Commons Sitting of 11 June 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Beading—Church Patronage* [207]; Chimney Sweepers* [208].
Committee—Infanticide [43]—R.P.
Third Beading—Chelsea Hospital (Lands) * [193], and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX IN IRELAND.—QUESTIONS.
MR. KIRKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the Registrar General's Reports of the deaths from small-pox in Ireland during the quarter ending the last day of June 1874, which amounted in the aggregate to 123, chiefly, if not wholly, amongst those who have not been vaccinated; whether it is true that of this number 123, no less than 109 occurred in the province of Ulster alone, where this disease is not considered epidemic, as in many instances it was imported from Scotland by the arrival of paupers from that country while labouring under this malady; and, if it is his intention to bring forward a measure to protect sick Irish paupers, and prevent

1713
the spread of contagious diseases, by preventing Poor Law Guardians on this side of the Channel from deporting to Ireland Irish paupers who may be forced in consequence of ill-health to seek assistance in the workhouse?
MR. M'LAREN: I wish to put a supplementary Question to the right hon. Baronet, arising out of the Question whether he knows that the disease had been caused by the importation of paupers from Scotland? In the Question put by the hon. Member he makes this assertion—"In many instances it was imported from Scotland by the arrival of paupers from that country while labouring under this malady." Then, in the next paragraph, he goes on to ask the right hon. Baronet, if he will bring in a Bill to prevent diseased paupers from being so sent to Ireland. With the permission of the House, I would ask the right hon. Baronet, Whether he knows that the disease has been so propagated in Ireland by the sending over of paupers from Scotland; and, if he knows any instance, whether he will give the names of the Poor Law Guardians by whom they were sent over, so that an investigation may be made in Scotland into the facts of the case?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: As I understand the Question of the hon. Member for Louth, it does not contain an assertion, but is a Question to me whether a certain statement is true. My attention has been directed to the Report of the Registrar General on this subject, and I believe the figures quoted in the first part of the Question are correct. I cannot, however, say positively that the deaths occurred chiefly, if not wholly, among those who had not been vaccinated. I believe of the 123 deaths, 109 occurred in the province of Ulster, where the disease is not considered epidemic, and that in many instances the disease has been imported from Scotland; but I have no knowledge whatever, and I have been unable to obtain information whether, in regard to those cases imported from Scotland, the persons importing the disease were paupers or not. It is possible they may have been; but the fact has not been brought to my knowledge, and I can give the hon. Gentleman no information on that point. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I may say that the Irish Government have
1714
no control over Poor Law Guardians on this side of the Channel, and I do not think it part of my duty, as the Representative of the Irish Government, to introduce any measure dealing with them.

COAL MINES—BUNKER'S HILL EXPLOSION—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the Report of the Bunker's Hill Colliery Explosion, published on Wednesday the 9th of June, where it is stated the only reason for "the change from wedging to blasting in that colliery was to increase production and lessen cost;" and, whether he will, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, bring in a Bill this Session for the suppression of the use of blasting powder in mines; or, if the use is to be continued, to regulate it so as to prevent risk to human life?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the Report of the Inspector of Collieries on the Bunker's Hill Explosion. It was not, however, the intention of the Government to bring in any measure such as that alluded to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman. Such a measure would, he believed, be acceptable neither to the colliery owners nor to the workmen. Certain powers were, however, already given by the Mines Regulation Act, which would enable rules to be framed for the purpose of regulating the use of the powder, and it might be wise to adopt the suggestion which was acted upon in many places—that the blasting of mines, when dangerous, should be carried on between shifts, so that the amount of danger might be reduced to a minimum. The subject was at the present moment under the consideration of the whole body of Inspectors, and he hoped before long to receive their joint recommendation with respect to it.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement contained in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 8th instant, that a certain suggested compromise on the

  1715
  Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill has come from the Government, and that the promoters of the measure are willing to accept it; and, whether it is true a compromise on the subject between the Government and the supporters of the Bill has come from or been accepted by the Government: and, if so, whether he is prepared to state the terms of such compromise to the House?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the statement in question, and to others which purported to give an account of certain matters which had been discussed in a Cabinet Council recently held, as well as the views of different Members of the Cabinet on those subjects. Now, if he might venture to make a suggestion to the hon. Member, it would be that he should not place too implicit confidence in the statements made by certain correspondents of Irish newspapers, more especially as those statements, he perceived, not unfrequently contradicted one another. There was, he might add, no truth in the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred that any compromise had come from or been accepted by the Government on the Bill in question.

JESUITS IN ENGLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. WHALLEY: Sir, it is with very great regret I rise to put the Question of which I have given Notice, because—["Order!"]—my object in making this preliminary statement is to secure for my Question fair consideration—["Order!"]—because I understand the right hon. Gentleman has complained of the frequency of my Question—["Order!"] Only one word more. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my only object is—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given Notice of a Question. Any debate upon it would be quite out of Order.
MR. WHALLEY: I beg then to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, that the laws for expelling Jesuits would be put in operation if occasion require, Whether he is aware that great numbers of Jesuits expelled from other countries have lately resorted here for the avowed purpose of making England
1716
the centre of their operations generally, and of subjugating the British Empire to the policy of the Papacy; and, whether, having regard to the widely-spread feeling that the Tichborne case is an instance of Jesuit intrigue or conspiracy, as expressed in Petitions by about 300,000 persons to this House, it is not expedient to publish the documents and evidence which have been sent to him, or to permit the same to be seen by Members of this House, so far as the same may tend to throw light upon this point?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman—and I must say that I do not quite see the connection between the answer of my right hon. Friend and the Question—all I can say is that I have no information at the Home Office—
"That great numbers of Jesuits expelled from other countries have lately resorted here for the avowed purpose of making England the centre of their operations generally, and of subjugating the British Empire to the policy of the Papacy."
If any have that intention, all I can say is, that from my own knowledge they might save themselves a great deal of trouble, for they would be entirely unsuccessful. With regard to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, all I can say is that I have already stated to the House that I do not think that any public advantage could possibly be gained—quite the contrary—by laying these documents on the Table of the House, and I am still of the same opinion.
MR. WHALLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the latter part of my Question?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I have given that answer more than once already.

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

LAND TENURE IN IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BUTT, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will he graciously pleased to issue Her Royal Commission to such persons as Her Majesty may see fit to appoint, directing them to inquire into and

  1717
  report upon the operation and effect of the Act passed in 1870 to amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and more especially to ascertain, if necessary by local inquiries, whether and how far the provisions of that Act intended for such purpose have been effectual in giving increased security of tenure to the Irish tenants, and whether any and what obstacles have existed or do exist to prevent the operation of those provision: and also to make like special inquiries and report as to the provisions of that Act introduced to facilitate the acquisition by the tenant of the absolute interest in his farm; and generally to inquire and report as to all matters connected with the tenure of land in Ireland which Her Majesty may see fit in Her wisdom to refer to them,"
  said, that some such inquiry as he proposed was a necessary consequence of the passing of the Act of 1870. He felt certain he could satisfy the House, that having regard to the objects of that Act, and to the state of things it was intended to meet, it was the duty of Parliament to inquire at this period how far the measure in question had effected the objects it was intended to achieve. The Land Act of 1870 was not a compromise between rival interests or conflicting rights: it was passed simply with the intention of remedying a state of things that was very disastrous to Ireland. The tenant-farmer had long laboured under exceptional grievances. He was liable to be evicted without any reason being assigned whenever the landlord chose to exercise the power of driving him from the soil. He had no protection for the results of his own improvements, but it lay within the power of the landlord at any time to appropriate to his own use all the improvements which the tenant might have effected upon the property. They had it upon a very high authority that in one year—1849—no less than 50,000 evictions took place in Ireland, and matters ultimately assumed such an aspect that Parliament felt such a state of things ought not to be allowed to continue. Ireland had for more than a century been kept in a state of chronic discontent by the unjustness of the law, and it was not until the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich took up the question that the remedy was provided. That remedy declared in effect that the tenant should not be subject to arbitrary eviction, and that he should receive protection and compensation for his improvements. The principle of giving compensation, however,
  1718
  for improvements did not originate with the late Government. It was first proposed by Mr. Napier, the Attorney General for Ireland in the Government of Lord Derby in 1852, but, unfortunately, Party combinations at that time prevented it from coming into operation. The proposal received the approval of the House, and the sanction of two subsequent Cabinets, but until the year 1870 no attempt was made to give it the sanction of law. Had the protection of which the Act of that year gave to the tenant been given earlier much dissatisfaction, misery, and even ruin might have been spared to Ireland. The first point of detail upon which he would touch in immediate connection with his Motion was that of the compensation to be paid to tenants for improvements made upon their holdings. He took that question first, because he thought its settlement was vital to the peace of Ireland. The Land Act of 1870 vested in the tenants the property in their improvements, but this provision of the Act had been defeated in many parts of the country by the course which the landlords had chosen to take. On many estates agreements had been sent round to the tenants by the landlords, with instructions to the bailiff who delivered them to compel the tenants to sign them before the next morning on pain of ejectment; and the tenants, in most cases, felt themselves compelled to sign their right to compensation away, and to bind themselves from that moment not to expect compensation for improvements in their land. Surely that was a ground for inquiry by a Royal Commission. With regard to the landlords who had so acted, he would not mention names, for he had no wish in speaking on this question to create Party feeling. The tenant-farmers, in the paper sent round, were told that their rights for past improvements must be given up; and that had been done all over Ireland. Thus one of the beneficent effects of the Act of 1870 had been neutralized by agreements which it would be difficult to reconcile with honour and justice, and many of which would probably be upset if tested in a Court of Equity. The landlords who had taken the course to which he objected knew that then-tenants were in their power, and that there was not much probability of legal means being taken to defeat their illegal

  1719
  and unjust intentions. The result was that in many cases the tenant-right had been surrendered, and that the present position of a large proportion of the Irish tenantry was altogether different from what was intended by the framers of the Act which was passed five years ago. Had the Act been allowed to work they would in five years have a tenantry in Ireland with an estate in the land; but the intentions of that just Act were defeated. The defeat of the objects of the Act had an injurious bearing also upon tenant-right in the North of Ireland. He did not mean to say that the Ulster tenants were coerced, but in many instances the tenant-right had been given up where it had been in force many generations. Another defect in the Act of 1870 which called for inquiry was, that which, while in general terms it prohibited tenants from contracting themselves out of the right to compensation, it limited the prohibition to farms of a certain annual value. The effect of that had been to induce landlords by means of evictions to consolidate their farms, in order to obtain tenants who would have the power and at the same time the willingness to contract themselves out of their rights. Another effect of the Act had been practically to fix a tariff for evictions by providing that where no compensation was to be paid, evicted tenants should be entitled to damages. These damages were limited by the size of the farms and depended also very much upon the chairmen of counties who had to assess the amounts. Landlords were therefore in the position of being able to conclude that they were clothed with the moral sanction of the Legislature when exercising the power of eviction, and that their consciences were fully discharged when they had paid small damages to evicted tenants. In considering this question it was impossible to forget that it was an historical fact that the land of Ireland had been twice or thrice confiscated, and the lands of the old people—the real owners of it—had been handed from them to adventurers from England. Lord Clare, at the time of the Act of Union, he being then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, declared that the lands of Ireland had been confiscated, and he gave a total of 11,697,000 acres. Lord Clare further said, speaking of the manner in which Ireland had been treated under the Governments
  1720
  of successive Kings, that that which was really war against Cromwell was treated, by an English fiction, on the restoration of Parliament, as "rebellion;" and he again said that the whole of the land of Ireland had been confiscated and given by the Kings, in three successive confiscations, to adventurers; and Lord Clare further declared at the time of the Union that the rebellions in Ireland had been provoked by the want of sympathy between the new comers and the old people. But what had been doing since? While English statesmen had taken every means to suppress revolt they had never thought of seeking to redress the wrongs that provoked it. In 1822 a formidable insurrection, which originated in the discontent caused by oppressive conduct on the part of a landlord's agent, broke out in Munster, but no effort was made by the Legislature to effect a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the landlord and tenant question. Almost all the revolts that had since taken place in Ireland were against the landlords' power. Evictions in Ireland made the tenants feel insecure, and hence disturbances. If one tenant was oppressed, the instinct of self-preservation caused others to sympathize with him; each one thinking that it might be his own turn next acted accordingly. That was the state of things in Ireland at all events down to the time when the House had under their consideration the Land Act. The evictions of tenants in Ireland from 1840 to 1860 caused far greater desolation than the wars of Cromwell. Such little consideration had the landlords of Ireland for their tenants, not long ago in Donegal a landlord who thought proper to quarrel with his tenants evicted 300 simple peasants from their native mountains because they were unable to pay exorbitant rents. The military were called out to enforce this cruel edict. He (Mr. Butt), as an Irishman, asked if the Emperor of Russia was asked to act in this cruel manner to his serfs, whether he would not, in preference, send the landlord to Siberia? On another estate of 500 acres, where the rent was punctually paid, a murder was committed; and, although previously the neighbourhood was never disturbed by a crime or murder, 13 families were turned out and their cabins torn down, because they

