Sitting of 12 June 1863

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir George Conway Colthurst, baronet, for Kinsale.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee*—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental* (No. 2) [Bill 165].
Committee—Fisheries (Ireland) [Sir Robert Peel] [Bill 137]—R.P.; Regimental Debts, &c.* [Bill 149].
Report—Regimental Debts, &c.*
Considered as amended—Innkeepers' Liability (No. 1) [Mr. Wykeham Martin]* [Bill 157].
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland)* [Bill 106], and passed; Cayman Islands (Lords)* [Bill 132], and passed.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL [SIR ROBERT PEEL]— [BILL 137.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  COLONEL VANDELEURexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) who had charge of the Bill would make some statement as to its provisions.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that he intended to have made a statement on the introduction of the Bill, but be was prevented by the lateness of the hour. At that moment he thought it would only be a waste of time to enter into such a statement, as the number of Amendments of which notice had been given would afford ample opportunity for discussing minutely every portion of the Bill.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, that an Act of Parliament, which he would admit to be bad and unjust, was passed twenty years ago. That Bill, however, conferred rights that ought not to be taken away without compensation. The difficulty was to provide a sufficient compensation fund. He thought that the Commissioners under the Bill might ascertain the existing incomes and profits of those having interests under the
  798
  Act of 1842. Let these parties produce their books and show the value of their fisheries, and then the House might determine whether they should be bought off at twenty years' purchase or by annuity, whenever a compensation fund could he provided. A common fund might be created by a percentage on the takings in the various rivers, and every obstruction might be thus gradually removed, beginning with those obstructions nearest the sea. Perhaps a tax of so much in the pound might be laid upon the takings of individual anglers. He thought that the Secretary for Ireland ought to have made a statement as to the object and provisions of the Bill before moving the House into Committee. The measure would enormously increase the value of the fisheries in the upper waters, and the proprietors of those fisheries ought not to receive the whole benefit of the Bill.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, it seemed to be the general opinion that a Salmon Fisheries Bill was necessary, but he was not of that opinion. He should, however, offer no opposition to the measure, if care was taken to protect adequately the vested interests in the matter. He believed, although the Bill was the result of a compromise, yet it would have the effect of destroying the sea fisheries and the fishing by bag nets, and that merely for the benefit of the proprietors of the upper water fisheries. He contended that the anglers were the great destroyers of fish, and not the nets in the sea.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the Bill did not interfere with the nets in the sea unless they were within three miles of the mouths of rivers.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that sea salmon could only be taken near the mouths of rivers, and therefore the Bill would practically destroy the sea salmon fisheries.
  MR. COXsaid, he wished to ask why, if the hon. Baronet's sea fishery was of so little use to him he should oppose the Bill He believed that the bag nets destroyed hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of small fry. Why should people in London pay 2s. or 3s. per pound for salmon, when, if the fish were properly protected, it might be had for half the money? He would agree that compensation ought to be given when the legal rights of persons were taken away.
  MR. CONOLLYasked, why the Secretary for Ireland had given no explanation of the objects of the Bill?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had abstained from saying anything on the Motion for going into Committee, in order that some progress might be made with the clauses. The measure was introduced by the Government because it was clear that the Bill of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. M'Mahon) could not pass. A meeting of proprietors and parties interested, representing the upper and lower waters was held in one of the committee-rooms. Some independent Members were also present, and a fair compromise, it was thought, was arrived at. The Bill made no alterations in the existing law except in four matters: it prohibited all new fixed engines; it prohibited existing bag nets in estuaries; it provided for an extention of the weekly close time; and lastly it increased the licence duty payable on fixed engines. It was proposed, with the consent of the Treasury, to appoint three Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Act forthwith; and it was of great importance that the passing of the Act should not be delayed. The mouths of the rivers would be defined by the Commissioners. In Scotland no fixed engines were allowed within five miles of the mouth of the Tweed, and why, he would ask, should there be exceptional legislation in Ireland? He implored the House to go into Committee on the Bill.
  MR.WHALLEYsaid, he would strongly urge upon the House to go into Committee on the Bill, which was of the utmost importance to the preservation of the fisheries in Ireland.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, that he should give the strongest opposition to the proposition for prohibiting the erection of any new fixed engines, which appeared to savour of despotism, and was at variance with the principles of the constitution.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: What constitution?
  MR. CONOLLY: I am not so well acquainted with that subject as the hon. Member. It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing. The hon. Gentleman is one of those who know a little of everything.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Drink deep.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 postponed.
  Clause 4 (Bag Nets not to be used except in the open Sea, at a distance of more than Three Miles from the Mouths of Rivers).
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, be would move as an Amendment that "no fixed engine or net should be used in tidal waters unless the same shall have been erected or used under grant or charter." He wished the Commissioners to ascertain what rights existed under grants or charters, and to abolish all fixed engines erected under colour of the Act of 1842.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the Amendment would strike at the principle of the Bill, and would have the effect of confiscating a large extent of property. It would, in fact, abolish every fixed engine in Ireland, because there were none there established by Royal Charter. Nearly all those in existence were created under the Bill of 1842, and none were of older date than 1809. He could not, therefore, consent to the Amendment, which would not be in accordance with the compromise which had been come to on the subject.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, that the effect of carrying the Amendment would be to leave the fisheries of Ireland in their present condition. The Bill would confer enormous benefit on the Irish fisheries, and he should be sorry to see it withdrawn.
  LORD NAASsaid, that the Amendment simply raised the question between the Bill of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) and that of the Government. He thought it would be better to take the measure as it stood.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, the only chance there was of getting a measure passed on the subject was by accepting the Bill. Now, the Amendment of the hon. Member would in reality destroy the present Bill. He thought that some provision should be made in the Bill with regard to the cod-fishers. They destroyed an immense amount of fish, and therefore something ought to be done with regard to them.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, that in the estuary of the Suir especially the evil to which the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) referred, existed. The cod-fishers were a set of marauders, who acknowledged no law. He had seen ten nets at a time sweeping in that estuary, so that it was impossible for a single fish to escape.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he had never expressed a wish that the Government should bring in the Bill, for he had no confidence in any measure they were likely to propose.

  801
  He did not believe that persons who owned fixed engines in tidal waters had any legal rights under the Act of 1842.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, that bag nets had existed in England for many years, and they had been a source of considerable re venue, yet the use of those bag nets was not only abolished by the English Salmon Fisheries Act in rivers and estuaries, but also in the sea itself. It was, however, understood that the Irish measure was to be a compromise, and he would recommend the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, if the hon. and learned Gentleman went to a division, he should be bound in consistency to Vote with him.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the English Act did not sweep away stake nets and fixed engines that were in existence at the time of the passing of the Act.
  LORD NAASsaid, the hon. and learned Member was entirely in error, for he could give him the instance of the Derwent in Cumberland, where there were many fixed engines and nets in which property had been acquired, and they were all swept away by the English Bill.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he did not see why, if an injustice had been done in England, it should be extended to Ireland.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he had been no party to a compromise.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member (Mr. Bernal Osborne) as to the injury done to the salmon fishery by the cod-fishers in some of the Irish rivers.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would see if any provision could be framed to meet the case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL VANDELEURsaid, he wished to move, in line 17, after the word "bag net" to insert the words "extending more than thirty fathoms from low water." The Bill proposed that no bag net should be placed in any estuary, and he thought that the Bill ought to define where an estuary ended and the sea commenced.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought the Amendment inexpedient, and that it might be left to the new Special Commissioners to make the definition.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he could not see why bag nets were to be confiscated without compensation any more than stake nets.
  802
  A friend of his (Mr. French) had bag nets in Cork Harbour, which did not in any way interfere with the navigation, and which produced about £300 or £400 annually. Now, by the Bill, those nets would be entirely confiscated.
  SIR RORERT PEELsaid, that fixed engines had almost annihilated the fishery in various parts of Scotland and Ireland. The Duke of Richmond stated that, since fixed engines had been abolished in the liver Spey the fish had enormously increased. The stake net was subject to tidal influences, and was not always at work, but the bag net was always destroying and capturing salmon.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he would admit that where the proprietors of bag nets were not also the proprietors of stake nets, some hardship would be inflicted under the Bill, and that the claims of these parties to compensation might fairly be entertained. He trusted that the Commissioners might be able conscientiously to lay down such a definition of an estuary as would exclude the bag nets in Cork harbour from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he was sorry to hear the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department express a hope that consistently with their conscience the Commissioners would be able to preserve the bag nets of Mr. French in Cork Harbour, while they were to abolish those in the Shannon. Out on such legislation! He had now lost all confidence in the Bill. He would deprive the Commissioners of making any such absurd distinction as that between preserving the bag nets in Cork Harbour and sweeping away those in the Shannon. Such a distinction was not only absurd, but unjust, and almost incredible.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that all that his hon. Friend intended to convey was, that if Mr. French had a case for compensation, the Government were ready to consider it. It was for the Committee to determine whether the Commissioners should have the power of defining what constituted an estuary. For himself, he believed that these bag nets were most pernicious to the fisheries. That principle was the basis of the Government Bill; but, at the same time, if the Committee desired to modify it, the Government were ready to consider the matter in a liberal spirit.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department had expressed a wish that it might be pos-

  803
  sible for the Commissioners conscientiously to distinguish between the bag nets of Mr. French and those of other persons. Of course the Committee knew what view the Commissioners appointed by the Government would be likely to take of any given subject after such an expression of opinion.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the clause under consideration was an important clause, and the Government intended to strictly adhere to it, but he did not think there was any chance of passing it at that sitting. They had been sitting three hours and three quarters, and had not made much progress; and as there were no less than sixty-six Amendments on the paper, he proposed to have another morning sitting on Tuesday, when he hoped that some progress would be made with the Bill.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to fix the next consideration of the Bill for a Government evening. He was very much afraid, from what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bruce) had said, that the Government were not going to adhere firmly to the Bill as it was brought before, the House. The people of Ireland would be better pleased with the rejection of the Bill than to see some of the Amendments adopted by the Government. If the Bill were in consequence defeated or withdrawn, he should move on the first night of next Session for leave to bring in a Bill of a single clause—namely, that the provisions of the English Fisheries Act be extended to Ireland.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that a morning sitting on the following Tuesday would be inconvenient, because the Holyhead Committee sat on that day.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could only repeat that he intended to propose a morning sitting for Tuesday, when he hoped it would be convenient for hon. Members to attend. That was the only way of promoting the progress of the Bill, and he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Wexford that the Government would not have given half the time they had done to drawing up and preparing the Bill if they had not been in earnest in their intention to proceed with it.
  COLONEL VANDELEURsaid, he would withdraw his first Amendment.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he would move that the Chairman should report progress, in the hope that before Tuesday the clause might be so amended as to go through Committee without discussion.
  LORD NAASsaid, he objected to that course.
  Motion negatived.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  MR. REDMONDmoved in clause 4, line 17, after "12," to insert "no bag net now placed shall be."
  Amendment negatived.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.

FORCED LABOUR ON THE SUEZ CANAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a statement published by M. Lesseps had reached the Government, asserting that the Turkish Despatch prohibiting forced labour on the Suez Canal, &c. was anterior to Conventions of the 18th and 20th of March last, by which all the questions relating to the cutting of the Canal were settled in conformity with the engagements of the Egyptian Government; and whether those latter expressions were to be considered to mean the continuance of forced labour; and, if so, whether the British Government would oppose any such transaction?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had no knowledge of the communication from. M. Lesseps to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The Sultan, in virtue of his sovereign rights over the whole of his dominions, of which Egypt formed a part, had extended to Egypt the laws against forced labour for any purpose, which had long prevailed in other portions of his Empire. Her Majesty's Government conceived that he had a perfect right to do that in his own dominions; and no foreigner, whether he was a person engaged in commercial speculations, or a representative of a foreign Government, had any right to obstruct the Sultan in carrying into execution that law, which was founded on a just consideration of the interests of his subjects, and which already prevailed in every other portion of his dominions. Of course, Her Majesty's Government would give the Sultan every support in his endeavours to carry that law into effect.

PROTESTANTS IN SPAIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to ask,

  805
  Whether any information has been received by the Government in reference to the final disposal of the Protestant prisoners Matamoras, Alhama, and Trigo, lately condemned in Spain for reading the Bible?
  MR. LAYARD: As the House is probably aware, deputations from this country—one consisting of members of the Society of Friends—proceeded a short time ago to Madrid, in order to intercede with the Queen of Spain on behalf of these unhappy men, who wore condemned to seven years' imprisonment for having become converts to Protestantism. Memorials were also sent to the Queen of Spain from different countries in Europe, and deputations from those countries proceeded to Madrid. One of those memorials was from the Catholic ladies of Holland, praying the Queen to grant the prisoners the same freedom of conscience which the Protestant Government of Holland accorded to Catholics in that country. Another was from the Protestants of Austria, asking the Catholic Queen of Spain to grant the same liberty of conscience which they enjoyed in Austria under a Calholic Government. Her Majesty's Government, while taking the deepest interest in those deputations, and desiring that the objects for which they proceeded to Madrid should be fulfilled, were unable to give them any actual official support. They, however, gave them all the assistance they could. It appears—I cannot say how far in consequence of the representations made by those deputations—that the sentences on the prisoners have been commuted to banishment. I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman whether that banishment extends to an indefinite period, or is confined to the term for which they were condemned to imprisonment. I am unable to ascertain how that is. I believe that the impression of the deputations who went to Madrid is, that the term of banishment is limited to the number of years to which they were condemned to imprisonment—that is to say, to seven years. I need not tell the hon. Gentleman that I rejoice exceedingly at this result, which, there is reason to believe, is to a great extent to be attributed to the exertions of the deputations to which I have referred. Although banishment is a very severe punishment, still it is a great mitigation of the very harsh and inhuman sentence which was passed upon Matamoras and his companions.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has been rightly understood to say that no Plan is in existence of the architectural alterations which it is proposed to make in the International Exhibition Building; and, if so, on what data the Estimate of the cost of those alterations has been framed?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in reply, that with regard to the question of the noble Lord, there had been no plan formed as to the conversion of the building, because all that was intended to be done was to complete the front, as it now stood, with stucco, and to convert the dome from glass into brick, with skylights at the top. The plan was, in fact, the building itself. What the surveyors thought proper would be done, but it was not a matter in which an architect had been called in for the purpose of making any plan.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to know whether the noble Lord meant, by completing the architectural alterations of the building, facing it all over with stucco?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Completing the architectural alterations required means the rendering more permanent, and more in conformity with what is usual in buildings, the surface, which is not now so completed.

