Sitting of 22 May 1860

TAX BILLS—EXCISE DUTY ON PAPER.
  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise for the purpose of moving the Adjournment of the House at its rising until Thursday next; and I wish at the same time to give notice that, it is my intention on Thursday to move that a Committee be appointed to inspect and examine the Journals of the House of Lords in relation to any proceedings of that House on the Bill for repealing the Excise duty on paper made in the United Kingdom. I think it is desirable that that Committee should be followed up by a Committes to search for precedents. It is important that the facts with regard to what has passed should be ascertained, but Her Majesty's Government disclaim any intention of taking any step that would place the two Houses in a state of hostility. I now move that the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday next.

COURT OF PROBATE.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rose to ask the first Commissioner of Works when

1609
proper accommodation will he provided for Her Majesty's Court of Probate, and what steps have been taken to acquire the property for which powers were given under the Act of last Session, and for the purchase of which a sum of £60,000 was granted. The present offices were in every respect inconvenient. The accommodation was not sufficient for the gentlemen whose business it was to attend at the offices; and in one place a gentleman was put into a room where any Member would be ashamed to put one of his servants. The inconvenience and insufficiency of the offices had been the subject of long correspondence with the Treasury, but the only result as yet arrived at had been that portions of adjoining houses were hired, and openings bored through the wall to connect them with the Probate Office. The consequence of this state of things was that gentlemen holding important offices, such as registrars, and receiving high salaries, found themselves on the second floor of a house, the floor below being hired by somebody else, and the floor above by a third party. One of these registrars occupied an office in the room above which lived a gentleman with a zoological taste, who, by way of amusement, kept from fifty to sixty rabbits. He would leave the House to judge what the condition of the official gentleman was who had to discharge most important business in the room below. In 1857, such was the crowded state of the offices, that an effort was made to increase the accommodation, the chief object being to enable persons who wanted to examine or prove wills to do so without the assistance of lawyers. This was, to some extent, carried out; but it frequently happened that 80 or 100 people were waiting who could not get up to the table when the examinations bad to be made. In addition to this, there was not room for the papers and wills deposited, and the result was that many of them were dispersed all over the country, while a loss of fees to the revenue, amounting to about £15,000 a year was sustained. By way of remedy for this evil, many very valuable documents had been sent to St. Paul's, where they were deposited in what was called the trophy room; but the Dean and Chapter would not allow a fire or candle in the room; so that they could only be examined during the summer months, and were, besides, being destroyed by damp and mildew. Last year a Bill was brought in giving powers to acquire property on which to
1610
build a Court of Probate, and a vote of £60,000 was taken towards the purchase of the ground. It was said that the College of Advocates asked a fancy price for their property, but Mr. Pennithorne stated that, if the property were bought merely as a temporary arrangement, such was the growing value of property in the City of Loudon that be had no doubt it might be sold in five or six years without loss to the Government. It was said to be in contemplation to concentrate all the law courts on one sue, but the House bad already some experience of the delay that was likely to take place in carrying out such an object. The Keeper of Records had declared that after last Thursday there would not be a room in which a single will or any such paper could be placed in a state of safety. This was a subject which required the immediate attention of the House. Hon. Members would not sleep in their beds if they knew that in consequence of a dispute between the Board of Works and the Treasury the title deeds of their estates might at any moment be destroyed by fire. He paid a visit to the building the other day, and found, in a room four feet square, three gentlemen each with a companion, who were reading wills aloud. He could not understand a word that was said, yet it was evident a vast amount of property might depend on the correctness of a single word. Seeing that the Government had the power of purchasing this property at a valuation and that it adjoined the Probate Office, be begged to ask the First Commissioner of Works when proper accommodation would be provided for Her Majesty's Court of Probate, and what steps bad been taken to acquire the property for which powers were given under the Act of last Session, and for the purchase of which a sum of £60,000 was granted?
MR. COWPERsaid, that his hon. Friend bad prefaced his question by a good many remarks; but the actual question might be disposed of in a very few words. The real question was, whether the Board of Works were prepared to purchase the property that belonged to the College of Advocates. He would shortly give the reasons why he thought it better not to do so. The present Probate Registry was, no doubt, an inconvenient building, but it was only temporarily retained. It was expected that the Commission now sitting for the concentration of the law courts would recommend some plan for placing all the law courts on some convenient and contiguous

1611
site. It was, therefore, very desirable that the Board of Works should not go to an expense that would stand in the way of uniting the Probate Registry with the law courts. The Registry ought to be in contiguity to the Probate Court itself, the Divorce Court, and the Admiralty Court. He had, therefore, to consider how temporary accommodation could be supplied most conveniently, and at the least expense. That might be done in two ways—either by buying the property belonging to the College of Advocates to which his lion. Friend had referred, or extending the present accommodation by means of hiring the houses on the other side of the way. He had preferred the latter plan, because it involved a saving of £20,000. He should thereby provide seven times as much accommodation as was now found in the registry of wills and documents, whereas the officers of the court stated that it would be enough if they had five times the present space at their disposal. The plan he had adopted would be economical, and would provide the necessary accommodation until a larger and permanent building could be provided.

THE CONVICT ESTABLISHMENT AT BERMUDA.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the convict establishment of Bermuda. The case which he had to bring under its notice was so urgent and important that he should offer no apology for trespassing upon its time. Many able and philanthropic men in England had been for many years occupied in endeavouring to improve convict treatment, but there still existed a blot upon her public establishments which reflected the greatest disgrace upon the country. The convict establishment at Bermuda had been in existence a considerable number of years. It was not to be regarded in the light of a transportation colony, but was rather an offshoot of the establishments at home. Convicts had been sent out in very great numbers to Bermuda. There were now 1,200 persons there who were employed in public works, in the naval and engineer department. Parliament had devoted £58,000 a year to this establishment. At the expiration of their sentence the convicts were all returned to England to be discharged, and not less than 360 were sent borne during the past year and liberated in this country. Many of them belonged to the worst description of
1612
criminals, being composed of prisoners who were sentenced to ten years' transportation or the longer periods of penal servitude. Hero he might remark that the system was wrong, which sent to a place whore there was the least supervision, offenders who required the strictest discipline and control. Their reformation under such circumstances was impossible and contamination was certain. Yet these men were let loose on society for the most part after four or five years' confinement. On looking over the Official Reports it was hard to say which was the worst managed—the department of public works, or that of the officers who had control over the prisoners. It appeared to him that bad management prevailed in every branch of the establishment. With respect to the department of public works, especially that of the dockyards and naval department, it was enough to refer to the Report of the Comptroller. He said:
"The principal divisions of works upon which the prisoners have been employed are three:—1st, the naval works under the superintendence of the Naval Department; 2nd, the Boaz Island Works; and 3rdly, the Ordnance Works, both under the superintendence of the Commanding Royal Engineer. A fixed number of 300 prisoners are supposed to be employed upon the Hospital at Boaz Island, a work second to one other only in importance, and the progress of which is not very sensible."
Again he said at the end of his Report—
"I will invite serious attention to the present organization of the Works Department. That it is very defective is evidenced by the remarkably slow progress of the buildings, &c., in course of construction, and by the wasteful expenditure of stores and material which meets the eye in every direction."
The works alluded to were of a very extensive and costly nature, and comprised those connected with the prison, with the dockyard and naval department, and with the engineers. In some instances they had not even been commenced, and in others they had been abandoned in a half finished state. Implements were scattered about in every direction, and valuable stores were sometimes landed in the island, and, being taken charge of by nobody, left exposed to the influence of the weather. No one seemed to be responsible for the management of the works, and hence the neglect and extravagance which prevailed. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the House referred to the condition of the accommodation for the officers, and on this point the comptroller thus reports:—
"The want of accommodation for the officers is in itself fatal to the attainment of anything like

1613
a perfect state of discipline, for officers are thus compelled, in not a few instances, to go six or seven miles, and to cross the Sound to the opposite shore. One necessary consequence of this has been that one-third of the officers have been allowed to absent themselves from duty every night; thus those who remain find the duty rendered extremely arduous, while those who have leave (having a long distance to go) are obliged to leave the works two hours before the day's task is concluded, and for the same reason are unable to return in the morning until two or three hours after the convicts are at work, not to mention the unavoidable fatigue and lassitude consequent in this climate upon so long a walk. For five hours of each day there are not enough officers to take charge of the numerous parties. In short, the evils which result from the want in question are far too numerous to be detailed in my Report, and I would urgently recommend that quarters for the officers should be built at once, for I consider this of far more importance than any of the works in course of construction. The want of a prison wall has hitherto rendered it impossible to prevent communication between the convicts and the country people who are constantly passing and repassing on the public road through the Island, and who also supply fruit, vegetables, poultry, &c., to the private houses. The separation of the prison into places of detention so distant from each other not only makes supervision and reference to the comptroller more difficult, but introduces many delays into the smaller details of daily management."
Then with regard to the state of the prisoners on board of the hulks, what did the chaplain say?—
"The great majority of the convicts are confined on board the hulks, and so long as this is the case it must be prejudicial to any general improvement in the character and conduct of the men. Bermuda is the solitary exception, under the British crown, where these dens of infamy and pollution are permitted to exist. Both on the score of civilization and humanity they have been everywhere else condemned. Few are aware of the extent of suffering to which a prisoner is exposed on board the hulks, or the horrible nature of the associations by which he is surrounded. There is no safety for life, no supervision over the bad, no protection to the good. The hulks are unfit for a tropical climate.
Now he did not so much complain of the officers as of the defective nature of the arrangements and accommodation, under which anything like improvement or instruction was impossible. The state of the prison on shore was a source of great evil. The official Report states that—
"Boaz Island prison does not possess a wall or inclosure of any kind. There is a free communication both with the Ferry-road and with the private houses on the island. By these means the introduction of spirituous liquor prevails to a great extent, and drunkenness is a common offence among the prisoners. Before anything else is undertaken a wall of separation should be put up, without which the place does not deserve the name
1614
of a prison, so that when passing through the gates both prisoners and hired workmen might be searched, and all prohibited articles stopped. At present every prisoner on the island manages to have money in his possession, to gamble, to get rum, and to correspond with parties outside—practices which are strictly forbidden by the rules."
He believed that the erection of prison walls was recommended two years ago, but nothing had been done. More than half the convicts were punished during last year, and some were tried for serious offences. With the exception that the convicts were healthy, there was hardly a single evil connected with the worst system of prison management which did not exist at Bermuda. It was idle to say that the evils could not be remedied. If they contrasted the system which prevailed in Bermuda with the system which existed in Ireland they would find that, while one was the worst imaginable, the other was most successful. Since 1854 Ireland had absorbed all her convicts, amounting in number to no less than 5,063. During the four years 1,250 had been liberated conditionally, of whom only seventy-seven had had their licences recalled, and 854 had been liberated unconditionally, of whom four only had been re-consigned to prison. It might be said that he ought to have brought the subject before the attention of the House upon going into Committee of Supply, but in the present state of public business it was impossible to say when they would arrive at the consideration of the miscellaneous estimates, and he felt that something ought immediately to be done. He hoped he should receive some assurance from the Government that inquiry would be made, and that no convicts would be sent to Bermuda as long as the system of hulks existed there.