  1721
  could not tell who the murderer was. Could it be expected that a country should be tranquil in which such things occurred? In the reign of Henry VIII. a statute was passed which enacted that if a landlord pulled down the dwellings of any of his tenants, he must rebuild them and recall the people whom he had driven away from his property, and that if he did not comply with the terms of that Act his lands should be forfeited to the Crown. Again, in the reign of Elizabeth, a statute was passed which in effect declared that a man had a right to live on the land on which he was born; because under that statute, if a landlord evicted tenants and thus deprived them of the means of livelihood, rates to support them were imposed upon him. Unfortunately, however, those statutes did not apply to Ireland. No doubt, the Irish Land Act had done a great deal of individual good. It was the first step ever taken by England for the protection of the Irish tenant. It established principles of great value, and credit was due to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich for the courage and genius with which he overcame all the difficulties in his way in passing that Act. The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, would have done more than he did in the interest of the Irish tenant, if his measure had been cordially accepted by the Irish landlords. Thus far the Irish Land Act had given peace to Ireland. For years evictions had been given up; and agrarian crime had almost entirely passed away. But how long would that state of things continue? The landlords had begun once more to evict. Within the last year evictions had assumed almost their normal form in Ireland. If the House would agree to his Motion for inquiry, he would be able to show that those who had disturbed the public peace in Ireland were not those who had been consigned to gaol, or who had fled from the officers of justice, but some who occupied lordly mansions, and had caused irritation among their tenantry by their rapacity or oppression. Some sanguine persons might say the Land Act had done all they required; but if this were the case, what objection could they have to the inquiry he was asking for? Others, taking a more rational view, admitted that the Act had done a great deal of good, and that if we could really carry
  1722
  out the object contemplated by its framers, we might have a prosperous and contented peasantry in Ireland. Was it not the part of a statesman to look forward to the future? The present time was perfectly tranquil; an united Conservative Government was in power; and the effect of the disposition shown by a Conservative Government to shelter and protect the peasantry would be more beneficial to the country than it would be if manifested by the Liberals. Why did the Government shrink from an inquiry? He besought them, above all things, not to leave in the minds of the Irish people the conviction that they were shrinking in consequence of any reactionary motive, and that they did not intend to carry out the principles of the Land Act fairly. Whatever the Conservatives might have thought of the measure originally, to go back upon it now would be fatal to the peace of Ireland. If the Government refused to grant the inquiry he asked for, there would assuredly be an inquiry by the public Press and by Tenants' Defence Associations. Exaggerated accounts of what had been done would then go forth to the country, and it would be far better to substitute a calm investigation by a Royal Commission for passionate appeals to the people. There could never be permanent peace in Ireland until protection was given to the tenant against the absolute power of his landlord, for so long as the tenant was a serf he would be also a rebel. His inquiry would include a consideration of those clauses which enabled the tenants to purchase their farms. There was a liability in some quarters to over-rate the disposition of the Irish people to become absolute proprietors of the land. In the North of Ireland, no doubt, such a disposition existed; but in the South the people would probably be content with absolute security of tenure at a moderate rent. At the time of the Union, he might remark, there were in the South a considerable number of small properties held in fee simple, by farmers; but, in almost every instance, these possessions had since been bought up by the great proprietors. This, however, did not detract from the value of the clause he had just referred to. Nothing, he believed, would be better for Ireland than the establishment of a peasant proprietary, and he would prefer that they

  1723
  should hold their land without rent. We ought to teach the tenants to have that spirit of independence which would make them desire to become the absolute owners of their farms. One part of his inquiry, therefore, would be as to the causes which had hitherto prevented these clauses from producing any result. It was chiefly owing, he thought, to the harsh and absurd regulations laid down by the Government offices. The dominion of the landlord could not be maintained in Ireland, and the day would come when it would be admitted that the best friend of the landlords and the most Conservative politician, was he who had asked Parliament to join with him in devising means to reconcile proprietary rights with the right of the Irish people to live and be fed upon their own land. It was with that conviction he now begged to submit the Motion of which he had given Notice to the consideration of the House.
  MR. KIRK, in seconding the Motion, said, he felt it incumbent on him to say a few words on the subject, because he represented the farmers of his native country and had also had considerable personal experience of the injurious working of the Land Laws of Ireland. What Sir George Cornewall Lewis said about Ireland many years ago was as true now as then; and though some little improvement had taken place, the general condition of the people was as hopeless and as miserable. That was a state of things which every lover of security and good order and prosperity in Ireland must deplore, which everyone, in fact, who loved Ireland would desire to see removed. For, at present, the very life-blood was being squeezed out of the people, who still were living, as Swift once described it, "a life more wretched than the beggars of England." The main root of our Irish grievances was the iniquitous state of the Land Laws. They had many other things to complain of, but no evil they suffered from had attained to such colossal proportions, and the great bane of Irish prosperity had ever been insecurity of tenure and capricious evictions. The Land Act of the late Premier had failed to give that security of tenure which was necessary for the welfare of the Irish people, and would never be looked upon as a final settlement of the question. They would
  1724
  never be satisfied until the ancient Ulster custom had been recognized all over the land. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), in introducing his Land Bill last Session, made a great effort to remedy that state of things; but under the present state of the law, very few landlords would allow a small holding to a small tenant if he could consolidate his farm, thereby getting rid of compensation altogether if he could re-let his land—an operation in which there were always plenty of land cormorants to help him. Having lived among the Irish people, he could say that discontent and its concomitant, disaffection, would always reign among them so long as they did not enjoy security of tenure. It was and had long been the policy of England to preserve the rights of property and avoid confiscation. Yet it had not always been so, as they might see from what had taken place in Ireland when an invasion was feared. In the year 1540, when the Isle of Wight was much exposed to invasion from Prance, as lying nearest to that country, and being much depopulated by reason of the land of the Island having fallen for the most part into the hands of large landholders, an Act of Parliament was passed which abolished large grazing farms and limited farm-holdings. The change was immense. The population of the Island soon doubled, and when, a few years later, in 1546, a French army of 50,000 or 60,000 men landed on the island, the Isle of Wight Militia sufficed to drive them out, as every man felt he was fighting for his hearth and his home. Substitute for the Isle of Wight, Ireland, and for Prance, America, and the parallel was complete. What interest had the Irish people in the soil? The sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads. The tenantry were asking for security of tenure, rather than for compensation. Ought laws to be tolerated which enabled landlords to depopulate half a county in order to make it a deer forest, or to decimate the inhabitants of a district under the pretence of getting rid of the surplus population; or to level 270 houses, leaving the inmates, young and old, healthy and sick, exposed to the cold on a stormy night; or which made it a rule of the estate that the agent should select the males and females who were to marry as though they were mere

  1725
  cattle? As a tenant-farmer he said there were many good landlords in Ireland who wished to see their tenants happy, prosperous, contented, and even independent; but, on the other hand, there were bad landlords who if they saw their tenants prosperous would raise their rents, and take away from them the fruits of their industry. The present state of things could not continue to exist without producing serious political danger, for it might be the means of raising against England in the Far West a most bitter and resolute enemy. Russia had emancipated her serfs, and France, by going through a series of bloody revolutions, had shaken off the trammels in which feudalism had bound her. England alone remained callous to this progress; but he hoped she would take warning in time, and enter upon a policy more just and more generous. If something were not soon done for Ireland the people would once more become hopeless, discontented, and disaffected; and if England should find herself embroiled in hostilities with a foreign country, she would no longer be able to draw upon the Irish population to afford her soldiers and sailors to fight her battles, and the danger was that they might be found fighting in the ranks of her opponents.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue Her Royal Commission to such persons as Her Majesty may see fit to appoint, directing them to inquire into and report upon the operation and effect of the Act passed in 1870 to amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and more especially to ascertain, if necessary by local inquiries, whether and how far the provisions of that Act intended for such purpose have been effectual in giving increased security of tenure to the Irish tenants, and whether any and what obstacles have existed or do exist to prevent the operation of those provisions; and also to make like special inquiries and report as to the provisions of that Act introduced to facilitate the acquisition by the tenant of the absolute interest in his farm; and generally to inquire and report as to all matters connected with the tenure of land in Ireland which Her Majesty may see fit in Her wisdom to refer to them,"—(Mr. Butt,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. BRUENsaid, that on his own be-half, and on that of the landlords of Ireland, he did not shrink from any inquiry;
  1726
  and if the Government thought fit to issue such a Commission as the hon. and learned Member for Limerick recommended, the Irish landlords, at all events, would have no cause to regret the investigation. There was no man more capable of painting a picture than the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, who knew how to combine the very smallest elements of fact, and to throw over them such a poetic haze and such an imaginative colouring as would produce out of little or nothing a most extraordinary effect. After listening to the fervid declamation against the Irish landlords which the House had heard that evening, he could not help asking himself whether it was really possible that he could belong to a class of men who would appear to be the very worst persons on the face of the earth. He hoped the House would not allow itself to be carried away by the description that had been given of the landlords of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member had mention one case in which a number of people were evicted from a town-land in Donegal. That case had been previously brought before the House, when an attack was made on Mr. Adair; but those who made that attack did not go to a division, and a defence was offered which could not be contradicted. The steward of Mr. Adair had been brutally murdered; his wife and children, he believed, had been denied the very common necessaries of life after the murder; a second employé of Mr. Adair's was also murdered; and when it was well known that everyone on that town-land was well aware who the murderer was, Mr. Adair said if they did not disclose him, he would take the remedy into his own hands and say the people should not remain there. For himself he did not assert that Mr. Adair was altogether right in taking the law into his own hands, but these people were not so hardly treated under these circumstances. The hon. and learned Member had said that in 1849 there were 50,000 evictions in Ireland, but forgot to tell the House how many were for non-payment of rent, and that at that time the Famine had swept over the land and left the farmers absolutely unable to pay their rent. In many cases these unfortunate persons if left on the land had nothing to support them, and in several the Landlords paid their passage to America,

  1727
  And yet this was held up as cruelty on the part of the Irish landlords. "When the Land Act was passed in 1870 if a case could have been made against the Irish landlords it would have been made; but in the three years ending the 31st of December, 1869, the total number of evictions was 1,560, and in 275 cases the persons were re-admitted; so that there was an average of only 428 evictions for each of those three years out of a total of 682,237 agricultural holdings. If corresponding Returns for England could be had, Ireland would show very favourably by comparison. On the part of the Irish landlords he denied that they evicted in the wholesale way which was asserted, though it was necessary that they should have the power to evict, in order that they might secure the payment of their rent. Indeed, the fact of so many holdings being let under the full rent was inconsistent with these wholesale evictions. We were told that what was wanted was fixity of tenure, valuation of rents, and the right on the part of the tenant to sell the good-will of his holding. But if there were to be that valuation, the result would be that in a large portion of Ireland rents would be raised, and if fixity of tenure were established it would relieve the landlords from all responsibility for making improvements. If such laws were enacted the landlords would pecuniarily be gainers. How could it be said that there was a desire on the part of the landlords to evict when they allowed tenants to remain on the land at a lower rent than they could get in the open market? But from the speeches the House had heard it would appear as if the landlords were the only persons in Ireland who were not to have security of tenure. Almost all the recent cases of eviction had come, not from the hands of the landlords, but from the hands of land-jobbers. If, however, the Government should see fit to grant the Commission asked for he, for one, should not object to it.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that notwithstanding all they had been told about the amiability of Irish landlords, rack-renting was being carried out worse than ever it had been before the passing of the Irish Land Act, the result of which was that evictions were as prevalent in Ireland as ever. He knew in his own neighbourhood a wealthy landlord who got £4 10 s, an acre for land
  1728
  which no agriculturist could make more than £6 an acre of, so that the landlord got 75 per cent of the income, and the cultivator only 25 per cent. He knew a case in Limerick where the tenant, who was an improving tenant, had paid £14 a-year for 4£ acres and a small house; but after the death of the landlord the rent had been repeatedly raised, so that in a comparatively short time it was £30 a-year. In 1873 the tenant said that if the landlord would pay for improvements he would give up the land; but the landlord, under the Land Act, got the tenant to contract himself out of the law, and in 1874 he ejected him without a shilling of compensation. Soon afterwards the tenant died and the landlord was morally guilty of his death. There Were no doubt plenty of good landlords in Ireland; but protection was wanted against the bad landlords, who rack-rented and who behaved in a heartless and cruel manner, for he maintained that the Land Act was totally incapable of supplying that protection.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he thought that it was the bounden duty of the Government to assent to this Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich said in 1870 that he wished to pass his Bill to prevent capricious evictions; but, had it had that effect? He (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) was sorry to say that it had had a contrary effect, for, before it was passed, it was shorn of some of its best clauses. He had a Return of the evictions upon notices to quit, for the three years immediately preceding and those following the passing of the Land Bill; and he thought that when the House became aware of the figures contained therein, they would be surprised at the fact. In the county of Antrim, for the three years ending 1870, there were 121 decrees in ejectment upon notice to quit. In 1871–2–3—the three years since the passing of the Act—there were 172 decrees of ejectment, being an increase of 51 over those obtained previously to the passing of the Bill. In the county of Cork there were in the three years preceding the passing of the Land Act, 160 ejectments; in the three years since, 195. In the county of Tyrone there were in the three years before the Act, 187 evictions; in the three years after, 205. In Tipperary, the number of evictions before and after the passing of the Act