AFFAIRS OF PARAGUAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Convention between the Government of the Republic of Paraguay and Her Britannic Majesty was concluded at Assumption on October 14, 1862; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay this Convention before Parliament?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that a Convention, in the strict sense of the term, had not been concluded between the two Governments. An agreement had, however, been come to between the English Representative at Buenos Ayres, who had proceeded on a special mission to Paraguay, and the President of Paraguay, which had been approved by Her Majesty's Government. To the production of that agreement there would be no objection.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the offer of £80,000 made to Messrs. Kelk and Lucas for the removable portion of the Exhibition Building at Kensington was in writing; if so, whether there is any objection to lay a Copy thereof upon the table of the House; and whether the Estimate upon which that offer was made was prepared by Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor to the Office of Works, and on what data; and whether there is any objection to a Copy of any such Estimate being laid upon the table of the House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said there was no document of any kind in reference to that matter which could be produced. The offer of £80,000 was not made in writing, but was made in the course of a conversation by him on the part of the Government, to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) on the part of the contractors. With regard to the Estimate on which that offer was made, he had to state that it was the result of a careful examination made by Mr. Hunt, the Surveyor to the Office of Works, into the value of the materials of which the building consisted, together with all the information he possessed as to the probable opportunity of disposing of them. In estimating the value of the materials careful measurements were made for the purpose of ascertaining the quantities of them that were used. That was, he believed, the process usually adopted when people desired to make the nearest estimate that could be formed of what was the "removable value." But that value was not susceptible of any very close estimate, because so many circumstances, which cannot be minutely estimated, come into the question of the price that might be obtained for such materials. Of course it was very natural that in a question of that kind the estimates of the two parties should differ; and the hon. Member would see that it was stated in the Correspondence, that in the opinion of the contractor, £80,000 was less than even the removable value.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to know, whether there would be any objection to lay those measurements before the House?
MR. GREGORYsaid, that the Messrs
808
Kelk and Lucas were supposed to make great sacrifices; but he wished to know whether the paper prepared by Mr. Hunt did not show that the removable value was only £30,000 and whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of that fact?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that he was not aware of it; but he certainly was aware of the contrary. Whether the paper of Mr. Hunt showed the number of bricks, the number of squares of glass, together with their thickness, and the weight of iron, and the number of feet of timber in the building, he was unable to say; but he did not think that such details as those would afford any additional knowledge to the House.

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the terms of the amalgamation of the Medical Departments of the Queen's and of the Indian Army have yet been settled, and when they will be stated to the House?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was sorry to have to state that objections were entertained at the War Office to the arrangement which had been proposed upon that subject, and he was not at all sure what would be the ultimate result.

EMPLOYMENT OF MR. NAGLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FITZWILLIAMsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If Mr. Nagle, formerly Harbour Master at Victoria, V. I., held any office under Government at present?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that Mr. Nagle had some time since been dismissed for irregularity from the office of Harbour Master at Victoria; but he could not state whether or not Mr. Nagle at present held any office in that Colony.

THE GLASGOW MURDER—CASE OF JESSIE MACLACHLAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUREsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Presiding Judge's Notes of the Evidence at the Trial of Jessie Maclachlan at Glasgow in September last?

  809
  Those Notes were the only authentic record of the Trial; and, instead of them, there had only been produced a full Report of what took place upon the occasion with a description of the witnesses and of the sensation they produced in Court.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that the Report of the Trial he had produced was the only one he had in his possession. It was the work of a shorthand writer, and contained a full account of the proceedings. The Notes of a Judge only contained what he thought, important, and in no instance, as far as he (Sir George Grey) was aware, had such notes been produced.

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

ORDER OF BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he should be glad to know when Supply would be taken, as he had given notice to raise upon the consideration of the Report a question with regard to the Education Vote.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We do not propose to bring on Supply after ten o'clock this evening. The progress of the public business, however, must naturally depend on the course taken by those hon. Members who have given Notices of Motion on the question that the House go into Committee. I may, perhaps, take this opportunity to ask the hon. Member for King's County whether he would be good enough to put off to some other day the Motion with respect to Poland, which stands in his name for Monday next, in order that we may proceed with the discussion in reference to the Exhibition Building? It is of importance that that question should be disposed of without delay; and if the hon. Member should be good enough to accede to my suggestion, other hon. Members who have notices for the same day will, I trust, be good enough to postpone them.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that he was always disposed to assent to any suggestion with respect to the conduct of the business of the House which he might make. He must, however, at the same time, observe that ever since the papers respecting Poland had been laid on the table he had
810
been on the look-out for an opportunity to bring the subject of his Motion under the notice of the House. He had at length succeeded in securing such an opportunity; and if he should consent not to avail himself of it, he trusted the noble Lord would give him the Thursday or Monday following.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There will, I think, be no difficulty in giving the hon. Member precedence on Monday week—alays on the assumption that the courtesy which he has displayed will inspire other hon. Members to act in the same way.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a question of some interest with respect to the precedence of Motions on going into Committee of Supply. Last night several Motions on going into Supply, of which notice had been given, stood upon the Paper. His own name stood, he believed, third upon the list, and fifth or sixth in order came that of his hon. Friend the Member for King's County. That being so, his hon. Friend the Member for Galway asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the Vote for the Exhibition building would come on upon Monday. The noble Lord replied in the affirmative, and subsequently the hon. Member for Honiton asked the hon. Member for King's County whether he intended to bring on upon that day the Motion which stood on the paper in his name. The answer was that such was his intention; and the result was, it appeared, that the order of the list of notices on going into Supply was changed, and that he now stood third instead of first on the list, while the Motion of the hon. Member for King's County stood first. He wished, under these circumstances, to know whether it was necessary that an hon. Member should give notice of his intention to proceed with a Motion a night or two before its coming on in order to maintain for himself that precedence which he previously had. He wished to ask what was the rule with reference to the precedence of Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and whether it was necessary that a Member should the night before give notice of his intention to bring on such a Motion.
MR. HENNESSYwished slightly to correct the noble Lord as to a matter of fact. What occurred was this. Before the Questions which had been referred to were asked, he went to the Clerk at the Tabic, and seeing in the Order Book a

811
printed notice that the noble Lord would bring on Supply on Monday, he asked the clerk to put his name down for that night. The clerk replied, "If that is done, it must be struck out to night." He said, "Certainly." fie Was also informed that he should lose his position on the general Supply list, and said that he was prepared to run that risk.
MR. HORSMANthought that the House was getting into a new system with regard to these Motions on going into Committee of Supply. The noble Lord's name had for several nights been down in connection with a Motion oh the subject of China, and of course hon. Members who were after him had no chance of bringing on their Motions. The noble Lord when called, however, did not answer to his name. According to the old rule, he would lose his place, his notice would become dropped, and he would have to give a fresh one. He wished to know whether it was now, contrary to that rule, competent to any hon. Member to retain his name on the paper say for a month, thus blocking out the Motions of all the Members who Stood below him.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he Would beg leave to repeat a Question which he put to the Chief Commissioner on Tuesday last, as to whether there Was in existence any Report of a competent surveyor upon the condition of the Exhibition Building; and, if not, whether he would present a more detailed Estimate than was then before the House; and also to ask, whether, if it was not desirable to purchase the building, it Would be competent for the Government and the House to purchase the sixteen and a half acres of ground on which it stood, without the building?
MR. COWPERsaid, he had ascertained that there was no report from Mr. Hunt which would give the information which was desired; but he found that the detailed estimate which had been laid upon the table of the House did pledge Mr. Hunt's authority for the fact, that £154,000 would make the building thoroughly and perfectly substantial. The House Would only take the fact on Mr. Hunt's authority, and that seemed to be a more convenient form in which to obtain his opinion than by a mere report. Mr. Hunt had no doubt that the foundations were ample. The building was upon a depth of gravel of fourteen feet; the drainage was very good; and therefore the whole of the £154,000 would be expended upon mak-
812
ing the fabric itself permanently substantial. With reference to the last Question, the noble Lord would see that the Vote was divided into three items—the purchase of the building was one, its repairing, altering, and eventually completing another; and the purchase of the land a third.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Swansea, Whether he intended to bring on the subject of the Irish Church on Monday?
MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Irish Church Motion stood for that night, but he had little hope of bringing it on. As, however, the noble Lord was in a good-tempered mood, and had given a night to the hon. Member opposite—a night for the discussion of the Motion on Poland—he trusted that he would also give one for a question which, he should think, would be more interesting to this country than even that of the hon. Member for King's County.
MR. HOPWOODsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was intended to move the second reading of the Public Works (Factory Districts) Bill on Monday?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Bill was under the more particular charge of his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board) but he believed that the House would not be asked to read it a second time on Monday.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSrecalled the Speaker's attention to the question which had been put to him by the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth.
LORD NAAS,in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stroud, explained that his name did not stand at the top of the list, and therefore he could not have blocked out other motions.
MR. SPEAKER: I thought that the explanation which has taken place between the hon. Members had, in fact, answered the question which had been addressed to me. I believe that the clerks at the table endeavour to exercise their sometimes rather difficult duties with perfect fairness, and it appeared to me that the explanation which was given by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) why it was that his name stood first for Monday had explained everything to the House that I could have done.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the

813
House whether an hon. Member who stood fourth or fifth on the list, could, by getting a friend to ask him a question, or by communicating with the clerk at the table, gain procedure over hon. Members whose names were before his.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will observe that there was a long list of Notices yesterday, and all the hon. Gentlemen whose names were prefixed to them might have availed themselves of the Motion for going into Committee of Supply to bring their Motions forward; but the only one who answered to his name was the hon. Gentleman whose name stood, I believe, last upon the list.
MR. FERRANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, considering that there were in Lancashire a great number of operatives suffering great distress, he did not think that the Public Works Bill ought to be pressed forward without any delay?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill with all the despatch in their power.
MR. COXsaid, he wished to explain, that when, on the previous evening, he stated that Mr. Fricker and his two sons were all dismissed from a Volunteer corps after resigning their commissions, he was slightly in error. The two sons were dismissed by the commanding officer, before the expiration of fourteen days, but Mr. Fricker himself was allowed to retire by resignation.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask whether the hon. Member for King's County had postponed his Motion with respect to Poland on Monday, on which day the Government desired to bring on a subject which was not yet ripe for discussion.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that he had promised to postpone his Motion on condition that he got a day which he named and which the noble Lord was good enough to give him.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I agreed that the hon. Gentleman should have Monday week, on the assumption that other Members also withdrew their Motions which stand in the way of Her Majesty's Government, If that is not done, I presume the hon. Gentleman will bring on his Motion on Monday.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I give the noble Lord notice that I shall bring on the question of the Irish Church, on going
814
into Committee of Supply on Monday next, unless he gives me a night.
MR. HENNESSY: Under those circumstances, I must of course go on with my Motion relating to Poland, on Monday.

LABOURERS COTTAGES (IRELAND).

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to call attention to a lengthened correspondence which had taken place upon the restrictions placed by the Board of Works in Ireland and the Treasury on advances for the building of labourers' cottages. He thought that the law in the two countries, in respect to those advances, ought to be assimilated. With the comfortable homes of the lower orders were inseparably mixed up the happiness and well-being of the people, and the unnecessary obstacles imposed by the Treasury, and the Board of Works had hitherto prevented expenditure to a sufficient amount from taking place in Ireland. Previous to the year 1859 English landlords were required to contribute a quarter of the cost of the cottages themselves; but in 1859 the law on that head was altered, and they were enabled to borrow the entire amount from the Lands Improvement Company, without advancing any money of their own. What was good for England ought to be equally good for Ireland, which was much the poorest country. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and Sir E. Griffith, in the correspondence to which he referred, contended that the Act was passed on the understanding that the restriction should still apply to Ireland; but he had looked through the debates in both Houses and could find no trace of any such expression of opinion. He could not understand why a person having a small freehold or perpetuity should not be allowed to borrow a smaller sum than £200 for the building of a small cottage. He trusted the Government would reconsider the matter, and would, in a kindly spirit towards the Irish landlords, relax the restrictions which then existed. With that hope, he begged to move that the restrictions placed by the Board of Works in Ireland, and the Treasury, on the advance of money for the building of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland are inexpedient, and calculated to render the Act sanctioning the advance in a great degree inoperative.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the

  815
  restrictions placed by the Board of Works in Ireland and the Treasury, on the advance of money for the building of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland, are inexpedient, and calculated to render the Act sanctioning the advance in a great degree inoperative,"—(Sir Hervey Bruce,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PEELsaid, he would remind the House that it was not without considerable hesitation that Parliament consented to the extension of the Land Improvement Act so as to authorize the Government to make advances for the erection of farm buildings and labourers' cottages in Ireland. It was found necessary that some conditions should be laid down, not merely for the protection of the Government, but of the owners of property. Assuming the cost of a cottage to be £75, the owner of property was to provide £15, or one-fifth, and, besides, was to enclose a small yard at the back of the cottage at his own expense. On these terms he might borrow £60, or 4-fifths of the estimated cost, from the public; but, at the very outside, he would not be required to pay more than one-third. The object of these conditions was to secure the permanence of the improvement, and to obtain a proof of the interest which the owner took in the matter. No public money was advanced in this country for the building of cottages, but an Act of Parliament had been passed empowering a private company to lend money for the building of cottages without requiring that the owner should advance any money of his own. The law, however, compelled the borrower to ensure and repair the buildings, and, in case of neglect on his part, the company might do so and charge him with the cost. He might add, that he did not think the restrictions tended to make the Act inoperative in Ireland, for he found that in March last a very considerable sum indeed had been applied for.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, if the object of the Act was to encourage landlords to erect suitable cottages for their labourers, he did not understand why the extremely rigid specifications required by the Treasury and the Board of Works should be insisted on. For instance, they not only limited the amount to be advanced, but required that the cottages should be roofed with best slate, utterly ignoring the state of those parts of the country where
  816
  tiles or stone might be used with less cost and equal advantage. Then again, the roofs were to be made of foreign timber—red or white deal. The last restriction had a tendency to discourage the growth of Irish timber, and to cause a great deal of money to be sent out of the country for the purchase of foreign timber. He trusted that the regulations would be revised and made less stringent.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he was of opinion that the Act would be abused, and would inflict detriment on Ireland, unless the power of borrowing money for the purpose of building cottages was kept within salutary regulations. He thought more good might be effected by the landlords laying out money occasionally for the improvement of existing cottages than by any extensive borrowing of capital to build entirely new cottages.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEobserved, that the legislation with respect to labourers' cottages in Ireland was entirely exceptional, and did not apply to England or Scotland. For many years Parliament declined to consider the question of advancing money to build labourers' cottages in Ireland, on account of the difficulty of guarding the measure against abuse. At length he introduced a Bill on the subject, for he then felt forcibly that nothing could be more disgraceful than the condition of the labourers' cottages in Ireland. That Bill ultimately passed through Parliament, though not without great opposition in the House of Lords. It was difficult to frame rules in respect to such a measure in order to prevent abuses, but he did not think it wrong that the landlord, in borrowing capital from the Government to build labourers' cottages, should at the same time advance a small portion of the requisite sum himself, as he would then probably feel a greater interest in seeing that the money was properly laid out. He thought that the regulations were not unreasonable, and hoped the hon. Baronet Would not press his motion.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that after the remarks which had been made he did not feel justified in pressing his motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CONDITION OF IRELAND.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he rose to bring before the notice of the House the present depressed condition of Ireland, together