TAX BILLS—EXCISE DUTY ON PAPER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had anxiously waited in the hope that some other Gentleman would have put the question which he was about to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government. A petition had been presented by himself from Ruabon, most numerously signed, praying the House to take some immediate measures for the protection of their undoubted privilege of originating taxation. He had also a notice on the books in reference to the subject, and he hoped the facts would in some respect justify his rising. He wished to know whether the communication which they have just received about Precedents, is all they are to hear from the Ministerial

  1615
  Bench in reference to the event which occurred last night of the Paper Duty Repeal Bill being rejected in "another place," and if so, when the House will receive some further definite communication, such as the House and the country can understand and act upon in reference to this unprecedented, or, at all events, most important step taken in "another place." That was the question which he ventured to put to the First Minister of the Treasury, or to any other Member of Her Majesty's Government, who would be good enough to take cognizance of it.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) I have nothing to add to what has been already said by my noble Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury; but, with regard to the question which the noble Lord (Lord Naas) has raised, my attention has been directed to the reports which he has cited; and I quite concur with him in thinking that the state of things, which these reports disclose, is one which requires the immediate and urgent attention of Her Majesty's Government. As far as the Home Department, which I represent, is concerned, there would be no difficulty in making arrangements for the disposal of the whole of the annual number of convicts, without sending any additional convicts to Bermuda, partly by means of other stations abroad, and partly by means of the convict prisons in England. The advantage which accrues from the annual supply which is sent to that island, arises from the public works in the nature of fortifications which are there proceeding under the direction of the Naval and Military Departments, and which would impose an additional charge on the public revenue for their continuance, if that supply were withdrawn, and the works continued. I believe that for some time no Irish convicts have been sent to Bermuda. The supply from Ireland has entirely ceased; and the convicts who have gone out have been convicts solely from Great Britain. Nevertheless, there is a certain number of Irish convicts there, and an affray of a sanguinary nature between the English and Irish took place in the course of last year. It was a sort of faction fight; and, much as it is to be deplored, it does not evince any general want of discipline. There is no doubt that the confinement of a large number of convicts in hulks at Bermuda, in consequence of the want of adequate prison accommodation on shore, is an objection-
  1616
  able system, and I am not about to defend it. But this question, like so many others which come under the consideration of this House, ultimately resolves itself into a matter of additional expense; and the proper time for considering this question will be when the convict Vote comes under consideration in Committee of Supply. The House will then have to decide whether they will incur increased expenditure for the improvement of the accommodation at Bermuda, with a view to maintaining an undiminished number of convicts there, or whether they will discontinue the public works on the present footing; in which case the excess of convicts not sent to Bermuda, can be received with facility elsewhere. In the meantime, I would say that I believe my noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department is of opinion that it is desirable to send out a Commissioner, or some person charged with the function of inquiry into the present state of the convicts at Bermuda. I shall be prepared to concur in that course; and if the inquiry is made, the result will enable the House to come to a decision with fuller information than they at present possess.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONobserved that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was not altogether satisfactory. He said the question resolved itself mainly into one of expense; but it might much more properly be said to resolve itself into one of the departments which ought to have the control of these matters. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better that all the convicts, whether engaged on public works at Bermuda or in the dockyards at home, should not be placed under the central authority of the Home Office.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had understood the objection to be directed to the system of hulks altogether, whether they were under the Home or the Colonial Department.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.—RESOLUTION.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I now proceed to make the Second Motion which stands in my name, by which the House is asked to resolve that, after Whitsuntide, Orders of the Day shall have precedence of Notices of Motion on Thursdays, Government orders having precedence of other Orders, and that on Friday Notices of Motion shall have precedence of the Orders of the Day.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved.
"That upon Thursdays, after Whitsuntide, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motions, Government Orders of the Day having priority, and that Notices of Motion have precedence of Orders of the Day upon Fridays."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Perhaps the House will allow me to add that it is proposed on Thursday that the Wine Licences Bill shall be disposed of. The third reading is not expected to take up much time; and after that my right hon. Friend will propose the Votes on account of the Civil Service Estimates. We shall then take up the Naval Estimates.

YORK ASSIZES—QUESTION.
MR. DEEDESsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cayley) he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to a Circular lately sent to the Magistrates of the County of York on the subject of a division of the Assizes of that county, Whether he is aware that the Common Law (Judicial Business) Commissioners (1857) reported against the expediency of removing the Assizes from York; whether he is aware that in 1858 a Memorial was forwarded to the then Secretary of State, prepared by a Committee appointed by the General Gaol Sessions of the County, and signed by 309 of the Magistracy (169 being magistrates of the West Riding), expressing a conviction that the removal of any portion of the Assizes from York would he accompanied by great public inconvenience and be at variance with the feelings of the county at large; and, whether he has any objection to lay upon the table any recommendation he may have received in favour of such change, together with the names or numbers of the parties recommending the same?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had received representations from a very numerous and respectable deputation a short time ago in reference to the advantages which would arise from holding a separate assize for the West Riding; and he had addressed letters to the three Lords-lieutenant of the different Ridings of Yorkshire, requesting them to ascertain the opinions of the magistrates in their respective districts. There would be no objection to produce the answers when they were received. The correspondence which had already taken place would be published.

REGIUM DONUM.—GRANT TO NONCONFORMING MINISTERS IN IRELAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he trusted it was not necessary for him to disclaim any hostile or unkindly feelings towards those persons who were the recipients of the grant to which the Motion he was about to make referred. He should be the last man in the House to say a word against a body of ministers whose religious opinions were largely identical with his own. The House would be aware that this grant was made to Presbyterian and Unitarian ministers in the north of Ireland, and amounted to nearly £40,000 per annum. It differed from all other grants to religious bodies, inasmuch as a fresh claim was created whenever twelve families were gathered together who were able to raise £35 yearly, which at once became chargeable on the Estimates for the ensuing year Consequently, the grant went on increasing and extending just in proportion to the ability of any clergyman to collect a certain number of people, and to raise a small sum of money. It had often been to him a matter of astonishment that a large, wealthy, and respectable denomination should continue to receive these grants, to which much odium attached, and, in regard to which, even charges of imposition and fraud had been made. He objected to the grant on three grounds. First, he held it to be financially wrong and a waste of public money; and, next, he objected to it on principle, believing that as long as this grant went on, the House could not consistently stop short of carrying out a principle which the English nation had distinctly repudiated—that of subsidizing the ministers of all denominations. He had a third objection to the grant that it had been productive of disastrous consequences to the recipients themselves. It had been a drag on the Synod of Ulster, and was the main cause of the complaints of inadequate remuneration made by the ministers. He might, perhaps, he told that the grant had been given in lieu of tithes to the Presbyterian ministers of Ulster, and that they had, therefore, a right to it as a part of a compact between themselves and the Government of the day. But he had investigated the matter, and the result he had come to was that no facts existed to warrant the conclusion. In fact not a particle of evidence existed to support the allegation. Dr. Reid, the historian of the

  1619
  Church, said not a word about it. The truth was that it was not as Presbyterians but as clergy men of the Established Church, that the ministers enjoyed the tithes. The Marquess of Londonderry, in the memoirs of his brother, Lord Castlereagh, gave the true explanation of the matter.
  "The Scottish colony," said he, "was accompanied by its ministers, who, by a comprehension and connivance, dictated by the necessity of the times, were put in possession of the tithes of the parishes of which they were ordained pastors. It does not appear that their title to the tithes was ever strictly legal; but they certainly enjoyed them with the consent of the bishops, and continued to be thus supported until after the death of Charles I., when they were deprived of them by the Commonwealth."
  At the restoration of the monarchy the Presbyterian Ministers were deprived of all pay, and from that time to 1672 they were wholly dependent on the free-will offerings of their people. William and Mary, no doubt, renewed the gift, and placed it on the Irish establishment; but then it was only for £1,200 a year, and even should they admit a contract, it was only one for that amount and not for £39,000. But this was not all; in little more than a year after the new patent was granted the Irish Parliament passed a Resolution declaring "that the pension of £1,200 per annum granted to the Presbyterian ministers in Ulster, is an unnecessary branch of the establishment." The Queen, Dr. Reed informed them, continued the grant in spite of this parliamentary vote against it; but that she had no great zeal in the matter was proved by the fact that for some time before her death the Regium Donum was actually discontinued by the Irish Government. And further, even so recently as the year 1729, a deputation was sent to London, for the purpose of inducing the Government of George II. to restore the English, or additional bounty, as well as pay up the arrears for the years during which it had been suspended. Archbishop Boulter, who seems to have been very friendly towards the Presbyterians, gave the deputation a letter of introduction to the prime minister, Sir Robert Walpole, which was alike creditable to his candour and liberality. As the Archbishop would, no doubt, be well instructed by those whose cause he was advocating, as to the real state of the case, there was one sentence in his letter which was of great importance. Speaking of the arrears due to the Presbyterian ministers, he said,
  1620
  "They are sensible there is nothing due to them, nor do they make any such claim, but as the calamities of this kingdom are at present very great. … it would be a great instance of his Majesty's goodness, if he would consider their present distress."
  Well, then, it might be asked, what was the nature and reason of this payment? He replied that the history of all the transactions in regard to it, the deputations, and memorials, and increases from the reign of Queen Anne to the death of George III., most conclusively prove it to have been neither more nor less than a reward for political services. Or, as the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin, last year more mildly stated, it was given "on the ground of public policy." Did any one doubt this? Then let him ask why, when Charles II. renewed the grant in 1672, it was placed in the annual Estimates, under the head "secret service money?" Why did Lord Castlereagh, in endeavouring to alter the mode of distribution in 1799, entitle his scheme "A Plan for Strengthening the Connection between the Government and the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster?" Why, even Dr. Killen himself, the eloquent defender of this Vote, used these remarkable words:—
  "In proposing this new scheme of endowment for the Irish Presbyterian Church, it would seem that Government was chiefly actuated by those purely secular considerations which ordinarily have weight with prudent and calculating statesmen. Presbyterian ministers were now, to a great extent, dependent for subsistence on the voluntary contributions of their flocks; and, to maintain their popularity, they were sometimes strongly tempted to take the lead in political movements of very questionable expediency. An increase of the Royal grant would place them in more independent circumstances in relation to the people, so that they would be less likely to give any countenance to the spirit of faction or sedition. It was expected that the State, at the same time, would thus increase its own direct influence over the spiritual guides of an important section of the population of Ireland. In their arrangements for the augmentation of the grant, it is plain that the leading statesmen of the day aimed at the political subserviency of the Presbyterian ministers of Ulster, and, when impartially estimated, their motives were as destitute of piety as of patriotism."
  He held in his hand a very curious little pamphlet, one extract from which would save his troubling the House with statistical memoranda of his own. He begged the particular attention of the House to it, and he made no apology for doing so; for he felt confident those who did him the favour to listen to the sentences he was about