  1729
  was respectively 91 and 108, showing an excess of 17 since the passing of the Act. In Carlow, the number of evictions was respectively 15 and 22, showing an excess of 7 evictions since the Act. The cause of that was very evident. Landlords now felt that tenants had certain protection by law, and, in effect, said—" You cannot complain of my turning you out, you can appeal to the Land Act for the protection afforded you by the law." Persons also went to landlords offering larger rents, and also offering to pay the compensation of the old tenants; and, in this way, landlords were induced to evict. Again, a decision of the Judges had limited the operation of the Land Act. If a tenant had notice to quit on the 1st May, and remained in possession until the 2nd May, it was held that he was then a trespasser, and could be evicted without having any claim for compensation. If the Government, seeing that the Act of 1870 had signally failed, would only act fairly in the matter and grant this Commission, and see upon their Report whether they could not to a certain extent satisfy the wants and feelings of the people of Ireland, without trenching on the rights of the landlords, they would do an act which would long be remembered by the people of Ireland with gratitude. The very fact that the Returns from which he had quoted showed that evictions had largely increased since the passing of the Land Bill would, surely, be sufficient to prevent the Government refusing an inquiry into the subject. If the Land Act of 1870 had caused so much benefit to Ulster, why not apply it to all the other Provinces, and not leave the tenant any longer on the mercy of the landlord and the capricious judgment of the Judges. When a question was raised that the Act of 1870 disturbed the tenant-right in Ulster, a Bill was brought in by the present Lord Chancellor to secure it, and knowing, as he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) did, that the Act was a failure in the South of Ireland, he made an application to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich—then Prime Minister—for redress, but was unsuccessful. Under all the circumstances, he believed a Commission was necessary, and should therefore support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was a somewhat remarkable circumstance that, considering the short space of time that had elapsed since the passing of the Church and Land Acts, which had been quoted by so many hon. Gentlemen opposite on different occasions as the source and secret of the present prosperity of Ireland, that Motions should already be made for Royal Commissions to inquire into their working, and that those Motions should be supported by Gentlemen who were supposed to represent the popular party in Ireland. But when he heard the very poor and insufficient reasons which had been alleged for the adoption of that course, he confessed it was not surprising, under the circumstances, that right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench opposite should, by what might be called a capricious clearance, have left the defence of their acts to those who were not responsible for them. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Limerick stated that it was not his intention to go into the past history of the land question, but he put it to the House whether that promise had been fulfilled. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) regretted it had not, for in the course of the debate they had heard the usual denunciations of an alien proprietary, just as if the lapse of no number of centuries could possibly make a landlord an Irishman like his tenant. They had been told that "tenants in Ireland were more wretched than beggars in England," and that the Land Laws were the main root of Irish grievances. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), notwithstanding the eloquence with which he was endowed, had descended to those exaggerations, when he said that the Irish tenant, so long as he was a serf, would be a rebel, just as if the tenants of Ireland were serfs now. He had spoken of English authority being upheld in Ireland by English bayonets, just as if there were no Irishmen in the Royal Constabulary; and had told them that there could be no peace in Ireland until the tenant was protected against the arbitrary power of the landlord, just as if the Land Act of 1870 had never been passed. Now, all these assertions must be felt by the House to be gross exaggerations; and if he might express an opinion upon sentiments of the kind, he would say

  1731
  that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Colleagues, who had influence with the ignorant masses in Ireland, would do a greater service to their country by confining themselves to existing circumstances and by abstaining from such exciting and unfounded language, and from the discussion of grievances which had long passed away. But by whom, first of all, was the hon. and learned Gentleman supported? He observed a somewhat thin attendance—considering the importance of the subject—of those hon. Members whose support the hon. and learned Gentleman generally received. He was aware that some of them, so far from expressing an opinion in favour of further inquiry by a Royal Commission, had openly stated at public meetings that the Act was insufficient to save honest working men from capricious eviction, and that they would be satisfied with nothing but fixity of tenure and rents fixed by a periodical valuation. ["Hear, hear!"] For the information of those hon. Members who cheered, he might say that he was quoting from a speech delivered by the Colleague of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick in October last. More than that, he found that the Committee of the Tenant-Eight Association in Ireland, who, so far as he knew, were the only persons really desiring again to bring this question forward, entirely repudiated the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. ["No, no!"] Why, he found from a statement recently published by the body to which he referred, that they objected to the Commission altogether, and stated that in their opinion nothing short of perpetuity of tenure at fair rents, together with free right of sale, would satisfy the requirements of the country. These were the demands of the only party in Ireland who were at the back of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. ["No, no!"] If that statement was incorrect, he should like the hon. and learned Member himself to say by what other party outside the House he was supported. He had heard objections to certain provisions of the Land Act raised by Irish landlords, but they were far from looking at the measure with the eyes of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He altogether failed to see that anything had been said by hon. Members opposite which would justify the appointment of
  1732
  a Royal Commission. They had started upon an entirely wrong assumption. So far as he was aware, it was neither the intention of the Government which introduced, nor of the Legislature which passed the Land Act that it should altogether prevent landlords from evicting tenants. It was simply intended to deter landlords from capricious evictions; and he had listened in vain for proof that in this respect the Act had failed of its purpose. Those who approved the demand of the Tenant-Right Association which he had quoted could not have been satisfied with the Land Act as it passed, and therefore could not be among those who wished for a Royal Commission to inquire whether the Act had failed to effect a result which they had never expected from it. Their object, put simply, was to transfer the property of the landlords to the tenants without the latter being called upon to pay for it, and it clearly could not be said that the Land Act was passed with any such intention. The real objects of the Act were to guard tenants against capricious eviction, and to compensate them for unexhausted improvements and disturbance in their holdings, the last being a compensation which, so far as he knew, had never been seriously demanded by tenants in either England or Scotland. The provision with regard to disturbance was, that no landlord could disturb his tenant on a holding valued at less than £10 a-year without paying him a sum amounting to seven years' rental, or not exceeding £250. From a Return made in 1866, he learnt that more than half the tenantry in Ireland occupied holdings below the limit of £10, and therefore he ventured to say that the amount of the fine against capricious evictions which Parliament had imposed upon the landlord was sufficient absolutely to prevent the practice. He doubted, however, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite would be content with any money fine at all. Would they not rather say that those whom they represented would never be satisfied until they were permanently fixed in the occupation of the land? This was a proposal which had never yet been brought before the House, and if the hon. and learned Member would embody it in a Bill, the House would find itself in the dilemma raised by the right hon. Gentleman the

  1733
  Member for Greenwich when discussing the Land Bill in 1870—namely, that, after all, the property of a landlord, even in Ireland, was property, and that if the reversion of the property was to be transferred from the landlords to the tenants, the landlords must be compensated, either by a payment from the Consolidated Fund, which Parliament would not vote, or by an increased payment of rent by the tenants, to which they would, not unnaturally, object. The hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) said, that the number of capricious evictions had increased since the passing of the Land Act, and in order to prove his case he quoted some fragmentary figures from a Return which had not yet been printed. There was no doubt that evictions had increased, to some extent, for a Return issued annually by the Constabulary—which should be presented to the House if any hon. Member would move for it—showed that for the three years preceding the passing of the Land Act the average number of evictions was 428, and that in 1874 the number had risen to 526; but there was no proof that the evictions were capricious. No doubt, in consequence of the altered relations between landlord and tenant since the passing of the Land Act, cases had occurred where landlords had demanded new agreements and arrangements, and where the tenants refused evictions did take place. But that condition of things was not permanent. Was it likely, he asked, that the landlords would evict capriciously in view of the fine which the Land Act imposed? It had been frequently said that since the passing of the Act the landlords had evaded the compensation clause by imposing exorbitant rents and getting rid of tenants who were unable, or refused, to pay them; but in a very able book since published, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, commenting upon the Act, expressed his opinion that landlords were liable for compensation, if they imposed exorbitant rents merely for the purpose of enforcing unreasonable terms upon their tenants, and that the tenants were only disentitled to compensation in case their refusal to pay the increased rent was based upon unreasonable grounds. As to the evictions which had occurred since the passing of the Land Act, he
  1734
  thought the Return from which the hon. Member for Cork County had quoted would show of what kind they were. Those evictions, he believed, were mainly on account of arrears of rent, the rent in some cases being eight or nine years in arrear. Fixity of tenure was held up as a remedy for all that was wrong in the agricultural condition of Ireland; but fixity of tenure in Ireland would, he believed, amount simply to this—it would give a good tenant no greater security than he at present enjoyed; but as to a farm in the occupation of a bad and insolvent farmer, it would enable him to dispose of it at a ruinous price to a successor even worse and more insolvent than himself. The hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), with all the pathos of which his speeches were so full, told the House a moving story of a tenant who had his rent raised from time to time, and who was at last turned out from his holding and thrown upon the streets by the unreasonable conduct of his landlord. Having listened to that story, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was bound to say the hon. Member must have told it under a mistake. In the first place, he understood the hon. Member to say that the rent at the highest point was £80 a-year, and that the tenant had been compelled by the landlord to sign an agreement which deprived him of a right to compensation. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could only say that he was quite sure the tenant had not the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick when he signed that agreement, because if the hon. and learned Member for Limerick looked at the compensation clauses of the Land Act, he would find that Act made compensation compulsory, in spite of any agreement, in the case of all holdings under £50 a-year. And if the figures were wrong, and the tenant in question had a holding worth more than £50 a-year, his position must have been such that he ought to have been able to take care of himself. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick had told the House that since the passing of the Land Act tenants had been divested of their right to compensation by being compelled to sign agreements depriving them of it. He must refer that hon. and learned Member to the provision of the Land Act

