Lords Sitting of 26 February 1866

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Cattle Plague (27).
Consideration—Telegraph Act Amendment* [H.L.] (13).

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL—(No. 27.)
(The Lord President.)
CATTLE PLAGUE BILL—(No. 27.)

  FIRST READING.
  Cattle Plague Bill brought up from the Commons.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, this would be a convenient time to make some arrangement with respect to the Cattle Plague Bill, which would be formally brought under the notice of the House that evening. In consequence of the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), that the Government should take charge of the Bill, he had consulted with the Prime Minister and his other Colleagues, who were of opinion that Her Majesty's Government could not take charge of the Bill in its present shape. He hoped, however, that some independent Member of the House would take charge of it; in which event he should give notice of considerable Amendments which would be proposed on the part of the Government. Notice of these Amendments would be given at the earliest moment, in order that they might be printed and placed in the hands of their Lordships without delay. If any other noble Lord should wish to move Amendments, he hoped early notice would be given of them. If, however, a Motion should be made to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he would support that Motion; because he believed that by adopting that course there

  1061
  would be very little delay, and lie thought it could be dealt within a more satisfactory manner by such a Committee than by a Committee of the whole House.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he much regretted the determination which had been communicated by the noble Earl, because he could not help thinking that a Bill of this importance and character, however it might have originated, ought to be in the hands of the Government. Indeed, originally the whole subject, so far as regarded the movement of cattle by railway and on high roads, was taken up in the Bill introduced by the Government. So many difficulties, however, were raised with regard to part of the question, and so many Amendments were moved in the other House, that it was thought better that one portion of the Bill should be agreed to and sent up to their Lordships without delay, and that the other portions should be taken into consideration in conjunction with the rival Bill which had been introduced by an independent Member of that House. In what shape that Bill had or might come out of that House he could not say. for, though nominally it had been introduced by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), it had undergone at the hands of Her Majesty's Government so much alteration and so many changes, that it was doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman himself could now recognize his own measure. Now, seeing that this Bill formed part of a very important Government arrangement, and was supplementary to, and, indeed, formed part of a Bill which the Government originally introduced, whatever alterations the Government might desire to make in it, he could not help thinking that it should not be left to the chance of being taken up by some independent Member of their Lordships' House, but that it ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. He thought that when it did come before their Lordships it would require a good deal of consideration, and would be difficult to understand, as he was told that Amendments had been introduced to such an extent that the original scope and tendency of the Bill had been entirely altered. He hoped the Government would take into consideration how far they could consent to the principle of the Bill, what Amendments they desired to introduce, and that they would then bring in the Bill with such alterations as might be deemed desirable. He thought that very great delay and confusion would be sure to take place if the
  1062
  Bill were thrown loosely before them, leaving it for all the Members of their Lordships' House to advocate it or make such objections to it as might occur to them. He believed that if the Bill should pass under such circumstances, it would be a very unsatisfactory one. He must repeat that he thought the Government ought to take up the Bill; but rather than that it should be dealt with in the way to which he had just referred, he would prefer to accede to the noble Earl's suggestion, and have it referred to a Select Committee, as he thought less time would be lost in this way.
  EARL GRANVILLEagreed that it would be difficult to say precisely in what shape the Bill would come up to their Lordships; but the Government would prefer that it should not pass rather than it should pass in its present form. The principle of the Bill was to prevent the removal of boasts by highways, railway, canal, or river; but he understood there were no less than fifteen exceptions to that Bill, independently of other exceptions arising from powers given to the Privy Council to issue Orders for the local authorities to curry out; and, moreover, the Bill was not to last more than three weeks. The Government were of opinion that it would be difficult to have the provisions of the Bill sufficiently understood in a short time, so that the appointment of officers and other preliminaries might be completed within three weeks. But, as the noble Earl opposite had remarked, added to the Bill were several clauses which would be supplemental to provisions contained in the Bill passed the other day, and he therefore thought it would be a pity and a loss not to have an opportunity of considering those clauses, whatever might he their opinion of the Bill as a whole. In reference to an observation which had fallen from the noble Earl, he must say that the Bill had been altered in the House of Commons, not only in consequence of objections made by Her Majesty's Government, but also in consequence of differences of opinion between the hon Member who had charge of the Bill and eminent agriculturists on both sides of the House. He hoped that the noble Earl would understand that the course he proposed to take was one entirely consistent with usage. If, however, no independent Peer was willing to take up the Bill, he, as a Member of the Government, was ready to do so; but on this clear understanding, that the Go-

  1063
  vernment would only adopt such parts of it as they approved, and as they thought would be useful by way of supplement to their own Bill.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was glad he had induced the President of the Council to rise a second time, because the noble Earl was now about to take a course in which, under the circumstances of the case, he entirely concurred.
  EARL GRANVILLEthen moved that the Bill be now read the first time.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow.—(The Lord President). (No. 27.)

