Lords Sitting of 30 June 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Canada Loan Guarantee* (183); Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) (Grand Juries)* (184).
Second Reading—Government of Ireland (147), negatived; Crown Private Estates (175); Marriages (Ireland) Legalization (94).
Select Committee—Pollution of Rivers (59), The Earl of Aberdeen added in the place of The Earl of Lauderdale.
Report—Agricultural Children (165–185); Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)*(177).

ARMY—RECRUITS.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, before you proceed to the Business on the Paper, I beg that you will permit me to make a statement of a somewhat personal character. I am the more anxious to do so, because I think that in the interest of the public service it is right that no false impression should be allowed to exist for any length of time respecting any matter which affects the efficiency of such an important branch of the public service as that of the Army. Personally, a high official like myself feels some discomfort, when anything is publicly stated of a questionable character in his Department which is not explained as soon as possible. Under these circumstances, I venture to throw myself upon your Lordships' consideration, whilst I as briefly as possible state to your Lordships what really has occurred, and how far I am
  1524
  mixed up with it. Some little time ago the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) moved for Returns of chest measurements of soldiers recruited since 1870. That Return has since then been presented to your Lordships, and you have had it, no doubt, in your hands. A few days ago a letter appeared in one of the newspapers, in which reference was made to that Return, and a question regarding it has been asked in "another place." From that letter, and from what has occurred in the other House, it would appear that the Return had been designedly prepared, with the object of creating a false impression in this House and before the country. I do not for a moment suppose that any of your Lordships or the country imagines that I, or any officer in my Department, would wilfully put forward any erroneous Return; and I think, when I explain the circumstances, your Lordships will exculpate me, and the officers acting under me, of any intention of doing anything beyond carrying out the wishes and directions of this House. The preparation of all military Parliamentary Papers rests with the Adjutant General's department, and a branch of that department, under the authority of the Inspector General of Recruiting, was directed to prepare the Return. Several of the points connected with this Return were of sufficient importance to be referred to me, and I urged that no delay should take place in its preparation. The Deputy Adjutant General, General Armstrong, a most efficient and zealous officer, on whom, in the absence of my gallant Friend, Sir Richard Airey, the whole duties of the Adjutant General's department have for some time devolved, came to me one morning, and incidentally stated that in preparing the Return it had been found that several regiments had put down under one column, as not coming up to the proper measurement—men who, in his opinion, ought to have been given under another, because, as far as the records showed, they were of the proper measurement. He thought it incorrect that they should be returned as under regulation chest measurement, and for that reason he did not consider the Return as accurate. It was certainly irregular that men should have been passed as being of the regulation chest measurement who were now returned as not being so, and I at once said that if

  1525
  the Regulations had been properly carried out, I did not know how such a thing could have occurred, and that it was only fair and right that the Return should be prepared according to Regulations. From this, it followed that if the Regulations had not been observed, the Return could not be handed in, except with explanations. In fact, I never contemplated that officers when called upon to carry out the Regulations, should be asked to sign anything but what was strictly in accordance with them. Now, when recruits are enlisted—and I presume the reference is entirely to that—they are measured by the superintending officer in the presence of the medical officer, and that measurement has to be verified by the field officer in charge of a recruiting district. When the latter is satisfied that the two officers have taken the proper measurement, it is inserted in pencil on the attestation paper, which is sent down with the recruit to his regiment, and it is the duty of the commanding officer of the regiment to verify the measurement. If the recruit does not come up to it, he is bound to report it for my information, and to ask whether the man is to be retained; so that it will be seen that it is the commanding officer, and not the surgeon, who would be held responsible for the measurement. The Regulations require a special report of any deficiency in chest measurement to be made to the Adjutant General, for submission to the Commander-in-Chief as to the final disposal of the man. Nothing can be clearer than the Regulations; yet it appears that the men to whom reference is now made have been sent to regiments, and that the regiments now do not accept the chest measurement sent clown with them, but have never reported the circumstance to the Recruiting department or the Adjutant General. Here, I venture to say, a great mistake has been made. I think I can assure your Lordships that nothing more than a mistake has been made. I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that intentional misrepresentation has been attempted; I do not believe that it is anything more than an ordinary office mistake. When the matter was brought to my knowledge, I certainly understood it was only a few men who had been irregularly accounted for in that way, and when, therefore, the Deputy Adjutant General told
  1526
  me he thought it was only fair they should be returned as of the proper measurement, on the ground that it was only just and according to common sense that men who might have been two years with regiments, without their measurements having been questioned, should not be disturbed, I acceeded to it; but it was never expected or intended that officers should be asked to sign an incorrect Return, and if any officers chose to say men were not of the proper measurement of course it was our duty to inquire into it. It turns out, however, that a considerable number of men are of a different measurement from the proper one. I never saw the Return or the Circular that went out in my name on the subject, and I never intended any Circular to go out. I thought it was a mere ordinary correction, which must frequently occur in an office. Had I been aware how the Return was prepared, I should not have authorized what has been done. As it is, I must throw myself on the indulgence of your Lordships and the country. It is utterly impossible for the Commander-in-Chief to have knowledge of every detail, and until I saw the letter I had not the remotest suspicion that there was anything wrong in the Return. To show your Lordships how very delicate this measurement is, I may mention that I have seen a letter from the surgeon of a regiment, who says that in measuring recruits he is careful to get the minimum circumference of the chest, and measures after expiration, and before inspiration has commenced, and he always finds his measurement less than that pencilled on the attestation sheets by two, three, and sometimes even four inches. When measurements are reported as incorrect, we invariably send down and verify them; but if officers do not report, and do not attend to the details which ought to regulate these proceedings, an unfortunate mistake of this sort may occur. So far as I and the officers who made the Return are concerned, there was no intention of doing anything but what was in accordance with the facts, with the Regulations, and with the objects of the noble Duke in asking for the Return. I hope you will permit me to add, that if there is any subject which would specially attract my attention it is recruiting. Whenever recruiting is bad nobody is so immediately interested in