  817
  with the amount of taxation imposed on that country, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of such depression and the effect of the taxation which it now bears. It had been his desire to bring forward his Motion at an earlier period of the Session, and he should have had an opportunity of doing so but for the adjournment that took place on the death of Sir George Cornewall Lewis. He was sorry to say that the smallness of the attendance of hon. Members forced him to the conclusion that the House took but little interest in the condition of Ireland; but he held that her condition could not be considered alone, but must be coupled with that of this country, and that the destruction of one must be the destruction of the other. Any one who made a careful investigation of the subject could hardly doubt that the prosperity of Ireland had been on the decline for some years. Notwithstanding the fact that some writers were in the habit of denying that distress in it existed, and representing the prosperity of Ireland as something fabulous, any one who took a candid survey of the period since the Union must admit that the prosperity and improvement of the country had not been as great as might have been expected. He was not about to raise the question, nor to state and urge objections to the Union. He entertained no wild ideas in regard to repeal by violent measures. He rather wished to show at the present moment the means which would conduce to cement the Union, but he held that the only basis on which any Union could properly be maintained was that of mutual interest and perfect equality. In considering the state of Ireland, the first point to which he would refer was the decrease of population, for he did not hold the opinion of some that a great decrease of population was a sign or a cause of prosperity. The population of Ireland decreased from 8,178,000 in 1841 to 5,714,000 in 1861, which was but little more than the number of the inhabitants at the period of the Union The population of England had doubled since 1800. In 1811 it was 10,164,256 and in 1862 it was 20,091,725, while it Scotland in the same period it had increased from 1,805,864 to 3,061,251. He would ask whether there was anything in the soil or climate of Ireland to account for this difference as regarded the increase of population in the two countries. Neither was the cause to be attributed to any wan of industry in the people, for they pros-
  818
  pered elsewhere. The decrease had been occasioned by famine, disease, and emigration; but it was a question that must strike any one, and he now proposed to discuss, and he believed He could show, why it was that the country had become impoverished during its connection with the richest country in Europe? In the second place, the official Returns showed beyond doubt there had been, moreover, a marked diminution of agricultural progress, both in respect of crops and stock. The agricultural exports had fallen off seriously since 1847; and the extent of land under cereal crops was also less. By these it was shown that between the years 1847 and 1861 there had been a decrease in cultivation of cereals of 678,806 acres, and still further in 1862—or of 6,630,836 quarters of different kinds of corn, which would not be of less value than £10,000,000. Ireland used to send £15,000,000 worth of agricultural produce to England, and £2,000,000 worth to London alone. The value of the exports of corn in the years 1841–2–3–4 averaged £4,000,000; in 1847 it had declined to £3,317,000; and in 1861 to £1,402,000; whilst at the present time, instead of exporting to other countries, Ireland was importing corn and cereal crops to the value of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. As almost everything depended on agriculture in Ireland, these results were indicative of great depression; for it should be borne in mind that 66 per cent were in Ireland employed either directly or indirectly in agriculture, and a large proportion of those who traded were dependent on its prosperity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself admitted that between 1856 and 1860 there had been a decrease of above £12,000,000 on the principal items of agricultural wealth in Ireland. There was also a decrease in the acreage of meadow land, as well as in other different branches of agricultural industry. But it was said that there was an increase in the quantity of stock, and that if there was a diminution in the value of the produce of cultivation, Ireland had gained by the increase in her cattle, sheep, and other descriptions of animals. That was not correct. Since 1853 there was a decrease in cattle and horses. The decrease between 1861 and 1862 alone amounted to £1,500,000 in value. He reckoned the decrease of stock at £13,000,000 between 1841 and 1861: from 1841 to 1847 there had been an increase; but stock had undoubtedly decreased, and he regretted to anticipate a

  819
  still further diminution. Then, with respect to green crops, which were mainly consumed by stock, there was also a decrease; and although a professor who had lately written a pamphlet, and who had endeavoured to show that there was no distress in Ireland, had declared that there was no falling-off, but rather an increase in green crops, he denied that statement; but even if there had been an increase in quantity, there could not be an increase in value, from the simple fact that there were less Cattle to consume those crops, and it was obvious that the value which a farmer received from green crops was from the increase in the condition or number of the cattle which consumed them. The quantity of potatoes had decreased from 2,548,795 tons in 1847 to 1,858,633 tons in 1862, while in 1855 the quantity had been 6,139,201 tons; and it must be borne in mind that potatoes were the food of the Irish people raised by themselves, but now it is corn, in a great measure the Indian corn purchased from a foreign country. It was true that the distress did not this year reach the point of starvation—that the labourer, when he could get work, and could obtain food cheaply, was paid sufficient to enable him to live; but it was the class of smaller farmers who had suffered greatly. In 1841 it was stated one-sixth of the stock in Ireland belonged to small farmers? but that state of things was changed, and now nearly all the stock belonged to large farmers or graziers, showing that the poorer farmers were now poorer than ever, even were it admitted that the stock in the hands of the former class had increased, which, however, was not the case. He found also that there had been a diminution in the amount of deposits in the savings banks, which was a clear indication of increased pressure among the humbler classes. Then, to show a further diminution of the wealth of Ireland, he had to point out to the House that in the public stock transferred between England and Ireland, the balance was formerly in favour of Ireland, sometimes to the extent of one to near two millions; but for the last three years the balance of transfer had been entirely against that country. The professor to whom he had alluded, in his pamphlet, to show the increased prosperity of Ireland, referred to the increased amount of railway property in Ireland; but of course, railways being a recent creation, there had been an increase in property of that nature in every country;
  820
  and although the employment given by their construction, as well as the facility of communication, benefited Ireland, as it did every other country where they were introduced, much of the capital employed and the profits, of course, were held by Englishmen. But even in this species of property in Ireland there was a decrease, for the chairman of the Great Western Railway Company of Ireland had recently declared that there had been a great diminution in the value of railway property, and other authorities had stated the same fact. The exports and imports would afford a test of the condition of Ireland. It was not possible to state exactly the amount of the exports and imports, between England and Ireland, because accounts were only kept of certain articles. But one fact was clear, that with respect to foreign trade they were as well off at the period of the Union as they were now—indeed, he might say better. There had been no increase in the trade, and any foreign products which Ireland received came for the most part through England. In 1790 Ireland exported to foreign parts to the value of £1,012,516; in 1800, £528,111; but in 1860 our exports to foreign countries amounted only to the value of £278,062. No doubt the imports from foreign countries had increased; but as they were to the value of £5,000,000 for food alone, that increase was another proof of the impoverishment of the country. Then as to manufactures, he found the inspectors' reports showing a continual decrease in the number of mills, and a diminution in the number of persons employed. In fact, manufactures had almost wholly ceased in some parts of Ireland. The growth of flax had certainly increased, but flax was not a crop which good agriculturists would prefer to see increasing, as its tendency was to deteriorate the soil. In 1778 Arthur Young had stated this, and stated that in Ulster, from this cause, in no part of Ireland did the soil exhibit such a state of beggary and desolation; but, at all events, Mr. Baker, Inspector of Factories, reports that in six counties in Ireland, since 1836, cotton manufactures had disappeared, and in none increased; and in all Ireland the number of cotton mills had diminished, between 1839 and 1862, from twenty-four to nine, and the number of persons employed in them from 4,612 to 2,732. In the woollen trade we had but four mills, employing 100 people, and in the same period the persons employed fell from

  821
  1,231 to 862, and in worsted we had one mill employing 100 persons. No doubt, however, those employed in flax manufacture had increased from 9,017 to 33,525 in the same period. He might add that it was no proof of the absence of distress in Ireland that the number of paupers in the workhouses had not increased, because, as long as the Irish labourer could live outside, he would not enter the poor-house; and the poor had in great numbers been disposed of in former years by famine, disease, and emigration by about 2,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of his Financial Statement, had admitted a diminution in the capital of Ireland, and a prevalence of distress in that country, and he would now call the attention of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman to another point—that the only thing which had increased in Ireland was taxation. The first thing to be ascertained was what Ireland paid. In 1861–2 the Customs were about £2,294,000, the Excise £3,269,000, stamps £589,000, income tax £918,000, and Inland Revenue £573,000; and other items brought the total amount to more than £7,000,000. But that would not he a fair statement of the account, because Ireland had a very small direct foreign trade in tea, wine, and other consumable articles; and although a portion of those articles was brought to Ireland in bond, the greater part came from England after paying the duties, and England took credit for so much of the taxation which was really borne by Ireland. The best-informed persons assured him that it would be a moderate estimate if, for that reason, he doubled the amount of Customs and Excise; and although he should take a much more moderate estimate of the addition which Ireland had a right to put to her account of taxation on those heads, yet with other additions to which he should refer, it seemed to him fair to set down the total amount of Irish taxation at nearly £11,000,000. There was another element in the calculation when they were considering whether Ireland had to bear more than a fair proportion of the taxation of the Empire, and that was her share in the Woods and Forests revenue, in a proportion of the payments by Colonies towards their own support, in a like proportion of the payments by foreign Governments, and in the returns from old stores, in all of which Ireland had as good a right to participat
  822
  as England, since there was a partnership between the two countries, and those sums belonged to the Empire and not to England exclusively. Our produce from the Woods and Forests had been £64,000: sales had diminished this sum, but we were entitled to the interest of the purchase money, and to the proportion of Miscellaneous Receipts, which were about £2,500,000. These, with the other claims to which he had alluded, would entitle him to estimate the real Irish taxation at least£11,000,000. At the time of the Union two-seventeenths was settled as the proportion of payments to be made to the Imperial Treasury by Ireland. But this proportion, as well as the measure itself, was carried against the wishes of the people, by means of which no Irishman could be proud; and protests having been made against the unfairness of the amount, it was agreed by the Treaty of Union itself that at the end of twenty years there should be a new arrangement of taxation. Lord Castlereagh considered it an injustice to Ireland in calling on her for an equal taxation; in 1802 the first Sir Robert Feel "cautioned the House against addition to Irish taxation." Mr. Corry, Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated "that Ireland was not able to boar the burdens of Great Britain, nor was she called on so to do;" in 1805, Mr. James Fitzgerald said, "It was obvious Ireland could not discharge her part of the unequal contract, and England would ultimately pay all." Mr. Parnell, also a Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that "the proportion imposed on Ireland was greater than she ought to have paid." Mr. Wellesley Poole said the expenses of the Empire, when the Union was made, were twenty-five millions; now (1813) they were seventy-two millions, and Ireland could never have been expected to pay two-seventeenths of this sum; but it is needless to add to the authorities who protested and asserted that Ireland was not called on to submit to such an excessive amount of taxation, which the country was unable to bear. In 1816, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald proposed a consolidation of the Exchequers, but that was not an equalization of taxation. By the 7th Article of the Treaty of Union it was arranged that the English Government at the end of twenty years should make a new calculation, and see what was fairly to be contributed by Ireland to imperial taxation, and the basis on which this calculation is to be made is laid down in the 7th Article of the Treaty. But no such thing was done; they con-

  823
  solidated the Exchequers, and imagined that they had secured equal taxation. Seeing, however, that the taxation had been at various periods one-twelfth, one-seventh, and one-tenth of the Imperial taxation, and that up to the present moment there had been no re-adjustment, he charged the English Government with a glaring infraction of the Treaty of Union. The Irish had a right to a re-adjustment of their taxation. He therefore hoped the House would take the matter into consideration, in order to determine whether Ireland was justly or unjustly taxed. They were bound by the Act of Union to treat Ireland fairly, and that had never yet been done. The proportion of sums borrowed for prosecuting the Peninsula and other wars with Napoleon Bonaparte had been, as it appeared, made on no fixed principle, but a large debt had been assigned to Ireland. There was a Return connected with the subject, produced on the Motion of Mr. Macgregor, which he could never understand, and yet it was clearly and palpably false. Indeed, this was evident, for there was another Return relating to the same matter, and there were some hundred thousand pounds of a discrepancy between statements as to the amount of debt attributed to Ireland in each. What he wished, therefore, was to have some means by which they might arrive at a proximate rate of fair taxation, and apportionment of the debt due by each country. The debt of Great Britain at the time of the union amounted to £457,000,000, and the debt of Ireland to £13,000,000, the total being £470,000,000. He considered that the fair way to calculate the proportion of each country would be to deduct these sums from the present debt of the United Kingdom, and then to take two-seventeenths, the proportion established at the Union, if they would not re-adjust the proportion for the present time for the debt now due by Ireland. But it was but fair that a re-adjustment of debt and proportion of taxation should even now, at the third recurrence of the stipulated period, be made. England was never freed from that obligation, and the proceedings of this House showed it was not considered that the consolidation of the Exchequers in 1816 had that effect. By the Treaty of Union no additional tax was to be placed on any article subject to Excise in Ireland, which exceeded that paid in England. It appeared this had been done, and in 1823 the House determined to repair this infraction of that
  824
  treaty. How did it proceed? The Treaty of Union was formally read, and in accordance with the 6th and 7th articles of this treaty the 4 Geo. IV. was passed, empowering the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue to take measures to bring the provisions of these articles into effect. Nothing could be more solemn than this recognition by the Commons (in 1823) of the Treaty of Union, and that after the consolidation of the Exchequers, which took place in 1816. Could anything be more conclusive than that we should now proceed to the re-adjustment of the taxation of the two countries, which would show a contribution of at most £7,000,000 yearly as against £11,000,000, under which she at present struggled? If he obtained his Committee, which he was most anxious the House should grant, it might be possible to enter on the subject; and Government ought to turn their attention to it. Ireland suffered from the immense pressure of taxation, and that was one principal reason why the country was exhausted of its capital. A great portion of the taxation of Ireland was drawn out of the country, and spent in England. It was different in England; of the Imperial revenue he could not see that more than £10,500,000 was spent out of England, and therefore she continued rich. What was drawn by taxation from one man enriched another. The expenditure on dockyards, arsenals, and all public works was expended on the working classes, and the aggregate wealth of the country was not diminished; but in Ireland the drain was continual, and to add to it we had to add £4,000,000 for the annual drain caused by the income of absentees. Out of the taxation of Ireland scarcely £5,000,000 found its way back to that country. How could Ireland be otherwise than she was? He repeated that it was the duty of the Government to look narrowly into the subject. He had endeavoured to state the reasons why he thought the Committee should be granted. He had not gone into many details, which he knew would be wearisome; but he was perfectly certain, so long as the present system of taxation was pursued with regard to Ireland, her condition would not be materially improved. He regretted to see the population of Ireland falling off—many of her industrious sons were flying to other countries. He hoped that things might be placed on that basis that they would be enabled to support a population much larger than what existed