  1621
  to read would admit that his case, as far as the failure of the present system was concerned, really required not another word of argument on his part. The pamphlet to which he alluded was entitled, "Pastoral Provision; or, the Income of the Irish Presbyterian Clergy Shown to be Insufficient; with the Proper Means to be Adopted for its Augmentation. By the Rev. William Oliver, of Dunluce." The following was the contents of one of the chapters, and it was not a little suggestive:—
  "Evils of Insufficient Support: Large Proportion of our clergy unmarried—Dangers. Imperfect attendance on Church courts—Effects. The almost total extinction of original literature in our Church. Secularization of the clergy—Effects. Poverty originates suspicion of dishonesty—Efforts to maintain integrity. Danger of the cessation of the ministry among us. Removal of the gentry to other communions. Pulpit services want in variety of information, from inability to procure books. Temptation to relax in discipline."
  The following extract was one of the most remarkable, and it was the only one he would read. Mr. Oliver, himself a Presbyterian minister, said:—
  "In looking over the Government Return for the year ending 31st March, 1854, what an extraordinary picture does it exhibit of the depressed state of our ecclesiastical revenue! And this evil originates directly in the cause already assigned. This document, I would remark, is one of those yearly returns required of every minister, with a view to his being entered upon the Parliamentary estimates for endowment. It is a certified record given by him of the number of families that compose his congregation, and of the amount of stipend and other sources of emolument enjoyed or received by him during the previous year. It is, therefore, in the highest sense, authentic, and of the greatest value in ascertaining the exact sums contributed by our Church. In analyzing this document, a very painful exhibition of parsimonious dealing towards the clergy at once flashes upon the eye. The facts disclosed are so discreditable, that it may be thought highly imprudent to publish them. …. I know that in dissecting this document, I will appear odious in the sight of many. Be it so. Are we to allow the gangrene to fester for ever; and is there no man to rise up, sufficiently fearless and honest, to probe it to the bottom, though it should touch the unfortunate victim to the quick? Presbyterianism is now, if ever, in a position to do its duty. It has remained in this land over two centuries; and, if in its infancy still, I ask, when is it likely to be released from its leading-strings? I will avoid making long comments. Let facts speak for themselves. And if parties get angry, let them disprove my statements, or turn their wrath into the right direction. If they have been guilty of causing this actual state of matters, that is no fault of mine, and why should they be ashamed of their own production? These tables tell us that, in connection with the General Assembly, apart from
  1622
  Unitarians, Covenanters, and other minor sects, there are about 450,000 adherents, paying, as nearly as I can reckon up, £18,748 11 s. 7½d. Now, we have a perfect right to consider each individual as the object of ministerial attention. Infants have to be baptized, and attended to when sick; youths catechized and trained in the Sabbath school, and the aged prayed with and exhorted; and, what is the amount contributed by each individual? Exactly 10 d. a year, or considerably less than one farthing per week, and this, be it observed, even including the large-hearted, and, in many instances, princely liberality of Belfast, Dublin, Londonderry, and other influential towns. That is, for every week's service, preaching on the Sabbath, and pastoral duties on other days, congregational visitation, catechizing, celebration of marriages, attending funerals, visiting the sick, addressing public meetings, and numerous other minor requirements, we are presented by each person with the munificent sum of one-fifth of a penny weekly. Here is the brand of disgrace engraven upon our foreheads, that has made us a gazing stock to the English Voluntaries, the Irish Roman Catholics, the noble spirits of the Free Church of Scotland, and, in short, to every denomination of Christians on this and the other side of the Atlantic. But I grow sick of these calculations; and I merely introduce them to expose the palpable absurdity, that our people give as much as they are able toward the maintenance of their pastors. In looking over the same document, the following facts appear:—The average stipend of each minister is £40 per annum. In the whole assembly, consisting of 467 congregations, there are but 69 self-sustaining. Besides, there are no less than 146 congregations that pay their ministers from £40 to £30 a year; 127 that contribute between £20 and £30, or little over the keep of his horse, notwithstanding the Government screw of the £35 qualification, and 39 that actually give below £20 a year! We have thus arrived at the astounding conclusion, that, in a Church composed of 467 congregations, on the most liberal view of the case, there are 357 that only give a partial support, leaving their pastors to eke out the necessary means by farming, merchandise, or any other wordly employment they please."
  The extract was quite sufficient, in his opinion, to show the result which had been brought about by the system of giving a State subsidy. He asked the House to compare that result with the case of Scotland. Seventeen years ago there was a disruption of the Presbyterian Church in that country, and since that time the Free Church had contributed a sum not very far short of five millions sterling for religious purposes. On the other hand, since 1799, the sum contributed in Ireland for the support of the clergy had positively decreased. By the terms of his Motion, he did not ask the House to take any extreme or unusual course. On the contrary, he submitted that he was asking the House to act in accordance with precedent. For generations there had appeared on the

  1623
  Estimates a Regium Donum Vote for dissenting congregations in England. That Vote had produced the same disastrous results as were now produced in Ireland. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London, when Prime Minister, at length removed it from the Estimates, and he believed the congregations affected by it had had occasion to thank the noble Lord ever since. Within the last few years the House had abolished the Regium Donum for the Independents of Scotland, and that body had benefited by the transaction. He was not, however, asking the House to do for Ireland what had been done for England and for Scotland. What he asked was that the Presbyterian clergy in the north of Ireland should be placed on the same footing as the clergy in British North America—namely, that the grant should be gradually abolished, and should cease with the lives of the present recipients. This was a very moderate and justifiable proposal; it had the recommendation of interfering with no vested interests, but would simply provide against any increase of the grant, and for its final extinction. An hon. Friend of his had objected to the Resolution as it then stood, adding that pensioners never died; but that only showed the moderation of his proposal. He submitted it with confidence to the consideration of the House. If they adopted it they would take a course which would strengthen Presbyterianism in the north of Ireland, and have, he believed, the immediate effect of raising the salaries of the clergymen connected with that body, besides putting an end to a system which, he believed, no statesman in the House imagined would be permanent.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That this House is of opinion that the Grant now annually made to Non-conforming Ministers in Ireland (commonly called the Regium Donum), should cease and be extinguished as speedily as is consistent with the just expectations of the recipients thereof: and, with this view, that no further Grant be made on account of 'New Congregations,' nor to any existing Congregations after the present Ministers thereof shall have ceased, by death or otherwise, to be the Ministers of such Congregations."
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion. He believed it was the very best mode of settling the long-vexed question of the Regium Donum. It did not interfere with any rested interests; it simply provided that after the deaths of the present recipients no further grants should be made. His
  1624
  hon. Friend had clearly shown that it was not to the advantage of the Ministers themselves that the grant should be given, and that by doing so, the House said, in fact, to the congregations, that it was not their duty to provide for their pastors, although every one admitted that it was their duty to provide for their own household. He believed that by removing the grant the House would throw the duty where it ought to be. He would ask what right had the House, as representing the United Kingdom, to tax the whole people in order to provide salaries for a small portion of the inhabitants of Ireland? They could not set up the plea that they belonged to the Established Church of Ireland, or to that body which included the largest number of the inhabitants. Looking at Dod's Parliamentary Companion, he found that, although many hon. Members were against interfering with regard to what had been already done for the State support of religion, there was almost an unanimous opinion against new grants of money to any denomination whatever. Under these circumstances, he trusted that a large majority would assent to the Motion, and that the House would stand by the broad ground of not voting any further sums out of the public purse for the support of any religious denomination whatever.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he rose to move an Amendment that all the words after the words "regium donum" should be omitted, and that the following words should be added to the Resolution: —
  "Should no longer be exposed to the annual criticism of this House, but having been duly sanctioned by this House for a lengthened period of time, it ought now to be placed upon the Consolidated Fund."
  [Derisive cheers.]—He hailed with some pleasure those derisive cheers, showing as they did the scant knowledge of this subject of those from whom they emanated, and, as applicable to it, the small amount of their Parliamentary law. In proposing that Amendment he relied on the revered precedent of the late Sir Robert Peel, who, years ago, in answer to the late Sir Robert Inglis, said he intended to proceed by Bill in placing the establishment of Maynooth on a permanent footing; and he added—adverting to the Irish Regium Donum—that he thought it unadvisable that any of the Protestant institutions of the country should be subject to the annual criticism of that House. He therefore treated with contempt the derisive cheers that had pro-