  1527
  the matter as the Commander-in-Chief, and I should be the last man to approve men being allowed to enlist who are not what they ought to be.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: My Lords, I am certain that you have all listened with much satisfaction to the straightforward statement just made by His Royal Highness. It is only what might have been expected from His Royal Highness, and it is not necessary for me, therefore, to say anything with regard to that statement. The subject to which the illustrious Duke has referred is, however, one of very great importance, and one upon which I should like to have an opportunity of saying a few words; but as no Notice has been given of the introduction of the subject, it is proper for me perhaps that I should give Notice that I shall to-morrow evening call attention to the Return respecting chest measurements which I have moved for.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  (The Earl Russell.)

  (NO. 147.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Russell.)
  [No noble Lord rising to address the House, the LORD CHANCELLOR put the Question, and declared that The Not Contents have it. But it immediately appeared that Earl Russell had intended to make his address to the House on the Question and not on proposing the Motion, and was unconscious that the Question had been put and negatived. The proceeding was, by general consent, treated as a nullity, and is not entered on the Minutes or Journals of the House.]
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he wished their Lordships to consider seriously, not so much the Bill he had introduced, as the question to which it related. In 1851 he brought into the House of Commons a Bill for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, and the transfer of the duties to a Secretary of State, a measure which was supported by Sir Robert Peel and other distinguished men. The arrangement which then existed, dating from the Union, was that the Lord Lieutenant communicated with the Cabinet, especially with the Home Secretary, as
  1528
  to the state of the country, and the measures which appeared necessary. Afterwards an arrangement was made by which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant communicated with the Home Secretary. That Sir Robert Peel described as a very clumsy arrangement, for it gave the Chief Secretary, who was naturally and properly a subordinate of the Lord Lieutenant, the power of consulting his Colleagues in the Cabinet, and in fact of transmitting orders to his superior. Moreover, the duty which would be performed by a Secretary of State in England, and which should be performed by a Secretary of State in Ireland, was not performed at all. In August last a riot occurred at Belfast in which 152 persons were wounded and received hospital treatment, one of the constabulary being killed and 73 members of that force wounded, 12 of them very seriously. Upwards of 250 houses, moreover, were wrecked or injured, 257 persons claiming compensation to the amount of £14,000, and 837 families were compelled by force to leave their dwellings. These facts were stated at the Assizes by Mr. Justice Lawson, who went on to say—
  "Now, I have no hesitation in stating that this meeting constituted an unlawful assembly. A great number of men marching in procession, many of them armed, carrying disloyal and treasonable emblems, is calculated to create terror and alarm, and is an unlawful assembly, even though there be no opposing force with whom there may likely be a collision. It was the duty of those charged with the preservation of the public peace to take steps to prevent this procession from marching, to require them to disperse, and, if necessary, to disperse them, and to arrest the ringleaders and bring them to justice. This procession was, nevertheless, allowed to take place; it met at Carlisle Circus; its character was then apparent; even there, at 10 o'clock in the morning, the first indications of riot presented themselves; stones were exchanged between the processionists and those of the Protestant party. Nevertheless, the procession was allowed to march to Hannahstown. A meeting was held there; fire-arms were frequently discharged, and one man lost his life by the accidental discharge of a pistol, according, at least, to the verdict of a coroner's jury; and this armed body of seditious persons was allowed to return in the evening to Belfast, to parade their emblems of disloyalty, and to flaunt their banners before the eyes of the loyal and well-affected subjects of the Queen. In the evening, on its return, an engagement took place. The spirit of evil was thoroughly roused, and then arose a series of riots and battles which raged for several days."
  Mr. Justice Lawson added that the assembly was unlawful at common law,

  1529
  and that if, at the moment its unlawful character was placed beyond a doubt, it had been dispersed and the ringleaders arrested, the riots would not have happened. The omission to take this course was a serious neglect of duty. In England such a procession would have been dealt with summarily and by way of precaution. The parties intending to take part in it would have been warned that the proceedings were unlawful, troops would have been sent to prevent the procession, and the leaders would have been arrested and held to trial. That was the course pursued when he (Earl Russell) had the honour of being Home Secretary and the late Lord Campbell was Attorney General. Orders were sent to General Sir Charles Napier, who was commanding officer in Lancashire, where an illegal procession and not were apprehended. Both were prevented. Sir Charles Napier told him afterwards that he always on such occasions ordered out twice as many troops as might be required. Had that been done at Belfast, the embittered feeling and the great mischief which followed the riots to which he referred would have been prevented. Had such a not occurred in England, caused by similar neglect of duty on the part of the Home Secretary, loud complaints would have been made. He knew no greater duty of a Government than that of protecting life and property, and it was a serious thing if the Government of Ireland were unable to discharge that duty, and viewed it with indifference. He believed, therefore, that the substitution of a Secretary of State for the Lord Lieutenant would be a much more effective and satisfactory way of dealing with Ireland. Another evil prevalent in Ireland was the difficulty of convicting persons for murders and agrarian offences. In many cases the criminals could not be traced, and even when they were brought to trial there were generally on the jury one or two of their near connections and friends, who took care that there should be such disagreement that the offenders escaped conviction. In a recent case a man who, in the opinion of persons of sound and temperate judgment, was a murderer was acquitted, and immediately went off to America, though he believed it was not true that the Government gave him the means of doing so. In the clearest ease of assassination there was very little
  1530
  chance of obtaining a unanimous verdict, and in one case a Judge, convinced by the evidence that two women had been guilty of murder, proposed to the jury to find them guilty of manslaughter. That conviction was secured, and they were sentenced to penal servitude for life. He proposed in his Bill that, when a jury tried a case which was not capital, the verdict of eight jurors out of the 12 should be sufficient. Certainty of punishment was far more effective than severity of punishment. There was also the question of education in Ireland, which required the attention of the Imperial Parliament. There was, in his opinion, no longer in Ireland that wholesome system of education which used to prevail. For instance, it was well known that the Protestant and Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin, Dr. Whately and Dr. Murray, agreed as to the piety and utility of certain books for the use of children; but the Board of Education had since excluded those books, and, according to Dr. Macaulay's Ireland in 1872, the whole power was vested in Cardinal Cullen and those who followed him, while, instead of books of a pure and simple religious character, many of the books used were pervaded with the grossest superstition. So far from wishing the Education Commissioners to retain office, he believed it would be a great blessing to Ireland, and more especially a blessing to England, if they all resigned. He had no doubt, as urged in defence of his vote by a Friend of his, the Chief Baron, that the Board had always replaced a parish priest who had been manager by another parish priest without inquiry, but such precedents involved the management of schools not by the men best fitted to be managers, but by the men whom the Roman Catholics deemed fittest to be priests. It was not the business of Parliament to consider who were fit to say mass, but when voting £400,000 from the money of the three kingdoms for Irish education they were bound to inquire who were fit persons to receive that money. One man might be fittest for parish priest and another for the management of a school. He proposed that any person who thought himself wronged might appeal to the English Committee of Council on Education. He next came to the question whether the Government of Ireland as at present conducted was a fit