  825
  in Ireland. That it was for the advantage of England to keep Ireland in her present state he did not believe. They had all the freedom and advantages of England in every other respect; but when they came to that House for some small subsidy, such as the Galway subsidy, there were Scotch and English Members who were most reluctant to grant a single shilling, and he even believed every means had been taken to induce the Government to avoid the completion of that contract. One of the most impolitic things the Government could do, was to deny justice in these matters. Ireland's connection with this country must be based on equality and justice. He had now brought the subject before the House—he apologized for having done so. He had endeavoured to be as short as possible, for he feared it might be said that a soldier was not perhaps the best fitted to deal with such a question.
  COLONEL FRENCHseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the present depressed condition of Ireland, and the effects of the taxation she now bears,"—(Colonel Dunne,)
  —instead thereof.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am quite sure it was needless for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to offer to the House any apology for the time which he occupied in bringing under our consideration the subject of his Motion. On the contrary, I would say, that considering the magnitude of the subject, he has been extremely brief in dealing with a question which involves so many details, and which ranges over so many years. The question itself is one which I confess I am very glad should be brought under the serious notice of the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has observed that in submitting to the House on the part of the Government the financial statement for the present year I admitted the existence of distress in Ireland. I accept unhesitatingly the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, taking exception however, as I may fairly do, to the word "admit," which scarcely does justice to my object. An admission is said to be made by a man who is dealing controversially with a subject, whereas my simple
  826
  object was to state the exact truth as it had come under my observation, and to lay fully before Parliament the case as it stood in connection with a state of things which I deemed to be intimately connected with the general prosperity of the country and the condition of the revenue. The facts to which I on that occasion referred were undoubtedly of a very grave order; nor am I disposed to endeavour to detract from their due weight, because I cannot concur with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in all that has fallen from him with respect to some abstract opinions which he has advanced, or the practical application of those opinions. I am very much inclined to question a proposition which I understood him to lay down, that taxation is no diminution of the wealth of a country, provided the money raised by its means is spent in the country in which it happens to be levied. I do not know that this is the time or place to discuss a point of political economy, but I may observe that I regard that proposition as a fallacy. In my opinion, taxation which is unnecessary for the real purposes of Government is an entire waste of public money and leads to bad consequences, whether it be spent in the country in which it is levied or not. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded to another point—the question of what is popularly called absenteeism—which is, I grant, of very great interest to Ireland, but which it would be presumption on my part to attempt to argue with him, except in so far as it has special relation to the department over which I have the honour to preside. I can well understand how the subject may be one of painful consideration to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and those whom he represents; but I confess I can hardly see how it can be met in detail as a matter arising out of the relations between Scotland, England, and Ireland. If it be true that Irish landlords reside less on their estates than the landlords of Scotland, or Yorkshire, or Devonshire, that may be a circumstance to be much regretted, but I do not believe there is any way in which this House can address itself to the cure of so serious an evil. I know of no way in which this House can address itself to correct that evil except by endeavouring to do every thing in its power to improve the social and economical condition of Ireland, and give its people equal rights and advantages with the rest of the kingdom in

  827
  regard to the security, confidence, and freedom of their enjoyment and disposal of their property. That is the only mode in which we can act upon what I fully admit to be a great evil—namely, the general or extensive non-residence of the proprietary body, not only whose expenditure, but whose social and moral influence, we must look upon as absolutely essential to the welfare of the country. With respect to the present depressed state of Ireland, the hon. and gallant Member dwelt mainly upon the effect of taxation, and the remedy he proposed was the re-adjustment of existing financial arrangements on principles which I confess I felt considerable difficulty in following. To one of his arguments I must demur. He appeared to assert a right in the various parts of the kingdom to have public money expended on what I may call geographical principles; that the taxation raised in Ireland was to be computed, and against that taxation a counter claim was to be lodged on behalf of Ireland for the expenditure of the money so levied within her own limits. If that doctrine is good, it will be difficult to confine it to Ireland. It will travel into Scotland, it will come back into England, and we shall have the south, the north, the west, and the east making their separate claims. Wales will begin to consider how much it pays and how much is spent within its limits. This strain of argument is very much in vogue in the Ionian Islands, and there carried to very great length. The people of those seven little islands cannot, in fact, understand that taxes should be raised to meet certain purposes connected with the general well-being of the whole group; and they continually contend that each almost parochial circumscription has a right to have expended upon itself the same portion as it contributes to the general revenue. I will not say it is not wise to consider leniently and equitably cases where Irish feeling, or Scotch feeling, or any local feeling happens to be warmly and deeply engaged; but I hope I shall not be thought harsh or unjust if I cannot assent to the general proposition that the taxation of the country is to be like a local shower, drawn for awhile from the surface of the earth by evaporation, and then descending on it again with fertilizing effect at the very spot from which it first rose.
  Now, Sir, the distress in Ireland I do not attempt to extenuate. I am very glad the subject has been brought forward, and
  828
  hope, if necessary, it will be again and again brought under our notice. Ireland, I am afraid, has been suffering very deeply. That is to us a matter of very deep concern. The chief consolation we may have is that she has been suffering by one of those visitations of Providence, which, coming within the usual limits of the vicissitudes of the seasons, appears to bear on the very face of it the note of a temporary character, and that the weather and improved temperature of two or three years may, I trust, replace, and more than replace, all that she has lost by the extreme severity of the last few seasons. That, however, is no reason why the hon. and gallant Member should not investigate this subject, and show, if he can, that the impoverishment of Ireland is due to any injustice with which she may be treated in matters of finance. It is not, I think, a capital point in this question to inquire in what proportions the public money is spent in the three countries; but, entertaining that as a mere secondary matter, I am bound to say, that as far as what may be called our optional expenditure of the public money is concerned, Ireland appears to enjoy a share of that expenditure which it is somewhat difficult to account for if compared with the share of England, and more especially if compared with the share spent among our uncomplaining friends in Scotland. It is very difficult to try the question accurately as between Ireland and England, because in England there is a considerable expenditure made, not for English purposes alone, but for the benefit of the entire empire. But the sum, as far as I can ascertain it, which is voted for civil services for Ireland, specifically and exclusively, and without reference to any want or purpose except what is strictly confined within her own limits, is £1,551,000. The proportion between that sum and our total miscellaneous expenditure shows that Parliament has not been disposed to be niggardly in its supply for the local advantage of Ireland whenever money can be justly voted for such objects. The amount voted for England, apart from those direct expenses of Government which are essentially necessary for the three countries alike, is, compared with the £1,551,000 for Ireland, not more than £2,200,000 or £2,300,000—a difference between the two, I need hardly observe, which is altogether trivial, with reference to the proportion between the population of the two countries, because the propor-

  829
  tion between the population of England and Wales and that of Ireland may now be placed at nearly four to one; whereas the Votes of Parliament for services specifically English appear to be only in the ratio of three to two, as compared with those specifically Irish. Exception may, however, be taken to that statement, because there is also a considerable expenditure in England, as, for example, the expenditure connected with the Houses of Parliament, the Government offices, and so forth, which actually takes place in England, although it is made for the wants of the three countries in common. Well, let us look to Scotland. Its population is more than half that of Ireland—namely, about three millions, while that, of Ireland does not greatly exceed five millions, or between five millions and five and a half millions. [Expressions of dissent.] I am speaking of Ireland in 1863, when the population has undergone some diminution, I believe, below the point it stood at in 1861. The special votes for Ireland are, as I have said, £1,551,000. The special votes for Scotland, as far as I can make them out, are not more than about £360,000.—[Mr. HENNESSY: What are the items?]—The legal and judicial establishments for Ireland, including the constabulary, cost £957,000; the charge for education is £291,000; and the charge for public buildings or parks, £96,000. These are the three largest items, and then come the Votes for Nonconformist ministers, the Dublin hospitals, the Poor Law Commission, the Office of Works, and so forth. Coming to Scotland, I have not the means of dividing precisely the charge for education there, but I take it at about £90,000 or £100,000; then the charge for the judicial, legal, and police establisments is £171,000; and there are other miscellaneous items amounting together to some £90,000 more, making up the total of £360,000. I do not regard these as decisive or cardinal elements in this question. I only quote them to show that the hon. and gallant Member is not justified if he wishes it to be understood that Ireland is illiberally treated in respect to public expenditure for local purposes.
  I am reluctant to enter now upon the subject of the Galway contract, on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken with some—and perhaps natural—warmth, and I am far from desiring to make it a matter of controversy. I will only say, on the part of Her Majesty's Government,
  830
  what we are prepared at the proper time to prove—that we have exacted nothing from the Galway Packet Company which we would not have exacted in the case of an English or a Scotch company, and that concessions have been made in favour of that company which have hardly ever, if ever, been made in favour of any English or Scotch company.
  I now come to the general subject of taxation. I shall endeavour, in the first instance, to canvass the computations of the hon. and gallant gentleman, and then I shall try to make as fair a comparison as circumstances will admit of the taxation of the two countries. The hon. and gallant gentleman admits, I think, that the revenue returns do not show that Ireland pays an undue share of taxation? [Colonel DUNNE: I admit nothing of the kind.] I understood the hon. and gallant gentleman to say, that although Ireland paid in round numbers £7,000,000, he did not intend to dwell upon that as a proof that she suffered injustice. What he alleged was, that she really pays a great deal more, though I think he was rather cloudy in that portion of his speech in which he contended, that although the figures only showed £7,000,000, yet Ireland pays £11,000,000. He said, with respect to the Customs revenue, that according to the Returns as they appear upon paper, Ireland contributed £2,286,000 in 1861; but that, he maintained, is utterly fallacious, because Ireland receives an enormous amount of duty-paid goods from England, whereas the £2,280,000 only represents the goods which she imports herself, or else the goods which she receives from England under bond. The hon. and gallant gentleman said that it would be a very moderate calculation if, in consideration of the duty-paid goods which Ireland receives from England, he doubled the amount set forth in the Returns; and in that way he raised the £2,286,000 to near £4,600,000 for Customs. All I can say is, that the calculation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman refutes itself. In the first place, Irish tradesmen know the value of capital much too well to send to England for great quantities of duty-paid goods. All tradesmen in all parts of the three kingdoms are taught by their own instincts to get goods in bond as near their own doors as they can; and as we have now a considerable number of bonded warehouses in Ireland, the Irish tradesman, like the English or Scotch tradesman,

  831
  does not take his goods out of bond before he needs them. In the second place, I have always understood that Ireland is a poorer country than England; but if Ireland really pays £4,600,000 of Customs revenue, she must be a richer country than England. She certainly pays the same Customs duties, and if she consumes a larger quantity of goods per head than England—if she pays a greater tribute per her head to the Customs revenue than England—then the ground of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is cut away from under his feet by his own calculation. But I will now look at the Revenue Returns—I mean the actual figures as we find them in the papers—for I contend they represent the true state of the case as to the relative taxation of the two countries. In Great Britain the payment of Customs revenue amounts to 18 s. 7d. per head; in Ireland it amounts to 7s. 10 d. The Excise payment in England is 13 s. 6d. per head, in Ireland it is 9s. 10 d. In stamps, for England the payment is 7s. 6d.; for Ireland it is 1s. 10¼d. For land and assessed taxes the payment in England is 2s. 11 d. per head, whereas in Ireland it is nothing. In England the payment for income tax is 9s. 1½ d., in Ireland it is 2s. 6¾d. So far, therefore, as the apparent incidence of taxation goes, you cannot draw from the actual figures any presumption or any tendency towards the proof of a presumption, that injustice is inflicted upon Ireland.
  But it may be said that the returns do not prove that Ireland is more lightly taxed than England; and I admit that the figures I have quoted might be compatible with a system under which Ireland should be subjected to unequal taxation, and to the payment of higher rates of taxes, arising from the extensive poverty of her population. As a matter of fact, however, is Ireland unequally taxed, as compared with England? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted an old Act of Parliament, which says that no higher duty shall be paid upon any article in Ireland than is paid in England. Is there any higher duty levied in Ireland? Is there any form of taxation among all those varieties which the ingenuity or necessities of financiers have caused them to invent, under which Ireland is subjected to a higher charge than England? The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) thinks he has discovered a spirit licence by which Ireland is subjected to a higher rate. All I can say is, that if he
  832
  makes good his case, if he produces the Act, chapter and verse, and if we are in favourable circumstances, probably that matter may be adjusted. Meanwhile, let us look at that question broadly, and in doing so I think it may be asserted generally that Ireland pays no tax that England does not pay; but, on the other hand, that England and Scotland both pay a considerable number of taxes that Ireland does not pay. The labouring population of Ireland, who are the poorest class relatively to the labouring population of the other two kingdoms, have at last attained to that first condition of political equality—equality of taxation; and the remissions enjoyed by Ireland at the present moment, which are considerable, are unhappily remissions affecting the classes which possess property. The duties upon tea, sugar, tobacco, spirits, beer, and all those articles in which the labouring population have an interest, we have raised, I think for good reasons, to an absolute equality in Ireland as compared with England; and the exemptions and privileges which remain are maintained, not on behalf of that portion of the community which in Ireland is excessively poor, but on behalf of that portion which is no poorer in Ireland than anywhere else. Men who can keep horses and carriages, or who have considerable estates in Ireland, are as rich as the same class in England. They are richer, indeed, because an income of £1,000 a year is worth more in Ireland than in England, and gives a higher social position there than here. We have in England duties on hackney coaches, horses, railways, and stage carriages, amounting to £700,000 or £800,000 per annum. All these duties are levied in England and Scotland, but not one shilling of them is paid in Ireland. We have also the assessed taxes, the land tax, and the inhabited house duty, which produce about £3,250,000 to the Exchequer in this country. Not a single shilling is paid in respect of any one of these duties in Ireland.
  COLONEL DUNNE: We have quit and Crown rents in Ireland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: What is their amount?
  COLONEL DUNNE: £51,000 a year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: And to whom are they paid?
  COLONEL DUNNE: To the Crown.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then they form no part of the