  1625
  ceeded from the Parliamentary ignorance of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He begged to remind the House that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Montrose came with very small authority before the assembly to which it was addressed; for, first of all, the lion. Member himself represented a Scottish borough; and next, the Seconder of the Resolution represented an English constituency, although no doubt it was one of the most distinguished in the kingdom. Those hon. Gentlemen came forward, however, to interfere with the affairs of the Presbyterians of Ireland, a matter which they knew very little about. He (Mr. Conolly) claimed to have a better opinion as to what was good and fitting for the people of that religion in Ireland, and he must say that the lion. Members who had spoken took a singular way of augmenting the revenues of the Presbyterian ministers when they expected to do so by the withdrawal of this grant. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had quoted a dictum of the late Lord Castlereagh against the grant; but he would remind him that the father of that noble Lord was a Presbyterian, and a zealous supporter of the Regium Donum, and his motives for being so were those of high policy as well as for the benefit of the Presbyterians themselves. No man could entertain greater respect for the Presbyterian body in Ireland, for their noble and consistent Protestant feeling, than he (Mr. Conolly) did, although lie himself did not belong to it, and he felt confident that if hon. Members would look into the actual position of affairs they would not accede to this Resolution. He denied the authority of the hon. Mover and Seconder on this question, and he would confidently appeal to the judgment of the House to vindicate the claims of that most respectable and respected body. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] He understood that cheer, and therefore he would not prolong the argument, but merely add that the Presbyterians claimed this grant as a right. From the time of William III. till now they had never failed to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown and the interests of religion, and the justice and policy of the grant had, in consequence, been recognized by successive statesmen of the highest order in that House.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the words 'Regium Donum' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'should no longer be exposed to the annual criticism of this House, but, haying been
  1626
  annually sanctioned by the opinion of this House for a lengthened period, it ought in future to be placed upon the Consolidated Fund."
  —instead thereof.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that the hon. Member for Montrose had readily kept the promise that he made last year, that not only should there be a yearly discussion upon the merits of this endowment, but that besides the opportunity for debate to be expected in the Civil Estimates, that House should be treated, usque ad nauseam, with another anticipatory contention upon the same subject. He had no hesitation in meeting the Resolution of the lion. Gentleman with a direct negative, and he trusted that the House would establish, by a large majority, the full principle of justice which had maintained that grant for so many years. Its origin was almost coeval with the settlement of Ulster, and some years before 1655, Presbyterian ministers had participated in the tithes of Ireland, as in that year the tithes were transferred to the public treasury, and they, in common with the clergy of other Protestant Churches, received their share, and were recognized by the State. Though discontinued during the last years of the reigns of Charles II. and James II., almost the first Act of King William III., in 1690, was to order a payment of £1,200 annually for the maintenance of the Presbyterian clergy in the North of Ireland, and the very terms of this grant implied that it was not as a consideration for political services, but as a compensation for losses they had suffered in the withdrawal of their proportion of the tithes, that this charge was placed for payment upon the funds of the Irish Exchequer. Thus a deliberate compact was made with the Presbyterian Church for the partial support of its ministers, and though subsequently increased at different periods, the State has thus continually admitted its obligations, and the successive additions to this endowment have been made in reference to the growth of Presbyterianism and the requirements of religion. It is generally conceded that, as a matter of bargain, the State has been a great gainer by this grant to sustain the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, for whenever the annual attack is made upon it by those Gentlemen who represent the voluntary system in that House, the Irish Chief Secretary of the day, and those Gentlemen who have formerly held that high position, are found to advocate its retention by recognizing the superior morality, the orderly demeanour,

  1627
  and the loyal and patriotic sentiments which distinguished the Presbyterian population of Ireland. They tell us, and they tell us truly, that where the congregations of that Church are most thickly placed, the public expense of police is lessened; that the gaols and workhouses are comparatively empty; that not only is there a great diminution of crime, but that there is also a very considerable economy of cost in the administration of criminal justice. He had lately a personal proof of this honourable distinction in watching the proceedings of the Spring Assizes of the county which he had the honour of representing in Parliament, for though the calendar of the County of Londonderry was more than usually over-burdened, and the Presbyterian population of that county exceeded 100,000 souls, one Presbyterian alone was prosecuted to conviction, and that for an offence of a most trifling character. Credit must, therefore, in common fairness, be given to those Ministers of the Gospel who were answerable for the moral culture and superior religious training of their people; nor could he consider it would be advantageous that, by the suspension of State assistance, the Presbyterian clergy should become wholly dependent upon the precarious provision afforded by their congregations. They ought to be secured in an independent position, and the present arrangement for their sustentation, partly by a State endowment, and partly by congregational subscription, appeared equitable, and had been found to work beneficially for the public advantage. It should be remembered also that the present modest grant of £69 4s. 8d. to each minister is only given by the State after a minimum sum of £35 has been annually secured by the congregation; that the chapel must have been built, and that the minister must have received a salary for two years at least before the application in his individual case for the Regium Donum can be complied with. Objections have been made to this grant on account of its expansive character, and to the indefinite number of now congregations that it is alleged might be created under its operation, but he would remind that House that the Church Courts of the Presbyterian body were responsible for each new congregation, and that the honour and dignity of religion itself was concerned in the scrupulous administration and observance of this great trust. No abuse had ever yet been proved, and it would be more ge-
  1628
  nerous and only just that no imputation should be made that could not he sustained. So entirely did he differ from the views enunciated by the hon. Member for Montrose that he considered that the foundation of this grant should be strengthened and the separate amount of royal bounty to each minister should be augmented and amended. He could not derive satisfaction from the present insecure establishment of a State provision which depended upon an annual Vote, and might be withdrawn by accident or the caprice of circumstances. Constant majorities in that House had affirmed its retention, and he would appeal to the Government whether the time had not come when, like other religious endowments, it ought to be placed beyond the danger of these periodical assaults by a transfer from the annual Estimates to the more confirmed position of a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. Such a proposition, proceeding from the Government (as he yet hoped to see) would, he felt certain, be acceptable in Ireland; for, in looking over the lists of the division in last year's Civil Estimates, he found that out of 105 representatives of Ireland, two only had recorded their votes against this endowment. The Roman Catholics of Ireland do not regard this grant with disfavour. All parties there are favourably inclined to its continuance, and he believed that its further consolidation Would be received as a graceful act of conciliation. He thought that in consequence of the great change in the value of money, and the increased cost of all the necessaries of life, the sum of £100 should be substituted for the present allowance of £69 4s. 8d. to each minister as a suitable provision, and he felt certain that circumstances would justify this extension of the national generosity. Were the Maynooth Grant and the Regium Donum placed upon the same secure foundation, it would be more difficult to endanger either; for he fairly owned that so long as he held a seat in that House, he should be prepared to support and defend those endowments, as well as all the other religious establishments of the nation. He therefore most heartily deprecated those religious discussions, whether proceeding from the hon. Member for body were responsible for North Warwickshire or the hon. Member for Montrose, for he believed that much injury to social good will and contentment was engendered, and that sectarian rancour and animosities were thereby fostered, and most especially in Ireland. He

  1629
  would, moreover, preserve these grants as tokens of justice to Ireland, for, subjected as Ireland now was to equal imperial taxation, and disproportioned as her public debt was to that of England at the time of the union of the two countries, she could fairly claim that her existing institutions should be maintained intact, and that the religious requirements of her population should be supplied.
  MR. CARDWELL:—It seems to me that the House is desirous of coming to an early division on this subject. In the first place, I appeal to the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) not to persist in his Amendment, for which he could scarcely find a seconder, and which is not calculated, I think, to advance the cause he has at heart. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) will not think me disrespectful if, in compliance with the wish of the House, I observe great brevity in answering the argument he has brought forward. I think that argument was of the fairest and most candid description, and raised the whole question in the plainest terms. But I must add that none but those who are prepared to carry out the voluntary principle to the utmost can give their support to the Motion of my hon. Friend. He states that the objection to the grant was based upon three grounds—the first being finance. That speaks for itself, and if the public consider that the benefit derived from the grant is not worth the moderate sum of £40,000, then I must admit that part of the argument. But it appears to me that weightier considerations ought to prevail. My hon. Friend urges, in the second place, that this is a matter of universal endowment. The shortest reference to the history of this grant shows that if there is a case in which a grant ought not to be withdrawn the present deserves the serious consideration of the House. It is admitted by my hon. Friend that when these parties originally went to Ireland, in the reigns of James I. and Charles I., they were in the actual enjoyment of the tithes of the benefices they served. But during the Commonwealth, when they refused to change the oath of allegiance, they were sentenced to what was then considered to be a severe punishment—they were going to be transported to Tipperary, and vessels were in readiness at Carrickfergus to take them off. According to the historian of the age, in the time of Henry Cromwell's lieutenancy—Henry Cromwell being himself of a mild
  1630
  temper—they had an easier time of it. But he remonstrated with them for not changing their religion, on the ground that they were receiving £100 a year from the Government. They said, "We have to give you no thanks for that, for it is a very poor compensation for the tithes you have deprived us of." Changes took place in the position of the Presbyterians in both countries. Suffice it to say that Charles II. originally gave them this Regium Donum, which on the first landing of William III., and before the Battle of the Boyne, was confirmed to them by that Sovereign. It was increased by George I., for loyal services performed, and so went on until 1803, when it came under the special consideration of this House, and when the arrangement now in substance acted upon was made. That was reviewed in 1831, and under strict rules it was administered, as I believe, with great advantage to the country. I think that a sufficient answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's argument—that this is a branch of a universal endowment. In not disturbing what has existed in substance from the time of the Commonwealth to the times of the Restoration and the Revolution, you can hardly be said to be consenting to a universal endowment. You cannot upset things that have been established by a precedent of that kind without involving serious consequences, which the House would do well to consider before it takes this step. The third argument of my hon. Friend was that the grant, in his opinion, was very injurious to the recipients. I have had the honour of communicating on that subject with the Moderator of the Synod of Ulster, who appears to me to be a better judge than my hon. Friend of what will be the result of the withdrawal of the grant to those whom it concerns. The Moderator entertains a very different opinion as to the consequences of such a course to that of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend spoke forcibly of the extreme poverty of many of the ministers; but, surely, the worst remedy for poverty would be to take from them the only part of their annual income which is drawn from a permanent and reliable source, and leave them utterly dependent on that small part which is fluctuating and uncertain. My hon. Friend also pointed in the course of his argument to the Free Church of Scotland. Now, I do not believe that that institution, for which I have the highest respect, holds the voluntary principle. I had the honour

  1631
  of being well acquainted with Dr. Chalmers, who delivered eloquent lectures in this Metropolis in favour of endowments, and I believe he held that principle to the end of his days. Although that excellent body of men, the clergy of the Free Church, have been compelled to sacrifice endowments in their own case for the maintenance of a principle, they still hold the principle that they are legitimate for religious purposes. Then, as to the Maynooth Grant, at an earlier period of the Session the House showed its determination to maintain that grant by refusing to enter into a debate upon it, and we may reasonably hope that in the present case as well, the House is prepared, stare decisis, to adhere to the established practice, and not to open the question of general ecclesiastical establishments.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he had no objection to withdraw so much of his Amendment as referred to the allocation of the grant hereafter, but at the same time he should pledge himself in the most distinct manner to bring the matter to a decision by introducing a Bill for the purpose.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 217: Majority 159.

