Commons Sitting of 15 May 1873

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Callan Schools, appointed; Wild Birds Protection, nominated.
First Report—Juries (Ireland) [No. 210].
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund (£12,000,000).
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Peace Preservation (Ireland) [145].
Committee—Juries* [35]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Shrewsbury School Property* [117–164]; County Authorities (Loans)* [134].

CHARING CROSS AND VICTORIA EMBANKMENT APPROACH BILL.—CONSIDERATION. (By Order.)
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
LORD ELCHOsaid, that when this Bill stood for Consideration on the last occasion he ventured to oppose it, because he thought it desirable that there should be an opportunity given to the Chairman of the Committee which tried

2015
the Bill to state what had been the course taken by the Committee with reference to it. As far as the position of the House was concerned, the House only knew this much—that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, and that that Committee had reported generally in its favour; but from what had appeared in the papers, the Committee seemed to have made some recommendations which were considered by the Metropolitan Board of Works. When the Bill was first brought before the House he had opposed it, and proposed that it should be sent to a hybrid Committee—not with the view of saving Northumberland House, although as a general principle he did not think it advisable in the course of metropolitan improvements that a house of such architectural interest should be swept away. But Northumberland House must of course give way, if necessary, for a real public improvement, like humbler buildings; and all the desire was that a Bill dealing with one of the most important parts of the West-end of the metropolis should be considered in a more formal and satisfactory way than if it was a Railway Bill dealing with some section of a railway in an obscure part of England. The House did not approve his suggestion of a hybrid Committee, and the Bill was remitted to a Committee up-stairs sitting in the ordinary way. And he believed the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Bouverie) had taken evidence whether the scheme was really a metropolitan improvement. Models and plans were laid before the Committee, and the question was more fully gone into than would probably have been the case but for the discussion on his Motion. If, as he gathered from the newspapers, any recommendation had been made by the Committee that these plans should be submitted to the Institute of Architects, that was a step in the right direction, as they might hope yet to see some superintending body in the metropolis acting in union with the First Commissioner of Works, and not in a spirit of jealousy or hostility to the Metropolitan Board, or any other body in the City of London, and to see also that there might be some uniformity of action in all public works which required an appeal to Parliament to enable them to be made. By these means they might guard against such ugly structures
2016
as those at Charing Cross and Cannon Street, and the more ugly railway arches over the great public thoroughfares of the metropolis. If there was such a body acting in concert with the House of Commons they might have some security that acres of space in Kensington Gardens, with fine trees, should not be destroyed by having the trees cut down without the sanction of Parliament, and only by the fiat of the First Commissioner of Works. He did not wish to oppose the Bill in any way.
MR. BOUVERIE,as Chairman of the Select Committee, to which the Bill in question had been referred, wished to state that, with his Colleagues, he had paid great attention to the measure, because they knew there was a strong feeling in favour of the preservation of Northumberland House, as it was one of the few surviving specimens of the ancient princely houses of London. But the evidence which was laid before the Committee was so conclusive as to the importance and desirability of the improvement to be effected by the Bill that, by a majority of 3 to 1, they passed its Preamble. The Committee had had seven different plans submitted to them for forming a new approach to connect the West-end with the Victoria Embankment, and several of the most eminent architects of London were examined. These gentlemen, though they all wished that Northumberland House could be preserved, declared that the scheme would be such an enormous improvement to London generally, and in particular would afford such a convenient approach to the Embankment—which without some such approach would be practically useless—that they had no hesitation in cordially recommending it to the Committee; and, as his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, acting under the Parliamentary guarantee contained in the Thames Embankment Act, refused to part with any portion of his property unless the whole was taken, the Committee saw no course open to them except to pass the Preamble of a Bill which would effect so great an improvement. His Grace the Duke of Northumberland attended before the Committee, and said that though he did not wish to part with the family mansion, he would consent to do so if the public convenience or necessity required it. Therefore, as he had said, the Committee passed the Pre-

2017
amble of the Bill, and at the same time had introduced a clause requiring that the elevation of the new street, which would be one of the finest in London, would be submitted by the Metropolitan Board of Works to the Council of the National Institute of British Architects before being carried out.
COLONEL HOGGthanked the noble Lord for having postponed a Question he intended to put, from Monday till to-day, because it had given the Chairman of the Select Committee the opportunity of proving to the noble Lord that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not entered upon the question of the demolition of Northumberland House without the most careful consideration, and every desire to save the historic monuments of the metropolis. That the Board had acted rightly was abundantly proved by the fact that the Select Committee had had no fewer than seven plans submitted to them; and, after having gone through them most carefully, they decided in favour of the one chosen by the Board. He thought it right to state, on the part of the Board, that they accepted, under protest, Clause 30, by which the plans were to be submitted for the consideration of the Council of the Institute of British Architects. They would not regard the course pursued as a precedent for future legislation in reference to other improvements; but if the Bill were passed the Board would loyally carry out its provisions.
Question, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered; to be read the third time.

CENTRAL ASIA—EXTENSION OF THE RUSSIAN FRONTIER.—QUESTION.
MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement contained in the last number of "Ocean Highways," page 79, is correct that a map has been published in Russia showing that the Russian frontier has been extended to Bujnurd in Khurasan, and that a line of fortified posts up to that place has been occupied by the Russians?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, I have not yet been able to ascertain whether such a map as that mentioned in the extract from Ocean Highways exists in Russia,
2018
as the latest confidential map in the possession of the Foreign Office does not indicate such an extension of frontier or of forts as is referred to in the hon. Member's Question; an inquiry on the subject has been made at St. Petersburg, but the answer has not been received.

DOMINION OF CANADA—TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Acts have not been passed in the Congress of the Dominion, and in the Houses of Assembly in Prince Edward's Island and Newfoundland, giving effect to the provisions of the Treaty of Washington relating to the Fisheries, with the proviso that such Acts should not come into force, until the 1st of July next; whether the Governments of the three above mentioned Dependencies of the Crown did not admit American fishermen to fish during the fishing seasons of 1871 and 1872, and anterior to the above mentioned date; and, whether he could inform the House, that the Government and Congress of the United States have granted the equivalent mentioned in the negotiations, namely, the remission of Duty on fish oil and fish of all kinds entering the United States from the fisheries of the Dominion, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland, during the corresponding period of time and anterior to the date of the 1st of July next?
  MR. KNATCHBULL HUGESSENIt is not correct, Sir, to describe the Acts as having a Proviso that they shall not come into force until the 1st of July next. They are to come into force upon a day to be appointed by a Proclamation of the Government, which day will, however, be the 1st of July, that being the day on which the President of the United States intends to issue his Proclamation under the Act of Congress. The Governments of these three Dependencies of the Crown have determined to admit American fishermen to fish during the present fishing season, and anterior to the above-mentioned date; but the Dominion and Prince Edward's Island did not do so in 1871 and 1872. With respect to the last Question, my hon. Friend will see from the printed Correspondence that the engagement of the

  2019
  United States, mentioned in Mr. Fish's letter of the 8th of May, 1871, only referred to the then present season. There is no question of remission of duties on account of the opening of the fisheries during the season of 1872, which was an entirely spontaneous act on the part of the Government of the Dominion.

  THE TICHBORNE TRIAL—THE QUEEN v. CASTRO.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CONORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Under whose instructions the police on duty in Westminster Hall prevent barristers from passing through the outer door of the Court of Queen's Bench to the Bail Court and the Robing Rooms underneath that Court during the Tichborne trial; whether there is any other entrance provided for barristers who are by these instructions prevented from using the shortest route to the Robing Rooms; and, whether these instructions are consistent with Chief Justice Cockburn's repeated declarations that the Court of Queen's Bench remains during the trial as at other times an open Court?
  MR. BRUCE: I have inquired, Sir, into the Questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman. As to the first and second, I have to state that no such instructions have been issued. But I am informed, as a matter of fact, that when the passage from Westminster Hall into the Court has been especially crowded, barristers without their robes have been requested for their own convenience to go round to the Judges' private entrance, a distance of about 150 yards, and to enter the Robing Rooms by that which is the usual entrance of the great majority of barristers. With respect to the third Question, I have to state that the Court is an open Court in all respects, except that the barristers' benches are reserved for the exclusive use of the Bar, and this state of things is consistent with the Chief Justice's declarations.
  MR. O'CONORobserved that he himself was informed by a policeman on duty that he had strict orders to permit no barristers to pass by that entrance.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS—SUPER-ANNUATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he would state to
  2020
  the House on what grounds the privilege of commuting their pensions has been withdrawn from officers superannuated from the minor establishments of the Revenue Departments; and, whether there is any intention on the part of the Treasury to reconsider the matter?
  MR. BAXTER,in reply, said, that the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that the privilege of commuting their pensions had been withdrawn from the officers superannuated from the minor establishments of the Revenue Departments. Such a privilege had never existed. The operation of the Act 34 & 35 Vict. c. 36, applied only to officers in Her Majesty's Naval or Land Forces, or to persons who had retired or had been removed from public civil offices in consequence of the abolition of their offices, or for the purpose of facilitating improvements, and to whom annual pensions had been granted by way of compensation. Officers coming within the provisions of the Act had been allowed to commute, except in cases where the heads of the Department were unable to certify that there was no definite prospect of re-employment.

  CRIMINAL LAW—GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY—INQUEST ON A GUARD—QUESTION.
  MR. STRAIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a complaint from the relatives of a guard of the name of Poulton, lately in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company, who was killed at the Southgate Station on the 9th of April last, in reference to the coroner's prolonged delay in holding the inquest; whether it is correct that when such inquest was held there was such a scarcity of jurymen that a lad of 17 was sworn on the jury, and that a person who was an eye-witness to the accident to the deceased was not examined; and, whether, having regard to the hurried and imperfect character of the inquiry, the Right honourable Gentleman will allow the inquest to be re-opened and further investigation to take place?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I have received a complaint from the son of the deceased man, dated from Leeds, in which he alleges—

  2021
  "That his father being a guard of a goods train from Peterborough to London on the 9th of April, had to change some waggons at Southgate Station, and having done so gave the signal to the driver to start, tried to get on to the break, and in doing so, missed his hold of the break, fell underneath the waggons, and was killed."
  Information, he added, was sent to the Coroner on the 10th, and on the 12th he had not heard from the Coroner as to when the inquest was to be held. The 11th was Good Friday. On Easter Sunday, the 13th, he called on Dr. Lankester, and urgently requested that an inquest might be held on Easter Monday, instead of Tuesday, the day fixed by the Coroner. The Deputy Coroner consequently consented to go to Southgate on the Monday to hold the inquest. In consequence of the change of day, and the fact of it being a general holiday, there was great difficulty in finding a jury, and a nephew of the deceased, who, it appears, was 17 years of age, but who was six feet high and looked older, was sworn on the jury. The necessary number was, according to the Deputy Coroner's statement, completed after he was sworn. A witness who had seen the accident was sent for, but was absent for a holiday; but three other railway servants, who equally witnessed the accident, gave evidence, and proved that the cause of death was, as it also appears from the son's statement, purely accidental. The verdict of the jury was that the deceased came to his death by failing to catch hold of the rail of the van when trying to get into it after he had himself given the signal for the driver to start. But for the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question I should have thought it superfluous to inform so distinguished a lawyer that a Coroner who has held an inquisition and recorded the verdict cannot hold a second inquisition unless the first be quashed by the Court of Queen's Bench, or a melius inquirendum has been awarded, and he be set in motion by the Court. If he do hold such second inquisition without such authority it will be quashed.

ARMY—MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R SHAWasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Medical Officers desirous of representing their objections to the late Warrant will be per-
  2022
  mitted the same privilege as other Officers of the Army; and, if not, what is the proper course for them to pursue to place before the authorities their objections to the Warrant?
  SIR HENRY STORKS: If any Medical Officer in the Army feels that he has any grievance to complain of he should address a respectful communication to the Director General of the Army Medical Department, who, if he thinks it well founded, will submit it for the consideration of the authorities.