  1735
  which prevented any such agreement, except where the tenancy was above £50. [Mr. BUTT said, there was no such provision in the Land Act. Past improvements might be made the subject of agreement.] He would not dispute on a point of law with the hon. and learned Member, because he was quite sure he should get the worst of it; but if a tenant chose to sell his right to past improvements, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) saw no reason why he should not be allowed to do so. The hon. and learned Member admitted what the experience of the last five years seemed to prove to be the fact—that the Irish people generally were not so anxious to become absolute owners of land as some persons affirmed. If the desire existed anywhere he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) thought it existed in the North of Ireland, and it was somewhat strange that even there the tenantry infinitely preferred to pay a price for the tenant-right—he believed sometimes as much as £40 an acre—rather than purchase the fee-simple of their farms. He understood the hon. and learned Member to say that the hindrance to the free operation of what were generally known as the "Bright's clauses" of the Land Act was, that the Government had insisted on over-stringent conditions before they could be put into operation. Well, the conditions, as far as regarded the advance of money by the Government for the purpose of enabling tenants to purchase lands, were laid down in the Act itself. Money could not be lent for that purpose except to an amount not exceeding two-thirds of the price of a holding, which must be recouped in 35 years with interest at £5 percent. Now, he was bound to say he did not think it could be fairly alleged that those terms were improperly onerous to the tenant, or more than the Government ought to demand in order to protect the taxpayers of the country at large. He believed the hindrance to the operation of these clauses was not that the terms were too high, but that, as the hon. and learned Member himself stated, the tenantry preferred to buy the right of occupation of their farms to buying the freehold of them. But what did that prove? Surely it proved that the security of occupation was not quite so bad as the hon. and learned Member would make it out to be; that that security not only in
  1736
  Ulster, but in other parts of Ireland, was sufficient to induce people to spend large sums in the purchase of existing tenant-right. Therefore, he thought the second part of the argument of the hon. and learned Member was almost an answer to the first part of the Motion which he had brought before the House. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Cork County—and he believed it was alleged the other day by his noble Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland—that action had been already sanctioned by the party now in office with the view of amending the Land Act. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had before him the Act to which the hon. Member for Cork County referred. It was an Act, of a single clause, to interpret a purely legal point in the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1870. It was carried in 1871, and he would venture to say it had nothing whatever to do with the main principles on which the Land Act was carried. He found that on a Motion being made in "another place" for a Commission to inquire into the working of the Land Act, purely from a legal point of view, with regard to varying decisions upon points which had been submitted to different Chairmen in Ulster, and the advisability of a uniform interpretation of the law, the present Lord Chancellor said he should be sorry to see any step taken by the Legislature for the purpose of altering the provisions of the Land Act; and he spoke merely in favour of altering the tribunal so as to secure uniformity of decision. A nobleman, whose name in matters connected with Ireland would always command respect in that House and in the country, the late Lord Clanricarde, said he should support the Motion, but should certainly not vote for the appointment of a Select Committee upon the general question, which would have the effect of overthrowing the Act; he also said it would be most unwise to repeal it or in any material degree to set aside its principle, but that was no reason why they should not make it more agreeable in the working. Yet the House was now asked practically by the Motion of the hon. and learned Member to re-open the whole question of land tenure in matters which had been settled only five years ago, by an Act framed with all the responsibility of the late Government and discussed most fully in both Houses

  1737
  of Parliament. He thought that if any course more than another was calculated to disturb the present happy state of Ireland it would be that of reopening this land question. Nothing could be more mischievous than a quinquennial revision of the relations between landlords and tenants—a fresh stirring of all the feelings of bitterness with which many of the landlords of Ireland unquestionably viewed the deprivation of rights which they bad hitherto possessed—a renewed encouragement to the unquestionable desire of many to possess the property of others without paying for it. Was this the time, when Ireland was gradually, but all the same rapidly, rising to a state of prosperity she had not hitherto enjoyed, again to raise all the disputed questions connected with that occupation which was her main support—agriculture? He would venture to say that the Royal Commission moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would be mischievous in the extreme, because it would excite hopes which could not possibly be gratified. Hon. Members had heard and read what were the real desires of those agitators who professed to represent the tenantry of Ireland. Unless a Royal Commission reported in favour of the demands they made, they would never be content with its appointment and would immediately repudiate its decision. This question of land in Ireland had been inquired into as fully and as carefully as any question which was ever brought before Parliament. It had been settled—he did not say finally, for he claimed finality for no Act of Parliament, but for many years to come, by the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1870, and he did entreat the House not again to rouse an agitation which had been allayed, by acceding to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member—a Motion moderate enough in its terms, but veiling all kinds of dangerous suggestions for a revolution in the tenure of land in Ireland. That country had, even yet, hardly recovered from the agitation which had accompanied the passing of the Land Act sufficiently to tempt persons to invest their capital in the purchase or improvement of land; and it was a curious fact that anyone who inquired into the increase of wealth in Ireland during the last five years would
  1738
  find that it was mainly due to commercial investments and deposits in banks, and that the increase in the value of stock in Ireland was as nothing compared to the increase of those investments. That pointed still to a sense of general insecurity, and he hoped the House would not add to that evil by re-opening the question, but would treat the present Motion as they treated the Bill of the hon. Member for the County Down (Mr. Sharman Crawford) the other day, by giving it a most emphatic and decided negative.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he was one of these who was prepared to support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick. Anyone who had only listened to the glowing phrases of the right hon. Baronet must conclude that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was intended to overturn and uproot the Land Act of 1870, to re-open the whole question of land tenure in Ireland, and to introduce something vaguely, darkly, dimly Socialistic. But there was nothing of the kind in the Motion, and he thought he could convince the House that the demand for an inquiry was a reasonable one. The Act of 1870 was a great, a noble, and a beneficial experiment, well intended and, in the main, well devised for attaining its objects. Admittedly, however, it was an experiment, and was it contrary to precedent to ask that after five years' experience of such a law, ah inquiry should be instituted in order to ascertain how far the measure had succeeded, to show the large amount of good it had done, to find out also where its provisions were unintentionally deficient, and to suggest a remedy for any flaws which might be detected? He supported this demand for inquiry, because he believed misapprehensions respecting the Act of 1870 were very prevalent. Indeed, his belief was, that, notwithstanding his speech, the right hon. Baronet himself was far from being clear of misapprehension on the subject. Its first object was to legalize the Ulster tenant-right and similar customs existing in other parts of Ireland; but, in some instances, it had failed to do this. There had been conflicting decisions on various difficult points, and good ground existed for inquiring how far the Land Act was effectual in carrying out its first object. The second object of the Act

  1739
  was to afford compensation for improvements, and, substantially, this object had been effected; but, in certain instances, the question was raised whether the Act could not be evaded and nullified in this particular. A third object of the Act was to deter Irish landlords from capricious evictions by giving tenants compensation for disturbance of holdings. He believed that in an immense number of cases the compensation for disturbances wisely and boldly given by Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland had deterred landlords from capricious evictions. But in many parts of Ireland the tenantry thought these provisions had failed. Did not this afford fair ground for a local inquiry, in order to show the tenants that their belief was unfounded, if it really was unfounded? Again, the provisions in the Act for the acquisition by tenants of the absolute interest in their farms had not worked to any large extent. From his own observation, he knew that tenants were not particularly anxious to purchase the fee simple; but it was worth while to inquire how it was that so few persons had availed themselves of these provisions in the Act. The inquiry suggested by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) had been treated as though it were some mysterious and also some radical inquiry into the whole land system of Ireland, and as though it would unsettle the minds of all the tenantry. On the contrary, it was a rational and reasonable inquiry and one which, so far from unsettling the minds of men, would tend much to settle and calm them by con-firming what was good, and showing the way to improve what was bad. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that if not now, at some distant time, such an inquiry would be granted.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that since the passing of the Act of 1870, landlords, who before the passing of that measure would never have thought of disturbing their tenants, had considered that they had a moral right to evict on payment of a pecuniary fine. One of the greatest grievances in Ireland at present was caused by the practice of landlords insisting on their tenants entering into agreements on terms which deprived the latter of their rights under the Act. He did not understand what the right hon. Baronet meant by the action of a few agitators in this matter, for the Conference
  1740
  which had discussed the question in Dublin consisted of Irish tenants and many landlords, and was not a meeting of any association. What the Irish tenants wanted and must have, was fixity of tenure at fair and valued rents, and they would not be satisfied until they obtained it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 41: Majority 67.

INDIA—CASE OF MR. TORCKLER.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. AGG-GARDNER, who had a Notice upon the Paper, to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Torckler, late of the Bengal Native Infantry, said, that gentleman had served with distinction in the regiment to which he had been appointed as interpreter and quartermaster. But, in the first instance, his appointment caused some dissatisfaction, and, unfortunately, that feeling afterwards increased. This gentleman was placed under arrest on the charge of having attempted to murder a brother officer in India, and was tried by court-martial, by which he was found guilty, and sentenced to death. Attempts to obtain the production of Papers bearing on the case were for a long time unsuccessful; but when they were produced it was found that the proceedings of the court-martial against him were so absurd that a Royal pardon was given to him, but he was not reinstated in the position he held when he joined his regiment. This gentleman had been left in a very painful uncertainty during a long series of years, and he suffered not from any fault of his own, but from the carelessness of Government officials. The case was one which seemed to him to demand inquiry.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was desirous to say something upon this case, as he had looked into the Papers bearing upon it. He had hoped that the case would have been settled without coming before the House of Commons, and he regretted that the Indian Government had not endeavoured to put an end to the representations that had been made in reference to this subject for so many years. In his opinion

  1741
  some favourable consideration should be shown to this unfortunate man, and some allowance ought to be made for the great irritation under which he was suffering when he committed the offence, for which he was tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be hanged. The court-martial that convicted and sentenced him had been conducted in the most illegal manner, a strong personal rancour being displayed during the course of the proceedings; and the Commander-in-Chief having interfered, the man was pardoned, but was dismissed the Service, and obtained the grant of a very small pension. Since 1831 this unfortunate person had been endeavouring to clear his character, and had never ceased to appeal to the authorities for redress. It was only in 1863 that the Papers relating to the case had been brought to light, and then it appeared that the letter of the Commander-in-Chief in India, in his favour had never been sent home or reached the proper authorities. A great wrong had undoubtedly been committed in the case, for which redress ought to be given, and he (Sir George Balfour) hoped it would be given.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he could not promise his hon. Friend who had introduced the Motion that the case of Lieutenant Torckler would be re-considered. He was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir George Balfour) advocate the case, because that hon. and gallant Baronet had had considerable experience in military affairs, and was therefore aware of the great necessity of maintaining discipline in the Army. Now, what were the facts of the case. Lieutenant Torckler was an officer who, after a few years' service, had been appointed to a regiment with the officers of which he could not get on very well. Disputes arose, and possibly he had suffered under considerable provocation. But what did he do? He would state what he did from his own account of it. Wishing to obtain a signature to a document, he proceeded to the quarters of a brother officer, and, not having sufficient confidence in his own powers of persuasion, he took with him two pistols, and some altercation ensuing he discharged them at the person of the officer in question. For this offence he was placed under arrest, and he was tried by court-martial for having
  1742
  unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously fired one or two loaded pistols at Lieutenant Philip Goldney, with intent to murder. The court-martial condemned him, and he was sentenced to be hanged. The proceedings were, in due course, forwarded to the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Dalhousie, who approved the sentence. There could, however, be no doubt that the court-martial had been conducted with great irregularity; and, having taken the opinion of the best authorities on the subject, the Commander-in-Chief remitted the sentence, but he ordered Lieutenant Torckler to proceed to Calcutta. It afterwards came to the notice of Lord Dalhousie that the proceedings of the court-martial had been informal, and he got the best legal opinion in India as to whether he had power to remit the sentence; but as there seemed to be some confusion upon that point, he wrote home upon the matter. It was suggested that Lieutenant Torckler should be discharged from the Army, and the Court of Directors of the East India Company acted upon this, but he had' from that time until now been in the receipt of a pension of £70 per annum. Under these circumstances, could it be contended that the case of an officer who discharged loaded pistols at a brother officer—who was adjudged an unfit person to remain in Her Majesty's Service, but who had been granted a pension, ought to be further considered? For his part, he could not but think that Lieutenant Torckler—notwithstanding that it was true that the prosecutor at the court-martial exhibited great animus against him, and that some of the charges preferred were not proven—had been treated with very great consideration. Having looked very carefully through the Papers on the subject at the India Office, it did not seem to him that the case required to be further considered by the Secretary of State.