  833
  taxation of Ireland. Whatever the Crown may receive it receives as a landlord, and I am not a farthing the richer for it. Although the classes possessing property are not less capable of paying in Ireland than in England, yet in adjusting the income tax, as far as the great mass of Irish property is concerned, very considerable mitigations have been granted to Ireland. I have nothing to say about Schedules D and E, but in England the income tax is assessed upon the rack rental of the estate, with only trifling deductions. In England the landlord pays upon the full nominal rental, no other deduction being allowed than the land tax and sewer rate—that is, he pays upon more than he receives, because no allowance is made for repairs. In Ireland the landowner pays upon less than he receives, because he is assessed to the income tax, not upon the rack rental, but upon the Poor Law valuation, which is arrived at after various deductions, which are by some persons estimated to amount to one-third. That may be an exaggeration, but, at all events, the deductions are considerable With regard to houses, the case is still more marked, because the cost of repairs is much larger. Nor does it stop there. Schedule B, which deals with the profits derived from the occupation of land, is that which in England is most liberally constructed, because the tenant is only charged with income tax upon one half of his rent; and if he can show that his profit is less than that, his assessment is reduced. In Ireland it is still more favourable, because the tenant pays not upon one half of his rack rental, but upon one third of the Poor Law valuation. No doubt it may be said that in Ireland rents are higher in comparison with the share of the produce which the tenant enjoys than they are in England; but, at any rate, this is a proof that Parliament has made a liberal allowance to the tenant in Ireland as compared with the tenant in England. A man holding a farm in England, at a rent of £500 a year, would pay upon £250 a year. In Ireland the deductions under the Poor Law valuation would reduce the rental to £375, and he would be taxed upon only £125. Certainly, it can hardly be supposed that such a tenant in Ireland only gets one half of the share of the product which he would receive in England. As far as I am able to judge, I do not think
  834
  that it is possible to show that there has been any want of consideration, or, if I may say so, of liberality, in the legislation of the united Parliament with respect to Ireland upon matters of taxation. I have a great suspicion of all liberality exercised in the shape of creating fiscal inequalities on behalf of one country as against another; and though I do not presume to teach Irish gentlemen their duties or their interest, I am profoundly convinced that equality of taxation lies at the very root of full political equality, and that it is in vain without equality of taxation to attempt to claim the exercise of full political equality.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not, I think, directly contested the positions which I have been stating, but he falls back upon the state of things which immediately followed the Union. He thinks that we ought to ascertain the proportion which the debt of England bore to the debt of Ireland at a certain time; that instead of our present basis, we ought to take the relative state of the two countries at the Union as our starting point; that as far as they were separate and distinct, that separateness and distinctness ought to be maintained, and those fiscal arrangements ought to be made fixed and permanent. But I am sure he must feel that in using this argument he is not arguing against me or against any Government or Parliament of the present day; he is arguing against the state of things which has prevailed in this country ever since the Peace of 1815. It was about that time that the Exchequers of the two countries were consolidated; and though I hold both offices, and have to pay fees as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland as distinct from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, the distinction is now merely nominal. You have by the unbroken consent of a long line of Parliaments, extending over half a century, got a system of complete unity. Therefore, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to raise the question which he has shown a disposition to open, he must move for the repeal of the Act which establishes one Exchequer system; and it is not until that is done that we can revive that former and almost antediluvian state of things which prevailed before that consolidation was carried out. He must either take that course, or he must show in what way our present laws bear upon the face of their enactments injustice to Ireland. I do not think that he will find it practicable to do either the

  835
  one or the other. Certainly, as respects our laws, I think that what I have stated proves the equity, liberality, and fairness, whether or not it proves the wisdom, of the course which has generally been pursued by Parliament.
  If the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me whether, admitting the distress of Ireland, I have myself anything to offer in the way of boon, I must be very guarded in my answer. I have said that I think fiscal inequalities on behalf of any country are injuries even to that country itself. We must look to the influence of good laws, liberal legislation, and thorough and hearty equality in our endeavours to apply the principles of justice and freedom to all three countries, for the only means by which we can really confer benefit upon Ireland. Still, there is one admission which I should be disposed to make to my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that it is at all unfair to recognize a principle which we have already recognized to a great extent—that of exercising greater liberality in assisting enterprise in Ireland by loans of public money, where the security is unexceptionable, than in England or Scotland. No difference ought to be made between the three countries in point of security, because, if it was, this assistance would become a fountain of gross corruption. Take, for instance, Irish railways. Considerable loans have been made to such 'undertakings in Ireland upon very easy terms, whereas, if any one in England comes for a loan for such an enterprise, they are required to pay considerably more for it. There is no danger and no serious inconvenience in that method of proceeding; and it is fair to entertain the question in what cases such a principle as that may be applied, because the advantage of a scheme of that kind is that you assist in putting in motion the enterprise of Ireland itself, and all real and permanent benefits which she is to derive must be, not administered from without, like a dose of physic, but must be gained by the exercise of her own energies and her own powers. Whenever these can be stimulated by a somewhat more liberal extension of assistance such as I have described, I must confess that, without being prepared to say that any wholesale system of that kind ought to be adopted, I think that this would be a fair measure, and one that would be attended with considerable advantage.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred but slightly to his Motion for a
  836
  Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the distress, and I gathered from his speech that he does not intend to press that Motion. It is one which would be very serious at any time; and the commencement of an inquiry at the present moment, when we could make no effectual progress with it, could only have the effect of exciting hopes, as it were, simply to disappoint them. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think that it is an indication of any indifference or coldness on the part of the Government that we decline to concur in such a Motion. I even venture to trust, that although he may differ from me in thinking that fiscal re-adjustments can lead to the summary removal of the evils under which Ireland has been suffering, he will believe that I am not insensible to those evils, but am most warmly and anxiously desirous that they should disappear. Although I am now speaking of the last three years as a period of continuous suffering, I am fully aware that other causes were at work. I do not overlook the augmentation of rents and the diminution of the population. In one point of view, however, this affords a signal proof that the population which has remained must be a population improving in wealth, and all the statistical and social research with which I have had the opportunity of becoming acquainted does show that until a very recent period Ireland was making great and clear progress in everything connected with agricultural and manufacturing wealth. I sincerely trust the interruption to her prosperous career may be brief, and may soon entirely disappear, and I hope that Ireland has before her a future of continuing and uninterrupted prosperity.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he thought a debt of gratitude was due from everybody connected with Ireland to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had brought forward the question, and whose manner must have impressed upon the House the fairness of his views, and the sincerity and entire absence of passion with which he put them forward. The questions for the House to consider were these—was there great and general distress in Ireland? what were the causes of that distress? and what ought to be the remedies? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the first part of the case very fairly, and expressed a hope that prosperity might again dawn on the land, The existence of distress was fur-

  837
  ther proved by the figures which his hon. and gallant Friend had adduced. Tested in every possible way, these figures established that there had been a decrease in the funded property of the country, a decrease in agricultural produce, a decrease in the live stock, and ultimately a decrease in the population. Turning then to the causes of the distress so plainly existing, they bad to consider whether these were afflictions sent by an all-wise Providence, or the natural results of bad and unequal laws. If they could fix a time up to which the condition of Ireland was improving, and beyond which its prosperity began to decline, a clue might be obtained to the causes to which that decline was fairly attributable. Now, what were the facts as disclosed by the statistics? Until the year 1852 the prosperity of Ireland was increasing; but from that date to the present time the growth of taxation had been rapid and uniform, and the country had drooped under the additional burden. Blame could not be laid upon the law of landlord and tenant, the grand juries, or the Established Church, for all these things were in existence prior to 1852, and in spite of them the prosperity of Ireland was progressive. It had recovered from the blight and failure of the crops in 1846–8, the productive powers of the land were being stimulated, and the inhabitants were not flying from the soil with the eager haste they had since exhibited. Clearly, therefore, the reason for the change must be sought in events subsequent to 1852. In that year the population of Ireland was between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000, and its taxation scarcely amounted to £4,000,000. In 1862 the proportions were reversed; the population little exceeded 5,000,000, and the taxation had amounted to very nearly £7,000,000 Instead of paying only 10 s. a head, each member of the population contributed upwards of £1. With the single exception of the assessed taxes, the uttermost strain of fiscal imposition was put upon the weakness of Ireland. The best writers on political economy laid it down that mode rate taxation might prove a stimulant, but that in excess it was one of the greatest evils which could afflict a country. He would read a passage in that sense from a Whig writer, Mr. M'Cullagh—
  "Taxation should be slow. To render an increase of taxation productive of greater exertion economy, and invention, it should be slowly ant gradually brought about; and it should never be carried to such a height as to incapacitate indi-
  838
  viduals from meeting She sacrifices it imposes by such an increase of industry and exertion as it may be in their power to make, without requiring any very violent change in their habits."
  Mr. M'Cullagh went on to say that an excessive weight of taxation, as it was deemed impossible to meet, will not stimulate, but destroy exertion—
  "Instead of producing new efforts of ingenuity and economy, it will only produce despair. Whenever taxation becomes so heavy that the produce it takes from individuals can no longer be replaced by fresh efforts, they uniformly cease to be made, the population becomes dispirited, industry is paralysed, and the country rapidly declines."
  In Ireland, taxation had been exactly doubled within ten years, and the results predicted by Mr. M'Cullagh had come to pass. There could be no doubt that the repeal of the Corn Laws, although a great benefit to the British Empire, bad operated most injuriously to the agriculture of Ireland, and in many places had nearly ruined it. The full effect of the change was not felt till several years after 1846; and though—speaking abstractedly—he would not, be a party to the re-enactment of the Corn Laws, he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the predictions made at the time, as to the injurious effect of their repeal, had been actually fulfilled in Ireland, to the very serious detriment of Irish agriculture, the most important interest in that country. There were other interests, indirectly connected with agriculture, which had also suffered. A few years ago, there were ninety five thriving distilleries in Ireland, which not only supplied the home consumption, but exported large quantities of spirits, previous to the last change in taxation introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. A Return lately made to an order of the House, showed, that instead of ninety-five, there were only twenty distilleries now in operation. Clearly, the stoppage of these seventy-five distilleries must have been attended with serious consequences to the commerce and general interests of the country. Such establishments were valuable, not only in the returns brought into the country for what they exported, but as affording good and accessible markets to the growers of corn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that taxation was a thing grievous and heavy to be borne, and that it should be imposed only from necessity; but his hon. and gallant Friend went further, and stated that the relative proportions of taxation ought to be adjusted according to the Articles of the Union. All

  839
  that his hon. and gallant Friend had said was, that taxation had a great deal to do with the decline of prosperity in Ireland, and the remission of taxation might have much to do with a revival of prosperity. He would therefore support his hon. and gallant Friend, should he go to a division. At all events, there would be one good result from the debate. It would show the sympathy that was evinced for Ireland by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to take advantage of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend for the purpose of calling attention to an issue less wide than that which had been raised by him—namely, to the lamentable condition of the western parts of Ireland. In the year before the last there was a failure in fuel and food, and the privations of the lower classes were extreme. Last year, so far as fuel was concerned, the state of affairs was better, and food was cheap, but the poor were unable to avail themselves of those advantages in consequence of the inadequacy of employment. It was easy to account for that. The better class of farmers had lost so heavily by the great mortality among the sheep, owing to heavy and incessant rain, and by the deficiency in the wheat crop, that they were unable to give more employment than was absolutely necessary. The landlords in the west were similarly situated; they had not received their rents, and their means of giving employment were circumscribed. When the Irish Members represented that state of things, they were told they were exaggerating, and bringing forward fictitious cases of distress. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) was told that his facts and figures were quite fallacious, and his complaints were dismissed with uncommonly little ceremony. In fact, the Irish people might have been addressed in this way—
  "O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona nôrint,
  Agricolas!"
  But they did not know their happiness, and they went about exaggerating the evils of their condition. But the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when bringing in his Budget fully substantiated all that his hon. Friend and the other Irish Members had stated. It was not a pleasant thing to be told, if not in so many words, at least by hints, that they were like beggars standing in the highway, simulating fictitious diseases and asking for alms.
  840
  But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done away with all those imputations, for he informed the House that within the last three years Ireland had lost no less than £12,000,000 worth of her agricultural produce, or, in other words, a sum equal to the whole annual valuation of the country. Suppose such a calamity had fallen upon England, what would have been the consequence? When, not long ago, a calamity fell upon Lancashire every hand in England was outstretched, and even in Ireland they contributed with a hearty good will, though their means were too scanty to add much to the contributions of this country. In Lancashire there was the richest community in the world, and the people who had to support the calamity were men who for years had been extending their operations and accumulating vast fortunes. But the landlords in Ireland were in a totally different position; they had not the means, however anxious they might be, to alleviate the distress. He had received letters day after day from gentlemen in the west of Ireland, in whom he placed the utmost reliance, and they informed him that in Connemara and along the western seaboard the privations which the people were enduring were something terrible. The relief committee of the town of Galway, which was composed of persons of all religious denominations, stated in its report of the 23rd of January last that the aspect of the town was positively frightful; that there were 850 unemployed artisans, 756 unemployed labourers, 1,100 orphans and infirm persons, representing altogether 9,130 of the population of Galway and the vicinity in absolute destitution. A subscription list was opened, and nearly £1,000 was collected. At the same time, those privations were borne with exemplary patience, and there was an almost total absence of crime in the town of Galway. This was the alternative which the Irish labourers had—that if they stayed at home, they stayed to be starved; and if they emigrated to America, they went probably there to be shot or to waste away their lives in the swamps of Tennessee and Georgia, or to be instrumental in killing brave men who had ever received their countrymen with hospitality. It might be asked, if the Irish labourers were in so distressed a condition, how could they find the means of getting to America; but he replied, that at that moment ample inducements were offered to active men, able to handle a rifle, to set

  841
  out for America. It was sad that the sister of a wealthy and happy country like England should he in such a state of perpetual misery. Earl Russell, in writing to Mr. Scarlett, recently said that discontent, if general, must he well founded. At the present moment, whatever might be the cause, there was no doubt that discontent prevailed throughout the whole of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not admit what he called a geographical expenditure, and that equality of taxation was the basis of political equality. He had also talked of the difficulty of sending down a local shower of wealth upon a particular part of the community. Now, he (Mr. Gregory) did not ask for such a shower to be poured over Ireland; but what he complained of was that Ireland, like the fleece they read of in the Bible, remained dry while everything else around it was saturated with the descending dew. What was given to Ireland was, in the first place, given grudgingly; and, in the second place, it was given, as far as possible, in a manner to prove nugatory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Galway subsidy, and seemed to imply that the Government had made a very great concession on the matter, and had behaved with remarkable liberality to Ireland. Now, it was supposed that that contract (which the noble Lord at the head of the Government expressly stated was given because, though public expenditure for similar purposes was widely spread through England, there was no public expenditure of the same kind in Ireland) was a new contract. When it was pointed out that the contract, by an accidental admission, contained the same time table for summer or winter, the Government insisted on treating it as an old one; but when it suited the purpose of the Government, they treated it as if it were a new contract. That was part of the system of which the people of Ireland complained. There was an endeavour made in the west of Ireland to obtain a loan from Government for a most important public work, which would have caused a vast deal of employment—namely, the construction of a large harbour of refuge; but by the mode in which the Government treated the Galway contract it was found impossible to carry this intention into effect. He was sure that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland was anxious to alleviate the distress in Ireland, and with his knowledge and experience of
  842
  that country he might have considerable influence in doing away with all those petty obstacles and impediments which were raised, not by the heads of departments, but by subordinate agents. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he might avert a vast amount of mischief, and even loss of human life, in the west of Ireland, and prevent another great exodus, like that which took place during the year of the Irish famine. The House must bear in mind, that the people, when thus driven from their country, took with them a feeling of enmity to England, which not only rankled in their own breasts, but which they bequeathed to their children. Though the House had cried out upon the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) for saying that every Irishmen who went abroad carried with him a feeling of bitter animosity against England, the statement was perfectly true. The rule of Lord Eglington, however, showed that discontent was not a perpetual element in Ireland; and if the Government manifested a disposition really to ameliorate the condition of that country, the House would not again be troubled with debates such as the present.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought that to go the root of Irish distress they must discuss the relations between landlord and tenant. He cherished no extreme opinions on the subject, but he thought that they would not pay due attention to the feelings of the people unless they took that matter into consideration. It was idle to talk about taxation in connection with distress. Taxation related to those who had got money in their pockets. A distressed man was not taxed at all, because he had nothing to pay with, and therefore relief from taxation would do him do no good.
  MR. COGANsaid, it was truly a melancholy duty for an Irish Representative to be compelled to confirm the statements of the hon. Member with regard to the distress in Ireland. He (Mr. Cogan) came from one of the counties in Leinster, which were in better circumstances than the west of Ireland, yet even in the most favoured counties he felt that there was considerable distress—a fact which had been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement, though he regretted to say some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues had denied it, and had thus damped the efforts that the benevolence of the county might have made for its alle-