  1531
  Government for the Queen of England. His conviction was that it was a Government conducted entirely according to the orders and inspiration of the Roman Catholic Church. He did not regard that as a proper Government, and he therefore proposed to declare that no Pope, or any other foreign Sovereign, had any jurisdiction in these realms. Some of the opinions recently expressed by Irish Judges were not reconcilable with the English law. He did not believe any Papal Bull or Rescript could over-ride that justice to which every subject of the Crown was entitled. He thought his Bill would give Ireland a better Government than it now possessed. The Irish were distinguished by their love of justice and their strong sense of religion, but these good qualities had been perverted by the Government, whether conducted by the Lord Lieutenant or by Roman Catholic clergymen, and he wished to apply the principles which had long prevailed in England. He did not believe the badness of the Government was owing to the anarchy and disorder of the people. Compare it with the sister country, and they would find that Andrew Fletcher, writing in 1678, gave this description of Scotland—
  "There are at this day in Scotland—besides a great many poor families very meanly provided for by the church-boxes, with others, who by living upon bad food fall into various diseases—200,000 people begging from door to door. These are not only no way advantageous, but a very grievous burden to so poor a country. And though the number of them be perhaps double to what it was formerly, by reason of this present great distress, yet in all times there have been about 100,000 of those vagabonds, who have lived without any regard of subjection either to the laws of the land or even those of God and nature. … Many murders have been discovered among them; and they are not only a most unspeakable oppression to poor tenants—who, if they give not bread or some kind of provisions to perhaps 40 such villains in one day, are sure to be insulted by them—but they rob many poor people who live in houses distant from any neighbourhood. In years of plenty, many thousands of them meet together in the mountains, where they feast and not for many days; and at country weddings, markets, burials, and other the like public occasions, they are to be seen, both men and women, perpetually drunk, cursing, blaspheming, and fighting together. These are such outrageous disorders that it were better for the nation they were sold to the galleys or West Indies than that they should continue any longer to be a burden and a curse upon us."
  1532
  The Scotch were now a moral, industrious and peaceable people, and that was largely owing to the wise measures adopted by statesmen in former times. Lord Chatham took care that £1,500,000 should be laid out without repayment in improving the roads of Scotland; but in Ireland large tracts of land were still annually flooded and their productions destroyed. In the case of Ireland, Edmund Burke and Henry Grattan had pointed out how Ireland should be governed; their suggestions, however, were treated with contempt, and he feared that if other great men were to recommend a similar policy their proposition would be regarded with the same indifference. He would, notwithstanding impress upon the Government the necessity of carrying out the recommendations of those eminent men, for unless a wise policy were extended to Ireland, it would never attain the peace and prosperity which it was capable of enjoying.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYrose to speak; but was called to Order by
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD,who remarked that though the noble Earl who had introduced the Bill had, by the indulgence of the House, made an interesting statement, the Bill had previously been negatived, so that there was no Question before the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE,admitting that the Question was put without the noble Earl (Earl Russell) being quite aware of what was going on, thought the discussion should be allowed to proceed.
  EARL STANHOPEconcurred in this, but wished Questions were put with a little more deliberation. On Friday night he was himself precluded from saying a few words in reply by the Question being put before he had an opportunity of rising.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdisclaimed any desire of putting the Question prematurely. As no Peer rose to speak he was bound to put the Question, but he did so as slowly as he could, and delayed as long as possible before saying "The Not-Contents have it."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDcould quite confirm what the noble and learned Lord had just said. He had never heard the Question put with more deliberation. He agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) was probably unaware of what