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS. MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDrose to call the attention of the House to the Causes of the present condition of Ireland, and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention to introduce any Measure into Parliament providing for the support of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, independent of the contributions of the people? and also to move for a Return of the Parochial Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, distinguishing between those who are Parish Priests and those who are Curates. The noble Lord said, that on Saturday week Parliament passed a Bill which placed the liberty of every man in Ireland at the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. It would not have been fitting on that occasion to make any remark except in approval of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and of the forbearance, firmness, and promptitude of the Lord Lieutenant: but that Bill having become law, he thought it not less befitting that an early opportunity should be taken of expressing the shame and sorrow which must be felt by every Peer of Ireland—shame at the want of sense shown by a number of their countrymen, and their want of appreciation of the first principles of civilization; sorrow that those who were now approaching "the sere and yellow leaf" could never hope to see Ireland prosperous and in the condition she should be as an integral part of this great Empire. Though the Act for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus had passed through their Lordships' House almost sub silentio, it was not so in the other House of Parliament. It was now matter of history that a noble Lord of great promise (Viscount Cranbourne),
  1064
  nearly connected with a Member of their Lordships' House, and the leader of Democracy in the other House, were agreed in this principle—that the evils of Ireland were not due to the population, for the Irish people flourished in every country but their own. They were not due to the small farms; for in Belgium these were to be found. They were not due to Popery, for this was in France and Belgium also. But, to use Lord Cranbourne's words, "the one point peculiar to Ireland was the English Government." Up to Sunday week Ireland was as free as England and freer than any other country than England; while she had a lower franchise and less taxation than this country. It could not be the tithes which kept down the population, because they were paid by the Frotestant landowner to the Protestant Church. What was it, then, that was driving Irishmen out of Ireland, hating the institutions of their country, while Englishmen and Scotchmen went forth not only without carrying with them any such feeling, but, on the contrary, admiration? Why were Irishmen in America banded together as Fenians with the one sole object of injuring the Queen's Government and degrading this country in every way possible? Let them ask, "Who were the Fenians?" About thirty years ago an Under Secretary for Ireland laid down the axiom—"Property has its duties as well as its rights," and within the last thirty years the greatest efforts had been made by the Irish proprietors to improve their properties, and consequently to better the condition of the people. One necessary part of the improvement was the consolidation of farms where the holdings were too small to afford a decent subsistence to a family, or to allow of the improvement of agriculture; and in that process of consolidation it was absolutely necessary to remove a great number of occupants. In addition to this, numbers of the growing up young men were obliged to go out to work, instead of depending for their livelihood on a share of their father's farm. The disturbed state of the country precluded the investment of capital; and the consequence of these combined causes was a large emigration to America. Naturally care was taken that it was not those of the best character who went, but wherever there was a black sheep in the family, or a drunkard, these men went to America, and the consequence was that for twenty or thirty years the whole refuse of Ireland had been poured into North

  1065
  America. There were also the refugees who were obliged to leave Ireland after 1848, and those classes which he had enumerated were the main source of American Fenianism. The Fenians in America levied a sort of black mail on their more industrious countrymen, who, he was sorry to say, were not as unwilling as they ought to be to pay it. Now, who were the Fenians at home? Compared with the population, he believed that the sworn Fenians were not a great many; but he lamented to think that nearly the entire of the lower classes sympathized with them. How was it that the Irish, who were now better fed, better clothed, and better taught than they used to be—unlike the people of Canada or those of any other country—were prepared to welcome armed invaders, who endeavoured to bribe Her Majesty's troops by promising them the land for their reward, and women for their prey? How was this to be accounted for? In the first place, the Irish at home who sympathized in the Fenian movement did not know the real consequences to themselves of a foreign invasion; in the second, they believed firmly that an Irish Republic would receive great assistance from America; and thirdly, they believed that the result would be every man would get the fee-simple of his own farm. Did noble Lords suppose that at the time of the Reform Bill elections were carried in the teeth of Irish landlords solely from the desire to give new Members to Birmingham and Manchester? There was an ingredient in these elections of which noble Lords might have heard a little, or to which, perhaps, they had turned a deaf ear—and that was the hope held out to the Irish population of fixity of tenure. At that time every man in Ireland was induced to think that the land was not the rightful property of the owner, who was a sort of usurper, holding by force and not by justice; and that the land ought to be the property of the tenant. To persons educated in such a belief was it wonderful that they should grasp what appeared to them the realization of hope long delayed, held out to them by the great Republic of America? He was most unwilling to refer to these old stories, for the whole basis of Ireland's prosperity, if ever she was to be prosperous again, must be forgetfulness and forgiveness of the past. In searching, however, for some small excuse for his unfortunate and deluded fellow-countrymen, if they went to the sources of Ireland's
  1066
  misery, and now of her degradation, he must tell their Lordships that it was England that had sown the wind, and now must reap the whirlwind. Take the manner in which the British Government had treated the Irish question. The Irish landed proprietors were altogether loyal. He did not believe there was a single man possessing land in his own right in Ireland who was disloyal, They and the Scotch settlers in the North formed, in fact, the English garrison. One would suppose it the interest of England to extend to the utmost the influence of such a body. But the conduct of the Irish Government had been exactly the reverse. Whatever might be their object, the practice of the Irish Government seemed to have been to diminish the influence of the Irish gentlemen. They bad not the same control over the police that the English gentry exercised; they had no control over the public-houses; if they had, they would have found it much more easy to put down Ribandism. In Dublin Castle the word of a police-officer weighed down the representations of a whole body of gentlemen. It was not yet a year and a half since a gentleman of old family and large estates was dismissed from the commission of the peace because he wrote a letter to the effect that he held his commission to protect the people against the police. That was an unnecessary assertion to make, and it might have been altogether erroneous in principle; but, holding that opinion conscientiously, he did not see that there was anything unconstitutional in expressing it, and certainly there was nothing to call for his summary dismissal. Some years ago two baronies in the neighbourhood where he resided were proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act. Last autumn that proclamation was suddenly withdrawn. He felt bound to say for himself and brother magistrates that if they had been consulted as to that step they would no doubt have concurred in the propriety of withdrawing the proclamation. The county to all appearance was perfectly peaceable, and there had been almost a maiden assizes. But at the time he knew nothing of the extent of the Fenian conspiracy, and he concluded that in October last the Government knew as little, or they would not have withdrawn the proclamation. The consequence was, however, that the county was immediately filled with arms. The fact in connection with the withdrawal of the proclamation to which he wished