CORONERS' BILL (No. 3).

  LEAVE.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, that the Select Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the office of Coroner, after examining several witnesses, came to the determination that it was very desirable to introduce a Bill forthwith, embodying their recommendations. Their recommendations were—1st, to make a declaration of the cases in which inquests should he held; 2nd, to empower the Attorney General to apply to a Judge at Chambers for a rule calling upon the Coroner to show cause why he did not hold an inquest in any case; 3rd, to give the Home Secretary power to make rules for the guidance of the county police in giving the Coroner information; 4th, to allow the Justices to fix the salary of the Coroner; 5th, to assimilate the election of Coroner to the election of a Member of Parliament; and, 6th, to provide that Coroners' jurors should be indifferently summoned from the jury lists of their respective counties. The Bill he proposed to introduce generally embodied
  1632
  those recommendations; but with regard to assimilating the election of Coroner to that of a Member of Parliament, he found that there was a difficulty, and he had so far deviated from the fifth recommendation as simply to propose that the polling should take place on the one day and in one place, but the election be conducted as at present. With regard to the 6th point, the jurors being taken indifferently from the jury lists, he was informed that it would be inconvenient to carry that into effect; and, although the clause appeared in the Bill, it might either be modified or omitted. The great principle of the Bill was the payment of Coroners by salaries instead of by fee, and as there must be a full discussion on the whole subject, he suggested that the Home Secretary should appoint the second reading of his Bill on the same day as the second reading of this Bill. The change in the mode of payment would probably put an end to the growing misunderstanding between the Coroners and the County Justices in various parts of the kingdom. With those few remarks, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and declare the law relating to the election, duties, and payment of Coroners, and to the taking inquisitions in cases of deaths.
  MR. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had no objection to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend, and was prepared to take the course suggested—namely, that of fixing the second reading of his own Bill on the same day as that on which his hon. and learned Friend would bring on the second reading of his Bill. At the same time, he must say that he still remained unconverted with respect to that portion of his hon. and learned Friend's Bill which he said was its main feature—namely, that which provided for the payment of Coroners by salaries. It would be his duty to oppose that part of the Bill.
  Leave given.
  "Bill to amend and declare the Law relating to the election, duties, and payment of Coroners, and to the taking of Inquisitions in cases of Death, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COBBETT, Sir WILLIAM MILES, and Mr. JAMES."

GUNBOATS AND MORTAR-VESSELS.

  COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances which had caused the alleged defective

  1633
  state of the gunboats and mortar-vessels of the Royal Navy. The hon. and gallant Member was proceeding to make a statement, when—
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock till Thursday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sale of Gas Act Amendment.
2a Weights and Measures; Adulteration of Food or Drink; Consolidated Fund (£9,500,000).
3a Bankrupt Law (Scotland) Amendment.

ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD REDESDALE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said its object was to prevent the sale of a vast deal of rubbish that was now sold as food for the people. The means by which it was proposed to effect this object was by making every person who shall sell any article of food or drink with which any ingredient injurious to health has, to his knowledge been mixed, or who shall sell with a warrant of its purity any article which he knows to be adulterated, liable to summary conviction before two justices of peace, who were authorised to inflict a penalty not less than 5s. or exceeding £5, and costs. The local authorities were authorized to appoint one or more "analysts," to whom the purchaser or the magistrates might submit the suspected articles for examination, and whose certificate was to be conclusive. The Bill proposed to give a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions—but this proposition he intended to extend and to make the appeal lie to the Court of Queen's Bench for patented articles in certain cases. For the second offence the magistrates were authorized, besides inflicting the recited penalties, to publish the name, place, abode, and offence of the offender in the newspapers or otherwise. In respect of the general scope and intent of the Bill, he would remind their Lordships that it was neccessary to risk a little inconvenience if they were to effect any good at all by legislation. There was such a disposition on the part of traders to sell goods which were not what they purported
1588
to be, that unless the Legislature interfered effectually he was afraid the sale of adulterated and unwholesome goods would continue throughout the kingdom to the great injury of the community.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD PORTMANsaid, the Bill was not likely to effect much towards effecting the object which the promoters desired, and was certain to cause intense vexation and annoyance in every part of the country. He believed, however, the Bill would prove perfectly inoperative owing to the difficulties which would beset any attempt to carry its provisions into execution. For instance, it would require that the seller must know the article he sold to be adulterated. How were they to prove that? Then it was proposed, in the case of any person selling adulterated articles and convicted thereof, he should be liable to have his name, offence, and penalty published in one or more newspapers, which he conceived to be altogether a new principle in legislation. Then they were to be dependent on the proof of adulteration on the Report of analysts appointed for the purpose; but as there was a great difference of opinion between analysts as to what was pure and what was adulterated, it would be very difficult for either the magistrates or the justices of the peace in quarter sessions to decide, with such conflicting testimony, as to who was right or who was wrong. This was no new subject, for he had heard it discussed ever since he recollected anything; and about fifty years ago a work bearing on the matter was published entitled Death in the Pot. However, if the returns of the Registrar General were examined, great improvement would be found to have taken place in the health of the general population; and, consequently, it must not be assumed that there was such an enormous increase in the adulteration of articles of food as to injure the health of the public.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEobserved that it had been shown by evidence that so extensive and systematic was the adulteration of all articles of consumption that people hardly knew what they ate or drank. It would be very desirable if any enactment could be passed that would give protection to the poor man; but his own opinion was that it would be difficult to do anything in the matter with effect. At the same time it was well worth consideration, whether some mode might not be discovered of putting a check on the habit of falsifying articles of consumption.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that when the Act of the Irish Parliament against the adulteration of bread expired after the Union, powdered bone became no inconsiderable ingredient in the manufacture of that important article of food. The result was that a new Act had to be passed by the Imperial Parliament. It was so important that a stop should be put to practices so injurious to the public health that he thought it would be a great misfortune if any discouragement were thrown upon this attempt at legislation.
LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEstrongly supported the Bill. The agricultural societies had done a great public service by analysing artificial manures, but they had had to encounter great difficulties in consequence of the litigation to which they were exposed if they published the names of the fraudulent vendors, They had found it necessary to form guarantee funds in order to bear their chemists harmless; and he regarded the provision for the publication of any names of those persons who might be convicted under the Bill as one of its most valuable features.
LORD TEYNHAMthought a clause should be inserted enabling a retail dealer to obtain an analysis for a much smaller sum than was provided for by the Bill. He also thought a provision should be made that no person should be subject to the charge of adulteration who sold articles in packets or bottles which remained, when he sold them, in the same condition as they were in when they came into his possession. The onus in such cases ought to attach entirely to the manufacturer, or, at all events, the wholesale dealer.
LORD WENSLEYDALEsuggested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
LORD REDESDALEaccepted the suggestion, and said that if the House would agree to the second reading, he would on Thursday move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The manufacturers of an adulterated article must, of course, always be cognizant of the adulteration; not so, necessarily, the retail dealer. If, however, the retail dealer warranted the article he sold as being pure, he ought to be liable for the adulteration, if there were any, in regard to the article.
After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee, The Committee to be
1590
named on Thursday next; when the following Lords were named of the Committee:—

E. Shaftesbury

L. Redesdale

E. Hardwicke

L. Somerhill (M. Clanricarde)

E. Powis

L. Bp. St. David's

L. Portman

L. Camoys

L. Wensleydale

L. Teynham

L. Talbot de Malahide

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, in rising to call Attention to the continued Disturbances taking place on each succeeding Sunday in the Church of St. Georges-in-the-East, and to move a Resolution that sufficient Power and Energy has not been displayed in putting down the same and bringing its Perpetrators to Punishment said, he believed he should meet with the universal concurrence of their Lordships when he asserted that the proceedings which had taken place Sunday after Sunday at St. George's-in-the-East were not only an abomination in themselves, but a scandal to religion, and a disgrace to a civilized community. Every succeeding Monday they saw in the newspapers accounts that were worse than those that preceded them, as having taken place every Sunday morning and evening preceding, and which, it appeared, the police had not the power to suppress or put down. He need not say that he did not stand before their Lordships as the advocate or champion either of the Rev. Bryan King or of his proceedings. That gentleman's conduct had been, to use the mildest terms, most culpably injudicious. It might be that he had acted in strict conformity to the rubric; but he ought to remember that many things which were sanctioned by the rubrics of the Church had become obsolete, and were opposed to the feelings of the public. It was, he thought, much to be regretted that the Ordinary had not power in all cases of differences arising between an incumbent and his parishioners, either as to the mode of celebrating divine worship or as to the decoration of the church, of pronouncing a decision which should be binding upon both parties. The conduct of the Rev. Bryan King, however, furnished no justification for the disgraceful riots which took place Sunday after Sunday, and which were occasioned not by the regular congregation, who he was informed had all left the church, but by a party of disorderly and reckless persons