  1533
  was occurring, and, considering the position he held, it would have been wrong to take advantage of that circumstance. He hoped, therefore, the discussion would proceed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYremarked that the noble Earl had commenced his speech by calling attention rather to the general state of Ireland than to the provisions of his Bill; but he (the Earl of Kimberley) proposed to direct his observations principally to the latter, for it was easier to point out evils in any Government than to propose satisfactory remedies. Indeed, his noble Friend had seemed conscious that the Bill was scarcely one which Parliament could accept; at all events, in its present shape. Beginning with the first portion of the Bill, he must deny that the Government of Ireland was dictated to by the Roman Catholic Church. It was vaguely said that Cardinal Cullen exercised too much influence on the Government of Ireland, an expression which might mean a great deal or very little. It might mean that particular measures taken by the Government might be too much in the interest of the Roman Catholic population; but the noble Earl should not have made such an accusation in that House without specifying the instances in which he deemed that the Government had not done its duty, in order that their Lordships might have had a better opportunity of judging whether there was any truth in the allegation. The noble Earl's remedy was a declaration that neither the Pope nor any other potentate had or ought to have any jurisdiction in this realm. Those were familiar words, which many of their Lordships had repeatedly uttered at the Table; but it could not be supposed that that form of oath, now abolished, made the Pope's authority, direct or indirect, less or more than it otherwise would have been. The law forbade the interference of any foreign authority, and no declaration was needed to make the fact clearer. Whether it would be a message of peace to Ireland, and would be likely to conduce to good government, might be a question; and that would be a singular time to make the declaration, when the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, which his noble Friend was chiefly instrumental in passing, had been recently repealed, because it had been found that declaratory laws of that kind, though
  1534
  easy to pass, were not of much effect. Turning to the more practical part of the Bill, he admitted that there were arguments of considerable strength in favour of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, but there were arguments which could not be overlooked on the other side. As his noble Friend had said, the proposition was not a new one, for it had been before the other House some years ago, when it met with some considerable degree of favour. His noble Friend's chief argument had been that riots would be better put down without a Lord Lieutenant; but he had always understood that the presence of a Lord Lieutenant in the country admitted of greater promptitude in dealing with riots. The argument of his noble Friend was not the strongest that might have been adduced in favour of his proposal. He might have recommended the measure on the ground of the incongruity of a high officer at Dublin with a nominal subordinate, but real superior—if the Chief Secretary was a Member of the Cabinet—and also on the ground of drawing England and Ireland more closely together. He submitted that a measure of this kind, which proposed to effect a very considerable change in the system of the administration in Ireland, should be introduced on the authority and on the responsibility of the Government of the day. It was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to accept the measure. He must further say that whenever the subject should be undertaken—if it ever was—various other measures would have to be introduced also. The Bill of his noble Friend went on to propose very serious changes in the present system of administering justice in Ireland. It was unfortunately the case that occasionally great crimes escaped unpunished in Ireland; but he did not think that the proposal of his noble Friend would remedy the evil. Offences which the law of the land ranked next to murder his noble Friend proposed should by some contrivance be reduced in degree and punished with penal servitude, and that convictions in such cases should be obtained by taking the verdict of the majority. He submitted that such a proposal, if adopted, would be equivalent to the abolition of capital punishment altogether. He could not understand why juries were likely to be