  ARMY—YEOMANRY CAVALRY—HORSE DUTY.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONCKTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the Horse Duty is no longer to be refunded to Officers in the Yeomanry Cavalry as formerly; on what principle, in the case of the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry, the claim for money refunded to the Officers for Horse Duty on May 10th 1872 was disallowed by the War Office in November, in accordance with a War Office Letter dated June 8, 1872, that is nearly a month subsequent to the payment of the money; and, whether he would state what was the nature of that Letter?
  SIR HENRY STORKS,in reply, said, the reason why the duty was no longer to be refunded to Officers was that the Duty was no longer required to be paid. Officers were not now required to take out licences. With regard to the Sherwood Rangers, what had been stated was simply this—that the money should have been reclaimed from the Local Surveyor of Inland Revenue, and that not having been done, it could not be allowed in the War Office accounts.

POST OFFICE—EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW LETTER SORTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MILLERasked the Postmaster General, If he would state to the House the grounds on which the application to him by the letter sorters of the General Post Office, Edinburgh, for an increase of pay has received no answer, while he has at once granted an increase to the letter sorters of the Glasgow Post Office on a similar application made to him?
  MR. MONSELL: In answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to inform him that there was a full and complete Report received from the Glasgow

  2023
  establishment in December last, and it was acted upon in April. From the Edinburgh Post Office no complete, but only a partial Report has been received; and therefore I can only repeat the Answer which I gave to his Question the other day—that until the question can be dealt with altogether, I do not think it expedient to enter upon it.

SPAIN—THE SLOOP "LARK."

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked, Whether any and what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to procure compensation for the owner and other persons affected by the seizure and detention of the "Lark" by the Spanish authorities in Cuba in 1872, and their imprisonment in that island?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENSir, there has been some considerable delay in the matter of the claims upon the Spanish Government made by the owners and passengers of the sloop Lark on the Cuban coast, on account of our requiring to be fully satisfied as to the nature and extent of those claims. I have only this day received the Report of the Governor of Jamaica upon these claims, which leads me to hope that Her Majesty's Government may now be able to take such steps as will bring the matter to a satisfactory solution.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Notice of Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the case of the Callan Schools.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
NATIONAL EDUCATION COMMISSIONERS—THE CALLAN SCHOOLS—DISMISSAL OF REV. ROBERT O'KEEFFE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  The MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONrose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the O'Keeffe case. It would be for the House to consider whether they would choose to enter into a discussion of the matter; but, for his own part, he did not propose to enter into the merits of the controversy; and if, as he hoped, the House would agree to the propriety of an inquiry, it followed that the case was not ripe for discus-
  2024
  sion, but should await a full statement of the facts by the Commissioners, and all other parties interested. Probably the great majority of the House were tolerably well acquainted with the outlines of the case; but without entering into the merits—and he hoped without running any risk of contradiction from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie)—it would be convenient that he should shortly state the facts. In the spring of last year a communication from the Bishop Coadjutor of Ossory apprised the Education Commissioners that the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe had been suspended from his functions as priest of the parish of Callan. On this being read, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald proposed that the communication be acted upon. Mr. Justice Morris moved as an amendment that Mr. O'Keeffe should have an opportunity of knowing the nature of the communication and of offering any explanation which he might deem necessary. The amendment was negatived, the original motion was carried, and in accordance, as was stated by the majority of the Board, with their usual practice, Mr. O'Keeffe was thereupon removed from his office of manager of the schools under the Board, not absolutely, but until the sentence of suspension had been set aside by any competent tribunal. The next step was the appointment of a manager in his place. There were five schools, some of them having a committee, and others not. With regard to the latter, the Board, also acting, as they alleged, in conformity with precedent, appointed the Rev. Mr. Martin—stated by the Bishop of Ossory to be the appointed successor of Mr. O'Keeffe as parish priest—to act as his successor in the management of the schools. With respect to the schools having a committee, a communication was addressed to them, stating that Mr. O'Keeffe had been removed from the management, and requesting that a successor might be appointed. The committee nominated Mr. Martin, and he was confirmed in the appointment by the Commissioners. The Correspondence laid on the Table showed that Mr. Martin entirely failed to obtain access to the schools, or control over the teachers. He was therefore unable to furnish the Returns and other information required by the Board, and, the Board having sent down one of their Inspectors to make inquiries, that In-

  2025
  specter was unable to obtain access to the schools except on one occasion, when he was forcibly ejected by Mr. O'Keeffe. It was quite clear that the regular official communication between the schools and the National Board could not be kept up in that state of things. Many discussions afterwards occurred at the Board, and a great many propositions were made; but it was not necessary at that stage of the proceedings to trouble the House by describing them. The final resolution to which the Board came was, that under the then existing circumstances it could not exercise that due supervision over the schools which was requisite, and therefore they must cease to be treated as National schools. He must now mention what occurred in the House on that subject last year. The removal of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe was the only one of those facts then before the House, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouvorie), on the Report of Supply, moved a reduction of the Vote for National Education in Ireland with the object of calling the attention of the House to the action taken by the Commissioners in that case, and also of censuring that action. The House was not very fully attended at the time. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and he himself took part in the discussion. They stated explicitly that they were then not able entirely to support the action adopted by the Board, or to coincide with the view it had taken of its duty; but believing that it had proceeded in perfect faith, and looking at the great services which it had rendered, they said they thought it was highly inexpedient for the House to pass any censure upon the Commissioners. They further said that as it appeared the case would be brought before a legal tribunal, and as a Court of Law might probably pronounce some decision which would affect the status of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe as parish priest of Callan, they were not prepared then to recommend the Board to reverse the decision it had come to, but to wait for the judgment which might be delivered by a Court of Law, and to take whatever action might then be necessary in reference to the case. That was the position of the Government, and that position they had maintained up to the present time. Well, in that state of facts, the right
  2026
  hon. Member for Kilmarnock having moved for all the Papers and Correspondence relating to the case, had placed on the Journals of the House, a Notice, the effect of which—and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman intended it to have that effect—was a direct Vote of Censure upon the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the course they had pursued in that matter. That Motion was postponed at his (the Marquess of Hartington's) request, pending the production of further Papers, which would be laid on the Table in a very few days, but which would not materially alter the state of the facts as he had just given them. Well, the Commissioners—or a majority of them, at any rate—finding that a Resolution was about to be proposed in that House censuring their conduct, not knowing what the decision of the House might be on that Motion, came to the conclusion that they ought to be afforded some means of stating their own case and being heard, before the House of Commons was asked to agree to such a Motion. The Commissioners felt that, of all the parties concerned in that case, they alone were without any authorized or accredited representative in that Assembly. The Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe was most ably represented, and his interests, he was sure, would be thoroughly taken care of by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The Government might also be supposed to be capable of defending its own action. If Cardinal Cullen could be regarded as a party to that case, he would, no doubt, have advocates in that House to vindicate his share in the matter. It might be well that he should state briefly what the position of the National Board was. No doubt the Board were, to a certain extent, under the control of the Government of the day. They held their offices during pleasure, and if the Government of the day were of opinion that they could not support the policy the Commissioners were pursuing, it was, of course, competent to the Government to resort to the extreme measure of removing them, and appointing others in their stead. To that extent, the Commissioners were a Department under the control of the Government. But the Chief Secretary was not a member of the Board; he had nothing to do with their ordinary administration; he was not aware of what

  2027
  was done by them until after it had been done; and therefore, excepting on important matters of policy, in regard to which a change of system would, of course, be communicated by the Commissioners to the Government of the day, the latter could not be held responsible, and the Chief Secretary could not be deemed in any sense the organ in that House of the Commissioners. Finding themselves, then, in the position he had described, the Commissioners, or the majority of the Commissioners, had agreed to a memorial which he would read to the House verbatim. It was as follows:—
  "The undersigned Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, having regard to the grave misstatements of facts and motives which have been circulated widely with reference to the course they have adopted in the case of the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe, express their earnest wish for a full inquiry before a Parliamentary Committee, as to the circumstances which induced and have followed his dismissal from the position of manager of five National Schools at Callan, and the removal of four of these schools from the roll of the National Board. They desire to be heard before a decision is pronounced on their public conduct; and claim the opportunity of defence as justly due to them, and to the great interests which may be compromised, should error and misrepresentation be permitted to prevail in a controversy vitally affecting the welfare of Ireland."
  That communication was sent to him, and it was signed by an absolute majority, or by 13 out of the whole 20 Commissioners.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXasked what were the names attached to that resolution, and the date on which it was passed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was not a resolution proposed at the Board. He had stated that it was a memorial; but he was quite willing to call it anything that his hon. Friend opposite might wish. It was a communication that had been made through him to the Government, with the intention of being made known to the House, and it was received by him in the course of last week. He would mention by-and-by the names of those by whom it was signed. On receiving that communication the Government thought that when a body such as that asked for an inquiry before their case was decided upon, it was almost, if not absolutely impossible to refuse them the inquiry which they requested. Whatever might
  2028
  be the nature or the functions of a Board whose conduct was sought to be censured, the House, he believed, would hesitate in passing a Vote of Censure upon them before it allowed them to be heard if they asked for that privilege. And when they looked at the character and position of the persons composing the National Board he believed the House would be less inclined to censure them before giving them the opportunity they asked for. In the Amendment to the present Motion which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had placed on the Paper it was implied that all the facts were already in the possession of the House. Well, that might be so. The facts, he admitted, as far as the printed Papers were concerned, were already before the House; but when they came to discuss the merits of that question he was much mistaken if a large number of hon. Members who discussed, and a still larger number of those who voted upon it, would not be more influenced in the decision they came to by the articles they might have read in the newspapers, by the ex parte statements which might have been made on the one side or the other, than by a careful examination of the dry facts contained in the official documents before the House. It would be seen by the memorial which he had read that the Commissioners referred to misstatements which they said had been made, and it could not, he thought, be denied that grave imputations had been cast upon some of their body. It was, in his opinion, quite open to the Commissioners to allege that the public mind had been prejudiced against them, and that they were desirous not only of bringing the facts of the case under the notice of the House, but also of laying before it the grounds on which they had acted. He would read to the House the names of the Commissioners by whom the memorial had been signed, and they were names which he believed would carry with them as great weight as any which could be selected in Ireland. He did not, however, wish to urge that as a reason why the House should give a decision in favour of the Commissioners. He had no doubt that, whatever the weight and position of the majority of them might be, the House, if, after full inquiry, it came to the conclusion that they had acted unjustly or under a

  2029
  wrong impression, would not be deterred from censuring them. When, at the same time, it was found that some of the most respectable men in Ireland asked for inquiry, and when their names were such as to preclude all suspicion of their having been actuated by sectarian or party spirit, the House would, he felt assured, pause before it condemned them before hearing what they had to say in their defence. The names of the 13 Commissioners who had signed the memorial were as follows:—Lord Kildare, who was the senior Commissioner but one of the National Board, and also Chancellor of the Queen's University; Lord Monck, who was one of the Church Temporalities Commissioners; the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas; and the Lord Chief Baron, who were both members of the Senate of the Queen's University; Judge Long field, who was a Protestant, and to some extent a representative of the disestablished Church in Ireland; Mr. Justice Fitzgerald; Rev. Dr. Henry, who was President of the Queen's College at Belfast, who was a Presbyterian minister, mid. a member of the Senate of the Queen's University, and who could not be supposed to be actuated by any strong sectarian views in favour of the Roman Catholics; Mr. Gibson, Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Donegal, who was also a Presbyterian, and who, he believed, sat for some time in that House as Member for Belfast—that gentleman was a member of the Senate of the Queen's University, and placed upon the Commission for the purpose of representing the interests of the Presbyterian Church; Mr. Lentaigne, Inspector General of Prisons; Mr. J. O'Hagan, Mr. J. A. Dease, and Mr. P. J. Keenan. He had not read those names to the House because of the weight of authority which they might command, but because he thought it would be altogether unprecedented in the history of the House if it were to condemn such a body without inquiry. There was another consideration to which he also wished to call attention. The House was perfectly aware of the great services which had been rendered to the cause of education by the National Board in Ireland. The Board had been in existence for more than 40 years, and they had carried into execution the great scheme of National Education which
  2030
  had been proposed by the late Lord Derby—perhaps not in accordance with the wishes of all parties, but with singular success. Under their administration the schools of the National Board had been scattered over the whole of Ireland in the most populous as well as the most remote districts, and in those which were Protestant as well as those which were purely Roman Catholic, they had been successful in enlisting the willing co-operation of the Roman Catholic clergy, and more recently of the clergy of the Protestant and Presbyterian persuasions. That, he maintained, was a very great measure of success consequent on their administration. It was idle for him to disguise that the rejection of the Motion which he was about to make, and the passing of a Vote of Censure on the Board would lead to its immediate disruption. That, however, he did not mean to urge as a reason why the House should not ultimately pronounce such a decision as it might deem right upon their conduct. Whatever might be the disadvantage attending the disruption of the Board, the House would, of course, if it were of opinion that they had acted unjustly, not hesitate as to the opinion which it should pronounce. At the same time the disruption of the Board and the termination of the present system of National Education in Ireland was no light matter and any resolution leading to that result the House would, he had no doubt, adopt with great regret. He did not mean to say that the system of united education might not be carried out under some other administration; but if the Board were censured without inquiry the House must not shirk the consequences of their disruption and the destruction of the national system of education, which for a period of 40 years had been conducted with great success. In conclusion, he would remind the House that it would labour under a very mistaken impression if it were to suppose that the disruption of the Board would be a severe blow against the powerful influence of what was known as the Ultramontane party in Ireland. That party had never looked favourably on the system of National Education. From its very foundation up to the present moment it had been denounced by Dr. M'Hale, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, and nothing, he believed, would

