was this Judgment and that pronounced by Mr. Justice Keogh in the Court of Common Pleas—for I deny it to be the Judgment of that Court—according to the law of this land, and can it be constitutionally upheld? Now, I will read the case reserved by Mr. Justice Keogh for the Court of Common Pleas. [The hon. Member read the case reserved.] Now, the House will perceive that that case required an answer to two questions—the first, a question of fact; the second question, a question of law, depending upon the answer to the first question. But the first question could not be answered without hearing the evidence, and the Judges of the Common Pleas had no evidence to hear. How, then, could they answer the ques-
  804
  tion? They answered it because Mr. Justice Keogh gave them the answer. Mr. Justice Morris said ditto to Brother Lawson, and Brother Lawson said ditto to Brother Keogh. I defy them to answer in any other way, and therefore pronounce this Judgment to be the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh. The Chief Justice separated himself from his brothers, and defended his own character and the Constitution at the same time. But what is the effect of the Judgment? It is this—that a candidate who has no chance may serve a number of notices upon some of the voters, stating that his adversary is disqualified, and if he ascertains afterwards that the agents or some of the agents have been guilty of bribery, or of treating or undue influence, he must get the seat and come into this House to represent a constituency that has almost unanimously rejected him. Has any lawyer in the House defended that Judgment? Not one. Has any man in this House defended the manner in which the case was conducted, or the language of this Judgment? Has any Member justified the charges made by this Judge against men against whom, in the opinion of the Government, there is not any evidence whatsoever? Then why should not the House and the Government express their opinion? I can understand the Government moving the Previous Question—or that the decision of the House cannot be taken pending the prosecutions. But I cannot justify their voting against inquiry at all. What! When a Judge speaks with levity of the most sacred rights—when he flings broadcast his slanders and accusations against the most eminent men filling the most sacred offices—when he shows his profound ignorance of the constitutional right of Her Majesty's subjects, and avows and expresses his complete contempt for the franchise of the very men he was sent to protect, is an inquiry refused? Are ecclesiastics who use violent language in the heat of an election contest to be branded as felons by a Judge, while the very man who has set that fatal example has fled into the arms of power as into an asylum, and is now enjoying the emoluments of the highest office the kingdom knows—the wages, perhaps, of his apostacy. However high our veneration for the character of a Judge, can we restrain

  805
  our indignation at beholding that Judge, instead of discharging his duty with the gravity and dignity becoming the Bench, acting with violence, with levity, and with the zeal of a partizan? Will we allow the infamous fabric of Judge-made law in Ireland to be established on the ruins of the constitutional law of the land? If that is to be so, if such doctrines are to receive the deliberate sanction of this House, it is high time for my hon. Friends and myself to withdraw from an unequal contest, and to appeal to the Irish people to defend their franchise against the consequences of such a Judgment.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that although he could not vote for the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), he must say, as an English lawyer, without any sympathy with the Ultramontane party, he thought that the hon. and learned Member had made out a good case against the Judgment of this Judge. No one could defend the language of the Judgment, because it was indefensible. When a Judge called one witness "an obscene monster," when he said of another that "he had never climbed a father's knee or embraced a mother's neck," he stepped out of the path of judicial decency. What would be said if an English or Scotch Judge so delivered himself? Why there would be an outcry from Land's End to John O'Groat's House. If they wanted a parallel for such language they would have to go back to the times of Scroggs and Jeffreys. He had carefully read the Judgment with every prejudice in favour of the learned Judge; but he had risen from its perusal with the conviction that it was the judgment of a partizan—the impassioned tirade of an advocate rather than the calm deliverance of a Judge. In his desire to convict the priests of intimidation he forgot another class of culprits who were more guilty, because they were not ignorant peasants, but highly educated gentlemen—namely, the landlords. He would refer to the words of Sir Thomas Burke, written immediately after the meeting held some time about the 10th or 12th of December. It was said by Sir Thomas Burke to his tenants—"Recollect that when the election is over you have no one to expect any favour from but your landlord or his agent," and the expressions used by his agent were of a
  806
  similar nature. And he was astounded at hearing his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. James) take the part of the landlords. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was far from defending the conduct of the priests; but it should be recollected that intimidation on the part of the landlord begot intimidation on the part of the priests. The whole of the Galway Inquiry pointed to this—that everybody seemed to assume that the unfortunate voter must be intimidated either by the landlord or the priest; and showed that he was a shuttlecock bandied about between the battledore of the landlord and the battledore of the priest. One of the priests told his hearers that if they voted for Captain Trench they were sacrificing their eternal welfare. He believed that there was a certain amount of spiritual intimidation on the part of the Irish priests; and if the Judge had stated in decent, judicial language, that he considered some of their practices illegal on the ground of their using illegal influence he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) should not have had a word to say on the subject; but he wanted to know how their con-duet could justify the seating of Captain Trench. With respect to the decision which had been given, he did not believe there was any legal Member in that House who would have stated that Captain Trench was entitled to the seat. The contest that had been raised was more than a party struggle. It was a contest between the clergy and the laity. It had been said that the question was whether the people of Ireland were to be governed by the priests or by the law. Now, he believed it to be whether the people were to be governed by the priests or by the landlords, and he deplored the raising of such a contest on the part of the Irish people themselves. He could not join in the unqualified approbation that had been expressed by the English Press on this Judgment. For the last four years the Prime Minister had laboured to build up a policy of conciliation towards Ireland by the removal of grievances; but to secure the success of that policy it was necessary that it should be followed by a policy of stern, unflinching, uncompromising justice, which knows no distinction of person. He had nothing to hope or fear from any Roman Catholic vote; indeed, he had many constituents