  1591
  whose only object was to indulge in a scandalous pastime. Why, then, were not these riots put down? They would not for a moment be tolerated in any West-end church, in any Dissenting chapel, or even in a theatre, and why should they be allowed to continue in the church of St. George's in-the-East? Had the Secretary of State omitted to direct the chief of the metropolitan police to use every effort to put down these disturbances? or was it the fact the chief of the police, or some members of that body, sympathized with the opponents of the Rev. Bryan King, and were therefore unwilling to exert themselves as they ought to do to put a stop to these rights? An impression appeared to prevail among the police authorities that although they would be justified in taking the strongest steps to check any disorder which might take place outside the walls of the church, they were differently circumstanced as regarded what occurred within the building. Nothing could be more erroneous, and he was at a loss to understand how such an impression could have been created. If it continued to be acted upon a precedent of the most dangerous and fearful kind would be established, and a rabble might assume they had a privileged right to disturb the service in our churches. A representation ought to be made to the Ordinary upon the subject; and if he had not power to pronounce a decision in the matter a measure ought to be introduced into Parliament to confer such authority upon him. Were the churchwardens doing what they ought, or were they not acting under the influence of prejudices entertained against the incumbent and his proceedings, forgetting their immediate duty, which was the maintenance of order in the church? No right-minded person could come to any conclusion other than that these disturbances had risen to such a height that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some decided interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government. If proper directions had not been given to the chief of the police they ought to be immediately communicated to him; because he was convinced that if ten or a dozen determined policemen did their duty these scenes would soon be put down. Several persons had been taken before the magistrate of the Thames Police Office charged with breaking the peace during the performance of Divine service. One of those individuals, who was stated to occupy a
  1592
  respectable position in society, told the magistrate that if he was sent to prison it would damage his character and ruin him in his business. The magistrate, acting doubtless from the humanest of motives, inflicted on the accused a moderate fine, instead of committing him to gaol for fourteen days. If the respectability of a man's station in life was to have any influence at all in such matters, surely it would justify the infliction of a severer sentence upon him when he was proved to have openly infringed the law. If a decided course had been taken in that case by the magistrate of the Thames Police Office, in all human probability an example of such a description would have put an end to these disorders. Far better that the church should be closed for sonic time to come, than it should be thus desecrated Sunday after Sunday. Surely the Government must see the necessity of remedying the evil, and must be able to remedy it. The fault could not but lie somewhere; whether with the chief of the police, or with the members of his force who were placed upon duty at St. George's-in-the-East on Sunday, he could not presume to determine. Hitherto the police had been little more than ciphers in this matter. These riots, he understood, were not occasioned by the inhabitants of the parish, or by any members of Mr. Bryan King's regular congregation, but by a parcel of mischievous boys and girls, aided by a few miscreants, who went to the church for no other purpose than to have what they thought a good Sunday's "lark." If such a disturbance of public worship was not forcibly checked, a dangerous precedent would be set, which might be imitated, they knew not how soon, in other parts of the country. He trusted, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would at once interpose to repress this flagrant scandal, and would give such instructions to the Chief Commissioner of Police as would not again be disobeyed. The noble Lord concluded by moving a Resolution—
  "That sufficient Power and Energy have not been displayed in putting down the continued Disturbances which have taken place on each succeeding Sunday in the Church of St. George's-in-the-East, and in bringing the Perpetrators of such outrages to Punishment."
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say, he was not at all surprised that the noble Lord should have called attention to the subject, but was very much surprised to hear him charging the police with neglect

  1593
  of duty, and saying that it would be very easy for them to suppress these disturbances. The task was by no means so easy as the noble Lord supposed, and no facts bad been adduced to show that the police bad failed to discharge their duty as far as that was possible. If one or two individuals disturbed a whole congregation, the police would have no difficulty in taking them into custody and bringing them to punishment. But where a considerable portion of the assembly disapproved the mode in which the public worship was conducted, and confined the expression of that disapproval within certain limits, it was not so easy to obtain a conviction against them. The insinuation that the police evince a sympathy with the rioters was entirely unwarranted. The noble Lord said the rioters were unconnected with the parish; but he was informed that that was a mistake, and that a great portion of them did belong to the parish. There was a strong desire on the part of the Home Office that these disturbances should be put down, and instructions had been given to the police to give their best attention to the subject. A small body of police were placed behind the churchwardens to execute whatever orders they might give; while others were stationed in different parts of the church; and the police had orders to take before the magistrates any person guilty of committing any distinct act of disturbance. They were also ordered to take into custody all those against whom any person was found to bring a direct charge. If, however, nobody was found to make a charge, what were the police to do? The noble Lord stated that several individuals had been brought before the magistrates. So they had, and with what result? Why, in every case but one they had been let go.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he thought the statute of the 2nd of Queen Mary would be found to apply in the present case. That statute enacted that if any person in any way molested any preacher he might be taken into custody—not by the churchwarden or police officer—but by any one who was present at the proceedings, and brought before a magistrate, and the magistrate might imprison him for three months. He thought the magistrates had acted with too great leniency in the cases brought before them. If the Secretary of State looked to the words of the statute he would find it was clear that it applied to any kind of insult or obstruc-
  1594
  tion; and he believed that if one or two cases were taken before the magistrates under the statute of Queen Mary these disturbances would soon be disposed of.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that some practical difficulty had been experienced in enforcing the statute referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWexpressed his regret that proper steps had not been taken to put down these disturbances. He thought that the outrages in this church were of such a gross and infamous nature that it was utterly impossible that they could continue in any civilized country on earth, if the authorities had done their duty; and that they had not done their duty in this case was quite clear. He had been told by persons who were there, that while these outrages were going on in the most violent manner, the police, like so many automata, were standing by as mere spectators, and without taking the slightest notice. It also appeared from the proceedings in the courts of justice, that in every case where an offender had been brought before the magistrate he had been let off without any fine, or with a merely nominal punishment; whereas those gentlemen who, though not at the solicitation or desire of Mr. Bryan King, had attempted to interfere for his protection, and as it appeared they were authorized to do by the Act the noble and learned Lord had quoted, to put out of the Church the persons whom they saw transgressing, were heavily fined. He agreed that such things could not take place in any other church, or in a Dissenting chapel; and it was quite evident, therefore, that there was a prejudice against this unfortunate gentleman. He begged to say that he had no knowledge of Mr. Bryan King, neither did he approve of the course which that gentleman had pursued. Though he had not probably transgressed the law in any respect, yet he admitted that with a congregation like that in question it was exceedingly injudicious for the clergyman to adopt such practices as had been adopted. He held in his hand a letter which Mr. Bryan King had circulated among the Members of that and the other House; it was addressed to the Bishop of the diocese, and he had heard that it had been contradicted. If this letter were true it was most extraordinary, and he could not think that a clergyman would publish such a letter to his diocesan if it were not founded in fact. He said in this letter, in the first place,

  1595
  that he got the living from the late Bishop of London at the time when the Bishop had published a letter to his clergy requiring them to adopt uniformity of practice in their churches. He continued, that in conformity with the Bishop's order he put certain practices in force, and he did not feel justified in realtering the system because a portion of his parishioners disapproved of the change. Mr. Bryan King also stated that all these disturbances arose in consequence of the appointment of a person as lecturer, licensed by the present Bishop of the diocese. This was the Rev. Hugh Allen, who was an intimate friend of Mr. Spurgeon, and who had assisted Mr. Spurgeon in the establishment of his tabernacle. With regard to this Mr. Allen, there were alleged to be some other circumstances, which might have exposed Mr. King to an action for libel if they had been stated in his printed letter, but which he (the Earl of Wicklow), speaking in their Lordships' House, could mention. It was alleged that Mr. Allen had been obliged to leave another church in consequence of the intention of the authorities of that church to bring him before a court of justice for his improper conduct. He was then appointed to a neighbouring church; but the rector of that church protested and the Bishop refused to give him a licence. He was then elected by the vestry of St. George's, and the Bishop gave him a licence. Mr. Bryan King protested against his appointment, but ineffectually, and he then informed the Bishop of all the circumstances that had led to this gentleman's retirement from his former position; that he was a notorious drunkard and totally unfit for his position; yet notwithstanding this the Bishop gave him a licence. Having the Bishop's licence he took possession of the pulpit and was followed by a large crowd shouting "Bravo, Allen!" The statement might not be true, but Mr. Bryan King stated it to be the fact, and he said that all the disturbances had been in consequence of the conduct of Mr. Allen. He (the Earl of Wicklow) was glad to give the right rev. Prelate an opportunity of contradicting this statement if it were not true. If it were true, then the Rev. Bryan King was justified in his proceedings; and if not true he was a libeller and not fit to retain his present position. All that he (the Earl of Wicklow) required was that justice should be done.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was surprised at the course taken by the noble
  1596
  Earl. He had read, with due attention, the letter to which the noble Earl directed his notice. The noble Earl brought forward a statement that a clergyman who, in a neighbouring diocese, had lately been appointed to a most important living, and who on that occasion of course produced testimonials signed by three beneficed clergymen, upon which he was instituted by the Bishop of the diocese to the charge of that living, was a notorious drunkard. He (the Bishop of London) did not find such a statement in the letter of Mr. King, though he now heard it in the speech of the noble Earl. He felt entitled to request the noble Earl to read the exact words of Mr. King's letter, so that if there was a libel in the statement their Lordships might know whether Mr. King was the libeller, or the noble Earl himself.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, the reason assigned by Mr. King was not in the letter; and why? Because Mr. King believed he could not publish it without being guilty of libel. But did the right rev. Prelate mean to tell him that Mr. King did not inform him of that reason when he requested him to withhold the licence from Mr. Allen? If the right rev. Prelate would say that Mr. King never informed him of those circumstances, he (the Earl of Wicklow) would at once admit that he had been wrong in going so far into the case. But Mr. King's statement was that Mr. Allen had been guilty of such faults that he had been obliged to abandon one church.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I shall be obliged if the noble Earl will read the statement—the letter.
  EARL GRANVILLE: —I do not know whether your Lordships will agree with me, but I really think it is not desirable that this conversation should proceed any further. I must say it is not usual to impugn the character of a clergyman without any notice whatever. Besides, it has really no connection with the case before your Lordships. Whether there be grounds for censure of the authorities or not, cannot depend on the character or conduct of some other clergyman.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he had been requested by the right rev. Prelate to road the letter; and if the House would allow him to read—
  EARL GRANVILLEagain appealed to the House as to whether it was desirable that this should go on or not. As far as he understood the matter he thought that