  1535
  unanimous in cases involving capital punishment, and yet were not likely to agree in cases involving a lesser punishment. There wore many difficulties in the way of carrying out his noble Friend's proposal. Unfortunately, in Ireland the population was divided by a very marked line into Protestants and Roman Catholics, and a case in which a conviction was brought about by means of a Protestant or a Roman Catholic majority on a jury would lead to great dissatisfaction, and possibly to great danger. He did not believe that it would be possible to get a jury to do their duty under such circumstances. At the same time, the proposition to take the verdict of the majority deserved serious and fuller consideration. In deciding, however, upon the question it must be recollected that very strong excitement sometimes existed in Ireland in reference to certain particular crimes, and in such cases it would be exceedingly difficult to get a juryman to expose himself by giving a verdict in favour of a conviction. It was, however, only just to say, as regarded Irish jurymen generally, and the administration of the law in Ireland, that with regard to ordinary crimes they did their duty admirably, and that it was only in the case of a certain class of crimes, where, owing to the neculiar social condition of the country, the feelings and passions of the people were enlisted on the side of the criminal, that there was any difficulty in obtaining a conviction where the guilt of the accused was satisfactorily established. The last subject with which the Bill of his noble Friend dealt was that of education, and he must confess that his noble Friend's suggestions did not commend themselves favourably to his mind. His noble Friend said that there was great reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the present Commissioners of Education in Ireland, and he passed upon them a sentence of very severe condemnation, such as honest and upright men, as the Commissioners undoubtedly were, did not deserve. Even admitting that all that had been urged against the Commissioners in reference to the O'Keeffe case were quite true, and that the Commissioners had erred in their judgment, he should submit to the House that those gentlemen had not deserved the censure which his noble Friend had cast upon them. The Commissioners had held an
  1536
  important position for a considerable time, and they had had to deal with difficulties of which but few of their Lordships could form an idea. Under their management the system of national education in Ireland had attained great success, and the public were much indebted to the men who, by means of a considerable expenditure of their own valuable time, themselves being unpaid, had reduced the system into such good working order. It was, perhaps, possible to conceive a system under which grants of money for the purposes of Irish education might be made direct from the Privy Council in London. Whether or not Ireland would willingly sacrifice her present system of separate national education might be doubted; but he felt quite sure that nothing could be worse than to have a body in Ireland administering such grants subject to the authority of the Privy Council in London, because the two authorities were certain to clash, and the authority of the body in Ireland would be so impaired as to render it powerless for good. Therefore, their Lordships would be just as indisposed to adopt that last proposal of his noble Friend as they would be indisposed to adopt his previous suggestions. His noble Friend had said that more weight should be given to the opinions of distinguished Irishmen with regard to the government of Ireland than had hitherto been the case, and in that view he (the Earl of Kimberley) entirely concurred. He was, however, convinced that if any Irishman like Burke or Grattan were to come forward, speaking with the eloquence and the authority of those great men, they would at the present day command the attention of Parliament and of the country. Ireland had no cause to complain that England had neglected her interests during the past few years. We had done our best sincerely and honestly to administer the affairs of Ireland impartially, and he trusted that the time was coming when the wishes of his noble Friend with regard to that country would be fulfilled, when she would feel better disposed towards this country, and the Three Kingdoms would be perfectly united. Indeed, the Government had reason to believe that much improvement had already taken place in Ireland in consequence of recent legislation.
  EARL GREYsaid, that though he had long agreed with his noble Friend (Earl Russell) that the office of Lord Lieutenant for Ireland should be abolished, still he very much doubted whether that Bill was the proper mode for effecting that object, and, secondly, whether that time was the best for making the change. He would suggest whether it would not be a good arrangement if, instead of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant, they were to confer the office upon the Heir Apparent to the Crown; but, of course, Parliament would have to relieve His Royal Highness from all personal responsibility. Under such an arrangement there would be a real Court in Ireland. His chief object in rising, however, was to say that while he concurred with his noble Friend who spoke last, in believing it to be inexpedient that the Bill under discussion should pass into law, he could not forbear from expressing his disappointment that the Government had not evinced any sense of the grave situation in which Ireland was now placed. It was only a short time ago that in discussing another subject, he (Earl Grey) ventured to state that while that country showed in some respects gratifying symptoms of material improvement, there were other respects of a political and moral aspect in which her condition was far more unsatisfactory than it had been for a very long period. He made a comparison between the state of Ireland as it was admitted to be at present, and that which it was described to be five years ago by the then Chief Secretary, Lord Mayo, who, in a remarkable debate in the other House, gave a history of her position which was not contradicted. If that statement were compared with the existing state of things, no one could fail to be struck by the change which had since occurred. What he had said on the recent occasion to which he had just referred, there had been no attempt made to controvert; and he therefore remained persuaded that the condition of Ireland was such as to create a great sense of uneasiness, if not of actual alarm, and he believed some of the evils to which she was now exposed were the direct consequence of the policy in her regard which had been pursued during the last five years. He could not, that being the view which he took, allow the Bill before the House to be rejected, without saying
  1538
  that while o disapproving the measure he heartily concurred with his noble Friend in the opinion that the state of Ireland called for the most serious consideration of the Legislature.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will forgive me for trespassing briefly on your attention, when you remember that I am one of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. I should feel myself unworthy of my position in this House, and unfaithful to my colleagues who have been so vehemently, and, in my judgment, so unwarrantably, condemned by the noble Earl (Earl Russell), if I did not offer some words in vindication of their conduct. But before I do so, I must shortly advert to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Earl on the cross bench (Earl Grey). I do not deem it necessary, especially after the observations of my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) to enter on any discussion as to the general state of Ireland; but I am bound to say that, coming recently from that country, and having some knowledge of its actual condition, I have heard the statement of the noble Earl with the utmost surprise. That condition is not, in many respects, such as it ought to be; but I deny that it is greatly worse, or worse at all, than it was five years ago. I believe that it is better. I believe that the Irish people are advancing rapidly in the path of material progress. They are growing in wealth and the comforts which it brings. They have gained a stake in the soil from that wise policy so much denounced to-night, which, according to all our experience of humanity, will give them an interest in social order, and make them a law-abiding and loyal community. Popular education under an admirable system which, on the one hand, secures their religious rights, and, on the other, receives the liberal assistance and the wholesome inspection of the State, is spreading intelligence to every corner of the island; and if your Lordships will only consult our judicial statistics, you will find that Ireland, relatively to her population, is at this moment the most crimeless country of the world. These things should be taken into account when noble Lords are inclined to indulge in excessive lamentation as to the results of recent measures, which

  1539
  can only find, in the lapse of years, their true and full development. I have been astonished to hear the noble Earl institute a comparison between Scotland, as described by Fletcher of Saltoun, and the Ireland of the present day.
  EARL RUSSELL: No, no!
  LORD O'HAGAN: The noble Earl referred to the progress of Scotland from a miserable condition, as giving, at the time in which we live, hope of a similar progress for the Irish people. There is no analogy between the cases. If I remember rightly, Fletcher of Saltoun actually proposed the introduction of slavery into Scotland, as a means of rescue from her semi-barbarous state. Ireland needs no such assistance to advance her civilization. On another matter, I must say a word. The noble Earl has spoken of Irish Judges as having given expression to terrible opinions, with reference, as I understood him, to the temporal power of the Pope within these realms. On behalf of those Judges, I repel the imputation. It is founded altogether in error and misconception. There has been lately a discussion in the Irish Court of Queen's Bench as to a Statute of Elizabeth, affecting the validity of Papal Rescripts in these countries. The Judges differed—three of them holding that that Statute was still in force, and the fourth, as I believe, that for certain purposes, and within certain limits, the course of modern legislation must be held to have impliedly repealed it. But it never entered into his contemplation, or that of any of his brethren, to imagine that, however the spiritual power of the Pontiff might affect the subjects of the realm, submitting to it of their own free will and unfettered conscience, it could interfere, in the smallest measure, with the sovereignty of the Queen. For many a year, the Catholics of Ireland, clerical and lay, have repudiated and denied any temporal or civil jurisdiction of the Pope within these kingdoms; and there is no Judge on the Irish Bench who has not pledged his oath to that repudiation and denial. Parliament has wisely dispensed with official swearing, which was felt to be useless and an insult to those of whom it was required. And the attempt of the noble Earl to induce your Lordships to pass a declaratory Act is wholly unnecessary, as its success would be mischievous.
  1540
  You declare the Law only when it is questionable. But here there is no doubt; and the declaration would be worse than idle. Why should you offend the Catholics of Ireland by making such a declaration. Apropos of what will you make it? How has their conduct rendered it necessary? How have they demonstrated any doubt of the plenary jurisdiction of Her Majesty in all matters temporal? How have they indicated forgetfulness of the multiplied oaths by which they have denied, in such matters, the jurisdiction of the Pope? The noble Earl once before unhappily initiated legislation of this description. For his purposes, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act was a dead letter, until it ceased to cumber the Statute Book; but it has had, and to this hour it has, most evil operation in severing socially the chief ministers of the religion of the masses of Ireland from the Executive Government, and depriving it of legitimate influence which might be often used for the most beneficial purposes. One word only as to the Lord Lieutenancy. I am not of those who desire its abolition. I know that my opinion is, among politicians, unpopular; but I cannot cease to hold it, because I do not desire to increase the evils which Ireland has endured from excessive centralization; and because I believe that a strong Executive is, and will be, for many a day, most needful in her metropolis. I do not think that her interests can, without such an Executive, be as well protected from a parlour in Whitehall. The noble Earl once succeeded in carrying a measure for the abolition of the Vice-royalty through the House of Commons; but, in this House, it was encountered by the prescient wisdom of the Duke of Wellington, and it was rejected by your Lordships. Subsequent events have justified your decision. When the cattle plague raged in England, and threatened devastation to Ireland, it was repelled from our shores by the instant action and unwearying vigilance of my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Kimberley), who was then Lord Lieutenant. When Fenianism disturbed the kingdom, it was struck down by a like action and a like vigilance. And I more than doubt whether, in either of those cases, the same results would have been achieved by a Minister in London, without similar means of gauging opinion, of collecting