  807
  to whom the conclusion he had arrived at on the subject might he distasteful. All his feelings and predilections were in favour of the Judge and against the priests; but on such an occasion as that he had but one duty to perform, and that was to give a verdict according to the evidence.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had expressed opinions and arrived at conclusions to which he (the Marquess of Hartington) could not agree. The hon. and learned Member had arrived at these conclusions, it must be generally admitted, from a distinctly Protestant point of view, and not as actuated by any sympathy for the Roman Catholic element of the case. As Chairman of the Parliamentary Elections Committee, he heard a great deal about Irish elections, and it then presented itself forcibly to his mind that the Irish voter was the last person who was expected to have any influence over his own vote, and that it was a struggle between the landlord and the priest as to who should take him to the poll, and he then came to the conclusion that any chance of approaching freedom of election in Ireland could only be found by resorting to the Ballot. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick City (Mr. Butt) had raised an issue of a very important character, which it was very desirable should be decided by a full House and at a time when it was not wearied by a pressure of Public Business. Speeches of great ability had been delivered that night; but nothing material had been added to what was said on a former occasion, and there was no reason why the House should not have come to a decision on the Motion at that time. It was very inexpedient that the debate should be much longer continued, because there was a tendency to diverge into individual cases which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, when he brought forward his Motion, wished to avoid. The opinion of the Government had been already expressed on the subject, and he had nothing to add or take away from it as embodied in the speech of the Attorney General delivered a fortnight ago. They had shown by the course they had resolved to take that the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh was so far to be accepted as impartial, when they were prepared
  808
  to act upon it to a great extent. It was quite impossible that the Government could assent to a Motion implying that the continuance of the Judge on the Bench was to depend on the result of the trials. It was quite possible that the Law Officers of the Crown might fail to satisfy a jury that there were grounds for the conviction of the persons who had been reported; but it did not in the least follow that there was not evidence sufficient before the Judge to induce him to report these persons to that House. He (the Marquess of Hartington) refused to go into the details of the case. The Government had expressed their opinion that there were not grounds before the House for removing the Judge on the only grounds on which he could be removed—wilful and corrupt injustice. If it was not the business of the Government, neither was it the business of hon. Members to discuss the conduct of the Judge in terms which he was afraid to characterize. They had been taunted with not having supported the Judgment more warmly; but it appeared to him that it would be as fatal and prejudicial to the impartiality of the Bench if the learned persons sent there were to look for praise from that House any more than for blame. The consciousness of the right performance of their judicial duties was quite enough, without entitling them to any special recognition or thanks on the part of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had made some observations on the conduct of the Government since the Judgment was delivered which were both erroneous and remarkable. He (the Marquess of Hartington) could not gather, however, how the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had incurred the right hon. Baronet's displeasure. The right hon. Baronet had referred to a Charge delivered by Baron Deasy at Tralee, and wondered that the Government had not replied to that Charge. It was no part of the duty of the Government to indulge in controversy with the Judges of the land on the subject-matter of their charges. But Baron Deasy was not sufficiently informed of the facts. When the Duke of Edinburgh was in Dublin, an effigy of Mr. Justice Keogh was burned at the corner of Sackville Street A State ceremony was going on at the time, and the metropolitan police were

  809
  engaged keeping the route of the procession and in other duties. If it was burned without interference on the part of the police, it was for the very excellent reason that there were no police in the neighbourhood to prevent it. But it occupied only a short time, and on the arrival of the police the mob, which was a small one, had entirely dispersed. This so-called outrage was followed by many attempts of a similar kind, the more serious of which were stopped, and the persons implicated either sentenced to imprisonment, or fined. As to occurrences in other parts of the country much had necessarily been left to the discretion of the magistrates and constabulary officers, and, on the whole, they had dealt with these matters in a firm, satisfactory, and prudent manner. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), attacking the Attorney General for Ireland for the course he had taken in prosecuting persons for undue influence, he might state that the Attorney General only acted on the part of the Government, and that the Government in no way wished to shirk any responsibility that devolved upon them in respect to those prosecutions. They felt that they were simply discharging a duty which the law imposed upon them, and therefore they deserved neither censure nor praise in the matter. In expressing the hope that the debate would be closed that evening, he acknowledged that it was reasonable to expect that a Judgment which had caused so much excitement in Ireland should be the subject of discussion in that House, and it had, he thought, been fairly debated. No doubt, many hon. Members from Ireland sincerely felt that in substance and in form the Judgment of Mr. Keogh was open to very grave objections; but (continued the noble Marquess) I would warn those hon. Members that it is of the greatest importance that their object and intention in bringing forward this Motion should not be misunderstood. The House is quite ready to give them credit for the intention I have attempted to describe; but I think there is some risk in the country of those intentions being misunderstood. I think it is essential it should be positively understood that they are only impugning what is faulty in substance and form of the Judgment, and that they had no intention to uphold in Ire-
  810
  land a system of priestly influence and intimidation. No one will deny—at least no Liberal Member will deny—the great services which have been rendered by the priests in the political struggles which have taken place in that country; and, certainly, they had a perfect right, as individuals, to place themselves at the head of their people, and to lead them in their political struggles, if they thought fit to do so; but, at the same time, they should take care—it is highly necessary that they take care—that they do not use their organization and the great spiritual power which they undoubtedly possess over the people for the purpose of restricting the freedom of election in Ireland. If there is anything of which this House is jealous, it is of organized undue influence or intimidation of any character whatever. The House of late years has set itself resolutely to the suppression of undue influence of every kind. Whether the intimidation be by trades unions or by Roman Catholic Bishops and clergy, or by any clergy whatsoever, Parliament has boldly, and properly so, set its face against anything of the kind. I do not think it is the intention of hon. Members from Ireland to attempt to defend any such system; but I warn them against this—that there is a risk of their intentions being misunderstood, at least in England, and they should therefore guard themselves against an impression of that kind getting abroad.
  MR. JOHN MARTINproceeded to address the House, holding a MS. speech in his hand, to which, amid the impatience and hostility of the House, the hon. Member continuously referred. The following is that part of the manuscript which was "actually spoken:"
  * Mr. Speaker, the question before the House appears to me to be well worthy of the serious attention of hon. Members for many sittings. Several extraordinary circumstances present themselves in connection with this now celebrated Galway Election Judgment. It is remarkable that a Judgment, delivered from the Bench of Justice by one of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland, should excite such passionate indignation among the people of that country that they have publicly burned, hanged, or drowned the effigy of that Judge in perhaps 50 different places. It is remarkable that the Government has thought proper to send that Judge on