CONTEMPT OF COURT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHALLEY, who had the following Motion on the Paper, but owing to the Forms of the House was unable to move it:—
  "That this House is of opinion that the power of inflicting in a summary way fine and imprisonment upon persons adjudged guilty of Contempt of Court which is now exercised by

  1743
  Her Majesty's Judges of Courts of Record should be used with extreme caution, and only in cases of urgent necessity; that, reserving the power of a Judge to punish in a summary way whenever necessary, it is advisable to provide by legislative enactment that a person aggrieved shall have some right of appeal, and that when practicable, punishment for Contempt of Court shall be awarded only after trial in due form and course of law,"
  said, he could not help expressing his regret that as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), who had a Motion on the Paper on the subject of Contempt of Court, was not in his place on that occasion, that hon. Gentleman had allowed his Motion to drop. Immediately he (Mr. Whalley) found himself in possession of the question, his first desire was to find proper materials upon which to bring it forward. He therefore applied to the hon. Member to furnish him with the cases which he had in his mind, to show the necessity for the interference of Parliament. He regretted to say that that hon. Member declined to furnish him with the information; and therefore he could only deal with such information as he had in reference to the misconduct of the Judges in administering this law of Contempt of Court in the Tichborne Case. And here he might remark that it was the Tichborne Case which had given rise to the public anxiety in respect to the whole question, and which might have led to the other departures from precedent. He had looked into many authorities, including Blackstone, and he could not ascertain whether Contempt of Court was insolence or a personal assault upon the Judge, or whether it was something done out of the view of the Court, such as interfering with witnesses. He contended, however, that nothing that had been done by him, or Mr. Onslow, or Mr. Skip worth justified the course which had been adopted by the Court in fining them, and sending them to prison, on the ground that they had been guilty of Contempt of Court. The Judges, however, had laid down a rule on this subject which now permeated the whole of the Courts of Law, and had even descended to the County Courts. One Judge, for instance, threatened to commit a lamplighter for not properly performing his humble duty, and in another case, the Judge increased the punishment of a prisoner in consequence of what the learned Judge supposed, erroneously,
  1744
  had been uttered by the prisoner to another man in the dark. He contended that in respect to Contempt of Court the Judge was restricted to what took place in common with the administration of justice. The Common Law offence of Contempt of Court was restricted to such offences as it was necessary to punish then and there, in order to enable the Judges to administer the duties of their office. What took place in regard to the Tichborne Case did not arise from any misapprehension of his powers on the part of the Lord Chief Justice, for he declared that he used this pretence of Contempt of Court as a means of putting down public discussion as to the trial in connection with the Tichborne Case. The object of putting down the public discussion thus to prevent the man from having that fair trial which the common sense and the laws of his country provided that he should have. He charged the Lord Chief Justice with having, in enforcing his views in respect to Contempt of Court, a determination to prevent discussion respecting the Tichborne Case; and then to prevent money being raised to bring up witnesses on behalf of the Claimant—for it was impossible that the man could possibly have a fair trial unless money was raised for that purpose—and thus meet the large number of witnesses brought up by the Crown against the defendant, and which witnesses were brought forward at the expense of the country. He therefore charged the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench with having the deliberate object, in enforcing this principle of Contempt of Court, to prevent the Claimant from meeting the case brought against him, and supported in the way which he had stated. At the last election for Peterborough he (Mr. Whalley) was returned by a larger number of voters than at his previous elections—a fact that justified him in saying that the course which he had taken in support of the Claimant had been approved of by his constituents: and this brought him to the circumstances connected with the case of his imprisonment upon the charge of Contempt, and these circumstances were fully brought under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite at the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, however, took the matter out of his hands to deal with it

  1745
  as a breach of Privilege, and he (Mr. Whalley) was left under the happy delusion that the right hon. Gentleman's object was to give a wider scope to the inquiry into this one of the instances of the trial, but to his amazement the right hon. Gentleman declined to enter into the question—he declined to give any answer to the appeal of 1,611 of his (Mr. Whalley's) constituents praying for an inquiry into the conduct of this man—of this Lord Chief Justice.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. WHALLEYresumed by saying, that not only had 1,611 of his constituents made a demand for inquiry, but that 300,000 honest men of England had petitioned to the same effect. He was aware, however, that the Government totally ignored the 300,000 petitioners on this subject, and that they almost disregarded the amenities which should exist between the Government and private Members. This was, he believed, the first time in the history of England, for it had not occurred even in the worst of times—in the time of Jeffreys—when a Judge, assailed in this way by the Petition of upwards of 300,000 persons, and distinctly charged with misconduct, had consented to allow himself to remain in the discharge of his duties while the petitioners remained either unsatisfied or properly rebuked. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary told them that he had adopted in the case of the Tichborne trial the same course which he adopted in the case of an ordinary trial. But if that were so, why did the right hon. Gentleman tell them whether or not he had forwarded to the Lord Chief Justice the Petitions, affidavits, and complaints with respect to that Judge's conduct, which had crowded into the Home Office from every part of England? He did not tell them that he had refused to allow the Members of the House even to see them. He had, however, made an exception in his (Mr. Whalley's) favour, assuming that he was the only Member of the House who felt an interest in the case, ignoring the honest and serious agitation which was taking place out-of-doors in reference to this question. Further than this, he distinctly charged the Prime Minister himself with having gone out of his way
  1746
  in putting upon the records of the Committee a Resolution approving of the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice. In bringing forward that matter he disclaimed anything like a personal motive, and his wish was to entirely separate his ease from the complaints of the people though he had been twice fined and imprisoned for Contempt of Court. He contended, however, that the Lord Chief Justice had acted contrary to the precedents of his Court by inflicting that fine and imprisonment upon him. There was, however, one question upon which, with the permission of the House, he would say a few words, and that was as to what could be the motive of the Chief Justice for this grievous disregard of the precedents of Ms Court, this outrage upon the feelings of the sense of justice of the people of England by stopping public discussion under the plea of Contempt of Court. The onus of explaining that' fell upon his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, or whoever else might rise to reply to his Motion. He (Mr. Whalley) would, however, venture to point to this circumstance, that in their Petitions the people—how they came by that knowledge he could not say—had distinctly stated that the Tichborne trial was the result of a Jesuit conspiracy. They stated that Stonyhurst College, which was the centre of the Jesuits in this country, had subscribed to forward the views of those members of the Tichborne family who were connected with that Order. There was no other solution of the mystery in which the case was involved, including the extraordinary conduct of the Press, which ignored, suppressed, or perverted, habitually and systematically, all that was said or written with respect to the case. He begged to state on behalf of the people who had signed these Petitions, and in repudiation of the futile and undignified imputation of the Lord Chief Justice, that they were "fools and fanatics, uneducated and deluded," that they had good sound constitutional reasons for the course they had taken, and that it was nothing less than a deliberate organized Jesuit conspiracy. The Jesuits were known in history and in every country of the world as men who ought to be regarded as outside the law. ["Question!"] He was endeavouring to explain in some rational manner, why this case should have been

  1747
  involved in the mystery which the country contemplated with so much amazement. The Prime Minister had himself admitted that such was the law, and said he would enforce it whenever he found that these men offended. But why did he not enforce it, since the law stated that they offended by living in the country at all? These men acted in defiance of the law; they ignored it, and acted with motives and for objects that were inscrutable to him. He might mention in corroboration of this that when the unfortunate man now in prison returned to this country he, in conjunction with the present Governor General of India, Lord Northbrook, and several other Hampshire gentlemen, subscribed to his support, as they all knew him to be the man he said he was.
  MR. BOORDrose to Order, and asked if the hon. Gentleman's remarks were relevant to the question before the House?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question was that the House go into Committee of Supply. He could not say the hon. Gentleman was overstepping the bounds allowed in such cases; but he would suggest that he should confine himself to the particular point he wished to bring to the notice of the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would endeavour to do so. He was merely pointing to the fact of this general subornation as a proof of as general a belief in the identity of this man, which was attempted to be destroyed by some extraordinary occult influence working both in Parliament and in the Press, and which had even reached the Courts of Justice. Whatever this influence might have been, it, at all events, remained for the Government and those who defended him to assume the charge which he (Mr. Whalley) distinctly made, and which he was prepared to substantiate by every means, that the Lord Chief Justice did not even pretend to administer the law, but openly and avowedly, by his acts and by his words——
  GENERAL SHUTE: I rise, Sir, to Order. Is any Member of this House at liberty to speak of the Lord Chief Justice of England in such language without bringing forward any specific charge?
  MR. SPEAKERreplied, that the hon. Gentleman was at liberty to make
  1748
  charges against the Lord Chief Justice, but he was morally bound to substantiate them.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that nothing could give him greater pleasure than that the Government should afford him the opportunity of substantiating the charges which he made against the Chief Justice of administering the law in his Court in a way which was entirely without precedent in punishing him and other gentlemen for an alleged Contempt of Court, and avowedly for the purpose of preventing public discussion in respect to the Tichborne trial. The result of that had been to deprive the unfortunate man of the only means he had of bringing up witnesses to prove his case. It now rested with the Government to account for this Judge's conduct. For his own part, he could discover no motive more reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case than that alleged by the petitioners—that he had been influenced by the Society of Jesus, an Order of men whom the law said were not fit to live in this country. He thanked the House for the patience and courtesy with which hon. Members had listened to what he had to say in favour of his Motion to restrict the power of their Courts in inflicting punishment for Contempt of Court, except in such cases as interfered with the proper discharge of their duties. If the Government would not take any trouble in the matter, he himself would introduce a short Bill to define the limits within which that power should be exercised.
  DR. KENEALYsaid, that if anything were wanted to satisfy him of the absolute necessity of bringing in a Bill for triennial Parliaments, it was the bearing of the House on that great question. The people of England would learn in the morning through the newspapers that when his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) brought forward a Motion of the greatest and most vital consequence to every man in England, there were so few Members in the House, that an hon. Member thought it right to call the attention of the Speaker to the small number present. It was, as it seemed to him, a most lamentable sign of the decline of public spirit, that atrocities of the nature which they had seen practised under the doctrine of Contempt of Court could be suffered so long to pass by with impunity.

  1749
  He had hoped to follow the hon. and learned Attorney General, and not to precede him. He was anxious to learn from a learned lawyer like him any justification in point of law or precedent for those unconstitutional and illegal proceedings. He would express his own views on the matter—and he challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he could, to demolish the edifice which he hoped to raise—and would show that there was no pretext or pretence in law for the proceedings that were carried on by the Court of Queen's Bench during that iniquitous trial. At the same time, he must say that he felt some sympathy for the hon. and learned Gentleman and all the right hon. Persons by whom he was surrounded. When Voltaire received some verses from the King of Prussia which His Majesty asked him to polish, he complained that the monarch had sent him such a quantity of dirty linen to wash, and he (Dr. Kenealy) sincerely sympathized with the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, who for so long a period of this Session had had so much dirty linen of the late Government to wash. He was not saying that the hon. Gentleman opposite had had much of their own, because he thought the present Ministry, with the exception of their unaccountable aberration in the Tichborne Case, had conducted the Government with as much dignity as could be expected, and it was rather hard on them that they should have to answer for and defend the gross dereliction of duty of the late Government. He had hoped to see on the Opposition benches some of the legal Representatives of that Government, because the acts complained of were committed during the time that Government was in power. He had therefore hoped that some of those legal Representatives would have been on those benches to explain or justify why it was that they did not interfere in stopping proceedings which certainly must have astonished every man in England who knew anything about the Constitution of England. Those Gentlemen, however, had thought it wise to be absent. He supposed if they had been able to justify those deeds—those unjustifiable deeds—they would have been present to do it. They were not. He would hear with some expectation what justification could be given of them by
  1750
  the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; but he (Dr. Kenealy) certainly would have preferred that he had followed the hon. and learned Attorney General so that he (Dr. Kenealy) might have had some opportunity of commenting or criticizing or probably of being convinced by the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was not at all to be wondered at that there should have been a great amount of excitement in the country during the Tichborne prosecution. The committal of the Claimant by the late Chief Justice of Common Pleas was an almost unprecedented act. The Claimant himself, in the course of his cross-examination had told Chief Justice Bovill that so long as he sat upon that Bench there was no necessity for a hostile counsel to cross-examine him, and that remark caused a very powerful effect throughout the country. The country was watching the Case with a thousand eyes; the country saw the justification of the remark; the country was disgusted beyond measure with the summary mode in which the trial came to a conclusion. They sympathized very much with the man when he was sent to Newgate, a bail being imposed upon him which it was almost impossible for him to meet—namely, £5,000 himself and surety to the same amount. They saw the man be in Newgate 50 days before he could procure that enormous bail. They also saw that Lord Rivers and other gentlemen of standing, when they went bail for him, were cross-examined as if they were thieves. Therefore it was that there was an amount of public feeling exhibited throughout the nation in favour of the man and against his opponents—his unjust and unrighteous opponents, as they believed them to be. Then the Defendant, as was very well known, had no money. The long time which the Crown thought fit to take between his committal and prosecution—a period of nearly 15 or 16 months—had exhausted his means. He had the misfortune, too, to fall amongst a variety of lawyers, and he was like the unfortunate man in Jerusalem who fell among thieves. He was completely cleared out, and just before the second trial he was almost penniless. It was absolutely necessary for him to resort to public meetings to get funds for his defence. He arraigned the conduct of the Court of Queen's Bench, for having deliberately