  1541
  information, and of guarding, with prompt decision, the great interests committed to his care. I have paused too long on topics on which I did not mean to dwell; and I pass to that which prompted me to address the House. The suggestion of the noble Earl as to the education of Ireland is, that the control of it shall be transferred to the Lords of the Council in England. I take leave to say, with all respect, that a proposal more uncalled for, more incapable of practical operation, or more gratuitously offensive in its character, has never been presented to your Lordships. It is not called for by the people whom it would affect. It could not work if it were adopted; for it would relegate to the English Committee of Council appeals against the acts of tens of thousands of patrons, managers, and teachers, and of the Board of Education itself. And it conveys the gross imputation of incapacity on a Commission which has established, with earnest effort and unexampled success, a great national system, vast in its proportions and beneficent in its results, and never so flourishing as at this moment. I do not think that such a suggestion needs much discussion; but I refer to it because it is connected with the charges of the noble Earl against the National Board. I trust your Lordships will bear with me when I tell you that not here only, but in a work printed for general circulation by the noble Earl, the majority of its Commissioners have been assailed with the greatest violence. Reckless accusations have been scattered broadcast against us—the worst figments of the newspapers have been gathered together and embalmed in that curious work—We have been charged with "grievous wrong;" with "violation of the spirit of Magna Charta;" with "allowing an Irish Archbishop to proclaim the jurisdiction of the Pope, a foreign Prince, over the Queen's Kingdom of Ireland;" and, finally, with "violation of Divine and human law." These are grave charges, which should not have been lightly made against the meanest people in the community; but they have been launched without a shadow of justification, against the foremost men in Ireland—its chief Judges, Members of your Lordships' House, and others eminent in various walks of life, who are engaged in a difficult and thank-
  1542
  less task—without fee or reward, with great expenditure of time and labour, and often at the cost of obloquy from conflicting parties, maintaining a scheme of liberal and impartial education, which, under their auspices, has had signal and ever-increasing prosperity. And they have been made by the noble Earl not in the excitement of debate, or amidst the ringing cheers of your Lordships, but deliberately in the quiet of of his study. In such a case, surely, excessive strength of language becomes excessive weakness. As to the matter of Mr. O'Keeffe, which has been the subject of denunciation to the noble Earl, out of 20 Commissioners, seven only have adopted his views, and on the inquiry lately instituted by the House of Commons no single person ventured to impeach, as he has done, or to impeach at all, the motives of the majority. The Commissioners have simply done their duty, according to their convictions, with absolute freedom from all external influence, and in strict accordance with the precedents and practice which have governed their conduct for 40 years. If the imputations now made be well founded, they affect, equally, great and good men who have departed. Archbishops Murray and Whately, Baron Greene, and their co-labourers in earlier days—who marked out the course which their successors have faithfully followed—if they wore living, would all protest against the slanderous injustice with which those successors have been assailed. Who, my Lords, are the Commissioners represented as subservient to the Pope and disloyal to the Queen? The staunchest Protestants and Presbyterians in Ireland—a learned Judge who has been the trusted adviser of the Protestant Prelacy in rehabilitating the Disestablished Church—noble Lords, the purity of whose Protestantism even the noble Earl will not venture to question—and the trusted representatives of the Irish Presbyterian clergy and laity. The charge is simply—I say it with all respect—absurd; and is it less absurd to say that such men as the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Lord Chief Baron, and Mr. Justice Fitzgerald—certainly not the least honoured members of the Irish Judicial Bench—have violated Magna Charta, and trampled on Divine and human law? For myself and on behalf of those distinguished