  2031
  give that Prelate greater pleasure than to hear that the National Board had been condemned. Cardinal Cullen, too, could not, he thought, be claimed as a supporter by the advocates of that system. The fact was that those who were in favour of it were the moderate Roman Catholics in Ireland. The Protestants, who had held back from it for a time, had also become its adherents; and, under those circumstances, it was clear that it was to the Ultramontane party that encouragement would be given if that House were by its vote to destroy the National Board. It was a mistake, he might add, to suppose that the Motion which he was about to make was intended for the purpose of delay. All that the Commission asked for was to be heard, and it could not take the proposed Committee a very long time to hear what the majority and the minority of the body had to say. It was possible, also, that Mr. O'Keeffe might wish to be examined before the Committee, and that a few witnesses would have to be called with reference to matters of rule and practice. It was quite impossible, however, that the investigation could be so protracted as to prevent his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock from bringing forward his Motion at a later period of the Session. Besides, he had the authority of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government for saying that if there were any difficulty in obtaining a day for the discussion of that Motion the Government would take care that one should be provided. He would merely observe further that he could hardly suppose the House would reject the proposal which he had to make, which really was one the acceptance of which was a matter of pure fairness and justice to the Commissioners. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the appointment of the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report to the House the circumstances of the dismissal by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, of the Reverend Robert O'Keeffe from the office of Manager of the Callan Male, Female, and Infant National Schools, and the Newtown and Coolagh National Schools, by their Order the 23rd day of April 1872, and of the removal of the said Schools from the Roll of National Schools by their Order the 7th day of January 1873."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. BOUVERIE,in rising to move, as an Amendment—
  "That this House, having partly already before it, and having partly ordered to be laid before it, Copies of all Minutes and Proceedings, and of all Correspondence of the Board of National Education in Ireland, relating to the Schools at Callan or to the Reverend Robert O'Keeffe, do pass to the Orders of the Day,"
  said, that the statement of the noble Lord was characterized by his usual candour and fairness, both with respect to this and his (Mr. Bouverie's) Motion for a future day. The noble Lord alleged that the effect of his present Amendment and of the Motion which stood in his name for a future day, would, if carried, be to destroy the national system of education in Ireland—which was an alarming prospect to hold out. That allegation might have well been made as an argument in answer to his Motion of Tuesday next, but it was no reply to the Amendment he was about to move. He wished to deny at the outset that in moving this Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord he had any sectarian or party feeling in this matter, and no one would regret more than he should if such feelings were imported into this question. Indeed, it was most unnecessary, because the division list of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland on the Resolutions submitted to their consideration, and also the Papers, showed the question was not one of religious feeling or of a sectarian character. His noble Friend spoke of his being the representative of Mr. O'Keeffe. He could assure the noble Lord that he stood there not as the representative of any person, sect, or party, but solely in the interests of justice, equity, and public prudence. It was not a Protestant gentleman who had first brought this question under his notice, but a distinguished Roman Catholic, who had asked him to look over the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe's Petition to the House and see whether it was correctly drawn up according to the forms of the House. Having read through the Petition be had been led to look into the Papers connected with the case, and the result had been that he had come to the conclusion that the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, distinguished as they were, and worthy of all commendation in their personal character, had, in this instance, been guilty of an incredible

  2033
  amount of injustice and imprudence. Turning to the immediate question before the House, he complained of the manner in which the noble Lord had treated him in this matter by taking a step which was not in accordance with the usual practice of the House. His Amendment was somewhat old in its form, which was now very rarely used; but it had the great advantage of permit-tin the House to put aside a Motion as ill-timed without expressing any opinion whatever on its merits. In support of the propriety of the course he had taken in making such a Motion, he begged to quote the authority of Lord Eversley, who had expressed surprise to him on more than one occasion that it was not more frequently resorted to, as it afforded an admirable mode of dealing by way of postponement with a question upon which the House was anxious not to express any decided opinion. He was satisfied that he could not be accused of laches in this matter. He brought the subject before the House last year, and the statement of facts he then ventured to make was of so convincing a character that neither the noble Lord nor the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government were able to face it, but contented themselves with merely appealing to the House not to destroy the Commission by voting for the Motion he then proposed. Since that time other transactions in connection with this matter had occurred, which he proposed to narrate to the House—although the noble Marquess had entirely passed over them. On the 7th of February, the very day after Parliament had re-assembled for the present Session, he moved for Returns of all the Papers connected with the case. Those Returns were not laid upon the Table of the House until March, and then a considerable time elapsed before they were printed and placed in the hands of hon. Members. On the 22nd of April he gave Notice of his intention to bring this subject forward on the 20th of May, and on the 8th of May the noble Lord, who up to that time had evinced no desire whatever of instituting any inquiry into the matter—and, indeed, he said he thought that everything that could be inquired into in relation to it was fully before the House—came down and gave Notice of this Motion, which was in point of fact an Amendment upon his (Mr. Bouverie's)
  2034
  Motion which amounted to a Vote of Censure upon the Commissioners, and which stood upon the Paper in his name for the 20th instant. Although he had had considerable experience in that House, he could not recollect any instance of a Motion of this kind being dealt with in this way by those having charge of the Business of that House. He did not think that the noble Marquess had intentionally brought forward his Motion to-night in order to put aside his Motion on Tuesday, but that would be its effect at all events. Perhaps the House would allow him to observe that the effect of this Motion upon his own was this—that while it was in truth an Amendment to his Motion the forms of the House would prevent him from bringing forward his own Motion as an Amendment to the noble Lord's. In fact, he was quite precluded from bringing forward his own Motion before the day he had intended, because the Papers in relation to the case upon which it was founded, and which the noble Lord had promised to lay upon the Table of the House had not yet been presented.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONobserved, that the Papers to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded had been presented.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, if that were the case they must have been presented within the last 24 hours, and that if they had got into the possession of the public Press they had not yet reached the hands of hon. Members. By the course he had thought fit to take, the noble Lord had gained a great advantage over him. He was not familiar like his noble Friend with the sport at New market; but he had heard that occasionally a practice was resorted to there which was called "roping," and he had an idea that it consisted of driving an adversary's horse against the ropes so as to spoil its chance of winning. He rather thought that in the present case he had been "roped,"—quite unintentionally, of course—by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had said that this Motion of his was not intended for purposes of delay. That might be so; but no sensible man could vote for the Motion without feeling that its necessary effect would be to cause delay. The noble Lord had stated that the object of the Select Committee he had moved for was to hear what the 20

  2035
  Commissioners, and what those who were opposed to them, and perhaps what Mr. O'Keeffe himself, had to say in the matter. All he could say was that if the Committee was to enter fully into a dispute between 20 Irish gentlemen and an exasperated Roman Catholic Irish priest, and had to hear them and probably some Irish Members into the bargain, the noble Lord must be a very sanguine man if he thought that this matter would be at an end within a reasonable time before the Session terminated. When a discussion was before the House with respect to Maynooth many years ago, Mr. Vincent Scully, the then Member for Tipperary, after having occupied the whole of a Wednesday afternoon sitting, remarked, when the debate stood adjourned at a quarter to 6 o'clock, that he had then spoken upon four points out of the 12, of which his speech was to consist, and that he would reserve the other eight points for a future debate. Hon. Members might, therefore, judge what probability there was of a controversy of this sort being speedily concluded. What was the meaning of this proposed inquiry? The noble Lord had admitted that the facts of the case were all before the House, and it was upon the facts that the House would be called upon to determine the question. The noble Lord had gone through the facts very briefly; but he would go through them a little more in detail, because they were important. He should commence with the resolution of the Commissioners of the 23rd of April of last year. Mr. O'Keeffe having been suspended by Cardinal Cullen because he had brought an action in Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, the fact of his suspension was communicated to the Irish Board of Education. It also appeared that he had been dismissed from his office as chaplain to the workhouse at Callan. The Commissioners of the Poor Laws in Ireland did what he should have thought all just and rational persons would have done when a charge was made against a man affecting his position and character—they communicated with Mr. O'Keeffe with regard to the announcement that had been made to them, and they asked him what he had to say on the subject. They did not indeed pay much attention to his reply; but the Education Board, not having taken
  2036
  that course, and having dismissed him without any communication, he (Mr. Bouverie) was entitled to assume that if the rev. gentleman had been heard he might have satisfied them that be had good grounds for what he had done, and ought not to have been suspended. Mr. O'Keeffe then had no knowledge of his suspension as manager of these schools until the Board communicated to him that he had been suspended. That suspension was carried by a resolution which the House would, he hoped, allow him to read. It was passed on the 23rd of April. He ought, however, to explain that at the previous fortnightly meeting the minority on the Board had proposed that a communication should be made to Father O'Keeffe that he had been suspended. The matter was thus noticed in the Minutes on the 9th of April—
  "The Right Hon. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald moves—'That the consideration of the Rev. W. Martin's letter be postponed to this day fortnight, and that no reply be given in the meantime.' Lord O'Hagan (the Lord Chancellor) seconds this motion. The Right Hon. Mr. Justice Morris proposes as an amendment' That a copy of the Rev. Mr. Martin's letter be sent to the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe, the present manager of the Callan National Schools.' The Rev. J. H. Jellett, F.T.C.D., seconds this amendment. On a division, the amendment was declared lost by a majority of one."
  On the 23rd of April it was
  "proposed by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and seconded by Lord O'Hagan (Lord Chancellor) that 'the certificate of the Roman Catholic Coadjutor Bishop of Ossory be received and acted on by the Board until the suspension therein mentioned shall have been removed or declared invalid by a competent tribunal.' It was proposed as an amendment by Mr. Justice Morris, and seconded by Mr. Waldron, that—'Before any action should be taken on the letter of the Rev. Mr. Martin to the Board, or on the letter of Dr. Moran, Coadjutor Bishop of Ossory to the Resident Commissioner, the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe get the opportunity of knowing the nature of the application made, and of offering an explanation.'"
  He had had no Irish experience; but he thought that Irishmen were celebrated for their love of justice, and he should have supposed that such a proposal as that of the 9th of April made before any 20 gentlemen in the world would have commanded universal assent, and that before they proceeded to dispossess Mr. O'Keeffe they would have communicated the charge made against him. The Commissioners, however, adopted the resolution of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald,