  1067
  to direct the attention of the House was that it was withdrawn without a word said to the lord-lieutenant of the county or to any of the magistrates. It was withdrawn simply as a boon to the people from the Government. Had the Government shown the common grace and common courtesy of informing the gentry of what was going on, of enabling them to say at petty sessions, "We have been consulted as to this matter, and we have advised the Government to withdraw the proclamation; do not disgrace the trust the Government put in you," he knew the generous nature of his countrymen too well to doubt that they would have responded in a becoming spirit to the appeal made to them. But no—that would have been too great a condescension on the part of the Irish Government. Not the slightest intimation reached the magistrates of what they were about to do. The next subject he wished to touch on was a somewhat dangerous one—the treatment of the Orangemen. He had never been an Orangeman—he never would be an Orangeman. Would to God they might never hear more in Ireland of the Battle of the Boyne, of the Rebellion of 1798, or of differences of race! That no differences of race really existed was proved by the ludicrous efforts made by the Fenians to Hibernicize their names, putting an O before such old Saxon names as Baldwin, and other absurdities of that kind. Except in remote parts of Ireland, one never heard anything of differences of race. The Government of England, however, had no right to confound the loyal Orangeman with the traitorous Ribandman. They both, it was true, were members of secret societies; but Orangemen had been spoken of as "the most noble, generous, and patriotic body of men that any country ever saw." And by whom did their Lordships suppose that was said? The words were those of Daniel O'Connell. Above all, the Government had no right to allow the emblems of treason and disloyalty to be flaunted through Dublin at the same time that they punished loyal Orangemen for parading what they believed to be emblems of loyalty and religion. There sometimes sat on the crossbenches of that House—honoured by the present race of Irishmen as he had been honoured by their fathers and grandfathers—a man of the highest character, of unbounded charity to Protestants and Roman Catholics, formerly a just and influential magistrate. He meant the Earl of Roden—for
  1068
  as the noble Earl was absent he might name him. Yet Lord Roden had been dismissed from the commission of the peace, because he entertained in his park a body of Orangemen, most probably the sons and grandsons of those who rode with his father in the Rebellion of '98, and did good service there; and because on their way home an affray took place which Lord Roden would have risked his life to prevent, and with which he had no more to do than the noble Earl opposite. In what light were acts such as these regarded in Ireland? They were regarded as cajolery, prompted by fear; and that certainly was not the way to deal with Irishmen. No doubt, these acts were meant for purposes of conciliation, and as a set-off against the old system of the penal laws. But a policy of conciliation, when it led to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, was not worth much. When, therefore, the liberties of Ireland were restored, he hoped that justice, severe though it might be, yet even-handed justice, would be dealt out to that country, and that all classes would be treated as they were treated in England and Scotland. A thing above all others to be avoided was the application of different principles of legislation to Ireland from what were applied to England. Before long they would have to deal, he felt convinced, with the land question. Let them not apply to Ireland any legislation which they dared not apply to England or Scotland. In both countries in the case of estates entailed upon distant relations, and perhaps heavily encumbered, it might not be a bad thing to vest in the tenant the power of making necessary repairs and improvements, always, however, with the consent of the landlord. But it was absolutely necessary to do away with the extravagant expectations which were entertained on the subject of fixity of tenure, and with the present bastard system of tenant-right in the North of Ireland, which was carried to lengths injurious alike to the landlord and the tenant; above all, it was necessary to break through that vicious circle in which the turbulence of portions of the population prevented the outlay of capital, and the want of capital kept masses of the population from ever elevating their position. Sooner or later it would be absolutely necessary on those three grounds to deal with the land question in Ireland. Parliament would also before long be called on to consider two other questions intimately associated with the state of feeling

  1069
  in that country—the Irish Church, and the payment of the Roman Catholic priests. To those of their Lordships—and he trusted they were the great majority—who recognized the Irish Church not as a State creation and endowed by the State, but as a reformed branch of the Church Catholic, legitimately inheriting the greater part of her property through a succession of Bishops from the remotest times, and receiving additions to that property as a Reformed Church, there was no need for him to address any observations in confutation of schemes for alienating the property of that Church from its legitimate uses. But one of those original uses was education. By the constitution of the Church every clergy man was formerly bound to keep a school. Their Lordships, consequently, might redistribute that property, applying a large portion of it, if they thought fit, to purposes of education. In doing this they would set free a considerable part of the sum now expended on National Education which, with other sums to be added, of course they might apply to any other uses. One of the principal of those uses—he might take leave to say—should be the support of the Roman Catholic clergy. The Roman Catholic priests of late years had done good service to the State; and he had already said that to forgive and forget the past ought to be the basis of Ireland's future prosperity. In 1848 the Roman Catholic priests saved the people of Ireland being overridden by democratic and disturbing influences, and from the effects of an absurd, but most unfortunate rebellion. In 1866 the Roman Catholic priests had been doing their best to save the people again. During the intermediate years they had laboured with diligence to repress that phase of Fenianism known as the Riband conspiracy. If something were done to provide payment for the priests out of the parishes an interest would be given them in the land, the poorest class would, to a certain extent, be relieved, and, above all, something would be done to remove an anomaly which had provoked constant remark, and constituted the last trace of ascendancy of the few over the many. Land of the value of £220,000 a year would give 1,064 parish priests glebes worth £200 a year, subject to £25 a year for the Bishops who could have by that arrangement nearly £1,000 a year each. It might be said that the Roman Catholic priests would refuse this. No doubt they had a right to do so; but he did not think they would
  1070
  refuse On the other hand, it might be said that conscientious Protestants would object to such a provision. If he believed that the peculiar dogmas of the Roman Catholic teaching would be advanced by this plan he would not persist in his advice for a moment; but from the days of Constantine downward, the religious advancement of a Church had never been promoted by its connection with the State. The ancient dictum might still be applied to every creed, every sect, the votaries of which are sincere, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." It was not a religious but a political question. By giving support to the Roman Catholic clergy the Government would remove a political anomaly, gain a political advantage, and, above all, perform an act of grace to the Irish people. This was not the first time that these opinions had been pressed upon their Lordships from that side of the House. They were not new. They were the opinions put forward by Mr. Pitt at the time of the promulgation of his plan for an union with Ireland; they were the opinions of Lord Castlereagh, who knew the circumstances of Ireland well. He had sufficient confidence in the liberality of the noble Earl at the head of the Government to look forward with hope for a favourable answer to his question when he asked, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward any measure for the support of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, independently of the support of the people? He also moved for Returns of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, distinguishing between those who were Parish Priests and those who were Curates.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House, Return of the Parochial Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, distinguishing between those who are Parish Priests and those who are Curates.—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is not my intention to enter into the various questions on which the noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) has dilated. I think it necessary to make some observations with reference to the remarks of the noble Lord in the latter part of his address. The noble Lord has quoted some opinions as those of Pitt and Castlereagh; but I would venture to say they do not accord with what I have always believed the opinions of those statesmen to be. I will not therefore deal with the opinions which the noble Lord imputed