  1543
  persons, I enter my humble protest against the use of language so outrageous; and I have a right to utter that protest, as, for 15 years, I have laboured earnestly to sustain our system of national education in its integrity—sometimes in opposition to friends whom I esteem, and sometimes with unpleasant exposure to misconception and misrepresentation. I can speak with some authority as to the conduct and motives of those with whom it is my pride to have been associated in this great work. But they need not stand for defence only on their position and reputation. Their conduct in the matter for which the noble Earl has abused them has been in strict accordance with precedent and practice, and the purpose regulating that conduct has been perfectly sound. When Lord Derby wrote his famous letter—which, in itself and its consequences, will be one of his highest titles to the respect of posterity—he proposed that Ireland should enjoy a united secular and a separate religious education. He did not design to eliminate religion from the instruction of the people; and the Commissioners—acting in the large and liberal spirit of that letter—set themselves to avoid the lamentable failures of the Charter Schools and the Kildare Place Society by conciliating and comprehending the clergy of the various denominations; and, very much through their instrumentality, popularizing the novel system which was to be substituted for those abortive institutions. They have done so with perfect fairness and impartiality, and they have conquered difficulty, and removed obstruction of no common kind, until that system has attained its present great proportions and pervaded Ireland from the centre to the sea. And pursuing this course, they tacitly pledged themselves to all denominations—Protestant, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic alike—that those having the control of the schools should be of such a character as to make their management safe for the children of the several creeds in a religious point of view. And hence it came to pass that, to a very large extent, the clergy of the various churches assumed the direction of the schools, not from any absolute legal right, but because they were, for manifest reasons, the fittest to inspire the people with confidence in the instruc-
  1544
  tion offered to them, and make them regard that instruction as sound and satisfactory. And hence, also, the parson, the priest, or the minister, who was so chosen, by reason of his peculiar position, has always been displaced, when that position was lost, on his degradation or suspension by the authorities of his Church. This has been the practice, uniformly and universally; and this the principle on which the practice has been founded. It was a practice essential to be maintained in a country, all of whose people, whatever be the variances in their forms of belief, are, in their several ways, essentially religious. It gave the guarantee relied on by the heads of the religious bodies, and the system could not have succeeded or endured, if that practice had not been honestly maintained. This was the simple ground of all the proceedings in the O'Keeffe case. They were taken at the bidding of no ecclesiastic, and they would have been exactly the same whatever had been the confession of the clergyman—Presbyterian, Baptist, or any other—who had been degraded. If they had been other than they were, in my opinion they would have exposed the Commissioners to the charge of a breach of faith; they would have shaken the system to its foundation, and perilled all the advantages it has conferred on Ireland, and, through the education of Ireland's masses, on the entire Empire. There may be controversy about the propriety of the practice; suggestions may be made as to attempts at its improvement hereafter, with full notice to all the world; but, as matters stood, the Commissioners were bound to enforce it as they found it, and they did absolutely nothing more. If they had done anything else, they would have destroyed the confidence alike of the Churches and the people, in the protection afforded for the purity of separate religious teaching by authorized clergymen; and the result would possibly have been the secession from the Board of myriads of children, and the establishment of inferior schools in no relation with the State, deriving from it no aid, and submitting to no inspection. Anyone who knows Ireland will not need to be told how gigantic might have been the calamity so inflicted upon her. Very many of those who rail at the Commissioners do not understand that the success of their efforts would establish that very clerical domination

  1545
  over the Irish schools, which of all things, I take it, they desire to avoid. I do not go into any detail as to the case of Mr. O'Keeffe, because on a former occasion I troubled your Lordships with many observations upon it. I have only now been anxious—the occasion having arisen—to defend my colleagues against charges which could never have been made, if their own high character, or the settled practice of the National Board, or the plain principle by which it is justified, had been duly regarded. I desire no conflict with the noble Earl. I lament some of the courses of his later life, but I have a grateful memory of the services which he rendered, in other days, to the good old cause of civil and religious liberty. I know how often he contended for that cause, and how of him and the Catholics of Ireland it may be said, that for it
  "In many a glorious and well-foughten field, They stood together in their chivalry!"
  I have sought only to vindicate those he has mistakenly assailed; and I trust your Lordships will, at least, believe they have striven to do their duty.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble and learned Lord who had risen to reply to the speech of the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) had left that speech virtually unanswered. Indeed, throughout the debate there had been no indication from any Member of Her Majesty's Government, or from any one connected with that Government, that the state of Ireland was such that it deserved the consideration of Parliament. On the contrary, the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (Lord O'Hagan) stated that the state of Ireland was not only not worse now than it was five years ago, but that it was not so bad. But did their Lordships remember that at that moment the Press of Ireland was placed under the most extraordinary restrictions, and that a large proportion of Ireland was proclaimed and under a kind of military law? Did Her Majesty's Government forget that to be a supporter of the Government was a disqualification for Parliament in the eyes of the electors of Ireland—that the preference was given to Home Rulers who all but advocated a repeal of the Union? His noble Friend had been, therefore, amply justified in the remarks he had made upon the point. In his (the Earl of Carnarvon's) opinion that
  1546
  was a very serious state of things, and he must again express his disappointment that no one connected with the Government had admitted that the condition of Ireland was unsatisfactory. If it were in one sense better than it was in 1854, the improvement was due to military pressure and measures of repression. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) that the present was not a time to make great constitutional changes such as those proposed by the Bill, especially by way of experiment; but he must add his protest to that of the noble Earl on the cross benches against the condition of Ireland being regarded as satisfactory.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not wish to weaken that which he and his noble Friends near him regarded as the emphatic contradiction his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had given to the assertion that Ireland was a most crime-ridden country. He merely rose to correct the statement made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) that a large proportion of Ireland was under military law.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: What I meant to say was that large districts of Ireland were proclaimed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had to give an equally strong contradiction to the statement that Her Majesty's Government favoured those who professed Home Rule principles.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had never made such an assertion. What he said was that the electors of Ireland favoured Home Rulers to the exclusion of Government candidates.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDassured the noble Earl that what his noble Friend said was, that Government candidates were rejected by Irish constituents, who accepted those who were in favour of Home Rule.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had also so understood the statement of his noble Friend.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that in the Irish schools, as they were established by Lord Derby, Scripture extracts used to be read, although no child could receive religious instruction whose parents objected. Now, those Scripture extracts were no longer read, and Archbishop Whately's Evidences of Christianity was excluded from the school. He had had a school, and for 16 years neither parent

  1547
  nor priest had objected to the instruction given. Now the rule was, that no child should receive religious instruction unless his parent came forward and signed a paper that he agreed to the instruction proposed to be given. With regard to the loyalty of the people of Ireland under the present state of things, he asserted that it had not increased, but diminished. The Irish people thought they would be safer with the United States or with France than with England. Anything would be better than the existing state of affairs in Ireland, and if the noble Earl went to a division he should divide with him.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.