  843
  viation. They had had three bad seasons in Ireland, which of course in a great degree accounted for the distress which prevailed in that country. He would, however, remind the House that they did not ask for a grant from the Consolidated Fund, but only for an inquiry before a Committee of the House into the causes of the distress, and the question of the taxation of Ireland. There were permanent causes in operation, and remedies were required, one of which was the settlement on a satisfactory basis of the relation between landlord and tenant—a matter of great difficulty, but still not impossible to be achieved. Another cause of the want of prosperity in Ireland was the want of religious equality in that country. If there ought to be equality of taxation, there ought to be equality in regard to religious rights. In England there was a Church, which was the Church of the vast majority of the people, endowed by the State. In Ireland there was a Church which was a Church of a very inconsiderable portion of the Irish people. Whilst such an anamolous state of things existed, he did not think we could hope that Ireland would increase in a proper ratio of prosperity. It was no doubt a cheering circumstance for that House, and particularly for Members from Ireland, to see that the right hon. Baronet was at last about to identify himself with movements in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet had been represented in the papers as having taken a part at a meeting in the City yesterday, the object of which was not to raise £50,000 for the relief of distress in Ireland, but for the purpose of sustaining a peripatetic system of proselytizing. It was cheering to see that a change had at last taken place in the conduct of the right hon. Baronet. That was the only relief to be given to the people in West Connaught, and the right hon. Baronet thought it becoming in him to identify himself with that aggressive movement against the faith of a large portion of the Irish people He would ask whether it was becoming in a Minister to take such a part? So far as his experience and his reading of history went he thought that a Minister in the delicate position of the right hon. Gentleman, who was sent over to Ireland to preside over a Roman Catholic people—for the people of Ireland were a Roman Catholic people—the majority were Roman Catholic—should be more prudent. If the right hon. Gentleman were to seek peace, and to endeavour to soften down the reli-
  844
  gious animosities which prevailed in Ireland, and which were the root of so many evils in that country, it would be far better than proselytizing. The position of the Chief Secretary was one which required extreme prudence, and that quality the right hon. Gentleman had not exhibited while in office. He deeply regretted the the right hon. Gentleman had taken the step upon which he (Mr. Cogan) had taken the liberty of commenting. The right hon. Gentleman had denied the existence of distress in Ireland, but the House now knew that great poverty existed there, and that that placed the people in a position of great temptation. He would not attribute to the right hon. Gentleman that he believed that the people of West Connaught would be better tools to work upon while suffering from poverty; but he would say that the removal of the right hon. Gentleman from the office which he filled would be among the remedies for the removal of the distress in Ireland.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, this debate has rather extended beyond the original limits contemplated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. According to his notice, he directed attention only to the question of the taxation of Ireland, to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, conclusively replied. After the discussion had followed its legitimate course my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), without any notice, introduced the question of distress in the west of Ireland and made a lengthy statement as to the Galway contract; and now the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has deemed it proper to make a very severe attack upon myself for having, as he alleged, taken part in a movement for proselytizing West Connaught, and having refused to relieve the distress in order to assist that object.
  MR. COGANexplained, that he had expressly said he would not attribute such a motive for denying relief to the right hon. Baronet.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say so. I can hardly suppose that there is any one in this House who knows me who could imagine me capable of such conduct. I must, however, boldly avow, that when I accepted the position of Chief Secretary—which I know I fill very unworthily; at all events, in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman—I never intended to give up my

  845
  own feelings in regard to religious observances. It is true that I attended the meeting yesterday; but when I entered the room, I had no intention whatever of addressing it. I went there merely because I had read a book called Good News from Ireland, and I was anxious to hear what could be said in support of the cause. It was only after Lord Harrowby had spoken that I took any share in the meeting. The noble Lord said, that having taken a part in all the great Liberal measures, such as the Catholic Emancipatian Act and the grant to Maynooth, he did not feel himself precluded from attending such meetings. I went there merely for the purpose of listening to the views of gentlemen deeply attached to their own religious faith, but, on the same ground as the noble Earl, I did not think myself precluded from moving a vote of thanks to the chairman. So far from making any allusion to an aggressive movement on the Roman Catholic faith, such an expression never fell from my lips, and I am bound to say that I consider myself perfectly free to attend meetings of that sort where both the Primate of England and the Primate of Ireland are present.
  The question of the taxation of Ireland has been fully disposed of by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman dwelt very much on the decrease of population in Ireland between 1841 and 1861, which he says amounts to at least 2,000,000. I cannot say that I look upon that diminution of population altogether with feelings of regret, because it is quite certain that it was owing in a great degree to the fact that the people did not find adequate remuneration for their labour. Still, I entirely dissent from the opinion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) that the Irish who emigrate to foreign countries carry with them a feeling of hatred to this country. I believe they carry with them feelings of strong regard and sympathy for England. [A cry of "Oh, oh!"] Well, then, those who do not, do no harm to the realm in carrying their disaffection elsewhere. I candidly admit that a great emigration has taken place, and even at the present moment a great amount is still going on. The emigration of the present time far exeeds that of last year and the year before. No doubt, great inducements are held out to strong and vigorous young Irishmen to take service in the United States. It is impossible for the Government directly to in-
  846
  terfere, but we have taken pains to point out to these people that the fact of their being invited to assist in railway works did not preclude their being# asked to enlist in the service of the United States as soon as they land in America—a service in which Irishmen are treated not in the fairest manner. The decrease in the population between 1841 and 1861 amounts, I believe, to 2,751,000; but the population at that time was not proportionate to the wealth of Ireland, or to the fund from which labour was to be paid. In 1841 you had 13,464,000 acres of arable land under cultivation; in 1851 there were 14,802,581; and in 1861, 15,320,000; showing an increase of nearly 2,000,000 acres of arable land under cultivation, as opposed to a diminution of the population of 2,751,000. My hon. Friend behind me has said that I expressed my disbelief as to the existence of distress in Ireland, or at least that I had talked of fictitious cases of distress being brought forward—that I had said it was exaggerated, and that I had no sympathy with them. Such, I can assure the House, is not the case with me. An hon. Gentleman brought forward cases of alleged deaths by starvation, and I certainly showed that in those particular cases, at all events, he was mistaken. But I never denied in this House that there had been considerable pressure, and I would frankly own that for a time there was a greater amount of distress than there has been for some years. But if Providence will only bless the produce of the land for this season, I confidently anticipate that the harvest will be so abundant and that fuel will be so plentifully housed for the winter service, that we shall not have that pressure upon our poorer classes which has undoubtedly afflicted them for the last few seasons. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded to the question of savings banks, and told us that there has been a diminution in the amount invested in those banks. I have taken the opportunity of making some inquiries into this question, and I have ascertained the number of depositors during the four years 1857 to 1860. In 1857 there were 57,756 depositors; in 1858, 59,853; in 1859, 65,504; and in 1860, 69,294; thus showing that there has been a regular and permanent increase in the number of depositors during these years. As to the amount of deposits, in 1857 the amount was £1,775,000; in 1858, £2,804,000; in 1859, £2,530,000; and in

  847
  1860, £2,142,000; showing a slight diminution in later years, but not to that extent which one would have supposed; and it must be remembered, too, that in these years Post Office savings banks were not established. We are doing what we can to promote their establishment, and no doubt they will be as successful in Ireland as they have been in this country.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was rather cloudy in the matter of the statistics of taxation, and certainly if he was cloudy on that, I cannot pretend to follow him in his statistics of the decrease of the average yield of the crops. You would hardly believe what a rainy country Ireland is. I have here statistics as to the rainfall of Ireland, and I find we actually had, in 1862, 221 days, or rather more than seven months of rain in Ireland. I ask, then, how is it possible that wheat can come to perfection under such circumstances? Though there may be a decrease in the total extent of laud under cereal or other green crops, there has been a great increase in the amount of flax cultivation. The total amount of land under flax cultivation in Ireland amounts to 147,957 acres. I am quite ready to admit that the district of Erris and some parts of Mayo are much exposed to the vicissitudes arising from variety of climate, and to suffer from the want of sufficient means and from defective sustenance; but I believe exertions have been made, and exertions are being made at this moment, to my certain knowledge, to relieve that distress. My hon. Friend read a Report which referred to a state of things that existed on the 30th of January in the present year; but things have greatly improved since then. Many thousands of pounds have been contributed through the generous charity of others, and have gone into the district to which that Report refers. [Mr. GREGORY: The spring work is over now.] Yes, the spring work is over, and I dare say there is some pressure, but the pressure is nothing like what it was. The annual Report of the Poor Law Commissioners shows, that whilst the annual ratable value of property all over Ireland is £12,570,000, the average poundage of the rates made in 1861 was 1¼d., and the average poundage of the rates made in 1862, 1s. 2d., being an increase of only three farthings; and in the 14th section of that Report the Commissioners state—
  848
  "Comparing the last year with the present in other respects, and keeping in view the condition of the indigent classes only, as distinguished from the lowest of the farming-class, we have, during the present season, the advantages of much greater cheapness of food, abundance of fuel instead of great scarcity; and notwithstanding the stormy and wet weather in December and January, there has been, on the whole, a season free from any severe degree of cold; and the spring, so far as it has proceeded, has been unusually mild and fine. The favourable influence of these circumstances on the condition of the labouring poor is already observable in the progressive decline in the number in the workhouses, the maximum number appearing to have been reached on the 14th of February 1863, or three weeks sooner than in 1862, and having since decreased from 66,976 to 64,619,"
  Of course, I cannot be supposed to go into the question of the Galway contract at this moment; but I think that business has been disposed of in a manner that is satisfactory to the Irish people; and I have always supported them in their applications on the subject. I hope the contract may be a source of immense improvement to Ireland. I look forward to it with my best wishes that the town of Galway, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Galway County must feel so interested, may have its resources developed to the greatest extent possible. I am unwilling to trouble the House at greater length, seeing that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) is anxious to speak; but though I may be travelling somewhat out of the matter under discussion now, I will just observe that there is another question on which I had not an opportunity of addressing the House, and the further discussion of which will, I trust, be delayed till next Session, when the case can be gone into in a more satisfactory manner. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Queen's County commenced his observations by saying he thought that since the Union the prosperity of Ireland had decreased. I do not think that a reference to facts and statistics will bear him out in that view. I believe, that with the exception of the last three years, no country in Europe probably has made such immense strides in the material characteristics of civilization as Ireland has since the year 1852. Between the years 1851 and 1861 the population decreased in a most remarkable degree; but we must recollect that this decrease in population has led to a most remarkable decrease in crime. While the decrease in population has been at the rate of about 12 per cent. the decrease in crime has been actually at the rate of upwards

  849
  of 400 per cent. In 1851 the population was 6,552,385; in 1861 it was 5,764,543. The number of indictable offences tried at the assizes in the former year was 24,681, whereas in 1861 it was only 5,586. In 1851 the number of murders was 118; in 1861 it was only 30. In 1851 the attempts to murder were 14; in 1861 they were only 4. In 1851 the conspiracies to murder were 10, in 1861 they were none. In 1851 the number committed for riot was 1,827; in 1861 it was 449. The number of attempts to rescue—an offence which strikingly indicates a disorganized state of society—was in 1851 1,915; in 1861 it was 224. These figures show, that while the decrease of population was about 12 per cent, the decrease of crime was upwards of 400 per cent. They also clearly show this—that crime and poverty are inseparably connected. If the present season prove favourable, if the prospects of the spring and early summer are fulfilled, I have every hope that we shall seethe prosperity of Ireland reach that condition of development of which it gave so much promise in 1859. In conclusion, I have only to express a hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be satisfied with the interesting debate to which his Motion has given rise, and not press us to a division.
  MR. WHITESIDE: The Motion made by my hon. and gallant Friend is one that affects the interests of the kingdom. It has been met by two Ministers of the Crown—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Baronet has been furnished by the heads of Departments with bundles of papers, for which I give them much credit; and having perplexed himself by a study of those papers, he has endeavoured, I am sure unintentionally, to puzzle the House. He tells us that there has been extensive emigration from Ireland. We were aware of that. He says that Ireland is a rainy country. No doubt of it. He observes that wheat will not grow to perfection there. Some will say "ay" and others will say "no" to that. He remarks that the cultivation of flax has increased in Ireland. I think he makes that statement on the authority of a gentleman who wrote a pamphlet to prove that all the facts stated with respect to Ireland by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech were wrong. The Chancellor
  850
  of the Exchequer was complimented on his statement by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, and that, no doubt, is part of the duty of the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He said that the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was conclusive, and I have no doubt that in his mind that reply was conclusive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was impossible for a gentleman constituted as he was to feel like an Irishman. Well, I quite agree with him, for I think it impossible that a gentleman of his philosophical and placid temperament could feel like the natives of that classical country. As I gathered it, the burden of his speech was, that we should submit patiently to the taxation imposed upon us, and should make no complaint. He said that the Parliament of England is not unjust. I agree with him, and it is because I believe that the English Parliament is not unjust, that I think the facts suggested by this Motion demand and deserve inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that fiscal inequality between two independent kingdoms was a bad thing. But, in my opinion, he forgot the terms of the Motion, which are, let me remind him, "to bring before the notice of the House the present depressed condition of Ireland,"—and this is a question of fact—" together with the amount of taxation imposed on the country, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of such depression and the effects of the taxation she now bears." The fallacy of the Chancellor's statement consists in assuming that my hon. and gallant Friend the mover of the Resolution wishes to establish a system of fiscal inequality between the two countries. Now, what my hon. and gallant Friend demanded, was that the principles asserted at the Union should be respected, and that seems to me a very just demand. But the distress being admitted, the inquiry is to be into the amount of taxation, and there are two modes of getting redress—one according to the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by establishing inequality in the taxation of the two countries, and another by a general reduction of the taxation on both kingdoms. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is a great difficulty, no matter what may be the pressure upon one part of the kingdom, in contending for a different system of taxation, as regards that part of the kingdom. But it is reasonable to inquire whether Ireland or Sco-