  1071
  to them, and which at any rate the noble Lord has adopted, that some portion of the funds of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland should be applied to the support of the Roman Catholic priesthood—as to which I pronounce no opinion—but I will consider the question whether or not an endowment or grant from the Consolidated Fund should be given to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD: Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt the noble Earl for a moment, I never proposed that any part of the funds of the Established Church of Ireland should be taken and applied to the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. I intended to convey exactly the reverse.
  EARL RUSSELL: What I understood the noble Lord to say was, that a portion of those funds might be given for the purpose of paying the Roman Catholic clergy, and also that the ascendancy of the Church of England ought to be obliterated. But at present I will address myself to the question, upon which so many various opinions have been entertained, whether provision should be made by the State for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland? Now, when Mr. Pitt first entertained the proposition it was his intention—the intention of a wise and great statesman—to combine the privileges granted to Protestants and to Roman Catholics, so that, in conjunction with the Irish Establishment, provision should be made for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, in order that they might receive their annual salaries from the State. At the time when Mr. Pitt entertained that view the Roman Catholics were not allowed to sit in Parliament; they could not attain the offices of the State, and were hardly permitted, except in Ireland, to hold commissions in the army. It is obvious that the proposition, under those circumstances, was very different from that which we have now to consider. What Mr. Pitt intended—and wisely intended—to say to the Roman Catholics was—"Your laymen shall have all the secular privileges which English Protestants enjoy; and will you at the same time accept stipends for your Church, so that it may be united with the State, and thus we shall join in laying the foundation for future harmony in Ireland? I conceive that was a very loyal project, and I believe that if he had been permitted by his Sovereign to frame and mature the measure he proposed, the state of Ireland now would have been very different from what it is. In 1825 two Reso-
  1072
  lutions were introduced into the House of Commons, one providing for the disfranchisement of the 40 s. freeholders, a franchise which had then become an evil and a nuisance in Ireland; and the other proposing that a provision should he made by law for the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. These were the accompaniments of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. [The Earl of DERBY: They were "the wings."] They were, as the noble Earl reminds me, called" the wings." I thought them wise accompaniments to the measure of Roman Catholic Relief, and as I had a vote in the House of Commons at that time, I declared my opinion and voted accordingly. At that time it was proposed that these measures should go together, and I think the Roman Catholic clergy might have been induced by their feelings of patriotism to say, "Although we should have preferred to be independent of any State provisions, yet, sooner than stand in the way of a final settlement of a difficult question, and thus hinder the Government in an attempt to do full justice to the Irish people, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, we will accept this provision of the State, and combine with the English Government in laying the foundation of future internal peace." But, unfortunately, Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister of that day, was opposed to the proposals, and the Resolutions fell to the ground. At the present time, my Lords, we have to consider this question under very different circumstances. The Roman Catholic clergy have seen a measure passed by which those of their faith are now permitted to take seats in Parliament and hold offices under the Crown; and they have seen that measure carried independently of any provision to the Roman Catholic clergy. They can have no such motive, therefore, to induce them to accept such a provision, as a desire to secure greater privileges for Roman Catholic lay subjects. But there are other obstacles in the way of making provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. We have among us some who are of opinion that all religious endowments on the part of the State are wrong; and the proposal to make provision for the Roman Catholic clergy could not be discussed in Parliament without exciting much religious animosity. And what is the disposition of the Roman Catholic clergy at the present time? Their disposition is the same as was described in my hearing by Archbishop Murray long ago, and repeated since in