  811
  circuit with a pilot engine to clear the way for him on the railroad—with squads of detectives to scour the country all around him—with an imposing military force of horse and foot to mate demonstrations in his front and in his rear as he journeys—and with an imposing constabulary force to occupy the Court when he sits on the Bench of Justice. And it is remarkable that here are Irish Members of this House—men representing the sentiment of a vast majority of the Irish population—to declare that the keeping of Mr. Justice Keogh any longer on the Irish Bench is inconsistent with the interests of the public and the honour of the Queen But this House—if it cared to understand this annoying Irish affair—ought, in the first place, to advert to the fad that this Mr. Justice Keogh was placed on the Irish Bench in despite of the declared wishes of the Irish people, in whose estimation he was not qualified, either by integrity of character or by legal eminence, for the administration of law and justice. And, in the next place, this House—if it cared to form a right opinion—ought to examine and consider the system by which such appointments as that of Mr. Justice Keogh come to be made in Ireland, and by which such scandals as this of the Galway Election Judgment come to be possible. I do not ask this House to imagine the case of an English Judge having delivered from the Bench a virulent tirade against the English clergy and people—of an English Judge having so outraged the feelings of the English people that they were burning his effigy in every county in England—of an English Judge going circuit in England with pilot engine and military force as if in an enemy's country—as if he were a provost-marshal of an invading army, and not a peaceful Judge. This is a free country, and enjoys the Constitution; and therefore such a case cannot occur to shock common sense and common decency in England. I propose to state before the House the main facts and circumstances of this Galway Election and Judgment, as they appear to my own mind—to consider the political aspect of the question—and also to expose, to, some extent, the system of public appointments, and, in particular, of judicial appointments, which prevails in Ireland under the rule introduced there by the Union (as it is called) of
  812
  1800. I shall thus try to contribute to the clear and just comprehension of the question before the House. But, before I begin, I wish to explain that I have no idea of appealing to this Parliament as to a tribunal entitled or competent to pronounce upon this or any other Irish matter. I merely exercise my right as a Member of this House; and for the motives that guide me, I feel responsible only to my own constituents and my own country. It became generally known at the end of last summer that a vacancy was about to be made in the representation of the county Galway. But, owing to circumstances under the control of the Government, the election did not actually take place till February last. Two candidates were then before the electors—Captain Nolan and the hon. Captain Trench. A great majority of the landed proprietors, including the chief titled territorial magnates, had declared for Captain Trench. A great majority of the Catholic clergy had declared for Captain Nolan. As to the tenant-farmers, small shopkeepers, and in general, those classes of the Irish population which have always held patriotic sentiments, they were all enthusiastically for Captain Nolan, and for these reasons—The constitutional policy of trying to elect for Members of Parliament men sharing in the national aspirations of the people had been shortly before adopted and acted on by the franchised peasantry and patriotic classes in Tipperary, Longford, Meath, Westmeath, and Limerick. The Home Rule movement, as it was hoped—and as I still fondly hope—urged on by this policy, would enable the Irish nation to recover its right—of which it had been robbed by the Union Act—without violent revolution or bloodshed. Now, before the adoption of this Home Rule policy, the people of Galway had, for a considerable time, been in the habit of giving their votes at the bidding of the landlords, just as they gave their rents. The return of Members to this Parliament was a matter in which they took little concern, and they were willing to give their landlords the compliment of their votes. They did so all the more readily that, in most cases, kindly relations existed between them and their landlords. But here now were their fellow-countrymen in other parts of Ireland, enthusiastically, against all risks, with the priests or against the priests, voting

  813
  to elect men who might help on the movement for Home Rule, and bring back peace, prosperity, and honour for dear old Ireland. Does any reasonable man doubt that the Catholic peasantry of Galway sympathized with their brethren in the rest of Ireland in that patriotic sentiment? And, moreover, here in Galway was the happy circumstance that whereas, at some other elections, Catholic Bishops and priests had opposed the Home Rule candidate, and Catholic voters had felt bound by duty to their country to vote against the wishes of their priests, in Galway on this occasion all the Catholic clergy were on the patriotic and national side, and at their head the Archbishop of Tuam—revered as a faithful minister of religion, trusted and honoured as a patriot, beloved as no other man living by the Irish race at home and abroad. There was also a personal reason for the strong feeling of the tenant-farmers and the Catholic clergy in favour of their candidate. Captain Nolan had, like great numbers of Irish landlords, evicted several families from his estates. But he had this singular grace and merit—that he repented of his conduct; that he engaged to make restitution to his evicted tenants, as far as could be done without new injustice; and in cases where that could not be so done, to make such compensation as a fair Court of Arbitration should award. This noble conduct of Captain Nolan won for him the admiration and gratitude of the Catholic Irish people; for they love to forgive, and they admire what is noble. And so priests and people were eager to mark their sense of the affair of the Portacarron Award by electing Captain Nolan to be their Parliamentary Representative. [The hon. Member continuously referring to his MS., there were loud cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that though the Rules of the House permitted an hon. Member to refer to notes for the purpose of refreshing his memory, they did not permit him to read a written speech.
  MR. JOHN MARTINsaid, that under these circumstances, he thought he had better sit down; but the circumstances were so grave, and the charges he had to make so onerous that he had thought it right to commit his words to paper, lest he might say anything that might justly give offence to anyone, and that he might strictly confine himself to the facts of the case. The hon. Member
  814
  proceeded:—But, on the other hand, the high territorial aristocracy, and the bulk of the landed gentry, both Protestant and Catholic, regarded the Portacarron Award as a sort of slur on their order; and they were eager to mark their disapproval of such an innovation in the exercise of the rights of property, by preventing the author of it from election for the county. They determined to exert all their influence against the popular candidate, and they were indignant that this threatened rebellion—as they considered it—of the tenant-voters should be countenanced by the Catholic clergy. And so the contest was fierce and bitter; all the more so because of the long postponement of the election. The landlords and their agents and bailiffs endeavoured to persuade the tenants to vote against their own judgment and convictions, in order to keep out the man of the Portacarron Award. The priests encouraged the people to be true to their own convictions, to exercise their constitutional right boldly, and vote for nationality and tenant-right, in spite of danger to their private interests and temptations to corruption. Contested elections are often times of much passion and violence of language, even in this model country of yours. This Irish election was very fiercely contested, and both sides did their best to win. But on the polling-day the candidate of the landlords was defeated by a majority of over 4 to 1. The defeated party, however, would not take their defeat in good humour. They presented a Petition against the man who had been elected by the majority of the voters, and with the notorious sympathy of the mass of the population. And Mr. Justice Keogh was sent to try the Petition. And he did try it, for 57 days, and he then gave judgment—in a very remarkable fashion—that Captain Nolan should be unseated on the ground of undue influence; and that Captain Nolan and three Catholic Bishops, and over 30 Catholic priests, who supported him, should be disfranchised for seven years, as guilty of the alleged undue influence. Now, Sir, what is undue influence? As quoted by Mr. Justice Keogh in his Judgment, it is defined in the Act of Parliament in these words—
  "Every person who shall directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, make use of, or threaten to make use of, any force, violence, or restraint, or inflict or threaten the infliction by himself, or by or through any other