  2037
  and did as much as was in their power to oust Mr. O'Keeffe. It was a remarkable thing that according to their own rules the Commissioners had no power to remove the manager of a school. They were acting ultra vires, and did what they had no more business to do than if they attempted by resolution to remove the Speaker from the Chair of that House. That was the first act, and he had thought it his duty to bring it under the notice of the House. It ought not to be lost sight of that this resolution of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald's was only carried by a majority of one, and one of these gentlemen was the counsel of Cardinal Cullen in his action against Mr. O'Keeffe. Mr. Martin, who was appointed parish priest in the place of Mr. O'Keeffe, was named manager of the schools by the Board. Mr. O'Keeffe was still recognized by the parishioners as their priest, and was accepted by the parents, children, and teachers as manager of the schools. He could not, however, draw the salaries which were always paid through the manager, and the Board no longer recognized Mr. O'Keeffe as manager. On the 5th of November Mr. Justice Lawson, thinking that the existing state of things was not creditable to the Board, and having been one of the minority, moved to repeal the resolution of April 23rd, but was again defeated. The Board had by the decision of that House obtained a locus pœnitentiœ and this would have been a capital opportunity for the Board, if they had chosen, to repeal their previous resolution. They, however, refused. Mr. Justice Lawson felt that a great hardship was being inflicted upon the teachers and the scholars, and he moved on the 17th of December that the Treasurer should be allowed to pay the teachers directly without the intervention of the manager. The Board, however, by a majority of of 12 to 5, refused to agree to this proposal. The minority were not satisfied, and Mr. Justice Morris, a Roman Catholic gentleman, on the 7th of January again brought forward a resolution that the Callan schools should be allowed to go on under the management of Mr. O'Keeffe. Upon that Mr. Justice Long-field moved to strike the Callan schools altogether off the rolls of the national schools. The latter resolution was carried by 10 to 6, and the result was that because Mr. O'Keeffe refused to
  2038
  allow himself to be denounced as a liar—by his own curate in his own parish church, and because he brought an action against his curate in a Civil Court and recovered damages, and because he was for bringing that action suspended by Cardinal Cullen on Papal authority, that therefore the teachers and children of the Callan schools were to be deprived of all public assistance. This astounding conclusion was another illustration of the old proverb—"That a bad beginning makes a bad ending." But that was not all. It appeared that Mr. Justice Long field, a man of great ability and eminence, wrote a letter to the Board defending the course pursued by the majority, which would appear in the Papers. In this he suggested that the Board might be disposed to take an altered view of the case if an entirely new application were made for admission of the schools on the roll. It was rather an odd thing to English minds—if his Irish Friends would allow him to say so—that disagreements and differences having occurred among the Board, the dissenting minority and some of the majority as well should write letters in order that they might appear on the Minutes of the Board—a proceeding as irregular as if the Members of that House addressed letters to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair about the matters in dispute in the House to be published in their Records. Mr. O'Keeffe thus appeared to have received a hint to present himself de novo to the Board as if he had been a stranger in these transactions, and as if he had started afresh as the manager of these schools, and that then the Commissioners would have to consider whether his schools should be taken on under this fresh application. Mr. O'Keeffe took the hint. An application was made, and an Inspector was sent in the regular way to look at these schools. He reported in their favour, and the Commissioners were bound, under ordinary circumstances, to make him manager of these schools. What did they do On the 29th of April the Board passed a resolution—
  "That the application of the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe for aid to the Newtown and Callan schools be not complied with, inasmuch as he was removed from the management of those schools by our order of the 23rd of April, 1872, until his suspension as parish priest of Callan, mentioned in that order, should have been re-

  2039
  moved or declared invalid by a competent tribunal, and inasmuch as it does not appear that such suspension has been removed or declared invalid by a competent tribunal."
  The Board declared that until his suspension as a priest by Cardinal Cullen had been removed or declared invalid by a competent tribunal, he should not be reinstated. So that this gentleman once tarred with this brush of suspension, became a pariah and an outlaw. The Cardinal had damned him in this life, at any rate. He had no rights—he was not to be treated as a British subject, and when he came in the ordinary and regular way before the Board and asked to be appointed as manager of these schools, the Board told him—"You have been suspended by a competent tribunal—by Cardinal Cullen as the Legate of the Pope—and as long as you are thus suspended we will have nothing to say to you." He was not prepared to allow a body of lay gentlemen, who, as a public body, had the administration of public money to the extent of £500,000 per annum to act in this manner towards parents and children in Ireland. All these facts appeared in the Papers, although the noble Lord had thought it unnecessary to touch upon them, and these were the facts which the House had to decide upon. "Oh but!" said the noble Lord, "we have a memorial from the Commissioners"—not, the House would observe, from the Commission. There was some confusion in the noble Lord's statement upon this point. There might be a memorial from the 13 Commissioners who formed the majority, but not from the Commission, and he was not at this moment asking the House to censure the Commission. The Commissioners made a terrible mistake. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] In his opinion they did make a terrible mistake, because they acted contrary to the first principles of justice. He should not ask the House to censure individuals, but to censure the Board which carried on business and which had a common seal, and the whole proceedings of which must be in writing. How was a Board to be heard viva voce before a Committee? The proceedings of a Board must be entirely a matter of record, must consist of written Minutes, and no one person, or two or three or any number of members of that Board could by any possibility, according to strict Parliamentary
  2040
  practice, speak as the Board. Two or three men, although the most eminent members of the Board, could never be construed to be really the Board itself. If the Board as such wished to make a defence of the Board, his noble Friend, instead of moving for a Committee of Inquiry—which was, in reality, a substitute for the old-fashioned practice of examining persons at the Bar of the House—should have informed those members who had applied to the Government that the only way in which a defence could be made by them was by putting their statement in a Petition from the Board. That would have been the proper course to pursue. He had observed his noble Friend had carefully avoided saying that he was prepared to defend the Commissioners. His noble Friend said they were not represented in the House. But as there had been Ministers of State who were prepared to defend public Boards when they were right, he concluded that his noble Friend was not prepared to defend the Board, believing they were not in the right, although he was willing that an opportunity should be afforded to some of them of being heard before a Committee. But his noble Friend had lost sight of the fact that one of his Colleagues, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was a member of the Board, and that two other members of the Board—Lord Kildare and Lord Monek—were both Peers of Parliament, and at any rate in the other House had the fullest opportunity, if they wished, to state their case and repudiate those statements which it appeared had created so much distress in their mind. When the House was by the admission of his noble Friend in possession of all the facts of the case—and Notice had been given of a Motion of Censure upon the Commissioners arising upon those facts—was it not almost an absurdity to interpose with a Motion to enable a portion of that Board to be heard before a Committee? It did seem extraordinary that these eminent, learned and distinguished gentlemen, who raised such a clamour to be heard because they had been accused in the House of Commons, and in newspapers with which the House had nothing to do, refused absolutely to hear what Father O'Keeffe had to say. Not only did they refuse to let him have an opportunity of being heard, but they would not even give

  2041
  him notice that he was to be dealt with. [Cheers, in which Mr. Gladstone joined.] He was glad he had the assent of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. He knew that he had the judgment and feeling of his right hon. Friend with him on this matter. His right hon. Friend would never have made the speech which he made last year if he at any rate had not been convinced that the Commissioners had committed a most fearful mistake. At the time of the debate on this subject last year, he (Mr. Bouverie) said, that the Commissioners, by treating the suspension as valid "until it was removed by a competent tribunal," were putting themselves in a most terrible dilemma, because the question of the competency of the suspension would come before the Court of Queen's Bench. The Court of Queen's Bench had since decided that the suspension was illegal, and that the jurisdiction which Cardinal Cullen had attempted to exercise over this priest had no foundation in the common or the statute law of this country. Was that a decision by a competent tribunal? What interpretation were the Commissioners going to put upon that? They were in the dilemma of having either to restore Father O'Keeffe in the face of Cardinal Cullen's suspension, or they must insist that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was not worth the paper it was written upon, and they must uphold Cardinal Cullen against the Law Courts of the country. One of the Commissioners, Dr. Henry, had written a letter to the Board, not being himself present when the decision was given, expressing his approbation of the contemplated suspension of Father O'Keeffe, in which he stated that—
  "Mr. O'Keeffe may have appealed to legal tribunals, but that does not alter our position as Commissioners, for it is clear that no legal decision, or any issue that would be sustained in a Court of justice, could reinstate him as parish priest contrary to ecclesiastical jurisdiction."
  If the view which Dr. Henry took of the duty of the Commissioners was correct in the administration of public funds granted by the State, they were subservient serfs of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Cardinal Cullen—of that ecclesiastical jurisdiction which had been decided by the highest criminal authority in Ireland to be utterly illegal. That was really a very grave question, and
  2042
  he wished before he sat down to remind the House that he was not asking them now to decide upon it. He had gone into the facts more fully than the noble Marquess, because he thought it of importance that the House should be in possession of them. The noble Marquess's Motion was simply one which would cause interminable delay, and was not called for by the justice of the case. It was not necessary to hear individual Commissioners for the House to decide whether or not to pass a Vote of Censure upon the acts of the Commission as a body, and if the House was prepared to give the "go-by" to this conduct of the National Education Commission, in the fear that by passing the Vote of Censure he should propose on a future day they would destroy that Commission, all he could say was—and he hoped the House would agree with him—that, if their conduct in the case of Father O'Keeffe was to be taken as an example of the principles upon which they were to conduct their business, and deal as between man and man with the subjects of Her Majesty, the sooner that Commission came to an end the better. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR,. SAUNDERSONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, having partly already before it, and having partly ordered to be laid before it, Copies of all Minutes and Proceedings, and of all Correspondence of the Board of National Education in Ireland, relating to the Schools at Callan or to the Reverend Robert O'Keeffe, do pass to the Orders of the Day,"—(Mr. Bouverie,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. CARDWELLdesired to say a very few words on the question before the House. His right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) told the House, in his concluding sentences, that he did not ask for an immediate judgment upon the main question involved; but in some parts of his speech his right hon. Friend addressed remarks to the House—and in some parts of the House there was a great willingness to receive the observations with applause, if not with excitement—which would have been suitable to an occasion on which they were arguing the main ques-

  2043
  tion. What Her Majesty's Government now said was that they were not prepared to decide the question now, and they claimed for those whose conduct was impugned that fair hearing and that amount of justice which, as far as his experience had gone, was never refused in an assembly of Englishmen, even upon a question of religious excitement. His right hon. Friend had accused, not individual members of the Commission, but the whole Commission of being guilty of injustice, imprudence, and folly, and had stated that they were no longer fit to dispense the public money or to deal with the great questions which came before the Board of Education in Ireland. These were serious charges, and ought not to be decided upon under any circumstances which should leave the decision open afterwards to impeachment or dispute. But under what circumstances did his right hon. Friend ask the House to arrive at a conclusion? He said, in effect, that, as the Commissioners did not allow a hearing to Father O'Keeffe, they, in turn, should have no hearing granted to them; which was to say that in this solemn matter he wished the House to imitate conduct which he himself condemned. His right hon. Friend also said, the Commissioners were no longer fit to perform those duties they had hitherto discharged with such signal benefit to Ireland. Further, his right hon. Friend said—and he could scarcely believe his ears when he heard the words—that as three of the Commissioners—the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Lord Kildare, and Lord Monck—had seats in the other House of Parliament, they had an opportunity of making a Parliamentary defence. It was the first time in his life that he had heard the statement that accusations in the House of Commons were to be answered by speeches in the House of Lords. The question for that House was not what should be done hereafter by the House of Lords, but what the House of Commons should now do. They were bound to proceed with deliberation and fairness, and in order to this it was necessary to take such preliminary steps as should render their judgment indisputable and unimpeachable when it had been arrived at. His right hon. Friend objected to the demand of these 13 gentlemen, because it was not the act of the whole Commission; but did his
  2044
  right hon. Friend forget that it was the demand of all the members of the Commission whose judgment had been assailed? And what was the demand? It set forth that the signataries, Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, having regard to the grave misstatement of facts and motives which had been circulated widely with reference to the course they had adopted in the case of the Rev. Father O'Keeffe, claimed to be heard before a decision was pronounced on their public conduct, and claimed the opportunity of defence so justly due to them, and to the great interest which must be compromised in a controversy so vitally affecting the welfare of Ireland. Would the House refuse this demand, and arrive at a conclusion condemnatory of the conduct of the memorialists before they were clear that they were not acting upon grave misstatements, and in the absence of further information as to what had been done? Such a course had never before been taken by the House of Commons, and he hoped it would not be pursued now. His noble Friend asked the House to appoint a Committee, not for the purpose of delay, but in order that the statements of the Commissioners should be before them before arriving at a judgment on the question involved. It was not right, therefore, now to discuss the merits of the case, and prejudice, by anticipatory appeals to feeling, the solemn judgment which the House must pronounce when all the facts had been brought out, and which should be so formed as to be sound, impartial, and unimpeachable.
  DR. BALLsaid, his reason for opposing the appointment of the Committee was not altogether in accordance with those which had already been assigned either in the House or out of it. Nor did his view of this case agree with much that had been put forward in public discussion, and therefore he rose early in the debate to put before the House what he ventured humbly to submit was the true view of this question. He wished first to clear the subject of one incident which occurred at the commencement, and which was the only matter before the House when he spoke upon it last year. At the time to which he referred the only question before the House was the refusal of Mr. Justice Morris's application that Mr.