  SIR SAMUEL BAKER'S EXPEDITION.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would no doubt be gratifying to their Lordships if he stated the substance of a telegram from Mr. Vivian, dated Alexandria, that day—
  "Sir Samuel Baker reports safe arrival, with all Europeans, at Khartoum. Country come under Egyptian dominion. Route opened to Zanzibar. Slave trade in process of being suppressed. El Zaraf proved navigable. Victory on June 8 of 105 men over army of Onioso. Country orderly and quiet. Mission quite successful."
  A subsequent telegram from Mr. Vivian, dated Alexandria, 3 30 P.M., said—
  "3 P.M. Telegram from Governor of Soudan to Cheriff confirms safe arrival of Baker and his expedition at Khartoum; but states that Mr. Higanbotham (sic) died at Gondokoro. Baker comes here at once."

  AGRICULTURAL CHILDREN BILL.
  (The Lord Henniker.)

  (NO. 165.) REPORT OF THE AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Further Amendments made.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he had endeavoured to carry out the wishes of their Lordships, expressed in the Committee of this Bill, in the clauses he had brought up. Their Lordships would find all the Amendments which had been made in the House of Commons to Clause 6, carried out by the words now before the House, and the clauses after Clause 7, he believed, carried out the expressed wishes of their Lordships' House. He wished to introduce words into the second new clause, to avoid
  1548
  any misapprehension as to the meaning of the clause, for it might be construed, as it stood at present, as if the Provisos affected the first part of the clause; and this was not intended. The first part of the clause respecting the exemption of children who were employed in harvest, hay harvest, and so on, was intended to be an absolute enactment; whereas, as the clause now stood, the Provisos might apply to the first part, as well as the second part of the clause. He (Lord Henniker) wished to say a few words in explanation of the clause relating to reformatory and industrial schools, which he had introduced, as he was bound to do on bringing up a new clause on the Report. He thought their Lordships would agree to this clause to exempt reformatory and industrial schools from the operation of the Bill; for the chief object in those schools was to teach habits of work, as well as to bring the children into a school of education, under the ordinary acceptation of the term. Suppose a boy, badly brought up, as most children were who came under these Acts, he would not, perhaps, settle down to school work for a time, but, by degrees, and by means of putting him to field work, he would do so. Then attendances at school, taken by the rules of the Education Department, was very difficult to calculate in this case; the two hours of attendance was seldom, if ever, made up in these schools in each school-time. The schooling was in almost every case ample, but the advantage taken of a wet day, and other reasons, made the attendance at school necessarily, and rightly, irregular. The children who came under these Acts were of a different class from those affected by the Bill, and the course of instruction was different, too. It must be wrong to put any obstacle in the way of the working of those schools. Financially, it would affect them; for in many instances, the labour of the children was let out in the neighbourhood, and in one instance, £100 a-year was gained in this way in Northamptonshire. Great power was given under the Industrial Schools Act, almost amounting to a stringent system of compulsion; and, surely it would not be right to put other restrictions upon such children. He (Lord Henniker) had imagined those schools would not come under the provisions of the Bill, as they

  1549
  were under special Acts; but he found on investigation, that although they were virtually under special Acts, they were not so actually; for no special provisions were laid down for the instruction to be given, and this fact would bring them under the Bill. They were really under special provisions; for they would not be certified schools unless they were under Government inspection, and the rules were sanctioned by the Secretary of State. He hoped their Lordships would consent to the introduction of the clause, as if these schools were brought under the Bill, it would very much interfere with the good and effective work they were doing in the country.
  Amendment moved, at end of Clause 8 insert—
  ("Nor shall the said provisions apply in the case of any child for the time being detained in a certified reformatory school or in a certified industrial school within the meaning of the Reformatory Schools Acts, 1866 and 1872, and Industrial Schools Acts, 1866 and 1872 respectively.")—(The Lord Henniker.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the Bill had no doubt been improved since it came up from the Commons, but he doubted whether the Amendment would not place reformatory and industrial schools in a better position than the parents of the children who were not permitted to go to work under a certain age. He understood that the noble Lord behind him proposed the addition to the clause because certain industrial schools in Northamptonshire earned not less than £100 a-year by letting out the children to farmers in the neighbourhood, and that if they were prevented by this Bill from doing so, they would suffer a considerable pecuniary loss. If that were so, he thought their Lordships ought not to agree to the clause at the present moment, as he objected to an industrial school letting out children to the neighbouring farmers.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONhoped his noble Friend (Lord Henniker) would postpone his Amendment till the third reading.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he was quite willing to act on that suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended.—(No. 185.)

  CROWN PRIVATE ESTATES BILL.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 175.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its principal object was to make it clear that Her Majesty, or any future Sovereign, should have the power of transmitting her private estates to any member of the illustrious family that now ruled this country, and that they should continue private estates in the event of the person who held them succeeding to the Crown.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  MARRIAGES (IRELAND) LEGALIZATION BILL—(No. 94.)
  (The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,in moving, that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the disestablishment of the Irish Church had rendered such a measure extremely necessary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, the Government had no serious objection to raise against the Bill. There were however, so many inaccuracies throughout it that perhaps it would be as well for the noble Marquess to draw up a fresh measure, and introduce it next Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he entirely approved of the object of the Bill, but agreed that it was so faulty in several particular's, that it would be better it should be replaced by a more perfect measure. He would, moreover, suggest that it was not desirable to proceed with special legislation, especially when it was considered that the whole question of the marriage law of Ireland might well be dealt with.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock 'till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.