  1073
  more emphatic terms. They desire to remain entirely free from any connection with the State, because they think that their independence and influence are bound up with their total freedom from any such connection. It is not for me to say whether they are right or wrong in that opinion. I can very well conceive their objections; and certainly the noble Lord must be well acquainted, as all your Lordships are, with the sentence of Mr. Burke in which he holds up the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland as an object of admiration on account of its independence. One thing, I think, is tolerably certain, and that is, that the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy over their flocks would he diminished rather than increased by such a grant, and as there are no persons more attached to their religious principles than are the Roman Catholics, the priesthood naturally desire to retain as much as possible the influence which they exercise upon the lay members of their body. Let us look for a minute, for instance, at what has already happened, and what, indeed, is even now taking place. The noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) says, and says with truth, that both in 1848, and at the present time, during this Fenian agitation, the Roman Catholic clergy have employed their influence in restraining their flocks from joining in the delusions which have been so rife about them, and that their influence has been exerted to promote order and law, and to preserve the tranquillity of the country, while those engaged in these conspiracies have been so anxious to destroy it. But if the Roman Catholic clergy were in receipt of stipends from the State, it is obvious that this aid would be made the subject of reproach by the Fenians and those attached to their cause, and that their efforts for the promotion of peace and order, and their warnings against the dangers of the delusion to which so many have given way, would lose much of their power. Therefore I consider that, both as regards the general indisposition of the Protestants to make a grant for the Roman Catholic clergy, and as regards the disposition of the Roman Catholic clergy themselves, it would be most un-advisable on the part of any Government in the present day to propose such a grant as Mr. Pitt and others proposed for the Roman Catholic clergy. I do not say that some future Government may not find it advisable to propose a measure of this kind; but, at the present time, I think such
  1074
  a course would be most impolitic, and I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that the Government have at present no intention of making any such proposal. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but my impression is that he urged that some portion, at all events, of the funds of the Protestant clergy should be applied to the education of the people of Ireland, and that his argument was that such a course would to a certain extent lessen the feeling which exists so generally against what is termed the Protestant ascendancy. The constitution of Ireland is certainly peculiar and unfortunate for that country. From the time of the Reformation down to the present day the condition of Ireland has differed from the state of almost every other country. At the time of the Reformation, the landed proprietors of the country, and I believe, in the first instance, the higher orders of the clergy, accepted the doctrines of the Reformation, while the great mass of the people and the clergy, who are the teachers of the people, adhered to their ancient faith. That fact has been the cause of a most unfortunate difference between the Protestant Church Establishment and the Roman Catholic body—namely, that those who are endowed—those to whom are assigned by law the property of the Established Church—are not those to whom the mass of the people look for spiritual guidance and instruction, and those who are the teachers of the people are not those who receive the salaries and endowments of the State. Such a state of things is totally different from that which obtains in the country to which the noble Lord alluded—namely, Canada, where, when you made your capitulation, you allowed the Roman Catholic clergy to retain the property of their church, to continue the teachers of the people; and therefore the property of the Church, the teachers of the people, and the people themselves, are all agreed, and no adverse dispositions prevail. With regard to the principle which the noble Lord has adopted, I certainly am not the first to make an objection to it, because I think if by one single day's sitting such as we had the other day for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, we could apply, after the present time, the funds of the Protestant Church to the purposes of education, in which the whole of the people could participate, we might possibly do much to establish peace in Ireland; but

  1075
  we all know that the introduction of such a measure would be the signal for much animosity and heart-burning. For the Bake, then, of preserving peace, your Lordships will not be astonished that I should decline to introduce such a measure. Now, my Lords, I may say a few words, and they shall be but few, about what the noble Lord has said with reference to Ireland, and the remedial measures which might be passed for the benefit of that country. I think when it is said, in a very off-hand manner, "Why do you not remedy the evils of Ireland?" that we ought to remember the sources from which those evils have arisen, and the length of time which many of them have endured. It is now nearly 300 years since the landed proprietors and the higher clergy of Ireland adopted the principles of the Reformation, while the mass of the people remained Catholic; that it is 200 years since Acts of disqualification and penal laws against the Roman Catholics were passed by the Parliament of this country and by the Parliament of Ireland, thereby dividing the inhabitants of that country, so to speak, into the conquerors and the conquered, and arousing animosities and creating disqualifications which were not appeased and removed until some thirty-five years ago; and when we remember that in 1760 there began that state of land-holding, that multiplication of small cottages, that division between landlord and tenant, which has, unfortunately, continued to the present day—when we, therefore, have to deal with evils, some of them of 300 years, some 200 years, and others of 100 years duration, and all of them going to the very depths of the social condition of Ireland, it is not, I think, right for any man to say, that by measures passed in one Session of Parliament you can remedy the grievances of Ireland, and restore its inhabitants to complete happiness and prosperity. I should say, likewise, that if we look to the series of measures which have been proposed since 1829—a period of thirty-seven years—tending to promote the welfare of Ireland—the measure introduced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) for national education in Ireland, the subsequent measure for the introduction of the Poor Law, and to a measure for which Parliament and Ireland are indebted to my noble and learned Friend who sits behind me (Lord Romilly)—I mean the Incumbered Estates Act—when we consider these and similar measures which have
  1076
  been passed, I think we must confess that Parliament has not been indifferent to the welfare of Ireland; and it is satisfactory to find that instead of adding penal laws to penal laws, and disqualifications to disqualifications, Parliament has been anxious under various Administrations to improve the condition of Ireland. No series of measures can, however, be applied to Ireland suddenly with benefit. The measures proposed for the advantage of that country must be considered year by year, and regard must be paid to the opinions of the representatives of the Irish people, and of your Lordships, who are not only landlords in that country, but feel a great interest in its welfare. I will not, therefore, enter further into any of the subjects upon which the noble Lord has touched. I can only say that it is the aim of the Government to entertain considerately any well-founded complaints made by the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians of Ireland, and that their desire is to remedy any grievances of which they can justly complain. The question of land to which the noble Lord has referred, is one of the most difficult to deal with. I agree with him that that which works so smoothly and easily in England cannot be applied with such satisfactory results to Ireland. I have not myself, I confess, seen any measure proposed at once just to the landlord and to the tenants, and from which practical good was sure to arise. This is a question demanding still further inquiry and consideration; but I cannot help thinking that at least some measure might be passed which will prevent the recurrence of the scenes occasionally witnessed in Ireland—numbers of poor cottagers turned out of their dwellings in the middle of winter. It must, however, be remembered that many of the improvements so often spoken of are no improvements at all, and that they have in reality made the property on which they have been applied less valuable than before. Therefore, in any measure of the kind, there must not only be an application of general principles applicable to all countries and all times, but there must be a peculiar knowledge of the present state of the tenantry in Ireland, and the means by which it may be improved. I will not detain your Lordships longer, except to thank you for the courtesy with which you have listened to me.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that although aware that Ireland could expect but little from Parliament during the