  815
  person, of any injury, damage, harm, or loss, or in any other manner practise intimidation upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of such person having voted at any election; or who shall by abduction, duresse, or any fraudulent device or contrivance, impede, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the franchise of any voter, or shall thereby compel, induce, or prevail upon any voter either to give or to refrain from giving his vote at any election, shall be deemed to have committed the offence of undue influence."
  I am, to be sure, no lawyer; yet it seems to me that any fair-minded man of common sense may interpret those words as the Constitution intends them. To influence a voter to vote against his own wish, against his own judgment, against his own conscientious opinion of what is virtuous, right, and wise for the public good, and to influence him so to vote, or refrain from voting, by threats of injury to his personal interests or promises of reward—to influence a voter to forego the free exercise of his franchise, and, through considerations of reward or punishment, do what he believes to be wrong, or refrain from doing what he believes to be right—that is undue influence, as I understand the meaning of the Act. The principles of law do not allow that any citizen should be forbidden to remonstrate with others against doing what those others themselves feel to be wrong. As the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Matthews) remarked in his speech, the law, striving to make witnesses tell the truth, appeals both to their fears of punishment in this world and their fears of punishment in the world to come. The principles of law leave every citizen free to entreat and command, with all the force of moral authority, against falsehood, against violation of duty, against wickedness. Spiritual intimidation, rightly understood, is the fear of God acting on men's consciences to save them from committing wickedness and to make them repent for having done wickedness. And ministers of religion are false to their sacred duty when they fail to exert the authority of their position—an authority, mark! that has no sanction, no existence, save in the conscience of the person influenced—they are false to their duty, I say, when, remembering that God sees them, they do not warn against evil and encourage to good. Now, far be it from me to pretend that to vote for or against either candidate at this election was, in itself, either bad or good conduct. Those who
  816
  voted conscientiously voted right, whether they voted for Captain Trench or Captain Nolan. But in this election the influence of the Catholic Bishops and clergy was exerted to persuade the voters to vote conscientiously—to save voters from being led to vote or refrain from voting, against their own wish, judgment, and conscience—to save them from undue influence, in short. In all that vast mass of evidence taken by the learned Judge, it is never proved in any single instance that the Bishops or clergy endeavoured to make any man vote against his own judgment and conscience. I deny that the Galway clergy on that occasion did anything in any way to prevent the free and lawful exercise of the franchise by any voter. And I assert, on the contrary, that those efforts for which Mr. Justice Keogh has doomed them to penal servitude, were made to prevent undue influence from prevailing with the voters against their own sense of duty. The tenant-farmers of Galway wished to give their votes for Home Rule and tenant restitution. But they feared and were reluctant to displease their landlords. And in Galway no political occasion had come till now to stir the people's blood to such a pitch that they should stand up to disobey and defy the parties who had long been allowed to have a property in their votes. They needed moral and spiritual support in this new effort of patriotism; and their priests courageously gave them the support of their counsels, their warnings, their earnest sympathy. That, in my judgment, was due influence, legitimate influence, influence such as the spirit of the Constitution justifies and approves. In so long and fierce a contest, of course there was violent language used, and there were intemperate proceedings by individuals on both sides. And anybody, priest or layman, Peer or peasant, who broke the law, is liable to be dealt with by the law. But to me it would seem best to have amnesty on both sides for faults natural to the time, when the time is past. I think, then, that the Judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh in unseating Captain Nolan was wrong in law, and I think the Judgment of Judges Keogh, Lawson, and Morris in seating Captain Trench was wrong in law. Both were clearly against constitutional principle. However, the Irish people are not given to murmur long or loudly against a Judgment once it has been delivered