  1597
  it was a disorderly proceeding and ought not to be allowed to continue.
  LORD CHELMSFORDthought it most desirable that the discussion, which was of an extremely painful description, and had nothing to do with the matter before their Lordships, should cease. He should now wish to make a few observations with respect to the Motion which was under the consideration of the House. His noble Friend near him was, he thought, perfectly justified in making that Motion inasmuch as—
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE:—The noble and learned Lord rose to a point of order, and I think he will agree with me that it is undesirable that he should—until that point is disposed of, and until some explanation is offered in reply to the charge which has been brought against a particular individual—proceed to discuss the question which has been brought under our notice by the noble Viscount opposite. It would be unfair to allow such a charge to go forth to the public without affording the right rev. Prelate near me the opportunity of showing its injustice as far as possible.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he quite concurred in the propriety of the observations made by the noble Duke. He might add that he was proceeding to address the House with reference to the Resolution of his noble Friend under the impression that their Lordships assented to the expediency of adopting the course which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had suggested.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONproceeded: Nothing could be more painful to him than such a discussion as this; but the whole subject was of such a kind that it must be painful. He could quite understand that the noble Earl did not intend himself to bring any charge against this clergyman, but he seemed to have viewed the words in his hand through some extraordinary medium that made them appear to convey a meaning they were not intended to convey. He (the Bishop of London) believed that Mr. Bryan King was totally incapable of saying what the noble Earl had imputed to him. If the House would allow him, he would now state what the noble Earl evidently knew nothing about, namely, the legal steps by which the Rev. Hugh Allen was appointed to the lectureship of St. George's-in-the-East. That was a matter which had not any great connection with the subject at present before their Lordships; but as
  1598
  the disturbances began about the time that gentleman was appointed, it was well for the public to know in what way he was appointed, Their Lordships were perhaps aware that, as a general rule, no lecturer could be appointed in any parish church without the consent of the Incumbent, and it was the duty of the Bishop not to license such lecturer without such consent. But there was hardly a parish in London that had not its own local act. The peculiar circumstances of this parish arose from the Act of Parliament relating to the parish. As the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, who had sat as Judge in this case, was aware, the Act of Parliament which regulated the affairs of St, George's-in-the-East made it imperative on the Bishop, without any consent of the rector, to appoint the person who should be nominated by the vestry to fill the office of lecturer. If, therefore, he (the Bishop of London) had refused to institute to the office of lecturer the person who was nominated by the vestry, he would have been liable to be called to account before a court of law. Of course, if an improper person were nominated, it would be his duty, at whatever peril, to resist the appointment of such a person. The gentleman who had been, as he thought, so unfortunately named in this discussion, was nominated by the vestry. He (the Bishop of London) thereupon received from Mr. King a letter, which informed him that in his opinion that gentleman was an unfit person to be appointed to this lectureship, because he believed he had been to a tea-party at which Mr. Spurgeon was present, and also because it was supposed that there were certain reflections as to his moral character which required investigation. Immediately on the receipt of this communication, he (the Bishop of London) informed the gentleman nominated of the charges brought against him so far as they were of a serious character, and told him that he would require most satisfactory evidence that they wore without foundation. On the next day that evidence was produced in the usual shape of testimonials signed by three beneficed clergymen of the diocese, testifying that they had opportunities of observing his conduct for the last three years, and that to their certain knowledge, he was a pious and good man, and a perfectly fit person to be appointed to this lectureship. Then what other course was left to him (the Bishop of London) than that which he pursued? This gentleman, whatever faults might be attri-

  1599
  buted to him, was a person who had a wonderful faculty of attracting large crowds of persons to bear his preaching. Of all the churches in the East end of London, his own parish church—the church of which at that time he was incumbent—was the one that was most filled, and it was perfectly true that the deserted parish church of St. George's became immediately filled when he was appointed. He (the Bishop of London) did hot know whether that was attributed to this clergyman as any blame; on the contrary, he believed that the persons who went to hear him as lecturer went simply from their admiration of him as a preacher and because they expected now to hear what they thought they had not heard for a long time, such preaching as was likely to do them good. He believed, therefore, that the thousand persons who frequented the church at that afternoon lecture went there with no intention of creating any disturbance, but they went as they had been in the habit of frequenting every church where this gentleman preached,—it might be from mistaken ideas of the truth, or it might not, for he (the Bishop of London) would not enter into that—only because he was what they felt to be a preacher who they thought did them good. It was quite true that on the occasion of the lecturer taking possession of the office to which he had been legally appointed, an attempt was made—and he (the Bishop of London) did not blame the inexperienced curate who performed that act for the absent rector—an attempt was made to put in a protest, which caused some little disturbance. But that question had been brought to a proper and legal conclusion. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) then Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, decided the case, and settled that the lecturer was properly appointed, and settled by implication that he (the Bishop of London) had no alternative but to appoint him, and that he was entitled to the use of the church on certain occasions. That was all that he (the Bishop of London) had personally to do with the appointment of Mr. Allen. If the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) were now present in the House, he would have spoken of the character Mr. Allen bore when in his diocese. The most rev. Prelate had spoken to him (the Bishop of London) of Mr. Allen, as believing him to be a zealous and good clergyman, exercising a wide influence over the poor, when in the diocese of Chester.
  1600
  He believed there were others of his right rev. Brethren who would say the same. But really all this had nothing to do with the question now before the House, and he regretted that it had been brought forward in a way which he was sure Mr. King, the writer of that letter, would regret. He might say in that House what he (the Bishop of London) had often said in private—that Mr. Bryan King was a person who would never allow himself, if he possibly could avoid it, to transgress the rules of propriety in speaking of a brother clergyman. As for the miserable state of things in St. George's-in-the-East, he (the Bishop of London) regretted it as much, or more, than any man, for he had more cause to regret it. The only point on which he was now particularly concerned to give any explanation was that which the noble Viscount (Viscount Dungannon) had raised, as to whether the churchwardens had done their duty. He had continually charged them, by word and by letter, to see that they did it; and he had taken steps to find them such assistance, by means of sidesmen, as the law enabled him to provide them with. He had even called upon the clergy belonging to the parish to meet the churchwardens and suggest some course by which the churchwardens might execute their duty. If any complaint against the churchwardens were made, he would be ready either to carry it into the proper Court, or to do what in him lay to induce them to do their duty; but although much abuse had been bandied about on every side, and everything that was done by anybody was wrong in the estimation of everybody else, yet no charge of which he could take cognizance had been brought before him. He believed that this was simply one of those miserable cases to be found in all parts of society, in which, if men would stand on their legal rights, there was no amount of disturbance they might not cause. In the domestic relations, for instance, suppose two persons determined to make themselves as disagreeable as they could, each to the other, without infringing the law, what a state of things would result from it in the family He believed it was the same thing with those most sacred relations between the pastor and his flock; it was possible for a pastor to make himself very disagreeable to his flock without violating the law, and for the flock to make themselves very disagreeable to the pastor; and it was very difficult for those who wished to set them right to

  1601
  find by what means they could put an end to that disagreeable state of things. He trusted the expression of their Lordships' opinion, that both parties in this miserable contest were most shamefully to blame, and that there was no sympathy for either the one or the other, would have some effect on those persons who were, he believed, both the one and the other, in the wrong. He had said, and he believed, that if the matter was placed in his hands, it could be arranged; but it must be an unconditional surrender to the Ordinary. He must be called in to settle these disturbances; and he hoped he was not thinking too much of himself or his office, when he said he had full confidence that there was so much good feeling among Englishmen that, whenever they had no doubt as to where the authority lay, or as to how far those who exercised the authority were entitled to exercise it, they would be quite ready to give way to it. If the rector of that parish would do what he ought to have done months ago, and say, "I am unable to manage this parish; I beg the Bishop of the diocese to manage it for me," all the mischief might be put an end to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the case of "Allen v. King" came before the Court of Queen's Bench when he had the honour of filling the office of Lord Chief Justice. It was contended on the part of the Rev. Bryan King that the Rev. Mr. Allen had no legal right to officiate as lecturer in the church of St. George's-in-the-East without Mr. King's consent. The Court decided that Mr. Bryan King was wrong and Mr. Allen right; but they earnestly recommended the parties to try and come to some amicable arrangement. With regard to his presenting Mr. Allen to the living of St. George's, Southward, he (the Lord Chancellor) wished to state the circumstances under which he had made that appointment. He had been informed that it was of importance that some active and zealous clergyman should be appointed to preside over so populous a parish. He was wholly unacquainted with the rev. Mr. Allen, but that gentleman was recommended to him, along with a great many others, as being a most zealous pastor and a most upright and pious man. He received a great variety of testimonials of a most unexceptionable character stating his fitness for such a charge; but, not contented with these, he applied to the Bishop of London—because he was afraid that Mr.
  1602
  Allen might have incurred some blame in connection with the controversies at St. George's-in-the-East, for the purpose of ascertaining whether he had done anything in those transactions which affected his character, and rendered him an unfit person to be appointed rector of the parish. The right rev. Prelate in answer testified to him that Mr. Allen's conduct, so far as it had come under his knowledge, had been unexceptionable, and that he was a proper person to receive the appointment. Upon that he (the Lord Chancellor) presented him to the living, and up to that hour he believed he had discharged his duties in a manner calculated to give great satisfaction. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Viscount (Viscount Dungannon), he would ask him on whom did he propose the censure implied in his Resolution should fall in regard to the continuance of the riots at St. George's-in-the-East? It certainly could not fall upon the Bishop of London, nor upon the Home Secretary; and the noble Viscount had not shown any other individual whose duty it was to suppress those outrages who was at all to blame. He hoped, however, that the expression of feeling in deploring these transactions, which the noble Viscount had called forth from all quarters of the House, would satisfy him, and induce him to withdraw his Motion.
  THE BISHOP OF CASHELrose to bear his strong testimony to the character of the Rev. Mr. Allen, and to his zeal and efficiency as a minister of the Gospel. He had never seen so large and attentive a congregation as that which he witnessed on one occasion at St. Jude's, White-chapel, where that rev. gentleman officiated. The right rev. Prelate was proceeding to complain of the charges which were brought against Mr. Allen, when
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that he had brought no charge whatever against Mr. Allen.
  EARL GRANVILLEagain interposed and expressed a hope that after the statements which had been made by two right rev. Prelates and by the Lord Chancellor, in answer to the charge made against Mr. Allen, their Lordships would not enter further into that collateral subject, but would confine their attention to the Motion which was immediately before them.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWrose and denied that he wished to throw any imputation upon the gentleman whose character had been so highly spoken to by two right rev.