  851
  tland is able to bear, in the present position of either kingdom, the amount of taxation imposed upon it, and then to inquire whether the taxation might not generally be reduced as regards the whole Empire. It would be an important result of this Motion if the representatives of Ireland were obliged to look into the general taxation of the country, and seek for a common remedy by a diminution of the common burden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he would clear the ground of general topics, and he disposed—very fairly, I admit—of the topic of absenteeism. Now, we must allow that it is beyond the power of the Government to effect a change in that respect, though in former times laws were imposed by strong-minded Sovereigns in repression of absenteeism. King Henry VIII. locked up in the Tower any absentee who had an estate in Ireland, whom he caught wandering in England, and who did not go home and mind his business. But I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that at the present day it would be impossible to propose any tax on absentees. We can only regret that they do not return to their own country, the climate of which would have a good effect upon them, though it does sometimes rain in that part of the world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the people of Ireland resembled the people of the Ionian Islands, and that they were very perverse, because they wished that any little taxes which might be raised amongst them, should be spent in their own country. According to the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on this subject with peculiar means of knowledge, this was one of the delusions which prevailed in the Ionian Islands. But I venture to think that those delusions will soon be dispelled by the new Government, and that some Greek Chancellor of the Exchequer will soon arise, who will teach the inhabitants of the Ionian Isles the principles inculcated this evening—that nothing is so fertilizing, nothing so improving, as the increase of the burden of taxation. The next assertion of the right hon. Gentleman is, that we ought not to inquire into the distress in Ireland, because this distress is only temporary. Now, if he had proved that proposition, his argument would have been conclusive. But that the House may understand that we are not altogether without grounds for this Motion, let me read a few words spoken by the Chancellor of the Exche-
  852
  quer in bringing forward the Budget. His description then produced a great impression in Ireland, and it is no use for the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to bring down bundles of papers sent him by the clerks of the different offices, because here, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, is really the ground for this Motion. After stating that the value of four items—the oats, wheat, potato crop, and one-third of the actual value of the live stock—in Ireland was, from 1856 to 1860, on an average, £39,437,000 per annum, the right hon. Gentleman continued:—
  "In 1860–1 it fell to £34,893,000, a decrease of £4,544,000; in 1861–2 there was a further fall to £29,077,000—a decrease of £10,360,000. In 1862–3, low as was the point previously reached, it descended yet lower, and fell to £27,327,000, from the former average of £39,437,000; thus showing a decrease of somewhat above twelve millions sterling. This amount equals nearly one-half of the total estimated value of the agricultural products of the country, as measured on the principal items or constituents of agricultural wealth. It falls not very far short of the full amount of the established annual valuation of the country, which is £13,400,000." [3 Hansard, clxx. 208]
  Now, there is proof of the depression in Ireland; and if this depression is to go on much longer in the ratio pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, there will be nothing left to inquire into, which will very much simplify the labour of the Ministry. Sir, we submit to the justice of the House that the startling facts here stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer make out a case, not for the introduction of any crude principles of taxation, but for a serious inquiry into the causes which have led to such results.
  As to emigration, there is something very awful in the statements which have been made upon this subject. The results shown by the census of 1861 would mislead any hon. Gentleman who relied upon them, though even these show a diminution in the population of 2,000,000. But that is all changed now, for the emigration lately has been as large as ever it was. A Roman Catholic gentleman in Clare told me recently, that if there was not a good harvest, there would be from the south and west of Ireland, not an emigration, but an exodus. Another gentleman, to whom I mentioned that statement, said, "Oh, he is wrong. If it is a bad harvest, there will, no doubt, be a considerable emigration; but if it is a good one, the people will go off with the proceeds, and

  853
  the emigration will be much greater." We are just now placing a King over a kingdom where he will have about a million of subjects, and let us not forget the startling fact that within the last few years twice that number of subjects have been lost by emigration to Her Majesty the Queen of these realms. Although the emigration has been more extensive from the west and south than from the north, that is no reason why a man who looks to the general condition of the country should not direct the attention of Parliament to facts of so awful a character. Well, then, these are the circumstances upon which we base a demand for inquiry.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we were quite mistaken as to the expenditure, and that, looking at, various items, and at the cost of the constabulary, more money is expended in Ireland than in Scotland. Now, I do not know how that may be, but I have always had the impression that the Scotch take pretty good care of themselves, and get a fair share of whatever is going. I say, however, that it is fair matter of inquiry whether justice is done, not in a particular case, but as to the general expenditure in Ireland. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us consolation, and told us, as balm in Gilead, that we had the income tax. He assured us that in Ireland we have certain allowances in respect of the income tax over and above those enjoyed in England; but I doubt that fact, and would like to have it ascertained. Altogether, I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed much philosophy in dwelling upon these small points when dealing with so grave a subject as that which was brought before him. I remember, when Earl Russell was a Member of this House, that he alluded to a Report which was laid on the table from a gentleman who was sent as a Commissioner to inquire into the cost of administering the Poor Law in Ireland. That cost was estimated at £300,000, but the Poor Law was scarcely imposed before it mounted up to £2,000,000 a year. That has been borne; and if you look to the general charges imposed on the country, my hon. and gallant Friend will, I think, be found to be substantially right in what he has asserted. We do not want to escape our proper burden; but we say that the facts which have been stated, and which cannot be controverted, demand investigation from the wisdom of this House.
  854
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the people must bear their share of burdens, and favoured us with several other political truisms on this question; but, I ask, what is the value of his statistics and of his political knowledge—what is the use of his political ability and of his position in the country, if the right hon. Gentleman can only sum up the taxis we pay, and tell us to be thankful? I do not think he made a single suggestion or held out a single hope. I could understand a Minister saying that an inquiry may be long or discursive, and that at this period of the Session we ought not to undertake it. He did not say that Committees of Inquiry have not been granted upon less important subjects. He did not say that it was not, right to send a Commissioner into Lancashire to find out means of employment for the people there; nor do I, because I think the exemplary conduct of the operatives demands our utmost, efforts to relieve their sufferings. Put I want to know, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposes the Motion, ought we not to have expected some hope, some suggestion—not in the shape of public money given as a boon, but as a principle of policy by which the resources of the country might be opened, and its prosperity encouraged? Put neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Chief Secretary seemed to have half an idea upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Returns about the sums deposited in the savings banks in every year except the two last years, which are the important periods, he talked about the increase of the growth of flax, but he suggested nothing. As the Minister has nothing to propose in the face of this important statement, verified by his own speech, what can we do but submit the case to the House, and ask whether a diminution in the population of two millions and a half—a rapidly increasing diminution, and a statement of figures such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid upon the table, do not deserve inquiry? A mere mention of taxation not pressed upon Ireland is no answer. You must regulate taxation according to the ability of the country to bear it. It is unwise to oppress the energies and exhaust the resources of a nation. I have now only to refer to two points brought into the discussion by the hon. Members for King's County and Kildare. The hon. Member for King's County finds the true source of the difficulty in the law of landlord and tenant. I think that is

  855
  a very small view to take of a very large question. He said that no Bill had been brought forward upon that subject, but scores of Bills of that kind would not lessen the existing distress. Then comes the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan), who has his nostrum, as the hon. Member for the King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) has his crotchet. The hon. Member for Kildare always starts the Church question, and says, "All will be right if we get rid of the Church." ["Hear, hear!"] I hear that cheer, but it is no argument. One hon. Gentleman has his crotchet about the law of landlord and tenant, and the other starts this crotchet of the Church. Now, there are a great number of acres of land belonging to the Church. I wanted to ascertain how many tenants of the Church had been able to save money enough to buy the fee simple of the land they rented under a wise Act of Parliament giving tenants of Church lands a right of preemption. Will the House believe that nearly two-thirds of the land has been bought by the tenants upon equitable terms? Will any hon. Gentleman who declaims against the Church give his tenants the benefit of the same just principle? I am sure that the tenants upon the remaining one-third of the Church land, if they could be questioned upon the subject, would implore the hon. Gentleman not to start up with that attack upon the Church. Now, we have heard of the grievance of the tithe rent charge. Two calculations have been sent to me of the amount paid by the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland, one shows the amount at £30,000, and the other £27,000. What does the House think of that as a grievance? If the charge were remitted, no tenant would gain the thousandth part of a farthing, and certainly upon the question of Irish distress the subject is out of place. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to introduce that question. He seems to think that we should apologize for being Protestants. ["No!"] He said, "You must not call us a Church, because the nation to all intents and purposes is Roman Catholic." That is a mistake. ["No!"] Well, that is a contradiction. I have had an opportunity of ascertaining the substance of the classification Returns of inhabitants and professions, which are not yet presented, and the Protestants are in a majority of two to one. A leading manufacturer in Ulster told me that in the whole
  856
  province there was not one employer of labour who was not a Protestant. But were the Roman Catholic labourers worse paid? No. The capital and skill of these men were employed to develop the resources of the whole country. I think, as the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland have all that they can fairly ask for—they have a great majority of the bench, the whole administration of justice is in their hands, they being in a minority of one-third—it is not fair nor generous to represent to the Parliament that they are suffering under a grievance. If you were to expel from Ireland all the Protestants, as some wish, you would have a very curious country left. Hon. Gentlemen should not say that they, the Roman Catholics, are exclusively the nation. No doubt the peasantry are mainly Roman Catholics, and no one laments more than I do that there is suffering among that class. Because Ulster is more prosperous, I do not shut my eyes to the distress in the west. You cannot have a prosperous country where one portion is flourishing and another is depressed. But although we are Protestants, and you cannot change us, still we mean well for our country; we have as great a stake in it as you Catholics have. It is because we wish well to our country that we desire to have an investigation into its condition conducted by impartial English Members, and therefore I think the matter of this Motion is deserving of the consideration of this House.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I do not intend, Sir, nor is at all necessary, that I should enter into the general question so ably brought under the notice of the House by my hon. and gallant Friend. It has been already so well dealt with by him and by other hon. Members, that it would be waste of time for me to do more than incidently notice one or two points in reference to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to represent that Ireland was relieved from a large amount of taxation which is imposed upon England. But the land tax of England has its full equivalent in the quit rents of Ireland; and the inhabited house-tax and the assessed taxes, if imposed on Ireland, would not produce more than about £50,000 each, or £100,000 on the whole. We are told by the same high authority that we obtain something like £1,500,000 a year from the Public Treasury. But £700,000 of that goes to the support of the Irish Police, which may be considered a force established as much

  857
  for Imperial as for local purposes—in fact, a local military force, taking the place of so much of the regular standing army. Now, one of the principal grievances of which Ireland has to complain, is this—that no portion of the public money is expended in that country. Why, for instance, is there not a naval dockyard in Queens-town. During the Crimean war, a sum of £800,000, or indeed nearly £1,000,000 was spent on Government works in the private dockyards of England and Scotland, while Queenstown was totally neglected, notwithstanding a promise made at the time of the Union, and repeatedly renewed afterwards, that a dockyard should be established there. It is not be much the pressure of Imperial taxation of which the Irish people complain as of the fact that her people have no share whatever of the public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appears to labour under the impression that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had become convinced that the statements repeatedly made by him as to the distress which he on several occasions represented as existing in various parts of Ireland were exaggerated and inaccurate; but the hon. Member for Dungarvan begs to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is not impressed by any such conviction, and that, on the contrary, he has been sustained by sufficient evidence as to the truth and accuracy of every statement which he made to the House. I believe that in all cases I was justified by the existing facts, and borne out by the strongest evidence. Take, for instance, the description which I gave of distress in the Union of Skibbereen. The statements I made were contested, and the distress denied; but I was afterwards fully vindicated by the official report of Mr. Horsley, the Poor Law Inspector. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), in referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Cogan), sought to misrepresent the feelings of the Catholics of Ireland towards their Protestant brethren. I, as an Irish Catholic, assert that the Catholics of Ire land entertain no feeling of ill-will and no feeling of jealousy towards the Protestants of Ireland. No doubt, I wish that all my countrymen were of the same religion as myself; but knowing that I cannot change Protestants into Catholics, I only beg am implore of Protestants that they will leave Catholics alone. The Catholics of Ireland would be quite satisfied to live in perfect
  858
  amity with the Protestants, if the Protestants—or rather a certain number of them—would not avail themselves of every miserable and wretched pretence to insult the feelings and attack the faith of the most helpless portion of the community. The right hon. Gentleman declared that he would not sacrifice or surrender a single iota of his opinion. I honour him for that declaration. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made the same statement, adding that it was not because he had assumed the office which he now holds that he was to surrender his religious opinions. Now, Sir, no one in Ireland wishes in any way to interfere with the opinions of the right hon. Baronet, or with the fitting expression of those opinions. He may hold any opinion he may please, without challenge or inquiry. But the right hon. Baronet ought to remember the delicate and responsible position in which he is placed, by his taking on himself a most important and critical office without having had any great experience of public duties. Having assumed that office, so full of responsibility, he was bound to be the more careful not to commit himself by any unhappy impulse. The conduct of the Irish Secretary is not one of the causes of the distress from which Ireland suffers, but it is one of those insults which is certainly an aggravation of her misery. As the Established Church has been referred to, I will only say this much in reference to it:—I do not believe it is the cause of the misery and wretchedness of Ireland. If I believed so, I should be an idiot. But I do say, its existence is a standing insult to the Catholics of Ireland, and a gross violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty. The right hon. Baronet the Irish Secretary, who attended the meeting of an aggressive body—a body aggressive to the religious faith of the Catholics of Ireland—says he went only to listen to what was to be said, and that he was impelled to go by his admiration of a work—Good News from Ireland. I assert that that pamphlet of the Rev. Mr. Garrett, which so charmed our Irish Secretary, is a mere trap for the religious credulity and fanaticism of England. I solemnly believe the whole thing a gigantic sham and humbug. I believe that a few men with white chokers find it to their advantage to keep up the delusion; and I deeply deplore that one of my countrymen, holding such a high position, and possessing such distinguished ability as the right

  859
  hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, should give his countenance and the prestige of his name to so miserable and contemptible an imposture. I shall read a passage from the account of the meeting of yesterday, as given in the Morning Advertiser of this day, that the House may judge of the harmless and innocent character of the society and the impartiality of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who virtually and really presides over the affairs of a country which, according to the last census, contained 4,500,000 of Roman Catholics—
  "The Rev. Mr. Garrett (the author of the pamphlet so much admired by the Chief Secretary) read a statement containing an account of the progress of the Church in West Connaught, and upholding the necessity of maintaining the warfare at present waging against the Church of Rome."
  The right hon. Baronet went to listen, but was induced to speak; and he took that fitting place and occasion of expressing his views upon this interesting topic. The right hon. Baronet made no reference by name to the Church of Rome. Not at all. But his allusions were not altogether a mystery. For instance, he contrasted the weapons used by the society, which he applauded, with those used by some other Church not mentioned. Weapons! Why, Sir, the weapons employed by this and similar societies are those from which every honourable mind shrinks with disgust—the weapons of force and corruption, and employed against the starving peasant to extort from him a nominal adhesion to a Church which in his inmost soul he abhors and detests. I would ask the House, and also the right hon. Baronet, what was the meaning of this allusion—
  "The weapons with which the society fought were not forged for the purpose of encroaching upon human thought, of usurping spiritual power or of defending ecclesiastical claims inconsistent with the interests of mankind."
  I ask, is not this the true cant style in which allusion is made to the Church of Rome? I do not object to any Gentleman holding that opinion of the Church of Rome; but I do not think it is manly in the Secretary for Ireland to hint his antagonism in that fashion to that Church, or to say afterwards that there was no allusion made to it. When first the right hon. Gentleman came to Ireland, he was guilty of more than one gross blunder. But the Irish people, who are a generous and for giving people, were forgetting and forgiving those blunders; and surely it is not a
  860
  wise and prudent course for the right hon. Baronet to back up, by the weight and authority of his official position, this aggression upon the feelings and faith of the Catholic people of the country. The hon. Member for Kildare is right in holding that a matter of this kind is one that affects the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, and the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues ought to have appreciated the grave indiscretion of which an Irish Secretary has been guilty, through the marked and impressive demonstration of indignation that came from the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, who have been the consistent supporters of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin says we cannot change the Protestants into Catholics. Let that be admitted; but neither can Catholics be changed into Protestants, and therefore the best and wisest thing which each can do, is to respect the faith and honour the fidelity of the other. I do appeal to English Gentlemen, and say—if you tax us, allow us at least to enjoy our religion free from these shameful encroachments—do not bring the power of English gold and the aid of organized fanaticism and hypocrisy for the futile purpose of endeavouring to undermine the faith which is deeply implanted in the heart of the humblest peasant who treads the soil of Ireland. I will say to my own countrymen also—let them abandon and discountenance these wretched proceedings, as the only and true means of establishing Christian peace, and knitting together the hearts of all men in amity and concord, whether they kneel at different altars, or adore their God with different forms. I may add that it is my intention to bring before the House on the 23rd inst., a Motion upon the tenant question, when I undertake to prove that the miserable condition of the agricultural classes is the main cause of the misery of the country. In conclusion I beg to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Queen's County, for the care and trouble he has devoted to the subject which he has brought with such ability before the House.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would also support the Motion, not for the reasons stated, but because the reasons alleged had been so clearly and distinctly answered. He thought it desirable to give the promoters of the inquiry, in the calmness and quiet of a committee-room, the opportunity