  2045
  O'Keeffe be informed that the fact of his suspension had been communicated to the Commissioners, and that he be heard with reference to it. On that occasion he pointed out that the refusal to hear Mr. O'Keeffe might be pregnant with very grave consequences, because it was not a case decided upon the ordinary rules and discipline of the Catholic Church, but one which had been decided in an extraordinary and unusual way. He distinctly declined to adopt the principle that a clergyman, whether of the Catholic or Disestablished Church, was not bound to accept the judgment of his Bishop, who had proper jurisdiction over him. But he pointed out that the Commissioners had shut their eyes to the fact that this decision was no exercise of the ordinary authority of the Bishop of Ossory, but was the act of the Cardinal, Archbishop Cullen, and he had also pointed out—because it was a subject of which he was thoroughly master—that in no church in these realms had an Archbishop original jurisdiction in the diocese of another Bishop, and that the jurisdiction could only be by way of appeal. But how stood the case? The instrument of suspension of Cardinal Cullen commenced by reciting that he had been commissioned, not that he was proceeding by consent, but as special Legate direct from Rome. He had shown that Justice Lawson brought that fact before the Commissioners. He had pointed out that that touched a serious question. Here was an individual taking upon himself to exercise authority—reciting that his authority was not by consent nor by his office as Archbishop but by an instrument giving him special authority direct from a foreign Power—to adjudicate upon the property and upon the rights of a British subject. In the Court of Queen's Bench the Lord Chancellor proceeded to plead that that rescript from "Rome" was legal, and gave Cardinal Cullen authority within the British dominions. Mr. Justice O'Brien, one of the Judges, said it was a legal document; but two Catholic Judges—Justices Barry and Fitzgerald—pronounced the document illegal. Illegality was not, however, the whole of it. This was a document that touched the supremacy, and he challenged the contradiction of the Law Officers of the Crown when he said that whatever touched the supremacy was a misde-
  2046
  meanour in Common Law. Now, let the House see what a hole the Board got themselves into by not asking Mr. O'Keeffe to state his case. The Commissioners had never allowed themselves to be informed of this rescript, or considered whether it was legal or illegal. There were great lawyers on the Board, who, if the matter had been brought before them, might have paused and seen that this was not an ordinary case, and that, therefore, the ordinary precedents did not apply. He had heard it said that a statement he had made to the effect that a person accused should be heard before any proceeding was taken to remove or injuriously affect him applied only to Courts sitting as Courts. On that subject he would quote a recent judgment of Lord Hatherley in a case in which a Board had, as here, removed a person without hearing him. What did Lord Hatherley say?
  "No one would expect to find that such a course had been adopted in any assembly of English people, who were accustomed in some degree to the ordinary principles of justice, although they might hare but a crude idea of its form."
  The Commissioners were, therefore, in exactly the same position as a Judge when proceeding to deal with a man's status, his office, and his duties. There was too much in the discussion about Cardinal Cullen and Father O'Keeffe, as if the whole question at issue related individually to them. For his part, he could not but think that the interests of the children and of the schools imperatively demanded to be considered. What grounds had the Commissioners for saying—"Let this litigation go on between the Cardinal and the Priest? We will wait till it terminates or until the Cardinal has withdrawn his interdict." When would that be? Why, the question on which the Court of Queen's Bench had given judgment would be brought to the Court of Error, and probably be carried to the House of Lords, and during all that protracted litigation were the schools to be closed, the children uncared for, the interests of education neglected? Were the Commissioners during that long interval practically to say that they would not give 6d. to a number of schools which their own Inspector had reported as being conducted with great success and ability? That was what he par-

  2047
  ticularly condemned in the conduct of the Commissioners, and it was a matter which needed no inquiry. Mr. Justice Lawson made a proposal which, had it been accepted, would have redressed the whole matter:—"Let Cardinal Cullen and Mr. O'Keeffe continue their litigation; but let us meanwhile pay the teachers and continue the education of the children." One of the Commissioners had intense scruples on the subject, and said—" Oh, the Treasury would never sanction the payment." Well, they wrote to the Treasury, and, to the credit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were authorized to pay the teachers. Having got that authority, Mr. Justice Lawson saw a way out of the difficulty, and recommended that the teachers should be paid, not through either Father O'Keeffe or the Bishop of Ossory, but through the Inspector, so that the education of the children might be carried on. That proposal was rejected, and the interests of the schools, of the children, and of education were utterly disregarded. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland anxious to maintain the position of the Cardinal—he would be a most ungrateful man if he were not—and the other Commissioners forming the majority—on the part of one of whom, at least, there existed a strong feeling towards Father O'Keeffe—dedined to assent, not manifesting by such a course that interest in education which might be expected from a Board to which was committed the well-being and elevation of the children. He admitted that in ordinary cases rules were to be followed; but it was a true remark of Mr. Burke's with regard to official rules, that there were times when it was dangerous to adhere too strictly to them—when much greater evils might be incurred by not having the manliness and boldness to shape out the course which the circumstances required. The present was a peculiar case. There was no precedent for an Irish priest venturing to come into conflict with a Legate from Rome. There was no precedent for a Roman Catholic priest having the courage to proclaim, as Mr. O'Keeffe had done, that In cœnâa Domini was not the law of England, founding himself upon evidence given by a Roman Catholic Bishop before a Committee of the House of Lords. When a great crisis of that kind arose—when vast interests were at stake
  2048
  —when a conflict touching the supremacy of the Crown on the one hand, and the status and rights of a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic who claimed to exercise a certain jurisdiction as the Pope's Legato on the other, was pending, it was no time for peddling. It was not the ordinary case of a Bishop suspending a curate for downright disobedience to ecclesiastical law and rule. The Commissioners ought to have felt that it was no ordinary case, and in the interests of education have acted as the independent representatives of British protection and British justice. They ought, too, to have remembered that Mr. O'Keeffe had rights in his individual capacity as proprietor of two schools. He was absolute owner of ground and buildings. Suppose a Member of the House of Lords who happened to be a clergyman was involved in some transactions in reference to schools on his private estate, could the Commissioners refuse to deal with him in his capacity of owner because he was also a clergyman? How could they escape from their own rules in reference to that part of the question? They refused to recognize his right as a private owner because he had been suspended as a priest, and because there seemed to be a determination on their part to stand by the assertion of the ecclesiastical supremacy and by the authority of Cardinal Cullen. Was there anything to be gained by the Committee asked for by the noble Lord? They were to inquire and report to the House the circumstances of the dismissal of Father O'Keeffe. Why, there were no circumstances connected with the dismissal but those he had stated. He was dismissed under an instrument in the hands of the Legate from Rome giving authority to that effect. All the resolutions of the Commissioners were founded upon that. They were not asked to inquire whether the rules of the Board were or were not wise—whether in the interest of the children they ought to be altered. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that with the conduct of the Commissioners as individuals they had nothing whatever to do. The question was, whether their final vote, given in their public capacity, was or was not prudent? On that subject what information could they obtain that they had not before them? They had a Paper of great ability by Judge Long field, defending the Commissioners.

  2049
  They had an exhaustive Paper of 40 pages by the Lord Chief Baron, in which was evidenced that regard for minuteness of investigation which characterized him. On the other hand, they had a Paper of three pages by Mr. Justice Lawson. If the Judges were in conflict, would it not be wiser and more seemly that such conflict should be upon paper, and not be extended to viva voce evidence before a Committee? The question had been now open upwards of a year. Paper after Paper had been produced; Notice after Notice had been given. Was it desirable that they should have the Lord Chancellor giving evidence on one side and Mr. Justice Morris on the other? He could conceive no course more likely to produce discord and those feelings which the judicial mind was incapable of entertaining in the serene atmosphere the Judges breathed. The arguments which had been addressed to the House from the Government bench were directed against the Motion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), which was not now before them, and showed no necessity for the inquiry asked for. They went to show how extraordinarily cautious the House ought to be, lest by placing distinguished men under censure they should be driven to resignation. No one was less disposed than he was to say or do anything calculated to lead to such a result. There were in the majority and in the minority on the Board men who were his most intimate personal friends. Could any one believe that, having lived on such terms of intimacy with them as he had, he would be a party to any expression of opinion tending to lead to the resignation of any of them, than which no result was more to be deprecated? But this he said—a great crisis had arisen; it was desirable and necessary that no procrastination should be allowed; that the interest of education should be upheld; and that the question should be taken out of the arena into which they were now sending it—the arena of personal ambition, personal conflict, and personal discord.
  MR. COGANsaid, he regretted that attempts had been made to excite religious fanaticism over this question. He would appeal to the fair play of the House not in a case where grave accusations were preferred against men of the highest eminence, who had been discharging im-
  2050
  portant duties under no ordinary difficulties, to refuse them a hearing on the ground that they had refused to hear Mr. O'Keeffe. He reluctantly refrained from entering on the present occasion into the case and offering, as he believed he could easily do, a conclusive defence of the Commissioners. To do so now would be irrelevant, and beside the question, as were the speeches of his right hon. Friend who had last spoken, and that of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. The question now was, would the House refuse to allow the Commissioners the justice that they claimed as of right, that they should be allowed to state before a Committee of this House the grounds for the course they had taken, and to show that they had acted according to an established rule, as was evidenced by many precedents applied to Catholic and Protestant clerical managers of schools alike, and to show that the adoption of any other rule must tend to the break up of the system? When that Committee reported would be the time to discuss the merits of the case in the House of Commons. Their uniform rule since the establishment of the Board by Lord Derby had been to require in the case of every clergyman, Protestant or Roman Catholic, a recognition of his ecclesiastical status by his superiors, and never to discuss the grounds on which that recognition was withdrawn, and they were obviously unfit to act as a Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical matters. That line had been consistently followed by Archbishop Whateley and others who were not likely to be the "subservient serfs" of Rome, and the Board of Charitable Bequests had a similar rule, while the statutes of Queen's University provided that a Dean of Residence must have the approval of his ecclesiastical superior. The Poor Law Commissioners, moreover, suspended Mr. O'Keeffe from the chaplaincy of the workhouse 11 weeks before the Education Board took action respecting the schools. Irish Members sitting opposite should consider the difficulties which would arise if Parliament insisted on the abandonment of the rule, and the educational anarchy which would result from the destruction of the great fabric which for 40 years had rendered incalculable service. He deeply regretted that his personal friend, Mr. Justice Lawson should have penned