  1603
  Prelates. He knew nothing of him whatever; he only quoted the words of a pamphlet which had been circulated throughout the whole country, and in which much stronger words than he had used appeared. And he had asked the Bishop of London whether Mr. Bryan King did not inform him of those particular circumstances. Tie would also now ask the right rev. Prelate whether he did or did not try to ascertain what were the reasons why the rev. gentleman was obliged to relinquish the living of St. Luke's, Old Street?
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to order. His noble Friend might offer an explanation of what he had himself stated, but he had no right to reply upon that occasion to the address of the right rev. Prelate.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he regretted that the name of Mr. Allen should have been unnecessarily introduced into this discussion. It appeared to him that the character of that rev. gentleman had been completely vindicated by the testimony offered in its favour by the two right rev. Prelates and by the Lord Chancellor. His object, however, in rising, was to advert in a very few words to the unfortunate transactions which had taken place in the parish of St. George's-in-the-East. He entirely agreed in the opinion which had been expressed by several of their Lordships, that both the parties in that dispute were to blame. The outrages committed in the church were utterly indefensible, and such as all must join in condemning. But, on the other hand, he thought it was much to be regretted that Mr. Bryan King, acting, no doubt, from the most conscientious motives, had, by proceeding upon his extreme legal rights, excited an almost universal feeling of dissatisfaction among his parishioners. The outrages arose in a great measure from the employment of ritual observances not essential to Divine worship. Mr. King stated in his letter that the services in his church did not differ in any respect from those observed in the cathedrals. But his church was not a cathedral church, and why should he introduce into a parish church, upon his own authority, a cathedral service? He (Earl Stanhope) was persuaded that the only way of bringing those unhappy differences to a satisfactory settlement would be to leave them to the decision of the Bishop of the diocese. The noble Viscount who brought forward the Motion said he wished to see the Ordinary empowered, by a new Act of
  1604
  Parliament, to adopt such a course. But why should it not be taken in consequence of an agreement between the parties? He felt persuaded that was the only mode of removing discontent and restoring peace to the parish. Unwilling as the rev. gentleman had hitherto shown himself to yield to any representations, and resolute to maintain his own views at the cost of peace to the parish, he ought merely now at length to feel the necessity and the duty to submit himself to his Bishop's mediation. With regard to the Motion before the House, he would venture respectfully to suggest to the noble Viscount that he should not press it, but that he should rest satisfied with the expression of opinion which had been elicited from their Lordships in the course of that discussion.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he was sure their Lordships must have heard with satisfaction the address of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of the diocese, and must have concurred in every word he said. But the question before their Lordships was not as to the origin of these unhappy and scandalous disputes, nor were their Lordships called upon to adjust the proportion of blame which ought to attach to the different parties concerned. His noble Friend called upon the House to affirm that sufficient power and energy had not been displayed in putting down these disturbances. Now, he (Lord Chelmsford) might have an impression that if a different course had been pursued the result would have been more effectual; but their Lordships had no evidence of any remissness on the part of the authorities. He could not, without more information than was at present before the House, join in the opinion that the magistrates had not properly discharged their duties, nor could he believe that the police had been remiss or negligent. There was great difficulty in obtaining evidence against the rioters, and it was the want of evidence and the absence of sufficient proof of identity which had occasioned the failure of the charges. Perhaps it would have been better if, instead of sending policemen, detectives in plain clothes had been employed to mix with the congregation. But, on the whole, he could not concur in the opinion that sufficient power and energy had not been displayed by the authorities; and even supposing that their Lordships were convinced of the truth of such a charge, was it desirable that they should adopt a Resolution embodying it? Was it desirable to adopt a Resolution which

  1605
  was perfectly futile and useless when his noble Friend's object had been entirely answered in the discussion which had been elicited? Under these circumstances, he must join in requesting the noble Viscount to withdraw his Motion.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONreplied. He hoped that considerable benefit would arise from that discussion. He knew nothing of Mr. Allen, and had not the most distant idea of mixing up the rev. Gentleman's name in it—his sole object was to call attention to what was really a scandal to religion and a disgrace to a civilized country. He believed those riots were caused, not by the inhabitants of the parish, but by people who went to the church for the express purpose of creating disorder, and were glad to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded to their propensities in St. George's-in-the-East. But if his introduction of this question to their Lordships should produce any good effect in showing the rioters that their conduct would not be overlooked in Parliament or by the Government, his purpose would be answered. In the meantime he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

CEYLON RAILWAY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, what were the intentions of the Government with respect to the further prosecution of the Ceylon Railway? He believed that this question was first raised when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Taunton) was at the head of the Colonial Office, and that he sent out Captain Moorsom as the engigineer to survey the line, and make an estimate of the cost. Captain Moorsom estimated the line at a minimum expense of £800,000, but as a margin to cover all contingencies, he put the maximum at £1,200,000. This was in the year 1856. Since then he believed no progress had been made in the line, though a company had been formed on a contract with the local Government of Ceylon, by which the colony guaranteed 6 per cent on the minimum cost of £800,000, and 5 per cent on its cost above that sum, on the understanding that the additional sum would not be more than £400,000. This was the position of affairs in 1856. But since then a serious difficulty had arisen. Doubts apparently had suggested themselves of the sufficiency of the estimate, and the company which undertook the line had sent out their own engineer, Mr. Doyne, who
1606
stated that the line could not be made under £2,200,000, and even that, he said, was only an approximate estimate. Now this was a very serious question of economy; because though the revenues of the colony might very well bear a charge of 6 per cent on £800,000, and 5 per cent on £400,000, it became a very different question if they were to pay the 6 per cent on £800,000, and 5 per cent on £1,400,000, or indeed on any indefinite amount which might be required—for it must be understood that, though the agreement between the colony and the company was based on Captain Moorsom's estimate, yet there was no fixed sum stated in the contract on which the 5 per cent was to be paid. He believed that the colony had offered to reimburse the company for all the expenses to which they had been put, and to cancel the contract. On the other hand, the company had referred the question to his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office, and were ready to abide by his decision. What he wished to know, therefore, was, what stops his noble Friend had taken in the matter?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the circumstances connected with this railway had been correctly described as in an unfortunate state of embarrassment. The proposition to construct the line had been agitated at the time of his former connection with the Colonial Office in 1854; but the preliminary arrangements were made during the term of office of his successor (Lord Taunton). The noble Lord opposite had correctly detailed the steps which were taken for the survey of the line, and the estimate which was made by Captain Morsom, which amounted to £856,000. A contract was entered into between the colonial Government of Ceylon and the railway company formed to carry out this undertaking, which was based on Captain Moorsom's estimate, and on the principle of the guarantee which had been alluded to. The next step taken by the company was to send out Mr. Doyne, a civil engineer, for the purpose of superintending the works; and between the period of his departure in 1857 and the year 1859 the embarrassments arose to which their Lordships' attention had now been called. The ground was undoubtedly broken, but very little progress had been otherwise made with the works. But in June last a report was made by Mr. Doyne, estimating the cost of constructing the line, not at £856,000, but at £2,214,000. This estimate was received

1607
at the Colonial Office at a time when he (the Duke of Newcastle) was at the head of that Department, and one of the first matters he had to deal with was the complication arising on the subject of this railway. The colonists naturally remonstrated against the increased estimate sent home by Mr. Doyne, and under these circumstances he (the Duke of Newcastle) thought it quite impossible to allow the works to proceed without some further inquiry, and most thorough and complete investigation, and he accordingly felt it necessary to call to his aid the best practical advice which he was able to obtain. Although at that time retired from professional occupations, the late Mr. Robert Stephenson, at his request, undertook to inquire into the details, with a view of arbitrating, as far as was practicable, between the parties. It was agreed that two firms of contractors, Messrs. Brassey and Co., and Messrs. Waring and Co., should be allowed to send out agents, because the tenders which they were afterwards to submit would afford material assistance in determining on the course which ought to be adopted. Mr. Doyne likewise was recalled in order that he might lay the fullest information before Mr. Stephenson. But, to the disadvantage not merely of this undertaking, but he might say of society generally, Mr. Stephenson died in the meantime. In his place Mr. Hawkshaw consented to undertake the reference, and Captain Moorsom, after some correspondence, had promised to put himself in communication with that gentleman. The contractors to whom he had alluded, Messrs. Brassey and Waring, respectively sent in tenders to Mr. Hawkshaw en the 10th instant, and as soon as he had fully considered the question he would make his report. Within the last two or three days some difficulties had arisen which would create a slight delay, but he hoped that by the close of the present month they would be in receipt of Mr. Hawkshaw's views. No contract would be binding which had not received the consent of the Government; and on the part of the Colonial-Office there was every disposition to promote a settlement of this question.
LORD TAUNTONstated that the proposition for constructing this railway originated in the period of office of his predecessor, Lord John Russell, to whom strong representations had been made by the colonists as to the advantages which the carrying out of this project would confer upon
1608
Ceylon. The noble Lord referred the matter for the opinion of the Colonial Government; but before its reply could be received a change had taken place in the home Administration; by which the further control of the undertaking devolved upon himself. He gave every assistance in his power to the project, with a due regard to the interests of those whose money he was administering; and had acted throughout on the principle of consulting the Government of Ceylon, who were to find the guarantee, and who being on the spot were necessarily better acquainted with the circumstances than he could be; and at the time he wont out of office the matter was in a most prosperous way. Captain Moorsom was appointed by him to make the survey in consequence of the high character as an engineer which he possessed; and he greatly regretted, and certainly had never foreseen, that any circumstances could have occurred to bring about the present unsettled condition of affairs.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.