  1751
  attempted to put down those meetings, called together for the legitimate purpose of raising money to defend a penniless man. The first attack which was made by the Court was upon Messrs. Onslow and Whalley for attending a meeting at St. James's Hall, London. The only offence, as far as he could see, that those gentlemen were guilty of in attending that meeting was, that they said they believed that certain persons in the Trial in the Court of Common Pleas had committed perjury; and that was made the pretext for carrying those two Gentlemen before the Court of Queen's Bench, and bringing to bear upon them the exercise of a power which he undertook to say had never been exercised before. When the Lord Chief Justice was called upon to justify to some extent his extraordinary conduct, he intimated that the right of committing for Contempt was a rather ancient one. He (Dr. Kenealy) deliberately asserted that no instance could be found in the history of the law of Contempt up to the time of Lord Hardwicke—very recently—where such acts entailed such punishment. In the time of Henry II. there was a case where words of contumely were used in the case of a Judge sitting under a Royal Commission, but the man was tried in the ordinary process of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite knew very well that when he went back to Henry II. he went back very far indeed. But he could go to one of the clauses of the Great Charter, which showed how violently, as it were, our ancestors guarded against the attempt to set up an arbitrary power in this country. The clause to which he alluded was the 46th, and it ran in the following words:—
  "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we pass upon him, or commit him to prison, unless by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."
  That clause had been, and was at that moment, the law of the land, yet it was violated, and set at naught, by the Judges of the Queen's Bench, in their arbitrary proceedings for Contempt. There could be only two modes of ascertaining the law of the land. It was either written or unwritten. He asserted, but he was open to conviction, that there was neither written nor unwritten law, down to the time of Lord
  1752
  Hardwicke, which authorized such proceedings as those of which they complained in the Tichborne Case. It was contrary to the spirit of the law that a man should be accuser and Judge; but the monstrous doctrine was also laid down that no answer could be given by the persons directed by the Court to be prosecuted for Contempt, and that it was simply a question of punishment. From the time of Henry I down to the establishment of the Star Chamber, there was, he asserted, not one single instance known of summary punishment for Contempt. Hargrave, in his Juridical Arguments, vol. ii., p. 183, said—
  "I am myself far from being convinced that commitments for contempt by a House of Parliament, or by the highest Court of Judicature in Westminster Hall, either ought to be, or is thus wholly privileged from all examination and appeal."
  Hallam cites this with approval, iii., 281. The hon. and learned Attorney General knew how great a lawyer Hargrave was; he was entitled to as much weight as any Judge, and to more weight than many of them; yet such was his deliberate opinion upon Contempt. Again that great jurist said—
  "I am far from subscribing to all the latitude of the doctrine of attachment for contempt of the King's Courts of "Westminster, especially the King's Bench, as it is sometimes stated and has been sometimes practised."
  What was the opinion of Hallam on what Chief Justice Wilmot said—
  "The principle upon which attachments issue for libels on Courts is of a more enlarged and important nature; it is to keep a blaze of glory around them; and to deter people from attempting to render them contemptible in the eyes of the people."—[Opinions and Judgments, p. 270.]
  At one blow that was demolished by Hallam, who in his comment on it said—
  "Yet the King, who seems as much entitled to this blaze of glory as his Judges, is driven to the verdict of a jury before the most libellous insult on him can be punished."—[Constitutional History, iii., 283.]
  Hon. Members laughed at the "blaze of glory" to which Chief Justice Wilmot alluded. In his opinion the present blaze of glory in which the Judges of the Queen's Bench shone, was a blaze of fire that would consume them, as Semele was consumed by the glory of her lover. Lord Mansfield, who was quite as arbitrary and despotic a Judge as any one now existent, in the last century, when

  1753
  papers had been distributed in an Assize town among jurors summoned to try a great cause, did not venture to resort to the Contempt of Court doctrine. He knew better. He only adjourned the trial; leaving it to the party aggrieved to proceed by criminal information. And Lord Denman had declared from the Bench, that the summary power was limited to cases of direct insult to the Court while it was sitting, or of obstruction to its process. That was law, and it was common sense also. Therefore, the whole of these proceedings, carried on under the auspices of the Court of Queen's Bench, were absolutely without precedent. If he wrote the most fearful libel against the Sovereign, that Sovereign had no power to summarily punish him. The Sovereign could only send him to be tried by a jury: and could it be contended that a man who spoke disrespectfully of the mere Representative of that Sovereign could be punished without trial by jury? The thing was absurd. It would not bear a moment's examination. He would be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman could clear up that rather difficult matter. What were the facts? Mr. Onslow and Mr. Whalley expressed their opinion that the evidence given against the Claimant in the Court of Common Pleas was false, and they were declared guilty of Contempt. But when he (Dr. Kenealy) brought Mr. Routledge before the Court for speaking of the Claimant as "a swindler, a scoundrel, and a perjurer," the Court would hardly listen to him. Mr. Onslow and Mr. Whalley disclaimed any intention of offending the dignity of the Court. They never intended to bring the Court into contempt. They asserted as Gentlemen—and he believed that they were entitled to credit—that they merely sought to awaken sympathy for the man and to obtain funds for his trial. They were treated almost as felons, and reprimanded in the strongest way. He would not soon forget the acrimony with which each of these Gentlemen had been treated by the Bench. There was no calmness, no judicial dignity, none of the fine placid solemnity which they were accustomed to associate with the character of our Judges; but all was violence, rage, anger, and evidently a powerful and deeply-rooted determination to put down public meetings, and assertions at such meetings about the
  1754
  Claimant. The scene was one utterly unprecedented and disgraceful to an English Court. He was present at the time, and the conduct of the Bench carried him in spirit back to the horrible days of Scroggs and Jeffreys. Mr. Skip-worth was also there, and he probably was moved by the same indignation as himself. He went down to Brighton, and addressed a public meeting, to which he described what had taken place that day in the Court, and said he had seen two Members of Parliament treated as criminals for advocating truth and justice throughout the country, and that he hurled the intimidation of the Judges back with the contempt which it deserved. There was no attempt in the speech to prejudice the public mind, or to interfere with any person who might afterwards be considered an important witness; but simply the exercise of the right of every man to make a criticism, uncalled-for and unmerited if they pleased, but a criticism on the conduct of one of our Judges in his judicial capacity. He (Dr. Kenealy) had yet to learn that an Englishman was prohibited by any law from criticizing the conduct of any public officer of State. Of course, he exercised that right at his own risk; if he passed the bounds of due criticism, the law would step in and punish him. But, for simple criticism like that at Brighton, to say the critic could be summarily dragged before a Court of Law and fined and imprisoned, appeared to him about one of the most arbitrary stretches of unjust power ever witnessed in any country. Bad as the Tichborne precedent had been, and fraught with dangers to public morals, including the palliation of adultery, embezzlement, and falsehood given from the Bench, he did not believe that it was to be equalled in badness by the doctrine now sought to be established—that for language such as that at Brighton a man could be dragged away, convicted without trial by jury, and fined in the large sum of £500, and subjected to three months' imprisonment, as Mr. Skipworth was. If hon. Members did not believe that these things were entering deeply into the English mind and heart, they were sadly mistaken. He did not believe anything in the world had more deeply entered into the English soul than the sending of those Gentlemen to prison without the intervention

  1755
  of a jury. ["Oh!"] Gentlemen would find that that was so when they faced their constituents. [Ironical cheers.] They would hear cheers of a different kind when their constituents questioned them on this matter. It was not for him to anticipate; but he entertained a very lively anticipation that when they cried "Oh!" before their constituents, they would do so in very different and in very melancholy tones. The Claimant was brought up for saying the Lord Chief Justice had spoken of him at his club as a rank impostor, and had said to some ladies that it was a shame to mention his name in decent society. The Lord Chief Justice handed the newspaper containing these statements to the Attorney General, and asked him to bring the matter before the Court. "Was it not repugnant to every principle of justice that the Judge whose conduct was arraigned in this matter should himself call the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown—that he should act judicially in his own case—a thing which the humblest magistrate in England would not do if he were prosecuting a person for stealing a couple of eggs from him? That the Lord Chief Justice should do this seemed to him (Dr. Kenealy)—he hardly liked to call it an outrage on public decency, but in his judgment it was a course of such a nature as required no language of his to characterize as it deserved. Mr. Skipworth and the Claimant were called before the Court. Why did not the Lord Chief Justice then deny the imputations made against him? What were these accusations? He would read them from the report. First of all came the speech of Mr. Skipworth, which was as follows:—
  "Ladies and Gentlemen,—It is encouraging to find, your reception after the degrading spectacle, I may say, I have witnessed at the Queen's Bench to-day in London. Nothing less than this: that two honourable Members of Parliament have been brought up, I may say, as criminals, for advocating truth and justice throughout the country. ('Hear, hear,' and applause.) Yes, gentleman, I say a sad spectacle it is for England that we have come to this—no less than a great infringement upon our rights and liberties—(' Hear, hear')—and if they had a just cause upon the other side, you may depend upon it it would never have been done. ('Hear, hear,' and a cry of 'Never.') And what do they mean when they rob a man of everything he possesses, and he has to go about the country for a living? They would even rob him of every friend he possesses. (Applause.) The Lord Chief Justice of England
  1756
  particularly stated in his judgment how mild and moderate he was to these gentlemen, inasmuch as they had apologized; but it was was only an example, and that if anyone else should similarly offend, or be brought up under similar circumstances, they would be visited with the full rigour of the law—not only a fine would be inflicted, but imprisonment. (Cries of 'Shame,' and hisses.) Gentlemen, I hurl his intimidation back with the contempt that he has treated these Members of Parliament with. (Loud applause.) I care not for his intimidation. I will stand here when my duty calls me in defiance of his—ay, I will call them—vulgar threats. (Renewed applause.) I am not going to be intimidated when I consider that a duty to my country calls me forth."
  The remainder of the speech was to a similar effect. Here, the House would observe, there was not one syllable spoken as to the pending trial. Every word was directed against the arbitrary, tyrannical, and despotic conduct of the presiding Judge. Talk of Algiers and its laws, or rather its defiance of laws, after that We had now Algerine law in this country. He now turned to the Claimant's speech which he found thus reported—
  "Four years ago the Lord Chief Justice of England publicly denounced me as a rank impostor at his club. I know of others (occasions), but cannot prove them, so will not. But I can prove that he subsequently, within these last two months, at a party where a lady friend of mine was, distinctly turned round to those ladies, and said it was a disgrace to mention my name in decent society. ('Oh, oh!') I think I have a right to call on him to answer for Contempt of Court. I do not suppose they would grant the rule, but rest assured I will apply for it. And I maintain, ladies and gentlemen, that he had no right to sit on that Bench (to-day). At St. James's Hall my friend, Mr. Onslow, stated that the Lord Chief Justice was not a fit Justice to sit on my forthcoming trial. He gave, as his reasons, those I have mentioned, and that he had also, during the late trial, while sitting by the side of Judge Bovill, written on a piece of paper—' Had I been Judge, and you leading counsel, we would have had this fellow in Newgate long ago.' He was a party concerned, and if he had had the slightest delicacy for his honour he would never have sat on the Bench (to-day). So much have I heard, that I intend to petition Parliament against his sitting on my forthcoming trial. No doubt, I shall be able to prevent him. If I do not, I will go into that Court without counsel, attorney, or witnesses, and let him crush me as he thinks proper. ('No, no!') If the Lord Chief Justice has got to sit and adjudicate on my case I will offer no evidence, but throw myself on the country. (Applause.)
  Now the Lord Chief Justice, thus publicly arraigned, himself handed to the Attorney General—or his representative—the newspapers which contained the report, and in the presence of his junior