  817
  from the Bench, merely because they deem it unjust and wrong. And had Mr. Justice Keogh been content to give a Judgment unseating the popular candidate and loading him with the enormous costs—to give that Judgment in decent language and with something of judicial gravity—much as that Judgment affected the patriotic hopes of the Irish people, they would have received it quietly. The Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas was considered more clearly and flagrantly wrong than that of Galway. Yet it has been received quietly, and there is no effigy-burning of Mr. Justice Lawson and Mr. Justice Morris, neither of them having indulged on the Bench in virulent invective and brutal insolence of language. But the furious tirade delivered from the Bench against so many men and things revered by the Catholic Irish people—the poisoned darts aimed by the ermined assailant against the tenderest feelings of the uncorrupted portion of his own race—it is that which has raised the indignation of the Irish people so high. Strange and shocking sights have many a time been seen in Ireland under English rule. But such a spectacle as the right hon. Mr. Justice Keogh, in the spirit of a Red Indian tormenting his captive at the stake, sitting on the Bench of Justice to pronounce John MacHale a criminal, and sentence him to seven years' penal servitude, is one to shock angels as well as Irishmen. That great Prelate, that faithful minister of religion, that most noble old Irishman, denounced as a criminal by Mr. Justice Keogh, demands to be tried—demands to be justified or condemned by the law, upon the charges of Mr. Justice Keogh. I think it is his right to be tried. Will Her Majesty's Government accord to him his right? I have remarked already that Mr. Justice Keogh, at the time of his appointment to the Irish Bench, was not trusted nor respected as a public man in Ireland. On the contrary, his public character was odious to the Irish people, who regarded him as an unprincipled and unscrupulous political trader, and a worthy political confederate of the late right hon. John Sadleir, the distinguished Lord of the Treasury, swindler, and suicide. And it is worth remarking that the Irish Protestant Ascendancy party and the English Conservative party, whose organs at the Press and in Parliament have much to say in praise of
  818
  Mr. Justice Keogh, now that he has been blackguarding the priests from the Bench, by no means praised his appointment to office at the time it was made. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) and the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) had better read for themselves in Hansard for 1853 what was said in Parliament on the subject by the late Lords Derby, Eglinton, and Mayo (then Naas), by the present Chief Justice Whiteside, the present hon. Member for Armagh City (Mr. Vance), and others, when Mr. Justice Keogh received his appointment.
  At this point the displeasure of the House being unmistakeable, the hon. Member sat down.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid: * Nothing but a sense of duty would induce me to present myself to the House at the present time, but that duty I feel to be unavoidable and imperative when I consider the magnitude of the question under consideration as regards Ireland. The aspect of this case, as against Judge Keogh, is entirely changed by the conduct of the Government, who have been several times—since the Judgment impugned has been laid on the Table—asked to state what course they intend to take, and who have avoided a satisfactory answer until, of their own free will, they, on the day but one before the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) came on for discussion, announced their intention of prosecuting one Bishop and 23 priests. That the duty of advising the Government as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a prosecution is compulsorily thrown on the Attorney General for Ireland is true, and I consider it only mere justice in the present state of feverish excitement in Ireland to make the declaration; but the Government are responsible for the action taken by him, and the generous self-sacrifice of an Attorney General mounting the breach will not save them from the consequences, be they good or bad. I ask, why did not the Attorney General make the announcement before my hon. and learned Friend put his Notice of Motion on the Paper? He told us, that with his other duties he could not do so; and, turning to this portion of the House where the Irish Liberal Members sit, he, with an artless tongue, and in that simple and guileless manner for which he is remarkable, assured us that he lost not a moment

  819
  unnecessarily in the matter. Had his apology been offered for making his statement immediately before the discussion on my hon. and learned Friend's Motion came on, I could understand it; that not being so, I can appreciate it at its full value, and in making my estimate the Government shall have credit for the move by which it was sought to check-mate my hon. and learned Friend—a move so admirable that the Prime Minister gave him 24 hours to consider if there was another for him on the board; but my hon. and learned Friend required no time for consideration, and at once put forward a Bishop, one of the uncaptured. It appears to me that the case against Mr. Justice Keogh is not quite understood by the House, notwithstanding the powerful and comprehensive speech of my hon. and learned Friend. We, who conscientiously feel that Mr. Justice Keogh ought no longer to continue to discharge the functions of his high office, have been placed in a position of great disadvantage by the course taken by Her Majesty's Government to which I have already adverted, but still further by their adoption of the most offensive portion of his language as regards the Catholic population of Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend asked for the opinion of the House on the grounds—
  "That Mr. Justice Keogh had acted as a partizan, and had lowered the dignity of the Bench, and shaken the confidence of the people in the administration of justice."
  How has that charge been met by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James), and my hon. and learned Friend the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket)? They say, you have shown no corruption on the part of the Judge; and the hon. and learned Member for Taunton said—"Could the hon. and learned Member for Limerick justify the Motion he had made; a Judge might, he said, be deprived for corruption, but where was the proof of corruption?" and he continued to say—"The question which the House had to determine was, whether the Judge was right or wrong in the Judgment which he had given." I utterly deny that to be the question; there is no appeal from the Judgment to this, nor to any other tribunal; and I, with confidence, assert that the question is that put by my hon.
  820
  and learned Friend the Member for Limerick. To give direct proof of corruption is impossible—that is, the corruption laid to Judge Keogh, for he is not charged with receiving money as a consideration for the Judgment; but there is not a Member in this House who will say that a partizan Judge is not a corrupt Judge, and how is this partizan-ship to be proved otherwise than by his language, and the circumstances by which the whole case is surrounded? I will venture, Sir, to answer not for Galway and Tipperary, but for the whole of Ireland, that 4,000,000 of her inhabitants would, with one voice, proclaim that he was a partizan Judge; that from him they could not expect justice, and that he was unworthy longer to wear that ermine whose purity he had stained. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton put a false issue before the House, when he said the question it had to determine was whether the Judge was right or wrong in the main in the Judgment which he gave. He did so, because he could not meet the question put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England told us—and truly, that this House was not a Court of Appeal against the Judgment of a Judge on Election Petitions, and that in itself would dispose of the issue as put by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton. The plain, naked question upon which the House is called upon to pronounce is—Did Mr. Justice Keogh, in his Judgment, use language unbecoming a Judge, insulting to the great mass of the Irish realm and their Prelates and clergy; did he launch into political and other utterances, topics foreign to the duty he had to discharge; did he so misconduct himself as to lead every rational, unbiassed mind to the conclusion that he was a partizan rather than an impartial Judge; and was such misconduct calculated to raise prejudice against him in the minds of jurors and others who may be called on to aid in the administration of justice, and suspicion in suitors, prosecutors, and prisoners, that he is a Judge full of prejudice and partiality? The inquiry is, perhaps, as grave and serious a one as ever occupied the attention of this House, within the memory of the oldest. It will test the sense of liberality and impartiality of hon. Members representing Great Britain; it will affect the character