  1077
  present Session, he much regretted the tone adopted by the noble Earl in reference to the specific question put to him by the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford). After the noble Earl's statement, that he had voted for what was called "the wings" in 1826, it was scarcely to be expected that He would have put so decided a negative upon the advisability and possibility of a State provision being made for the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. He had long been of opinion that such a provision would be the best measure of legislation and of policy the Imperial Parliament could adopt towards Ireland. He trusted the noble Earl would permit him to find fault with the conclusions he drew from his historical illustrations The noble Earl said that Pitt and Lord Castle reagh were in favour of such a measure, and the noble Earl might have added many other well-known names to the list; and he continued it would have been of great benefit to the Empire had such a measure been adopted at that time. The noble Earl then came down to 1826, when he voted for such a provision; but when he came to the present time, instead of telling them that he hoped a time might come when such a measure could be pro posed to Parliament, he adopted a line of argument that entirely precluded the possibility of such a hope being fulfilled. But the argument of the noble Earl went much further—for it went to the extent if not of a total reprobation, certainly of an opinion adverse to all Established Churches whatever.
  EARL RUSSELL: I did not state that as my opinion, but as the opinion of many persons.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas aware that the noble Earl had given the opinions of others as his reasons for not bringing such a measure forward; the noble Earl, whose courage and whose determination were so well known, and had been so frequently exhibited throughout his long and honourable life, was deterred from bringing forward a measure of this kind because certain people disapproved it; but did not the noble Earl think that at some future time—sixty years, thirty years, twenty-five years—some succeeding Ministers might not be saying, "What a pity-it was that the measure was not adopted by Earl Russell in 1866!" But finding that the measure was not carried by Mr. Pitt, the noble Earl strengthened his argument by reference to the speeches and writings of Mr. Burke, long before. Did
  1078
  any one suppose that the measure could have been carried in Mr. Burke's day? But the noble Earl was not accurate in his history of Mr. Burke and his correspondence. Sir Hercules Langrishe, who was the particular friend and correspondent of Mr. Burke, was favourable to the measure before Mr. Pitt had declared his opinion. He confessed that he did not expect to hear a favourable reply from the noble Earl to the question put by the noble Viscount. The subject was a most difficult one, and he should not have been in any way surprised had the noble Earl refused at that moment to pledge himself and his Government to the measure proposed—still, he had expected that some hope would beheld out that such a provision should be made—contingently, it might be, with its being accepted by the Roman Catholic clergy—a contingency not very likely to occur at the present moment, as that body had in different ways specifically stated that they were not disposed to accept of any provision by the State. He did not know what reason they could have for refusing such a provision, but on principle they did not refuse it, because in 1799 the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church assembled in Dublin stated that in case such a provision could be made consistently with the maintenance of the authority and discipline of their Church, they would gratefully and thankfully accept it. Doubtless that resolution was passed in the hope that on other points the position of Catholics would be made equal to that of Protestants; but if their Lordships referred to the Parliamentary Committees of 1825 and 1826, they would find those prelates, besides other great lay authorities, such as O'Con-nell, the Right Hon. Anthony Blake, and others, were ready to accept a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy in conjunction with Catholic Emancipation. If there was to be an Established Church in Ireland, why should not that be a Roman Catholic Church, with a State provision for the clergy? What use was there in having an Established Church unless it were to enable the poor to worship God according to their religion, and to enable the people to fulfil their religious duties? Why wore our fellow subjects in Ireland, who were supposed to stand upon the same footing as ourselves, not to have an Established Church of their own? The noble Lord said he had no objection to take a portion of the revenues of the Established Church and to apply it to the particular subject of