  2051
  serious accusations against his colleagues, imputing to them that they were prejudging questions they might some of them have to try as Judges, and suggesting that they were the mere registrars of Ecclesiastical mandates. They should have known that they were men incapable of being actuated by improper fear or mean motives; and as to the vote of Mr. John O'Hagan, it should be remembered that the resolution of the Board conveyed no opinion on the legality or illegality of the ecclesiastical suspension. Had it done so, as was alleged it ought, the objections as to pre-judging questions which might hereafter come before the Judges, would indeed have some foundation, and of itself alone should be a conclusive proof of the wisdom and necessity of the practice the Board adopted. It was important that the schools should have a manager respected by the people and reverenced by the children, and the responsibility for the educational interdict lay with those who by force and unseemly conduct had prevented the continuance of the schools. He was confident that after calm deliberation by a Committee the House would come to a decision honourable to the Commissioners and conducive to the peace and happiness of Ireland.
  MR. AGAR-ELLISsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), after postponing his Motion at the request of the Government, should not be precluded from bringing it forward by this proposal for a Committee. He hoped English and Scotch Members would give no credit to the threat that the condemnation of the Commissioners would result in their resignation and in the destruction of mixed primary education in Ireland.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, that the document which had been read by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary ought not to carry the slightest weight. It was, in fact, a sneaking document. It had been signed by a certain number of the Commissioners behind the backs of the rest. After the Board had said that it was not necessary to have any further inquiry, the Motion now brought forward was not one that should have any weight with the House. The people of England, represented even as they were in that Parliament, would not allow Cardinal Cullen to govern Ireland.
  MR. NEWDEGATE,who rose amid cries of "Divide," said: I have no intention of detaining the House more than a few minutes; but as Mr. O'Keeffo has written to me I am anxious to say a few words in his favour—although so intense seems the prejudice of some hon. Members that they cannot understand how a Roman Catholic priest could communicate with me. Well, Mr. O'Keeffe has done so, and he has done it for this reason, I suppose—because he knows that I am likely to understand his case. I have a very few words to say, and they are these: let the House remember what they have to decide, whether Mr. O'Keeffe shall be heard before the body of this House—it is to decide. One of our chief functions here is to hear the grievances of Her Majesty's subjects; and Mr. O'Keeffe, as one of Her Majesty's subjects, holding himself to be aggrieved, appeals to the House of Commons to be heard. Her Majesty's Government propose that Mr. O'Keeffe shall not be heard before this House—if at all—until a Committee has heard the case of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. Now I put it to the House, which is the aggrieved party—Mr. O'Keeffe or the Commissioners? And I appeal to the justice of the House not to allow a British subject to be deprived of that right of appeal which is common to Englishmen, because Her Majesty's Government wish to put in a plea in defence of the Commissioners, who have unjustly dealt with this individual. The Government seem to desire to make it appear that they are not responsible for these Commissioners. Have these Commissioners, then, a separate and independent authority of their own? Are they self-existent—independent of the Government of this country? This cannot be so, and I say that Her Majesty's Government have no right to shirk responsibility for the conduct of this Commission. This question has now been before Parliament for more than six months. Last Session we were met with a plea for delay, and the House acceded to that plea. Six, seven, eight, nine months have passed, and again we are asked to delay. What a contrast does the conduct of this House present to that of the Prussian Parliament! We are informed to-day by The Independence Belge that the Prussian Parliament have completed their legislation on this sub-

  2053
  ject, involving as it does the maintenance of the supremacy of the State, which there, as well as here, has been invaded by the intrusive authority of a foreign Pontiff. The day before yesterday the Emperor of Germany signed the new laws for the defence of the State of Prussia against the invasion of his rights and those of his subjects. You have it admitted by Cardinal Cullen himself that he acts here under an authority which your Courts have declared to be illegal. He has used that authority to the injury of a British subject. He has used that authority to remove Mr. O'Keeffe from the possession and management of property which is avowedly his own. Sir, I do trust, when such a grievance as this, when such a manifest defiance of the law, and when such an invasion of the supremacy of the Crown is not only alleged but admitted, that the House of Commons will not shrink from hearing Mr. O'Keeffe.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 131: Majority 28.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into and report to the House the circumstances of the dismissal by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, of the Reverend Robert O'Keeffe from the office of Manager of the Callan Male, Female, and Infant National Schools, and the Newtown and Coolagh National Schools, by their Order the 23rd day of April 1872, and of the removal of the said Schools from the Roll of National Schools by their Order the 7th day of January 1873."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had reason to believe that a large number of Members left the House under a misunderstanding. They did not expect that a division would have been taken as early as it had been. That circumstance he regretted very much; but he rose chiefly for the purpose of asking when the Government proposed to move the nomination of the Committee?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the only answer he could give was that the Government were anxious to prosecute the inquiry with all possible speed. It would be their duty to lose no time in preparing the materials for the nomination of the Committee, and doing everything in their power to expedite its sitting, with a view to an early Report.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: On what day does the right hon. Gentleman propose to nominate the Committee?
  COLONEL STUART KNOX: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also state of what number it is to consist?
  MR, GLADSTONEsaid, it was impossible to name a day for the nomination of the Committee until inquiries had been made as to the Members who were willing to serve upon it; but they would not lose an hour in proceeding with the matter so far as it depended upon them. In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he might state that, in his opinion, a small Committee would be the one best qualified to prosecute this inquiry with despatch.
  MR. BOUVERIEasked whether, when the Committee had reported, the Government would give him, if necessary, a day for bringing the subject before the House in accordance with the promise made by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Most certainly.
  And, on May 22, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. Secretary CARDWELL, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. BOURKE, The O'CONOR DON, Dr. LYON PLAYFAIR, and Mr. Canes;—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL. 145].
  (The Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to continue in operation till June, 1875, the Peace Preservation Act and the Protection of Life and Property Act, which would otherwise expire in June next. These exceptional measures of repression had been very successful in their object, and under their influence crime had greatly decreased in Ireland, although the state of the country was not such as to justify the Government in relying as to the future entirely upon the operation of the ordinary law. The present Act had been passed in 1871, and in Westmeath the number of agrarian offences was in the year preceding 103; in 1871—during a portion of which only the Act had been in operation—they fell to 40; in 1872 to

  2055
  25; and in the present year only 4 outrages had been reported. In Meath, to part of which only the Act extended, the number of those offences was in 1870, 95; in 1871, 16; in 1872, 9; and in the present year, 1. In the King's County, to only a portion of which also the Act applied, the number was in 1870, 38; in 1871, 24; in 1872, 15; and in 1873, 6. The Reports of the police as to murders and attempts at murder showed an almost equally satisfactory decrease. In the county of Westmeath there was a diminution of this class of crime from 11 in 1870 to 2 in the present year. In Meath there was a falling off from 4 in 1870 to 1 in 1872, and no case had been reported this year. The effect of the Peace Preservation Act upon crime in general in Ireland had been equally beneficial. In 1869 there were 767 agrarian outrages recorded; in 1870—including several months of 1869–70 previous to the passing of the Act, when the state of the country had become extremely bad—the number of agrarian outrages reached 1,329; in 1871 they sank to 373, a diminution of nearly 1,000 compared with the previous year; and in 1872 they were 256. A considerable proportion of these outrages consisted of threatening letters or notices, a crime of a most serious character, but one which should be distinguished from cases of actual violence. It would probably be said that these threatening letters were to a great extent fabricated, and he had seen it gravely asserted in a newspaper as a matter of absolute notoriety that a manufactory of threatening letters was maintained by the Government in the county of Westmeath for the purpose of procuring the renewal of these Acts. But statistics extending over a long series of years showed a pretty steady proportion of threatening letters and notices to actual outrages committed. The ordinary proportion was about half, but in times when crime was rife the proportion fell somewhat below one-half; whereas in times like the present, when the number of agrarian outrages was less than usual, the proportion of threatening letters and notices was more than one-half. The maintenance of this proportion showed that the sending of these letters and notices was a symptom not to be disregarded. The Government, then, had to consider whether they would renew
  2056
  the Acts or trust to the ordinary operation of the law. In arriving at the conclusion that they ought to propose the continuance of the Acts they had consulted the local authorities. The grand juries of the counties of Meath, Westmeath, Mayo, and Cavan had passed resolutions strongly recommending the continuance of the Acts for a limited period; and some of the Judges at the Spring Assizes had expressed opinions favourable to the operation of this legislation, and to its continuance for some time longer. The first part of the Peace Preservation Act renewed powers which had been in operation more or less ever since 1847. The principal provision of it was one which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to proclaim certain districts, and prohibit any one in those districts from possessing arms without a licence from the proper authorities. It also empowered the constabulary within proclaimed districts to search for arms; and it enabled the Lord Lieutenant to send to a proclaimed district an additional force of constabulary, charging the cost of that force upon the district. With the exception of the whole county of Tyrone, and parts of the counties of Down and Derry, he was sorry to say that all Ireland was proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act. As far as agrarian crime was concerned, many parts of Ireland might be relieved from the operation of the Act. But, although in this respect there was a great improvement, the Government had reason to believe that the Fenian conspiracy was not altogether dead, though he believed it was never at a lower ebb than at the present moment. Directions had been given to the magistrates to exercise their powers under the Peace Preservation Act with discretion, and only to refuse licences in respect of rifles and revolvers. It was desirable that the power to refuse licences for fire-arms of this description should be retained, in order to prevent unfortunate consequences resulting from armed men taking part in processions or other party demonstrations in the proclaimed districts, although no agrarian crime might have been committed in them for some time. Much good had also resulted from the Lord Lieutenant having the power of closing public-houses between sunset and sunrise in these districts, and from the summary powers given to the

  2057
  magistrates in certain cases. The constabulary were authorized in proclaimed. districts to arrest persons, especially strangers, out between sunset and sunrise who were unable to give a satisfactory account of themselves, and to take them before a magistrate, who was empowered to order them to be imprisoned for a certain time. The Protection of Life and Property Act, which applied especially to the Westmeath district, had also had an excellent effect. How far that Act had been put into operation might be estimated from the fact that since it came into force two years ago 18 persons had been arrested under it, of whom nine had been discharged on certain conditions, the remaining nine only being in confinement. There had been almost unanimous testimony given by the local authorities to the effect that the incarceration of those nine persons had rendered the district peaceable. From the Reports of the local authorities, which were of a confidential nature, and therefore could not be laid upon the Table, it appeared that, although the organization of Ribbonism still existed, it had been utterly and entirely crippled by the operation of the two Acts. At the same time it was pointed out that the measures had not yet been in force for a sufficient time to permanently put an end to the former state of things. The Government had reason to fear that if the pressure under which crime had been kept down in the proclaimed districts were removed, there would be a renewal of crime there. The provisions of the Act respecting newspapers had not been much exercised; but nevertheless their existence had not been altogether without a salutary influence. Although what was called the National Press of Ireland still advocated disunion between the English and Irish people, the instances in which open sedition was preached had been exceedingly rare, and in only two cases had warnings been found necessary. He did not intend to make any alteration in the Act in any respect with regard to newspapers. He did not think the House would be disposed at present to amend Acts of exceptional coercion applied to Ireland, but rather to hope that the time would soon come when this policy of coercion would be entirely abandoned. He should ask the House to renew the Act for two years, which would be certain to carry
  2058
  it over the next General Election, and give the new Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the necessity of its re-enactment. His sincere wish was that the necessity for a further renewal would have then disappeared.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCK,in moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, contrasted the evidence of crime and outrage adduced in 1870 and 1871, before the passing of this measure, with the evidence, or rather lack of evidence, which was adduced now, and contended that the Government were as much bound to justify the renewal of the measure as the original introduction of it. He would remind the House that in 1871 the Government even asked for a Committee to take evidence; that the demand for a Committee was resisted upon the ground that the Government had all the information they desired, and ought at once to proceed to legislate; and that the reply of the Government was that the House ought not to legislate rashly or in a panic. He assumed that the statistics of recent crime now given told the whole story, because if the Government knowingly allowed persons to be at liberty to the danger of life and property they did not discharge their duty, and on that assumption he contended that there was no more crime than could be dealt with by the ordinary administration of the law and without interfering with the liberty of the subject, if only the police, the magistrates, and the country gentlemen exerted themselves. The present Bill was brought forward on the ground that the existing Act would expire on the 1st of June, and unless it was renewed the persons now in prison would be entitled to their discharge. He contended that in a constitutional point of view these men ought not to be imprisoned beyond the period fixed by the Act, and claimed their discharge at the expiration of the term sanctioned by the law. Sufficient ground had not been shown for the detention of these men, and he thought the Government would act wisely in not insisting upon their further detention. The new Act should be left to be applied to its own proper objects.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHseconded the Amendment. One of the chief arguments originally used to induce the House to assent to the Westmeath Act was that it was designed to meet an exceptional state of things, and that its operation would be limited to two years. The late Attorney General for Ireland (Baron Dowse) said in February, 1872, that it would expire in 1873. That statement admitted of but one construction—namely, that the Act would be allowed to die of itself in June, 1873. The intention of the Government at the time was further made manifest by the Act passed at the close of the last Session, entitled the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The Schedules of the Act included the Peace Preservation; but not the Protection of Life and Property Act, otherwise the Westmeath Act. The omission could only be explained on one hypothesis—namely, that it was then the intention of the Government to allow the Act to expire of itself in June, 1873. In fact, nothing could justify the renewal of the Act except an increase of crime in the country, and the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had not shown an increase of crime. He (Mr. Smyth) affirmed that life and property were as secure now in Westmeath as in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. Two days ago, in the City of Limerick, the Lord Lieutenant said, "The state of the country is very satisfactory. Ordinary crime is very low, and agrarian crime has disappeared." Such was the state of circumstances under which it was proposed to renew the most severe coercive Act which was ever passed. He missed from the Returns of the persons arrested under the Westmeath Act several names which appeared in earlier Returns. What had become of those persons? They had not died in prison; they were not at large in Westmeath or any other part of Ireland. The truth was, their prison doors had been opened on condition that they would go to America. What was now the situation? In order to prevent the return of those men, a population of some 150,000 peaceable and industrious people were outlawed, and a hideous wound inflicted on the Constitution, and for the sake of that Constitution itself, and for the sake of liberty, he asked the Government to pause in the course they were pursuing.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Sherlock.)
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the House of Commons had seldom presented a more discreditable spectacle than the one that had been witnessed that evening. The House had been occupied exclusively with the discussion of two Irish subjects. One of them concerned the administration of the education of the people, but it was tinged with a complexion of religious intolerance, and that discussion brought into the House Members from all parts of the kingdom. The House was treated to a scene of tumult such as seldom attended even debates upon the most exciting subjects. After that came on a Bill promoted by the Government, which was to deprive of the benefits of the constitution one-third portion of the United Kingdom; and the House heard from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary the reasons why, in his opinion, these disgraceful acts of coercion should be renewed. He called them disgraceful, because it was humiliating and degrading to the national reputation of the United Kingdom that at this time of day the constitution should be suspended over a great part of the Empire. Nearly all the time his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) was moving his Amendment, and stating the case of the Irish people, the Treasury bench was entirely empty; but when he was drawing to the close of his statement one Member of the Government crept into his place and recognized with a smile the ironical cheers with which he was received. There were at that moment absent from the House not only most of the English and Scotch Members, but he blushed to say the greater part of the Members who represented Irish constituencies also. He maintained that it was a scandal that the debate should have to be conducted under such circumstances, and he could only conclude that the fact of attending debates upon Irish subjects so demoralized hon. Members that they had hardly the courage to lift their voices against the legislation which was proposed. He himself felt it hard to struggle against the coldness, and even the disorder, which at times prevailed when Irish Members rose to speak; but