  821
  and popularity of the Minister; but, above and beyond all, it will affect the peace and tranquillity, the property, the liberty, nay, the lives of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland; and let me here say to every Gentleman who will vote, exercise it as if the party implicated, instead of being an Irish was an English Judge, who had so insulted the English people. The Judge was a Galway man, born, I believe, in the town of Galway, descended probably from one of those unhappy Munster men who, to the beat of drums, were marched from Clonmel to Con-naught by that cruel monster whom the Judge regards as the greatest Sovereign England ever saw. The fact of the Judge being so intimately connected with Galway, and mixed up with its inhabitants, should have prevented his selection, and, at all events, pointed out to himself the impropriety of his acceptance. We find him, however, seated on the Bench; and for myself I declare that, after a perusal of the voluminous proceedings, I feel utter disgust at the manifest partiality exhibited each day by the Judge—proceedings which, I venture to say, other Judges in Ireland and any Judge in England would have compressed into one of the three parts into which they have been divided. Mr. Justice Keogh's conscience—a word for which he appears to entertain a horror—warned him that his Judgment must be canvassed and examined; because in his manuscript Judgment laid on the Table of the House will be found those words subsequently erased—"I wonder what will they say of the Report of the Galway Election"—words full of meaning, and pregnant evidence that every word and act of his was deliberate and for a purpose; it may be to transmit his memory to posterity as the traducer of the hierarchy and clergy of that creed to which he professes to belong; if so, his object is likely to be fully attained. Let us now investigate a few of those cases in reference to which the Judge used such coarse, violent language, and I will then ask the House, with great confidence, to pronounce with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, that Mr. Justice Keogh did go precisely wrong, and upon partizan grounds. I will take, firstly, the case of the Bishop of Clonfert, which the Judge describes as the most important case of all, as it was the most painful. The charge against the Bishop is, that from the pulpit in the chapel at
  822
  Ballinasloe he used these words—"Anathema, anathema shall be hurled at any person who will not do as I recommend, or as my clergymen direct." The charge is supported by the single testimony of a person named John Carter, who sang in the choir, and as corroboration he swore that Mr. Thomas Carroll, a respectable shopkeeper and land agent, was by his side, who at the moment nodded to him and said—"That is for you, Carter." Now, who is Carter? On his cross-examination he says—
  "I was accused of Fenianism. I was in jail on that charge. The police said that I wanted to seduce two soldiers from their allegiance. That was not the truth. I was five months in jail. I was not tried at the Assizes. My wife went to Lady Clancarty, and she exercised all the influence she possibly could."
  He is asked—"Have you been frequently drunk?" and he answers "Frequently;" and adds—"I do not say 'drunk;' but I took drink in a social way." He says he was dismissed by the nuns, but admits that the Bishop was not aware of it. Mr. Thomas Carroll, who was summoned by the petitioner, but not called by him, was examined on the part of the respondent, and he swore that the Bishop did not use the word anathema, nor anything to the like effect, and that the observation which Carter swore that he, Carroll, had made use of, was never used, nor did anything of the kind occur. The witness described the Bishop as "twisting his ring on his little finger" while speaking; he could not say if it was the episcopal ring. He is then taken up by the Judge and cross-examined on the important point, whether it was on the little finger or the next finger to it the ring was, and it ended by the following question and answer:—"Are you sure it was the small finger?" Answer: "I think—I can swear it was." You will presently see what use the Judge made of the little finger. Now, if the case of the Bishop rested on the evidence to which Shane adverted, is there an impartial jury that ever was empanelled who would leave their box without finding in favour of the Bishop? But the case does not so rest. Mr. O'Shaughnessy, a magistrate for two counties, and a close connection of Lord French's—which I do not put forward as giving him any additional weight as a witness—was examined and gave the following evidence:—