  1757
  Judges demanded punishment for these reflections cast upon himself. This was against all law, for a Judge to be Judge in his own cause. But he shrank from a public denial of their truth. He never has denied them to be true. He might well have come into court on the day of committal, and said—"I appear here because of certain charges brought against me. I give the most positive denial to their truth, and now I will retire from the Bench and allow my brother Judges to deal with this matter." That was not done, which furnished to his (Dr. Kenealy's) mind an evidence of want of bonâ fides on the part of the Lord Chief Justice. The Claimant was not punished at all, but was allowed to go free, because the Court admitted that if he was locked up, he could not get money for his defence. Those were two of the three cases—the third exceeded all the rest. When the House heard what Mr. Whalley was sent to prison for, it would be indeed surprised. He was sent to prison because of his belief in the witness Jean Luie. Mr. Whalley had, at his own expense, undertaken a troublesome voyage to America to sift Luie's story, and see if he was a credible witness; and he came to the conclusion, which he still entertained, that the man's story, with regard to the Osprey, was substantially true. He came back, and on his report the defence called Luie. Soon afterwards that man was sworn to by a detective as having stated that Mr. Whalley had called on him at Brussels, and induced him to come forward. No one who knew Mr. Whalley could believe he was capable of a dishonourable act. He might have eccentric notions about the Jesuits and other matters; but he (Dr. Kenealy) did not believe that any hon. Gentleman who had been associated with him in that House, or out of it, for the last quarter of a century would believe that Mr. Whalley could be guilty of a wilful fraud. When the statement of the detective was published, Mr. Whalley sent a letter to the papers, in which he said nothing that had occurred had affected his belief in Luie's evidence about the Osprey. That letter was as follows—
  "To the Editor of The Daily Mews.
  "Sir,—I ask the favour of your insertion of the copy of my letter to the defendant's solicitor, written on my way home from America. It was only on Saturday last that I became informed
  1758
  that a copy of this letter has been in the hands of the Solicitor of the Treasury, and the ground on which I now ask for its publication is, that the Lord Chief Justice stated, when I was in the witness-box, that it would be material to show that the prosecution knew the result of my inquiries in America. I was unable, in reply to his Lordship's question, then to say more than that I had from the first pressed upon the Solicitor of the Treasury to accept information of every fact and circumstance that from time to time might come to my knowledge, whether for or against the defendant, and that he had persistently refused to do so. As the statements of Detective Clarke of what Jean Luie has told him (though denied, as it seems, by Luie himself) may materially prejudice the Trial, I consider that I am called upon to state that nothing that has occurred in relation to this man affects my belief that his evidence as to the Osprey is substantially true.—I am, &c,
  (Signed) "G. H. WHALLEY.
  "London, 20 January, 1874."
  Was it creditable—was it even creditable that for the last paragraph in that letter Mr. Whalley was fined £250 and was sent to prison? It was perfectly monstrous. He (Dr. Kenealy) could hardly have conceived that, notwithstanding the unprecedented lengths to which the Court went, it would go the length of saying that Mr. Whalley must go to prison for saying he believed, in Luie's story about the Osprey. The fact had only to be mentioned and considered candidly by any honourable and rational mind, to compel that mind to come to the conclusion that it was utterly unjustifiable. He would not trouble the Court—he meant the House—with anything else except what related to the defendant himself. He used to go round and shoot in the name of Sir Roger Tiohborne, which was considered such a Contempt of Court that the Court would not allow him to go and shoot in his own name. In what name was he to go and shoot? Was he to call himself Arthur Orton? That could hardly be said; he (Dr. Kenealy) did not know what might be said in reply; but it was outrageous that because he represented himself at the shooting matches as Sir Roger Tichborne, which, by every principle of law, until convicted, he was entitled to do—because he did that he was threatened with being sent to Newgate. Those were very high-handed proceedings, and though they might not meet with that reception in that House which he wished they would, they were producing great effect on the country, as was shown by the extraordinary number

  1759
  of Petitions that had been sent praying for an inquiry into the Claimant's case. To those Petitions the House had turned a deaf ear. He was not going to set himself up as a censor of the House. No doubt, the House was acting with what it thought due wisdom and deliberation. But he did hope, whatever conclusion the House might have come to previously, it would not hastily come to any resolution in this case which would go the length of confirming the doctrine, now for the first time laid down, that men might be summarily fined and imprisoned for such offences as he had called the attention of the House to. Hon. Gentlemen must all have read of two great trials which excited as much public feeling as that of Tichborne. The first was that of Warren Hastings. Multitudes of leading articles were written during that trial, and speakers went about, some asserting his complete innocence, and others denouncing him, in the language of Burke, as one of the greatest miscreants that ever existed. The High Court of Parliament must have been cognizant of all this, and yet it never ventured to exercise any power of committal for Contempt for those ebullitions of party feeling. It knew that no such power existed in law. In the same way, on Queen Caroline's trial, half England asserted that she was a martyr of innocence and purity; others, siding with the King, asserted the opposite; and yet, although the Ministers were not indisposed to adopt the most arbitrary proceedings to gratify the King and their own feelings, no instance was recorded of a punishment for Contempt during the whole of that trial. These were two extraordinary precedents in his favour. Apparently, in the mind of Parliament then, no power existed in the legal tribunals to punish for the expression of opinion one way or another; and yet everybody knew how virulent, and hostile, and how acrimonious those expressions of opinion were. These facts demonstrated that the lawyers of those days—men infinitely greater than those we had at present—did not believe there was any such authority resting even in Parliament to act on that doctrine of Contempt of Court. He had now cited law and narrated facts to show that there was an undue, unfair, and almost tyrannical exercise of power for the suppression of all expression of public opinion
  1760
  in the Tichborne Case. The interest of every man in this country was that men should not be muzzled, in the way the Court of Queen's Bench sought to muzzle the opinion of England in that trial; he declared that it was against all our precedents, predilections, and views that an Englishman should not be allowed to speak his thoughts as freely as the winds of heaven blow. He called these matters to the attention of the House, sincerely hoping that he had made some impression. His only object was to consult the public interest in this matter, and he threw himself on the dignity, the traditions, and the glorious history of that House. He hoped it would not be insensible, or blind, or deaf to a recollection of its grand and constitutional recollections, and that it would rise equal to the present occasion, and proclaim a law which would give delight to the whole of England—that no Judges were invested with the power with which the Judges in the Court of Queen's Bench had invested themselves, and that Parliament would interfere to check the growth of any such power as unconstitutional, tyrannical, and disgraceful in the very highest degree.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALasked for the indulgence of the House while he made a few comments upon the very small portion of the speeches of the hon. Members for Peterborough and Stoke which appeared to him to be appropriate subjects for discussion in the House. He said that he must, in the first place, observe that the hon. Member who had last spoken appeared to be under some misconception as to the real question before the House, for he had repeatedly expressed a hope that the House would express some opinion upon what he called those important questions which he had brought under their consideration. The sole question now before the House was, whether they should go into Committee of Supply, and, on such a Motion, no vote could be taken or decision arrived at on the matters to which the hon. Members had called attention. At the same time, he (the Attorney General) felt that it would not be becoming in him if he altogether passed over the observations which the hon. Members had addressed to the House. The hon. Member for Peterborough had given Notice of a Motion,

  1761
  which he was prevented by the Rules of the House from bringing on as a Motion, though it was quite open to him to discuss its subject-matter. The first part of his Motion was to the effect that the power of inflicting in a summary way fine and imprisonment upon persons for Contempt of Court, as now exercised by Her Majesty's Judges of Courts of Record, should be used with extreme caution, and only in cases of urgent necessity. He (the Attorney General) did not think that any Member of the House dissented from that proposition; but it was not the custom of the House to pass Resolutions simply expressive of that to which everybody assented. The second part of the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Peterborough was as follows—
  "That, reserving the power of a Judge to punish in a summary way whenever necessary, it is advisable to provide by legislative enactment that a person aggrieved shall have some right of appeal, and that when practicable, punishment for Contempt of Court shall be awarded only after trial in due form and course of Law."
  To that part of the Notice of Motion no reasonable objection could be taken; it was a very proper subject for any hon. Member, who deemed legislation necessary, to bring under the consideration of the House. As regarded the power of Judges to punish for Contempt of Court, he thought it was a most useful power, and one which ought to be retained; it was vested in the Judges, not for their own protection, but in the interests of the public; it enabled the Judges to secure a fair and deliberate trial of the matters which, from time to time, came under their consideration. That opinion, he believed, was shared by a very large number of Members in that House. At the same time, the question whether that power ought to be limited would be a fair subject for discussion; and, holding the office he did, he thought it his duty to be present during this discussion, and to ascertain to what extent hon. Members might make out a case for imposing any such limit. The House, however, was aware how the subject-matter of the Notice of Motion had been departed from. The Notice of Motion recognized he existing power in the Judges, and asserted the propriety of limiting it by legislation; but, instead of pointing out any amendment, which they desired
  1762
  should be made in the law, the two hon. Members told the House that the existing law had been broken by the Judges of the land. But had any one single case been brought forward illustrating or suggesting any breach of the law by the Judges, or the necessity for any alteration of the law, except those which had been alluded to as having occurred in connection with the Tichborne trial? Now, as far as regarded the incidents of that trial, he appealed to the House whether the present occasion was a proper one for renewing the discussion on the incidents of the Tichborne trial? The hon. Member for Stoke availed himself of a recent opportunity to bring the subject of that trial under the consideration of the House, and he could at that time have asked for its opinion on this matter. Had not the hon. Member the fullest opportunity of then assigning every possible reason that could be urged by him against the manner in which that trial was conducted? He urged his reasons for a new trial, in the presence of one of the largest assemblies in the course of the present Session, and he found only two supporters. Again, as regarded the subject of committal for contempt, the hon. Member himself asserted that committal for contempt, in respect of such matters as those in respect of which the hon. Member for Peterborough was committed, was contrary and unknown to the law of England, written or unwritten. But he (the Attorney General) asserted the contrary. The hon. Member himself admitted that, from the time of Lord Hardwicke down to the present time, the exercise of the power of committal for contempt in respect of publication pending the progress of a trial had been distinctly recognized. He spoke of Lord Hardwicke's decision as recent, but it was given 100 years ago, and had been followed ever since: by Lord Erskine, and by the Court of Queen's Bench upon the occasion of the trial of Thistlewood and Ings; in the latter case, a printer, for having published matter affecting the trial while it was pending, was punished for Contempt of Court, exactly in the same way as those had been punished who had committed Contempt of Court in connection with the Tichborne trial. He did not consider that in any instance in which that power was exercised during the Tichborne trial there had been any

  1763
  failure of justice. No doubt, it might occasionally happen that a Judge might make a mistake; but he was sure that the House would not be prepared to deprive the Judges of a valuable power, because, on some very rare occasions, there might have been some possible error in its exercise. The Judges were not deprived of their power of measuring out punishment in criminal cases, because it was sometimes thought that they had been too severe or too lenient in their sentences. But he must guard himself from appearing to think or to suggest that there had been the slightest departure from the law of the land, as far as regarded the committals for Contempt of Court, by the Judges in the Tichborne trial. On the contrary, he was of opinion that that trial had been conducted by the learned Judges in a manner which entitled them to the gratitude of their country, and he was extremely sorry that the hon. Members, after the full opportunities they had had on a late occasion of expressing their disapprobation of the mode of conducting that trial, and after the strongly expressed opinion of the House upon that occasion, should have thought it worth their while on the present occasion to get up and insinuate, if they did not actually assert, that the proceedings of the Judges, and, in particular, of the Lord Chief Justice, had no other object than of preventing the man on his trial from having a fair trial. That insinuation, he believed, met with no response from any Member of the House. The hon. Member for Peterborough wound up his statement by referring to the punishment inflicted on himself for Contempt of Court in connection with the Tichborne Case, and the hon. Member for Stoke had referred to it as the most flagrant, in his opinion, of all the infractions of the law committed by the Judges. Now, the case of the hon. Member, in respect of this very committal, was brought before a Committee of the House on Privileges, and the only further observation he (the Attorney General) would make in regard to it would be, to read the conclusion at which that Committee arrived, and in which the House concurred.
  MR. WHALLEY: The Committee declined to enter into the circumstances, as will appear from their Report.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that what he was about to read would
  1764
  speak for itself, and he read the following passage from the Report:—
  "Your Committee, having had such orders and affidavits before them, proceeded to offer to Mr. George Hammond Whalley an opportunity of making such observations on the matter referred to them as he might desire to offer. Mr. George Hammond Whalley has put in a written statement, part of which appear to your Committee to be irrelevant to the specific object of the present inquiry, but your Committee considered that it would not be expedient to omit any portion of what he deems essential to be laid before the House. Under all the circumstances of the case, your Committee are of opinion that the matters referred to them do not demand the further attention of the House."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Committee declined to enter into any consideration of the circumstances which he brought before them—
  MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member was out of Order, having spoken to the Question, that the House go into Committee of Supply.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £36,646, to complete the sum for the House of Lords Offices.
  (2.) £41,651, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was of opinion that the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons ought to be equal to those of the House of Lords.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £47,516, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, there was an item in this Vote which called for explanation. It was that which referred to the Auditor of the Civil List. He should like to know what were the duties of that officer, seeing that he had a salary of £1,500 a-year?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the officer in question was really an assistant to the Secretary to the Treasury. The title of Auditor of the Civil List conveyed no idea of the important duties he had to perform, and he was probably one of the