  2061
  as long as he had a seat in that House he would not lose the opportunity of protesting against the mode in which Irish legislation was carried on, and he would especially protest against the manner in which this debate had been conducted. With regard to the Acts which it was proposed to renew, the Peace Preservation Act was directed against the Fenian conspiracy, which became active at the close of the American war. He asked anyone residing in Ireland whether he believed there was any conspiracy in Ireland now which could give the slightest trouble to the Executive Government? The Westmeath Act, on the other hand, was directed against Ribbonism, which was neither more nor less than trades unionism; and at the time it was passed trade union outrages of great atrocity existed in Sheffield and in other English towns, but no such legislation was proposed as regarded them. But it was useless to ask the House to consider this question upon its merits; for experience had shown that the House of Commons was only too ready to grant these exceptional powers when Ireland was to be the victim. He trusted that some day, upon one side of the House or the other, a statesman would arise who would ask himself seriously—"Cannot I conjure up a public opinion in Ireland?" for it was only by the existence of public opinion that the laws could be rendered effective in any civilized country. The present system of government by the permanent officials of the Castle stifled public opinion and inspired the people with distrust, and as long as it was maintained permanent improvement was hopeless; for neither the responsible classes nor the great mass of the people had any voice in the public service. It should not be surprising that authority was not respected in Ireland when the stipendiary authorities were appointed without any security being taken that they had any knowledge of law. He did not believe that such a system existed or would be tolerated in any other civilized community, whether despotic or democratic, as that which made stipendiary magistrates in Ireland. They were, with some exceptions, either retired officers of the Army or of the Navy, or officers promoted from the constabulary; but there was not one of them that was required to pass any legal examination, or to
  2062
  show that he knew anything of the laws and constitution of the country. They looked for guidance to the authorities in Dublin, and between them a fire of circulars and instructions was perpetually kept up on the true system of centralizing everything at the Castle. Some merriment was caused in the House the other day, during the discussion on the subject of Irish railways, by the statement that there were some 400 railway directors in Ireland, when it was thought 40 would be enough. But why were there these 100 directors? It was because there existed no opportunity in Ireland of gratifying that passion for public service which was a condition of civilization. He believed that if there was in Ireland an opportunity for landed proprietors, and the higher classes of tradesmen, and professional men to take some part in the legislation necessary for their country, a development of public opinion would be the result. If Parliament would seriously set about creating a public opinion in that way by enlisting those classes in the service of the State, instead of concentrating all the Government of the country in the Castle at Dublin, where it was administered by a few paid officials, he believed that very soon we should hear no more of these coercion Acts.
  COLONEL WILSON-PATTENtook exception to that portion of the hon. Member's speech in which he sought to make it appear as if the House made a distinction between the treatment of Irish affairs and the affairs of the other portions of the Empire. As to the thinness of the attendance, that occurred chiefly at the dinner hour, and it must be borne in mind that there were 105 Irish Representatives, so that if there was not a sufficiency of Members present, the fault ought not to be attributed exclusively to the English and Scottish Members. They had been engaged in the discussion of Irish affairs all the evening, and he could state of his own knowledge that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had been employed upon Irish affairs from 12 o'clock that day to the present hour. He objected to the imputation that the affairs of Ireland were of no concern to English Representatives, and deprecated any such comparison. The hon. Member must not suppose that because he intended voting against him that he was,

  2063
  therefore, reckless of what Ireland was subjected to. With regard to the Bill, he had heard with great pleasure the statement of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) as to the improved state of Ireland. Ireland was progressing in prosperity and in, everything which could conduce to the happiness of the country, and he hoped and believed that in a very short time there would be no difference in the legislation for that as compared with other parts of the United Kingdom; but at present there unfortunately existed circumstances which led many of the best friends of Ireland to believe that they were doing a kindness to that country by continuing this exceptional legislation for a further period. It had been shown to be necessary; it had not hitherto been abused, and the Government might be trusted with its continuance for a short time longer. He should give his vote for the second reading of the Bill.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, it was also his intention to support the second reading of the Bill, though by so doing he might expose himself to misrepresentation. No one was more dependent than he was upon popular sympathy; but he was giving no just ground for the charge that he was supporting an encroachment upon the liberties of his countrymen. It was true that the Bill conferred extraordinary powers on the Government, but similar powers were at present in operation by the President of the United States of America. Laws of this nature would from time to time be necessary; but a Government elected by the people could hardly abuse their powers. He believed that there never was in Ireland an Executive to whom the power now sought might be more safely intrusted, and that a resort to oppressive measures was the last thing they desired. The Government possessed sources of information which individuals could not command, and circumstances might arise in the future with which the ordinary law could not grapple. As to the past, he denied that the Bill had abridged the liberties of the Irish people or the freedom of the Irish Press. Socially and politically, the people of Ireland were incomparably freer than at any former period of their history, and this was entirely owing to the reforms carried by Her Majesty's Government. Under the Land Bill the agricultural population
  2064
  had acquired what practically amounted to a partnership in the soil, and according to the hon. Member (Sir John Gray) they were starting upon that partnership with a capital of £70,000,000 or £80,000,000. The well-known industry of the Irish agriculturists would add every day to the amount of that capital, so that the cost of evicting them would become ruinous. Thus the confidence which the Land Bill gave to Ireland was like a new principle of existence; while her political liberties were secured by the Ballot and a fair system of trial by jury. He asserted that the great body of the Irish people would never have known of the passing of the Bill except for a constant clatter kept up by a few newspapers in Dublin. Had any individuals except a little knot of newspaper men complained of it? And did it really abridge the freedom of the Irish Press? In Dublin there were The Freeman, The Daily Press, The Irish Times, and The Mail. But could not they discuss every question as freely as they ever could? And with regard to the papers of Cork and Belfast, and in fact the whole provincial press, could they not act in the same way? They could. The Bill merely affected a class of publications which fortunately were very rare, and were not allowed to appear in any country, not even in America, except under necessary and wholesome restrictions. To describe a Press which pandered to vice as natural and patriotic was an abuse of language. He had no doubt that the Government would in the future, as they had in the past, administer this Bill with discretion, and that the result of it would be conducive to the tranquillity and general welfare of Ireland. For these reasons he should vote for the second reading.
  MR. MUNSTERsaid, he would not attempt to describe the feelings of indignation with which he had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue); and he would appeal to the Irish Members around him to say whether it was true that there had been no complaints of this legislation except from a "little knot of newspaper men." The hon. Gentleman, how-ever, would no doubt meet with his reward to-morrow from those journals which upheld oppressive measures towards Ireland. Only the gravest necessity could justify a Bill which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington)

  2065
  had himself described as "unconstitutional," yet the noble Lord had supported it with only a few statistics and had deprecated discussion. If the Legislature did not take advantage of the moment when there was an absence of crime to allow such an Act to lapse, when could it over be got rid of? No evidence had been adduced to justify the statement in the Preamble that a society or confederation of a secret nature now existed in Westmeath. In the hope that such a measure would never be revived again, or that, if it were ever proposed to renew a Bill which struck at the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based, it would not be discussed before empty benches, he should support the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he believed that if he could succeed in realizing to the minds of Englishmen the real oppression that existed in Ireland, the proposal for renewing these Acts would be received in a very different manner. In 1848 the Ministry of Lord Russell proposed an Act which was called the Crime and Outrage Act, under which the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland was enabled to proclaim any county and institute a search for arms, but with this reservation—that the warrant was to be enforced for only 21 days, and must be executed between 6 o'clock in the morning and 6 in the evening. At that time there was a fearful amount of crime in Ireland. In fact, nothing had existed recently to be compared with it. In 1856 an Act was passed mitigating the penalties under the former measure; but in 1870 the Government introduced a far more stringent Act. Out of the 32 counties of Ireland only one—the county of Tyrone—was exempt from the operation of this Act. Twenty-six whole counties were subject to it, and in five it was partially enforced, so that they had the constitution suspended in nearly the whole of Ireland. The districts under the Act were subject to a domiciliary visit from a policeman at every hour of the night; and the police did thus enter houses on pretence that they were seeking for arms when they were acting for very different purposes. He admitted the mildness with which Earl Spencer administered what he had truly called the terrible powers of this Act; but the Lord Lieutenant might proclaim a dis-
  2066
  trict, and the effect of a special proclamation was that any man who was found out of his house after dark might be taken up and, unless he satisfied the magistrate that he was out on some lawful occasion, he might be sent to prison for as many days as the magistrate thought proper. There were now seven counties in Ireland in which this Curfew Law prevailed, and he would ask whether a country could be called free that was subject to such a law? Repeated complaints were made of the conduct of the police; but when the persons complaining were asked to come forward, they were afraid of becoming marked men. If Englishmen were told that such a law existed in Poland, Naples, or Russia, their indignation would be aroused, and, perhaps, despatches would be sent from the Foreign Office pointing out that such legislation was endangering the peace of Europe. The Government which demanded the surrender of their liberties in order to maintain order had utterly failed. He believed that if they had thrown themselves on the good feeling of all classes of Ireland, crime would have been more effectually put down than by these unconstitutional Acts. He asked the House whether the time had not come for this mode of government to terminate, instead of being continued at a date when the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had stated that agrarian and political crime were extinct in the country, and that the number of ordinary offences committed had considerably decreased. Or were they to continue it, and upon what authority? Not upon the authority of the noble Marquess who had not a real voice in this matter. Was it to be upon the authority of the stipendiary magistrates? Had the noble Marquess ever read Mr. Senior's description of the gentlemen who filled the office of stipendiary magistrates in Ireland? Had he ever read Archbishop Whateley's description of the way in which they were appointed? He (Mr. Butt) strongly deprecated legislation such as was now proposed being undertaken on the strength of Reports made by these gentlemen. In 1868 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) stated at a banquet that his Government had tranquillized Ireland; but this statement was promptly denied by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of Her