  823
  "I was at Ballinasloe Chapel on the Sunday that the Bishop of Clonfert preached."
  He is asked—
  "Did he say that an anathema should be hurled against anyone who did not do as he and the priests directed?—Most decidedly not, he never said anything or cursed anyone; and he did not convey directly or indirectly that an anathema would be cast or hurled against anyone in connection with the election."
  But there was yet something that might be said by the "great man" who led for the petitioner, or by the second in command, "whose burning words were still ringing in the Judge's ears"—he might say, It is true that the evidence is altogether in favour of the Bishop; but why was he not examined himself? That was not left open. The Bishop was examined, and stated on his oath that it was utterly untrue that he used the words attributed to him, or words of any such import or meaning. I ask the attention of the House to the manner in which Mr. Justice Keogh disposes of the case. Alluding to the evidence of Mr. Carroll, he says—
  "Carroll recollects particularly that the Bishop did not use the words charged, because he saw him twisting his episcopal ring upon his little finger. Well, if I am not mistaken, as every Roman Catholic knows, whoever bends his knee to kiss the episcopal ring, that it is not carried upon the 'little' finger, but on the finger next thereto. Him I do not believe. Carter I do not disbelieve."
  He thus refers to Mr. O'Shaughnessy—
  "O'Shaughnessy, who is so able a man in the magistracy that one county is not enough for him, comes on the table rough and ready, and goes on with the most extraordinary conversation, a sort of trans-Shannonite gibberish!'"
  And thereupon he reports his Lordship as guilty of "undue influence" and as having used "altar denunciations." I implore of you to lay aside your prejudices, which have been excited. Do by the Bishop of Clonfert as you would by the Bishop of London, and I may then appeal with hopeful confidence to your honour, your impartiality, and to that high sense of justice and fair play which has so often characterized the Commons of England, when character and personal liberty were at stake, to join me in pronouncing that Judge Keogh's decision respecting the Bishop of Clonfert was perversely wrong, grossly partial, and the deliberate act of a partizan. And here let me ask what do you
  824
  think—what will the country think—of those high and learned officials, the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for England and Ireland, who counselled and advised Her Majesty's Government that there was sufficient evidence to place this dignitary of the Catholic Church in the dock? I now come to the case of Father Coen, which occupies so large a share of he Judgment, and excited so much prejudice against his order. A gentleman in Her Majesty's service was discussing this Judgment with me, and said—"I consider the evidence of Mr. Coen raised the worst aspect of the case." I said—"What evidence he had of that?" and he answered—"That, where he swore that the Catholic clergy would use the Confessional to maintain their influence in elections under the Ballot." I found it most difficult to get him to believe that he gave no such evidence. Now, what are the facts of that case? Four months before the election—before angry feelings were excited—the Rev. Mr. Coen, an humble curate, met Mr. Bernard O'Flaherty at breakfast at a friend's house, and the question of the Ballot, then pending, was among other topics introduced; and Mr. O'Flaherty, a warm supporter of the sitting Member, said—"I think that some were wicked enough to say that the priests would make use of the Ballot in the Confessional;" and he said they (the priests) would make use of it. He said—"That they thought they would be committing a sin in voting for a wrong man." You will see that the answer as given is quite unintelligible; but the meaning of it is quite clear—namely, that if a voter felt he was voting for a bad man, and made it a matter of conscience, he, as a priest, would advise him. Mr. O'Flaherty protested—whether sincerely or not I do not know, against being called on to detail a casual conversation which had no reference to the Galway Election; counsel for Captain Nolan objected and protested; but the Judge would have it, and the witness was compelled to give it; and on this unintelligible account of a loose conversation, which had no connection with the election, Mr. Justice Keogh designated that clergyman as this "insane disgrace to the Roman Catholic religion," and added—
  "I say that Ministers and the Legislature ought to know that the Roman Catholic clergy (if that Father Coen is a representative of them) mean

  825
  to use the Confessional for the purposes of election intimidation if the Ballot is made the law of the land."
  I ask, was there ever a more unjustifiable imputation than that? Father Coen was not even charged with saying any such thing nor anything like it; but if he did, was it fair to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland to mix them with this breakfast conversation, and endeavour to influence the action of this House on the Ballot Bill then pending? I could expose almost every case as I have those, but it would weary the House; and I now come to the most extraordinary and indefensible part of the Judge's conduct—namely, that on the recriminatory case made by Captain Nolan; but, before I do so, let me say a word or two on the Petition itself, which contained 18 grounds for annulling the election, which the Judge reduced to two—treating and undue influence. The charge of treating the Judge dismissed, and yet he gave full costs against Captain Nolan, contrary to every decision made by every Judge in the United Kingdom in similar cases; and to render his unique Judgment complete and famous, he, with his Brothers Lawson and Morris, gave the seat to the petitioner. The Judgment of the Common Pleas in Ireland has been condemned by every lawyer in Ireland whose opinion is worth having. Influenced by a feeling of high honour, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton condemned it. Is there a lawyer in this House who will stake his professional reputation by standing up to say it was right? I challenge the Law Officers in this House to express their opinions. I take it that the universal condemnation of that Judgment will not surprise anyone in Ireland, where the great legal knowledge, great experience and purity of Chief Justice Monahan is known and appreciated. In conclusion, I maintain that I have made an overwhelming case against Mr. Justice Keogh. I beseech of you to do your duty without favour or affection—that you will, by your votes to-night, prove to the people of Ireland that you are determined to deal with an Irish Judge as you would with an English one. If you do, you will diffuse confidence and gladness through the land. If you do not, you will only give another proof that in this House there is no justice to be had for Ireland.
  SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN: Sir, I stated on a former occasion in the course of this debate that I differed in my views from many who have spoken. I still retain my own views. After a most careful consideration of the whole case and evidence as printed by order of the House, I came to the conclusion that no useful result could follow from the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt); and after an earnest attention to the whole debate, I still adhere to that view—and there then only remains to be considered what course, in my opinion, would be best under present circumstances. It appears to me that the best course for the country for a return to peace and quietness would be that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would withdraw his Motion; that my hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) would withdraw his Amendment; and that the Government would abandon the prosecutions for undue influence and intimidation, and let us hear no more of the whole matter. I shall, briefly as I can, state my reasons for the view I take. Firstly, with regard to the judgment in the case—that is, the legal decision that Captain Nolan was unseated, and that undue influence and intimidation were used to obtain his return, and that certain parties—clergymen and laymen—were guilty of such. That judgment may be right or may be wrong—but right or wrong, we cannot reverse it; we have, by our election laws, made the election Judge both Judge and jury; we cannot reverse the decision, and surely it is folly to spend our time in discussing what we cannot alter. The next phase in the transaction is the decision of the four Judges constituting the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, who decided, on the legal point reserved for their consideration, that Captain Trench should have the seat from which Captain Nolan was unseated. From that decision there is no appeal—it, too, may be right, or may be wrong; but like the first decision, we have no power to reverse it; and again, in my opinion, it is mere waste of time on our part to spend time in discussing what we have no power to alter. We are in this House the makers of laws; we are not the interpreters of law. This finishes my views of the law of the case. We now come to the great casus belli—the