  1079
  education. But if the noble Lord applied a portion of the revenues of the Established Church to the purposes of education, which it was the duty of the State to support, why should he not equally apply it to any other State purpose, such, for instance, as the payment of the Marines? In applying the revenues of the Established Church to the support of national education, they would in reality be confiscating them for the general purposes of the State. On the other hand, many people believed that nothing would tend so much to reconcile the people of Ireland to the Established Church as granting a State provision to the Irish Roman Catholic clergy. The Irish said they were not upon an equality with the Protestants. The Established Church—which he did not believe would be regarded by the people of Ireland as a grievance were there a State provision for the Roman Catholic clergy—was regarded in the light of, at all events, a sentimental grievance. The Roman Catholic peasant saw the comparatively wealthy Protestant farmer going to a church where the clergyman was paid by the Slate, while his priest had no provision from the State; and the inference he drew was that the two Churches were not treated equally by Parliament. The noble Earl said that many persons thought that the revenue should be taken away from both Churches; but was that the feeling in Parliament? He had certainly hoped to hear from his noble Friend some explanation on other matters, if it were only to show that some attempt would be made to improve the condition of Ireland. He was not going at length into this subject. It was more fit for discussion in a Committee or a Cabinet than for an incidental debate in that House. The noble Viscount had referred to some subjects on which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not at all agree with him, but he certainly did agree with him as to the amount of discontent that prevailed in Ireland. A very broad distinction must be drawn between dissatisfaction or discontent and disaffection or disloyalty. He believed there was very little disaffection or disloyalty in Ireland; with Fenianism the people in that country had no community of sentiment at all. He had met with very many who were discontented, but he had never met with one of any class who would acknowledge that he shared in the slightest degree in the opinions of the Fenians. Why should the people of Ireland be disaffected or disloyal? The people of Ire-
  1080
  land could have no wish to be placed under any other rule than that of their present gracious Sovereign; and so far from having the slightest hostility to the reigning family, their complaint was that they did not see enough of them. They had never failed to receive any members of that family with the greatest enthusiasm and pleasure. Talk of an Irish Republic ! The idea of a Republic was altogether contrary to the feelings and habits of the Roman Catholic Church and to the habits of the Irish people. The Irish people had no sympathy with anything of the sort. But, nevertheless, there was very great discontent at the way in which the Government had been conducted for many years. He entirely agreed with the noble Viscount as to the alienation of the Irish Government from the gentry of the country. He did not speak of the present Lord Lieutenant, for whose ability and good intentions he had the highest respect. But the noble Lord had not been long there, and he found a system established which it was impossible for him in a very short time to break through—a system which occasioned great discontent in Ireland. From the highest Peer in that House, down to the lowest peasant, the people felt they were not governed by the Ministry or the Lord Lieutenant, but by boards in Dublin and by the police, and that their feelings and wishes were not consulted in any manner whatever. This, he repeated, had given rise to a deep feeling of discontent; and why should it not? Why were the magistracy not consulted? He had the good fortune to live in a county and neighbourhood which was extremely quiet, and in any communications he had to make he had nothing to complain of; but from first to last in the measures which had lately been taken there did not appear to be any action of the Government with the magistracy, with the exception of the voluntary representation of the magistracy of the county of Cork, which was the first step taken to repress Fenianism. He thought that a very unwise state of things. They could not satisfactorily carry on the Government of a free people in that way. The noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) alluded to the subject of tenant-right. What was meant by tenant-right? Did it mean confiscation of the rights of property? or did it mean a greater facility for making contracts between landlord and tenant? If there existed any difficulties in the way of making such contracts let them be inquired

  1081
  into; but it was altogether absurd to propose giving a tenant a vested interest in the lands he held belonging to another; and, what was more, there were no people who understood this better than those members of the farming class who had acquired property themselves. Would they be so anxious to acquire property if they thought they were only purchasing a share of it from those who sold it? He entreated their Lordships to look well to the system of government to which he had alluded. Nothing had been originated in the way of improvement for Ireland since that excellent measure introduced by the Master of the Rolls—the Incumbered Estates Act; and when anything was proposed requiring the assistance of the Government, it was only by dint of agitation that they could get their appeals attended to. Great measures of improvement were looked for, and the people were discontented. It was all very well to say that it was their own fault that the people of Ireland were not advancing in the same ratio with the other parts of the Empire whose superiority was owing to the industry and active energy of the British people. But Ireland had not the same resources as England and Scotland possessed; and why should she not be assisted to develop such resources as she had? He might be told that it would be bad political economy; but he did not think it would be bad policy to do so. Let their Lordships consider the state into which the Irish railways had fallen. But why should the Government be asked to assist the Irish railways? The English people had made their railways; but not, perhaps, on the very best system that could be adopted. Did they think the Irish people did not look abroad and see what paternal Governments had done to assist a country to develop its resources? These things should be taken into consideration; but he must repeat this was not a question of disloyalty or disaffection, although the danger was that the discontent which was felt throughout all classes at the inattention which was paid to their affairs might turn to disloyalty and disaffection. There was another serious evil—the state of the judicial establishment in Ireland, and the clogs which existed to legal procedure in Dublin. He had himself obtained from the Government a Commission of Inquiry into this subject; and he thought he saw how, if the different Boards now existing in Dublin were properly looked into, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might save the interest
  1082
  of at least a million of money. It was because Ireland was neglected—because nothing was done to improve the country—because proposals when made with that view were received with a had grace, and generally speaking put off without inquiring into complaints when made, that the people had become discontented, as he must repeat they now were.
  EARL GREYsaid, it appeared to him that the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) who introduced the subject under discussion deserved great attention from the House, though it was true that he did not concur in many of the noble Lord's views, and he certainly had not expected to hear from the noble Lord a direct proposal of the old measure known as appropriation. Such a proposition coming from such a quarter astonished him not a little. Although a strenuous advocate of such a measure thirty years ago in the other House of Parliament, he could not concur in thinking that it was one it would be advisable to adopt at the present moment. The time for such a compromise had gone by; and when the Appropriation Clause was abandoned in the House of Commons by the Administration of which he was a Member, he then distinctly stated that his ground for concurring in its abandonment was because he felt that the time when that measure might be useful had gone by. The compromise, if it had been accepted when first proposed, might have been useful; but it was resisted with success; and he now fairly declared that such a measure he would not at the present time support. But, though he differed from the noble Lord on this and some other points, there was one point on which he cordially concurred with him. The. noble Lord referred to the present state of Ireland and to the fact that Parliament had been compelled to arm the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with arbitrary power over the personal liberty of every man in Ireland. This state of things afforded a conclusive proof that there was something amiss in the condition of Ireland, and the wisdom of Parliament ought to be promptly applied in devising and passing measures for the correction of the causes which led to such evils. He quite admitted to the noble Earl at the head of the Government that the evils of Ireland were of too long standing for their Lordships to expect that any one measure would at once redress them; but what he feared was that those evils were not in the process of being remedied at all—that they were becoming