  2067
  Majesty's Government, who said that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had had the hardihood or the infatuation to congratulate the persons seated at a festive board on the state of Ireland, a statement which reminded him of the conduct of a military despot who, having trampled all liberty under foot with his armed forces, declared that order at last existed. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had not at that time a Coercion Bill at his back, and perhaps he would now say whether at the time of speaking he was factious, or whether he was a tyrant now, when his Government was using the language he himself deprecated six years ago. He would not go the length of saying that peace might not be purchased too dearly; but a Government which could not give to a country order and security for life and property without taking away the liberty of the people had proved and confessed itself unfit to govern freemen. The Act in its worst form was administered in the town of Belfast. Was the Government so incompetent that it could not suppress a street riot without subjecting every house to a domiciliary visit at any hour of the night, and without having a Curfew Law, whereby a man could nut be out except on a lawful occasion? He repeated his question—Was this state of things to continue? Seven of the counties were out of the pale of civilized law—it was not civilized law where a Curfew Act existed; it was not civilized law where a stranger might be arrested and carried off to prison at the pleasure of a magistrate. In 1871 no fewer than 221 warrants had been granted by the Lord Lieutenant to search for arms, to break into houses at any hour of the night in large districts of Ireland, while there was no control over the men so authorized except their own discretion. Did this not account for the emigration which was going on? He believed the people were fleeing from Ireland because tyrannic Acts like these made them feel that it was not a place in which they could live. All this was a source of weakness and scandal to the British Empire, and, if not arrested, the time would come when England would bitterly regret it.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he represented a county (King's County) to
  2068
  which no crime was imputed except being a border county to Westmeath. That was held sufficient for placing it in the unhappy circumstances which his hon. and learned Friend had just described. He regretted that no statement had been made to indicate the existence of a belief in the minds of the Government that the present measure would be of temporary duration. He could not believe that it was necessary for the peace of Ireland. When the Government asked for powers which no Englishman or Scotchman would permit to be applied to their own countries, he was entitled to ask whether there were any exceptional circumstances in the case of Ireland which justified the application of such powers to her. It had been said that the magistracy had been consulted in reference to the state of crime in Ireland; but he submitted that, as the revision of the magistracy which was promised some three or four years ago had never been carried out, the Government had no right to appeal to the opinions of the magistrates on the subject. Upon what evidence was a measure based which would place Ireland once more in chains? Not upon any that was at all sufficient or reliable. He believed that the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or the Postmaster General, would not state that any reason existed for the continuance of coercive legislation for Ireland. In many cases gross injustice had been committed in the name of the law, and it was the duty of the Irish Members, as guardians of public liberty in Ireland, to oppose by their votes a measure of restraint and coercion being applied at a time of unexampled tranquillity in Ireland. He should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock).
  MR. RONAYNEprotested against the Bill. In 1870 the Judge of Assize at Cork declared both that city and county to be unexampled for the absence of crime. At the last assizes the Judges made a similar statement; and the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions all through the county had got white gloves. He protested against their liberty being taken away upon half a sheet of paper by hon. Members, half of whom voted knowing nothing of the enactments in the Bill. The hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) had stated that no individual in Ireland complained of the

  2069
  Bill. The constituents of the hon. Gentleman were of a different opinion, and he thought he might safely leave the hon. Gentleman in their hands. The people of Cork and its neighbourhood were oppressed by the powers which the Bill placed in the hands of the police. The people there had no games on account of the police; they had ceased to sing and had become sullen; they were not allowed to play in the roads; and they were taken up for having a song in their pockets. In the town from which the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) came, only 12 months ago, he knew of a poor fellow who was arrested for singing "The green hills of Erin," and the magistrates, in sending him to prison, said that "he'd soon see whether he could not put a stop to his—seditious singing." He had known the police take up a man for selling a picture of Father Matthew. Another man was searched by two bodies of police; one body found nothing upon him that they objected to, but the other body found upon him a simple pastoral ballad called "St. John's Eve," for possessing which they sent him to bride well, and kept him there all night. He had himself seen policemen arrest two boys at night who were guiltless of crime, and when—on their being at his remonstrance released—he said he would report the case, the people begged of him not to do so, stating that if he did they would suffer persecution from the police in consequence. How was the Arms Act exercised in Cork? He knew a gentleman who was actually refused a licence to carry arms because, according to the authorities, "of the hat he had on." In Mr. Nassau Senior's Conversations, the stipendiary magistrates of some parts of Ireland were described as men appointed from political motives, capable of using the police for their own purposes, devoid of talents or character, and some of them habitual drunkards. In the county of Cork there were 490,000 Catholics to 50,000 Protestants, yet there was a vast preponderance of Protestants holding all kinds of public offices. Even of the governors of the lunatic asylum, there were 25 Protestants to two Catholics, and the Militia, though the rank and file were Catholics, had no Catholic officers. The difference of religion in Ireland marked a broader distinction of politics and feeling than any patriot could wish
  2070
  to exist, and when the people saw this ascendancy of the minority pervading the administration of justice they entertained no confidence in that administration, and did not assist the officers in the manner they ought to do. He knew the feeling of the people better than the noble Marquess, whose information was drawn from the detectives, and he knew that men innocent of Eenianism or any other offence were being driven from the country by police persecution. A man in his own employment was arrested and detained three weeks, while everything was done to obtain information against him, but without effect, for he had never been concerned in anything wrong, and he was at last liberated, but he lost his situation and became insane through the persecution he was subjected to. Stipendiaries credited every charge advanced by the police. He himself had been a sufferer from the Act. Having been in the habit of shooting game, he paid £3 to the customs for a licence, and went out shooting several times, but afterwards found that he had rendered himself liable to a two years' imprisonment for each occasion. Who ever imagined that any man would take out a licence for shooting his landlord? The man who wanted to shoot his landlord would conceal from everybody the fact that he had a gun. The present Government, in their extreme liberality, had taken from them the power of killing game unless they went hat in hand for it to a policeman. He begged the House not to pass the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, denying that he received all his information about Ireland from detectives, much of it being derived from the speeches of Irish Members in that House. Neither did he see that the distribution of honours and emoluments in the county of Cork between Catholics and Protestants was very pertinent to the present question; although, if it was introduced into the discussion at all, the distribution of Irish judicial appointments ought in fairness to have been referred to. It was impossible that the system of police terrorism alleged by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) to exist in Ireland could be carried to such a pitch of perfection among a people so ready to tell their grievances, and with a Press so active in proclaiming them, that not a single word of it should have

  2071
  been heard of. The principle on which the Lord Lieutenant acted was to arrest those whom he supposed to be the leaders of the Fenian organization, and whose arrest would cripple and paralyze its action. He felt assured that nothing which had been stated by the several hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, would induce the House to refuse the Bill a second reading.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 38: Majority 185.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  JURIES BILL— [BILL 35.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Qualification of common jurors in counties),
  MR. MONKmoved an Amendment to reduce the freehold qualification from £15 to £12.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "twelve,"—(Mr. Monk,)—instead thereof.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, this subject had been fully considered in the Select Committee, who recommended the qualification introduced in the Bill.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the Committee were by no means unanimous in their recommendation, and he did not see any reason why as good jurors should not be had with a qualification of £10 or £12 as with one of £15. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 107: Majority 53.
  MR. MUNTZmoved to reduce the qualification of jurymen from a rating of £40 to one of £30, believing that if it were fixed at the higher sum there would be great difficulty in finding suitable persons.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, to leave out the word "forty," and insert the word "thirty,"—(Mr. Muntz,)—instead thereof.
  MR. JAMESobjected to the Amendment as being opposed to the recommendation of the Committee. The experience of Ireland was against their placing the qualification too low.
  MR. STRAIGHTpointed out that the £40 qualification only related to towns of 20,000 inhabitants and upwards.
  MR. DODSONobjected to the long list of exemptions, beginning with Peers, and ending with criminals and persons of notoriously bad character. He supported the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Birmingham would at least postpone his Amendment.
  MR. MUNTZwas sure, from his experience at Quarter Sessions, that the majority of jurymen were not rated at anything like £40.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he thought the clause would exclude from the jury-box many persons of intelligence in large towns who had retired on a competency.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdefended the clause on the ground that it was based on the recommendations of the Select Committee. The exemptions proposed to be continued by the Bill were far less numerous than those which were now allowed.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, the recommendations of the Select Committee could not create jurymen where they did not exist.
  MR. FLOYERwas of opinion that after the decision of the Committee not to alter the freehold qualification, the present clause ought not to be interfered with.
  Question put, "That the word 'forty' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 133: Majority 5.
  MR. A. W. YOUNGproposed, in page 1, line 30, to substitute 20 for 25. The Government, by adhering to these higher figures, were excluding a very large class of men from serving as jurors.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

PROTESTS.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.
HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 5, 1873.
Bill read the Third Time.
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because this Bill seeks to deprive the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of a right which has never been abused, and substitutes a Tribunal, on account of its knowledge of the technicalities of Law and Equity, at the same time that it abolishes every regular form of pleading, and introduces the necessity for printed forms at Common Law, instead of upholding the regulations of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, and multiplies printed statements in Equity Cases, unless a Defendant at once submits to a claim made against him.
"2. Because it substitutes a Committee of Judges to form rules as to term, vacation, and circuit, subject to doubt and delay and opposition after being laid before Parliament, instead of framing rules and divisions of times and of circuits which can at once be understood by counsel and suitors, and all Her Majesty's subjects.
"3. Because Her Majesty's ancient Courts of Chancery, Queen's Bench, of Common Pleas, and Exchequer, do not require a new legislative enactment to enable them to retain their distinctive names; nor is it desirable to re-appoint any salaries or retiring pensions, which are already settled by Law; nor to send blanks to be filled up in another place with salaries for newly created Judges, especially as on June 13th 1839 the Borough Courts Uniformity Bill having been sent to another place with blanks (as to dates) and returned with blanks, was consequently no Bill at all.
"4. Because the extremely unfair reports in the newspapers of what was really said by at least one Member of Your Lordships House has given the public a false impression of the debates, and possibly may have prevented a fair consideration of some of the arguments adduced.
"5. Because the retirement of The Right Honourable and revered Lord Saint Leonards has alone prevented his Lordship from opposing the attempted degradation of this Honourable House as a Court of Appeal for England and Wales.

PROTESTS AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL.
"6. Because when the Equity side of the Exchequer was abolished it was deemed "a waste of power" by the last Lord Chief Justice of England but one, and such power might gradually be extended instead of being conferred indiscriminately.
"7. Because, although by the Bill, in the event of Chancery being in Commission, the Senior Lord would be Speaker of the House of Lords, yet no provision is made for constituting a complete Court of Appeal, by appointing at least two other Noble Lords Commissioners and Deputy Speakers, with such a Committee of Spiritual and Lay Peers as might be formed on the model of 14 Ed. 3 st. 1. c. 5.,* which was enabled to sit whenever Parliament was assembled, also in vacation, and in such case to report to the House at the next Parliament.
"DENMAN."
Then it was moved by The Lord Redesdale in page 9. line 26. after ("Council") to insert ("except when the Court of Appeal shall be of opinion that any Appeal ought to be re-heard, in which case the Court shall order such Appeal to be referred to the House of Lords.")
Which being objected to; The Question was put thereupon? It was resolved in the Negative.
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because when the decision of a Court is appealed from, it is better that the Cause should be referred to another Tribunal than re-heard in the same Court.
"2. Because by rejecting this amendment the House abandons its ancient prerogative of being the Supreme Court of Appeal in England.
"3. Because this House cannot be deprived of the right to exercise such an important and useful function without ultimate loss of character and authority.
"4. Because the efficient manner in which the House has discharged this duty is admitted in the Bill, which, while it removes England from its jurisdiction, retains it for Scotland and Ireland, as eminently satisfactory to those countries, and preferred by them to the new Court of Appeal proposed to be established for England.
"REDESDALE."
"For 3rd and 4th Reasons.
"DENMAN."
*Hansard's Debates, Vol. 34, Third Series, pp. 426–7, June 13, 1836 (Ld. Cottenham).