  827
  language of the address of the right hon. Judge Keogh, and on this I believe I speak the opinion of nearly all who have read it—that it was utterly indefensible—and that while excuses may be offered for those who, in the excitement of the election and of party, made use of language which they would not use on calmer reflection, there was very little or no excuse for the Judge who did not preserve dignity of speech on the judgment seat, and who should have maintained himself far above all lower disturbing elements. Not a single Member in this House has adopted or approved the language of the right hon. Judge. What termination beyond this can my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick expect? Nothing more than has already occurred on the night of the adjournment; and surely it is not the part of a good commander to put himself and his troops forward to be twice beaten. And now for my last point of view. In like manner, as I have called my hon. and learned Friends right and left to withdraw their Motions and Amendments, I would ask the Government to withdraw the prosecutions for undue influence and intimidation. There is to be no prosecution for bribery or violence. There has not been a life lost or a bone broken, or a shilling expended in bribery, in the whole of the county of Galway. What good is to come out of these prosecutions? Undue influence was used on every side. If it be proved on one side that a dairyman refused to sell milk to an adverse witness, it will be equally proved on the other side that a landlord refused to buy bread from a baker's boy who voted against his candidate. One of the most serious charges to be tried is that of a clergyman, who, in an excited address, is alleged to have used the word "Anathema" to those who would vote for Captain Trench. Imagine a Galway witness cross-examined before a Judge and jury, browbeaten by counsel on both sides, bewildered, and then sternly asked on virtue of his oath whether the word was "Anathema" or "Anabaptist"—the sermons being half Irish and half English—and all this after the lapse of more than a year; for these trials—24 in number—will not come on until nearly the end of the next Session of Parliament. Heaven only knows when they will be
  828
  terminated. The trial of the Phœnix Park affray at the end of two years shows no sign of termination. Does anyone expect a verdict? I certainly do not; and what is the good of all this? I cannot see any good in it, but I see much evil—the continuance of angry passions and bad feelings throughout the whole country. I am vain enough to think that if the course I have presumed to suggest be approved and followed, good feelings will again return between landlords, priests, and people in Galway. Leave Galway to itself, and all will be friends again—a consummation devoutly to be wished. I think I may fairly infer that the majority of my fellow-Irish Liberal Members share in my view of desiring that in this House the question should now drop, for they have not come here to take any share in this debate. If I am not mistaken in my reckoning, of about 70 Irish Liberal Members there are at least 40 absent. I do not think, however, I can anticipate that either party will adopt my suggestions; but entertaining the views I have expressed, I will not, in justice to myself, vote with either the hon. and learned Member for Limerick or with the Government.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, it was a perfect mockery to debate this question at the present hour, and therefore he moved that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Stacpoole.)
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENurged that hon. Members should allow the debate to be brought to a conclusion.
  MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that for many reasons an adjournment of the debate was undesirable.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he perfectly agreed that it was only reasonable that the debate should now come to a conclusion, because the question was practically settled when it was last before the House. At the same time, he did not exactly approve of the debate terminating in the way it was likely to do; for, in order to give an opportunity to the Irish Members to speak, the grossest injustice had been done to Mr. Justice Keogh, one entire night having been occupied by them in attacking the learned Judge, whilst only one Member, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth

  829
  (Sir Robert Peel), had ventured to give expression to the feelings which he believed were entertained upon the subject by the great majority of the House. Whether Mr. Justice Keogh had been incautious or not in the language he had used, one thing was clear, the learned Judge had rendered a great service to the country in the performance of the duty imposed upon him by the law. The precedent which Judge Keogh had set stood by itself—first, in respect of the gravity of the offence which had been committed by the supporters of Captain Nolan, and upon which the learned Judge had to pronounce his Judgment; and, in the next place, that it was the first time that there had been any idea of instituting a prosecution for intimidation in Ireland. ["No!"] That seemed to be very uncongenial to the assailants of Mr. Justice Keogh. No doubt, it was so. It was the first instance in which a Law Officer had had to face—and had dared to face—the clerical and priestly intimidation of Ireland. In Judge Keogh they had one who had had the courage to do that, and he (Mr. Newdegate) was confident that that House would demonstrate its agreement with that which was the undoubted verdict of the great majority of the nation, and the verdict also, he believed, of the majority of the Irish Representatives in that House, judging by the absence of so many of them on the present occasion. He would only further observe, that he was truly glad that Her Majesty's Government were about to take action upon the Report of the learned Judge.
  Several hon. Members, among them Mr. DIGBY, Mr. CALLAN, Dr. BALL, and Mr. MAGUIRE [see Appendix] continued the debate, amid continued murmurs, and cries of "Adjourn, adjourn!" and "Divide, divide!" At length—
  MR. BUTToffered to withdraw the original Motion, observing that the result would be most unsatisfactory to the people of Ireland, and would not only lead to renewed agitation, but intensify their feelings towards the English Government and Legislature.
  Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned," by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—
  The Tellers reported the numbers as Ayes 23; Noes 125: Majority 102.
  Mr. Adam, one of the Tellers for the Noes, stated that Jonathan Pim, esquire, one of the Members for the city of Dublin, had not voted though he had been in the House when the Question was put.
  Whereupon, Mr. Speaker directed the honourable Member to come to the Table, and asked him whether he had heard the Question put.
  The honourable Member having stated that he had heard the Question put, and having declared himself with the Noes, Mr. Speaker directed his name to be added to the Noes, and declared the numbers to be, Ayes 23; Noes 126: Majority 103.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

  AYES.

  Blennerhassett, R. (Kry.)

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Brady, J.

  O'Conor, D. M.

  Browne, G. E.

  O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir C. M.

  Bryan, G. L.

  Redmond, W. A.

  Callan, P.

  Sherlock, D.

  Delahunty, J.

  Smyth, P. J.

  Digby, K. T.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Downing, M'C.

  Synan, E. J.

  Ennis, J. J.

  White, hon. Colonel C.

  Gray, Sir J.

  Greville-Nugent, hon. G. F.

  TELLERS.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Butt, I.

  Matthews, H.

  Henry, M.

  Munster, W. F.

  House adjourned at Four o'clock in the morning.