  1083
  not less but more deep, and that the necessity for a remedy was every day increasing. He was strongly convinced that no one or two measures could effect an immediate cure for the state of Ireland; that there existed evidence that the policy pursued with respect to that country required to be entirely revised and reconsidered; and that the question whether Ireland should be allowed to remain in her present condition, or, if not, then what measures should be adopted, ought to be brought before Parliament to enable it to give an opinion on the subject; and, as he learnt from the speech of the noble Earl that the Government had no considerable measure to propose beyond doing what, he agreed, they were bound to do—namely, suppressing violence by prompt and immediate action—he would himself venture to submit to their Lordships the question whether Ireland ought to be left in her present condition; and with that view he begged to give notice that he would, on the 8th of March, move their Lordships to go into a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of Ireland. If their Lordships agreed to that Committee, he would propose Resolutions for the purpose of enabling their Lordships to express an opinion as to the measures to be adopted.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, it was manifest that the Roman Catholic clergy exercised a considerable influence in Ireland, and he believed that upon them depended very much the maintenance of peace in that country. He was happy to be able to add that their influence had, in the case of Fenianism, been exercised in favour of law and order. But he could not at the same time help remembering the conduct of the Roman Catholic priests more than twenty years ago at the time of the O'Connell agitation. That agitation was decidedly forwarded by the priests, and though the agitation came to an end, the disloyalty Still remained. During the next agitation—that of 1848—the influence of the priests was exercised on the right side, for the policy of the priests had always been to keep the pot boiling. After the attempted rebellion in 1848 a new agitation sprang up in Ireland. This time the agitation was of a very peculiar kind, for it was not caused by any question of domestic policy. It continued during the years of prosperity in Ireland. Between the years 1850 and 1860 a remarkable expression was used by the Roman Catholic agitators. They used to say among themselves, "We
  1084
  hate England with a holy hatred." Now, the cause of that "holy hatred" was altogether irrespective of the affairs of Ireland or England, the people in Ireland being incited against the English Government upon purely Italian grounds. He would not dwell upon the O'Connell demonstration, but would pass on to the only agitation which, prior to Fenianism, had very recently engaged public attention. He alluded to the National Association of Ireland, one of the professed objects of which was the obtaining of tenant-right. Now, all who read the Irish newspapers must be perfectly aware that that association was helped forward and mainly supported by the priests. After the remarks which he had made it might, perhaps, be thought that he was animated by hostile feelings to the priesthood. He begged, however, to assure their Lordships that such was not the case, for he had endeavoured to ascertain, as far as possible, how he should have acted if he had been placed in their position. Now, undoubtedly the position of the priests was a very trying one. Probably no class of men entertained a higher opinion than they did of the claims they had upon the community at large and the Government, and they were consequently dissatisfied when they saw those claims unrecognized and recollected that they were dependent for their bread on the poorest of the parishioners. The discontent of the priests necessarily influenced their teaching, and as long as the priests were dissatisfied their flocks would be dissatisfied also. Then came the question as to the possibility of uniting their interests with those of the State. When payment of the priests was proposed by Pitt there was a certain degree of unwillingness on the part of the priests to receive any stipend. In reference to this subject, he might mention that he had been informed by a gentleman who was employed at that time in negotiating the matter with the Roman Catholic prelates—he meant the Knight of Kerry—that the Primate, or at all events some member of the Irish Episcopate, expressed himself in favour of a State payment to the clergy. The Prelate said, "Only let the Government put down the stipends on the floor of the Treasury, and it is not much moss that will grow on it." At all event, the State would lose nothing by the accumulation of the funds, while a great temptation would be offered to the clergy. For his own part, he believed that the clergy would accept a stipend, especially as it was extremely pro-

  1085
  bable that the population of Ireland would continue to diminish. Even if the priests refused the stipend the result, he believed, would still be satisfactory, for England, at all events, would have done all she could do. There were other benefits which might accrue from paying the priests. For instance, Ireland would gain by further emigration, which at the present time the priests discouraged as much as possible, because every man who left the country took so many shillings out of their pockets. Then, again, it would be unnecessary for the people to conceal all appearance of wealth as they did at present, lest their clergy should seek higher dues; but with the payment of the clergy by the State, the people would no longer have a motive to feign poverty. With regard to anything else connected with the state of Ireland, he must confess himself very sceptical as to the power of the Government to remedy the disease of that country.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) with drawn.

STREET ACCIDENTS (METROPOLIS.)

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHrose to call the attention of the House to the necessity for the Home Office taking some effectual steps to lessen the danger to which foot passengers are exposed in the streets of the metropolis. Between 1858 and 1860 no less than thirty persons were killed and 370 maimed in the City, and 104 killed and 1,457 maimed in the metropolitan police district. From January, 1862, to May, 1863, there were six killed and 193 injured in the City, and 132 killed and 1,304 injured in the metropolitan district. The heavy traffic was driven through our streets at, in very many cases, much too rapid a rate of speed; and at coroners' inquests verdicts of "accidental death" were returned in many cases in which the verdict ought rather to be "murder caused by in difference." It was the duty of the Home Office to look to this matter, which ought not to be left to an individual Peer. The noble Marquess concluded by moving an address for—
  "Return of all Cases which have come to the Cognizance of the Metropolitan Police, whereby, since the 1st of January, 1865 up to the present Time, any Person has been run over and killed by any Carriage within the District and the Superintendence of the said Force; and a like Return as to every Person maimed or otherwise injured by the same Sources; also a Statement
  1086
  whether the Horses drawing any Carriage at the Time of each Accident were being driven or led."—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Also—
  "Return of ail Cases which have come to the Cognizance of the City Police since the 1st of January 1865, up to the present Time, whereby any Person has been run over and killed by any Carriage within the District and the Superintendence of the said Force; and a like Return as to any Person maimed or injured by the same or similar Means; also a Statement whether the Horses drawing any Carriage at the Time of each Accident were being driven or led:
  "Return of Summonses taken out by the Police for furious driving where no Death has happened."—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  Ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.