  1765
  most hard-worked men in the Department.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to know what those duties were?
  MR. WADDYasked whether this particular gentleman had any other salary?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; he has no other salary.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in answer to the question of Sir Charles Dilke, said, he understood the office was formerly a sinecure, but for some time an alteration had been made in the Department. The senior clerk in the office had been appointed to the position, and his time was fully employed.
  In reply to Mr. GREGORY,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Government had resolved to raise the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means, so as to make it equivalent to that of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. The increase would take effect from the commencement of the present financial year, although it did not appear in the Estimates.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £73,272, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
  MR. WHITWELL, in the case of the Inspectors of Mines, wished to know whether those officers were paid by salary, or in consideration of each mine they inspected?
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he had to take exception to the charge, and particularly with reference to the expenses of mine Inspectors which were heavy and called for explanation.
  MR. COWENsaid, that the salaries of these Inspectors had not risen in proportion to the general advance, and it must be difficult in consequence to get competent men to undertake the duties.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the payments objected to were not additions to the salaries of the Inspectors, but commuted allowances for hotel expenses; their travelling expenses were repaid to them strictly according to the sums disbursed.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £51,692, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
  (6.) £27,738, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
  (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £29,252, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and Subordinate Departments."
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had moved for certain Returns in connection with the expenses of this Department. He found that a considerable outlay was charged under the head of investigations in aid of medical science. Those investigations included the chemical constitution of the brain, febrile diseases, cancer, and sheep pox, and he contended that, however, valuable such amateur investigations as he considered them, might be, they were not within the province of a public Department. He should therefore, move to reduce the Vote by £2,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £27,252, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and Subordinate Departments."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  DR. LUSHwished the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea to understand that these investigations were not made merely for the benefit of the medical profession, but for the benefit of the public at large.
  MR. MACDONALDsupported the Amendment. He did not see why, if the public money was to be expended in the investigation of disease alone—if sums of money were to be expended, he could not see why it should not be also expended in scientific measures directed to neutralizing of the dangerous gases which were found in the mines of the country.
  DR. CAMERONsupported the Vote.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, hon. Members had entirely missed the point of the objection of the hon. Member for Swansea to the Vote. Nobody doubted that investigations of this kind were of inestimable value; but the question was, if they granted this sum, where were they to stop?
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Swansea had

  1767
  brought that question up, as it enabled him (Viscount Sandon) to say that he had thought it right to communicate in regard to it with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when it was first inserted in the Votes. That right hon. Gentleman informed him that he had been very much struck at the time when Rinderpest was prevalent, by the important results of investigations he had instituted with reference to the origin of that disease among cattle, and had been led thereby to think that there might be great advantage in trying in a similar manner to find out the causes of some of the most serious and obscure disorders which afflicted mankind—as, for example, tubercle, typhus, and cancer. The investigations involved a vast amount of labour, and required the most delicate and expensive apparatus, so that no man of science, unless he had a large private fortune, would undertake them. That was the justification for the Vote. The population was devastated by those grievous and obscure diseases which he had mentioned, and from our ignorance of their causes, medical science could do comparatively little to combat them: surely, then, it was a wise thing to search out the origin of such diseases, and as such slow and unremunerative investigations could seldom be carried on by private enterprize, it seemed right and proper for the Government to undertake them. This being a matter which most seriously affected the health of a large part of the population, he thought it was a proper subject for Government action, and he, therefore, quite approved what the right hon. Gentleman had done. He would be extremely loth to see the expenditure cut off. The sum was but small, and one gentle-man—Dr. Sanderson—who was prominently connected with the investigations not only got no remuneration on account of them, but he believed was actually at some expense out of his own pocket. He was assured that these researches were acknowledged to be of extreme value by not only leading men in England, but by the most scientific men in Germany and France.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERwas of opinion that Dr. Sanderson ought to be properly remunerated for his labours.
  1768
  The whole expense of such investigations should be thrown upon the nation, and not shared with an individual.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that the objection to this Vote was, that there were scores of other directions in which such investigations might as well be carried on at the public expense as in this particular one, and if they agreed to the Vote he did not see where they could stop.
  Question put,
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 165: Majority 138.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (8.) £105,531 to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
  MR. MONKasked for information respecting the vacation employment of Inspectors of Railways whose salaries they were now called upon to vote? He wished to know if there was any truth in the rumour that one of these Inspectors was about to proceed to Constantinople to engage in a heavy arbitration case in reference to Turkish railways; and, if so, whether the Government had given their sanction to his undertaking the task. He trusted the rumour was without foundation, even though it should appear that English subjects were interested in the railways in question.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that Captain Tyler was about to spend his vacation not in conducting an arbitration, but in making a report to the Turkish Government upon the railways recently constructed in European Turkey. Last year Captain Tyler spent his vacation in making a report on the Erie Railway. He received permission from the Board of Trade to do so, and he (Sir Charles Adderley) defended that permission in that House, on the ground that it was a matter within the discretion of the head of the Department, who was responsible to the House. In the present case, this was no question of the inspection of a railway undertaking by a private company, the request having been made by the Turkish Government through the Foreign Office. The Board of Trade-had consequently given the desired permission, and Captain Tyler had already left England on his mission.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he could not regard the explanation of the President

  1769
  of the Board of Trade as satisfactory, and hoped that the act would not be drawn into a precedent.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, that if Captain Tyler was to receive Government pay for this mission, they ought not to pay their officers to make reports for other Governments; and if he was not to receive Government pay, still his report would be published in the newspapers, and if favourable would He held to give a sort of Government guarantee or sanction to the railway in question. Last year Captain Tyler was allowed to spend his vacation in making a report on the Erie Railway. English speculators advanced their money on the strength of that report, which was on the whole favourable to the undertaking. If the Government once allowed their officers to make reports in this way, they would next go to Russia and other countries, and no one knew where the practice would stop. We ought to keep our public officers for public works in England.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, we were bound to assist Turkey in her material progress, and thought that the Board of Trade had exercised a proper discretion.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, he thought it was a matter for serious consideration whether officials of the Board of Trade should be allowed, during their holidays, to go on a tour of inspection of foreign or colonial railways, thereby earning money, especially after what had occurred with regard to the Erie Railway, and after the remonstrances that were made from both sides of the House last year.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that after what had occurred with regard to foreign loans, our Inspectors should not be allowed to put their imprimatur on any foreign undertaking whatever.
  MR. MONKdisclaimed any intention of making an attack on Captain Tyler.
  MR. MACDONALDgave Notice that, if it ever again occurred that Captain Tyler or any other officer was allowed to devote his time to other services than those which he had undertaken to fulfil in this country, he would move the disallowance of his salary for the time he was employed, and most certainly divide the House on the subject.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYmaintained that the permission given to
  1770
  Captain Tyler last year and again this year was perfectly justifiable. He contended that it was right, and proper, and wise, and good, and beneficial. In both cases he presumed Captain Tyler was paid by those who employed him. In regard to the Erie Railway, he expressed no opinion either in favour of or against it, but merely gave his recommendations about putting the line in order. Captain Tyler's vacation was for two months, and he maintained that, both last year and this year, it was spent usefully, both for those who employed him and also for the country. An active officer's vacation was not to sit still and do nothing. It would also have been an extraordinary thing to have refused the request of the Turkish Government.
  MR. MACGREGORsaid, he noticed the appearance of a new official—the Solicitor to the Board of Trade. He wanted to know what his duties were to be. He would be satisfied if he were to be employed in connection with inquiries into casualties; but he would object to him if he was to be employed carrying on lawsuits, of which we had had quite too many with shipowners already, and all of them resulting in the country losing them, and having to pay all the costs on both sides.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he would be principally engaged in connection with inquiries into casualties.
  MR. FORSYTHasserted that at the end of his report on the Erie Railway, Captain Tyler had expressed an opinion in favour of the prospects of the line if it were prudently managed. He objected to a Government officer being allowed to go out and express an opinion that inspired confidence in a railway which had led to disaster.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the object for which Captain Tyler was going to Constantinople was to tell the Turkish Government, as an expert, whether they ought to pay a certain sum of money or not, amounting to £800,000 to a contractor, in respect to a certain railway. The railway in question was not going to appeal to the British public for capital.
  MR. MACDONALDthought if that practice were to be encouraged, they might have British officials reporting in favour of foreign oil wells and "salted" diamond fields.
  MR. FIELDENthought, if Captain Tyler was not sufficiently paid for his services he should he paid more; but he should he required to give up the whole of his time to his own Government. Great abuse would creep in if they allowed British officials to employ their vacations in that way, and the Government might he compromised by the opinions they gave.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, his objection was based on the ground that a public officer's holiday ought to be a real one, which would refresh him after his year's labours. If the Government invited any of their officers to give assistance to foreign Governments it should not be in their holidays.
  MR. HARDCASTLEthought it exceedingly objectionable that an officer holding an official position under the Government should have been permitted to lend any sanction to such an undertaking as the Erie Railway.
  MR. RAMSAYcondemned the principle of the Board of Trade sending out an officer like Captain Tyler to inspect foreign railways and give his opinion on the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the matter required consideration, for in accordance with their engagements, it was, no doubt, as a general rule, desirable that public servants should devote the whole of their time to the service of the public. He did not know that there was anything in the circumstances under which Captain Tyler was connected with the Erie Railway which could fairly he held to commit the Government. In the present case an application had been made by a foreign Government for the services of Captain Tyler for a particular duty, and his right hon. Friend near him seemed to think that duty could be discharged without inconvenience to the public service. Under these circumstances it would, he thought, be hard and contrary to the practice which had hitherto prevailed to interfere with the manner in which Captain Tyler might employ his vacations. He, at the same time, admitted that the whole question was one which required to be dealt with, and the attention of the Government would be directed to it between this and next year.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the Board of Trade inquiries into
  1772
  shipwrecks, and that at an enormous waste of money. There were not two parties desiring to arrive at particular results; but it was a kind of philosophical inquiry held at Greenwich, at great inconvenience to the professional men engaged. The nautical assessors were not always equal to conducting the inquiry, and the results were simply nil.
  MR. HERSCHELLdefended the inquiries, and declared that much good was derived from them. He did not, however, deny that the expense of such inquiries might be reduced.
  MR. PLIMSOLLthought the way in which the money was spent was worse than useless. If half the sum were honestly expended in trying to prevent unseaworthy ships from going to sea, instead of being squandered in farcical inquiries intended to throw dust in the eyes of the public, the loss of life at sea, he believed, would be diminished by half.
  MR. SALThoped that in future, there would be some clearer specification of the manner in which the money was spent.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £2,249, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.
  MR. DILLWYNobjected to the Vote on the ground than an officer who had no ostensible duties to perform ought not to receive a salary. He should therefore move its omission.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,249, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 44: Majority 80.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

INFANTICIDE BILL.— [BILL 43.]
(Mr. Charley, Mr. Whitwell.)
INFANTICIDE BILL.— [BILL 43.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed, to.
  Clause 2 (Repeal of proviso to sect. 60 of the 24th & 25th Vict., c. 100).
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDalleged that the clause would render the accused liable to be tried twice over, first for murder, and next for manslaughter, and moved that it be omitted.
  MR. CHARLEYdefended the clause, which he said was based on the recommendation of the Select Committee.
  MR. WADDYopposed the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsupported it.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 10: Majority 66.
  Clause 3 (Wounding new-born child and causing its death to be felony punishable with penal servitude).
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDmoved to omit the words "and thereby cause its death," from the clause.
  MR. DILLWYNmoved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress, to sit again upon Monday next.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

  PETITION FROM DUBLIN.
  MR. MELDON, in moving that the Order for the said Petition to lie on the Table be read and discharged, said, his reason for the Motion was that many of the signatures to the Petition were forgeries and others fictitious.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order, that the Petition from Dublin, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill [presented 28th May] do lie upon the Table, be read, and discharged."—(Mr. Meldon.)
  SIR CHARLES FORSTER, in opposing the Motion, paid a compliment to the working men for the absence from the Petition of any impropriety, and said he would regard it as an infringement on the right of Petition to interfere with the free expression of their opinions upon a matter which concerned them so nearly. There was no case against the Petition, as only 30 signatures had been objected to out of nearly 12,000.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Quarter past Two until Monday next.