  861
  of proving their statements, so that the Committee might arrive at some result that would guide the deliberations of that House. It was the height of absurdity to attribute the misery of Ireland to the existence of the Protestant Church in that country. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had never uttered a word offensive to the religious feelings of the Roman Catholics, but what he had ever contended for was that it was most anomalous and improper that this great Protestant kingdom should contribute pecuniarily and otherwise to the support and encouragement of a religion which its members believed to be opposed to the constitution of the country and dangerous to freedom. He thought that every possible effort should be made to reclaim Roman Catholics, not so much from their religion, but to their allegiance to the sovereign, because it was his conviction that the teaching of the priesthood in Ireland was wholly inconsistent with that loyalty which the Irish, as a portion of the United Kingdom, owed to her Majesty.
  LORD NAASsaid, he did not wish, in the slightest degree, to deny the existence of distress in Ireland. No one knew of its existence better than he did. The class of small farmers never were poorer than at the present moment. For the last three years their distress, poverty, and suffering had been very great; but he could not see how the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry at that period of the Session could have any effect in relieving that distress. The question was a very large one, the inquiry must necessarily be conducted in a very hurried manner, and could only hold out false hopes. He agreed that the whole question of relative taxation as regards England and Ireland deserved inquiry and revision; but they had acted for a great number of years on the principle that equality of taxation over all portions of the United Kingdom should be the rule. If, therefore, they proposed to reverse that rule, they must consider the very complicated question of the whole financial policy since the Union. Such an inquiry at that period of the Session would be perfectly futile. He did not see that distress was indissolubly connected with taxation. The two questions were distinct, though both deserved inquiry. He should have voted for the appointment of the Committee if it had been moved at the commencement of the Session; but if pressed to a division, he must vote against
  862
  it, because, although he believed that distress was very great in Ireland, and that that country was undergoing a severe trial, he did not think that anything the Committee could recommend would have the effect of mitigating the distress, but would rather give rise to hopes which could not be realized.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he rose to protest against the introduction of the religions element into a discussion on Irish distress. That subject had always been the bane of everything connected with Ireland, and therefore he thought the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the religions element into that discussion had incurred a heavy responsibility. If it was necessary to discuss that question, it should be properly introduced, and he trusted that he should be able to adduce good reasons—at least, they were satisfactory to his own conscience—to show that it was for the good of Ireland that the Irish Church should be maintained with its temporalities. The name of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had, he understood, been introduced into the discussion as having attended a religious meeting, but he thought the explanation which his right hon. Friend had given on the subject was perfectly satisfactory. He had himself received an invitation to attend that very meeting, which he had declined, as he must say he lamented the existence of such societies as that with which it was connected. They did, he thought, infinite mischief to the country, and, he had no hesitation in saying, prevented and would prevent, in his opinion, the advance of Protestantism in Ireland.
  COLONEL DUNNE,in reply, said, that as a Committee appointed at that late period of the Session could scarcely be expected to be productive of any very useful result, he should, upon that ground, not press his Motion to a division.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

CASE OF SERGEANT MAJOR LILLET.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have to make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham). I understand that he has given notice of his intention to call attention to the circumstances connected with the transaction which was the subject of a discussion the

  863
  other evening, in which Colonel Crawley was concerned. My noble Friend the Under Secretary for War, in the course of his statement the other night, said there were circumstances still under consideration connected with Colonel Crawley's conduct which might lead to subsequent measures. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief has determined that there are circumstances connected with the case which will render it justifiable and require that the conduct of Colonel Crawley shall be submitted to a court martial. That being the case, and judicial proceedings being determined upon, I would submit to my hon. Friend whether it would not be better that no discussion should take place upon the subject, which, by eliciting opinions favourable or adverse to the person implicated, might in some degree tend to interfere with the course of justice in regard to the case.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he should have great pleasure in acceding to the request of the noble Lord, but that he thought the case of Sergeant Major Lilley was merely part of a larger question which involved the court-martial held on Paymaster Smales at Mhow. It was only that very day that he had received many of the documents connected with that proceeding, and he must observe, that while the noble Lord the Under Secretary for War had the other evening expressed his regret that he could not deliver up to the House a victim, he was unwilling, having made himself acquainted with the details given in these papers, to rest satisfied with simply being presented with a scapegoat. In his opinion, it was not Colonel Crawley only who was compromised in the matter. Two general officers in India, the Commander-in-Chief in India, as well as the Commander-in-Chief of the British army and other officials at the Horse Guards, were also deeply and gravely implicated. Was it not monstrous, he would ask, that Paymaster Smales of the 6th Dragoons, for writing what was characterized as an insubordinate letter—the insubordination of which was, he must confess, to him by no means so patent as had been stated—should have been sent before a court-martial in the manner in which he had been, without any previous investigation, and the witnesses actually impounded who were in readiness to support his case? Why, the whole proceeding was perfectly disgraceful.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he rose to order.
  864
  The hon. Gentleman had simply given notice of his intention to bring under the consideration of the House the case of Sergeant Major Lilley, and under those circumstances it was not open to him to discuss the case of the court martial held on Paymaster Smales, with reference to which he had no given no notice, and of the proceedings of which the House had no record.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, in his opinion, his hon. Friend was not out of order in adopting the course which he had taken. The real question at issue was whether Sir Hugh Rose was to be supported by the Horse Guards or not.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he could not support the call to order which had just been made. He thought there was nothing in the language of the hon. Member for Brighton contrary to the rules of the House.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon was entirely in accordance with the whole conduct of the military authorities in the cause to which he was drawing attention. They were all for suppression; but so long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he would not allow so monstrous an outrage to be perpetrated without protesting against it. In the name of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and private soldiers of the British army, he demanded that justice should be done, even though the persons to whom blame attached in the transaction were general officers, and included among the number his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief of the army. ["Oh! oh!"] It had been said that the House of Commons was a house of colonels, and one would think from the groans of those who sat opposite that their sympathies were enlisted on the side of men who had, deliberately and in cold blood, acted in the manner to which he was about more particularly to advert. The question was one in which he thought the House was bound to interfere. He might be told it was merely a question of discipline, and that the poor paymaster, who had been tried by court martial, might be crushed with impunity; but he ventured to maintain, that when the details of the court martial were brought to light, its decision would not be confirmed by public opinion in this country. By a brief reference to those details, he hoped to satisfy the House that the justice of the case called for a rigid and searching investigation of the conduct

  865
  of the distinguished officers to whom he alluded. He would summon his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief himself to the bar of a tribunal, where he would be judged not, perhaps, by his equals, but by those who would not stand by and see injustice done, though screened by great names. The Commander-in-Chief, with the strangest weakness, had altered his first decison, and had determined that Colonel Crawley should be brought before a court martial. He had by that act condemned himself. What was the nature of the charge based upon the letter addressed by Paymaster Smales to Colonel Crawley? He would read an extract from that letter—
  "Mhow, February 26, 1862.
  "Sir,—Your recent proceedings towards me will, I trust, be an apology for my troubling you with a respectful remonstrance, while at the same time I submit to you that my position has now become one of so painful a character, owing to the line of conduct you pursue towards me, that I feel bound to appeal to the higher authorities."
  COLONEL NORTH:—I must rise to order. I would ask whether it is fair that the hon. Member should produce the proceedings of a court martial about which the House knows nothing? No one has learnt with more horror than I did the painful circumstances connected with these transactions. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to the matter of order.
  COLONEL NORTH: I wish to know, Sir, whether it is competent for the hon. Member for Brighton to read the record of proceedings about which we know nothing, and of which no one can have the means of answering him?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already said that the mere fact of the hon. Member not having included this subject on his notice does not place him out of order, it is perfectly competent for him to bring a matter of this kind before the House without notice, on the Motion for going into Supply.
  GENERAL PEEL: What I asked was, whether the hon. Gentleman had a right to quote from a document not in possession of the House. ["Order!"]
  MR. CONINGHAMcontinued: He would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Minister of the Crown was in possession—or ought to be—of all the correspondence on the subject. But to return to passages from Paymaster Smales's letter, to which he wished to
  866
  refer. The writer spoke of Colonel Crawley's personal animosity towards him, and submitted to his consideration whether his respectful conduct towards his commanding officer was reciprocated by that officer's conduct towards himself. The letter went on in the same respectful tone, but he would content himself by simply reading the portions mentioned in the charge against Captain Smales. Captain Smales was arraigned for insubordination, in having written an official letter to his commanding officer containing "false and malicious statements" against him—such as, that he had almost systematically absented himself from the monthly muster of the regiment; that notwithstanding his absence on certain occasions, he had signed the adjutant's roll, as if he had been present; and that the sentiments he had expressed more than once to the officers under his command were anything but conciliatory in their tendency. When put upon his trial, Paymaster Smales brought forward a solemn protest against the legality of the proceedings taken against him, and in that protest he submitted that Her Majesty's regulations—clearly laying down that all charges preferred against an officer were to be previously examined by superior authority, to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence to substantiate them or not—had been violated to his prejudice; for he had been accused of making false and malicious statements, without any reference being made to him as to the evidence he was prepared to adduce in support of them, and without his being allowed an opportunity of proving his accusation against Colonel Crawley, before the counter charge, based upon ex parte evidence and Colonel Crawley's own simple denial, was preferred against himself. The protest also alleged that Colonel Crawley sought to smother the accusation made against himself in the first instance by bringing a counter charge against his accuser; and that he could not be heard while Colonel Crawley appeared as a prosecutor and he as a prisoner. He submitted, on the quotations he had made from the protest of Paymaster Smales, and on the facts which were known to the public, and which were corroborated by the memorandum issued by the Horse Guards, that the mere trial of Colonel Crawley would not meet the justice of the case. A searching investigation should be instituted into the conduct of the distinguished officers in India who were too

  867
  deeply mixed up in these transactions. It was idle to attempt to burke an inquiry which was required in the interest of the British army, for the House might depend upon it, that if non-commissioned officers were liable to be treated as Sergeant Major Lilley and his comrades had been treated, with the sanction of high military authorities, there would be great dissatisfaction throughout the ranks of the service. The delinquents, no matter how eminent their position or how high their birth, should be made to feel that they could not escape from justice. He appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government not to make a scapegoat of Colonel Crawley; but enforcing his authority to the utmost limit, to order an immediate investigation into the conduct of every one concerned in this discreditable and disgraceful affair.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that although Mr. Speaker had decided that the hon. Member for Brighton was in order in the observations he had addressed to the House, there would, he thought, be hardly any difference of opinion as to the good taste displayed by the hon. Gentleman in his remarks upon the trial of Paymaster Smales. The notice given by the hon. Member was to call attention to the memorandum of the Commander-in-Chief on the case of Sergeant Major Lilley. Now, it was perfectly true that the case of Sergeant Major Lilley arose out of the circumstances which occurred on the trial of Paymaster Smales, and it might, therefore, be proper to have a discussion upon that trial, although he doubted whether the House of Commons was a proper place for the discussion of details connected with the discipline of the army; but he was perfectly sure that the hon. Member for Brighton, especially considering the terms of his notice, had no right to enter into statements affecting the character of officers who were not present to defend themselves. For example, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was not present, and those whose business it would be to defend him in that, House had not had an opportunity of preparing themselves to repel any charge which might be made against him. He therefore entirely declined to follow the hon. Gentleman in his observations upon the trial of Paymaster Smales and the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief in India or England in sanctioning the proceedings and finding of the court martial. All he would say was
  868
  that in his judgment—and he was corroborated by the opinion of the Judge Advocate General—the letter of Paymaster Smales was a document highly insubordinate in his character, and that it fully warranted his dismissal from the regiment. He was at a loss to discover the grounds of the violent attack made by the hon. Member on the Commander-in-Chief, for the fact was, that the finding of the court martial in the case of Paymaster Smales never came before His Royal Highness for his sanction at all, it being a matter which rested solely with the Commander-in-Chief in India. In his memorandum His Royal Highness made, as he was entitled to do, such observations as appeared to him proper upon the state of discipline in the regiment as disclosed in the proceedings before the court martial, but he did not interfere with the finding of the court. The House had already been informed of the grounds upon which the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War thought it impossible to bring Colonel Crawley to trial for the illegal arrest of Sergeant Major Lilley, or to proceed against the general officers in any other way than by calling their attention to the illegality of their conduct. There were certain circumstances connected with the arrest of Sergeant Major Lilley, for which Colonel Crawley had not received the sanction of his commanding officers, and which materially affected his conduct. The hon. Member said he did not want either a victim or a scapegoat, and that it would not be satisfactory to him that Colonel Crawley should be brought to a court martial. It might not be satisfactory to him, but he thought that the course which the Commander-in-Chief had resolved to adopt would be satisfactory to every hon. Member of that House whose object was to see the discipline of the army maintained. It was stated, and he believed truly, that Sergeant Major Lilley was confined in a manner which was not only severe, but cruel. Colonel Crawley denied that he was responsible for that cruelty, and threw the blame upon Captain Fitz Symons. Captain Fitz Symons had made a distinctly opposite allegation, and it had therefore appeared to the authorities that discipline and justice, and even fairness to Colonel Crawley, required that he should be summoned before a court martial, which should decide who was responsible for his cruelty. He would not further follow the observations of the hon. Member for Brighton, but he

  869
  fully concurred in the observations of the noble Lord, that it was most improper and undesirable that when a judicial inquiry was about to take place there should be warm and excited discussions in that House, which could not fail to affect the impartiality of the tribunal which was to try the question.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that he had risen to order because he thought that it was most unfair to Colonel Crawley, with whom he had no acquaintance whatever, that matters which were about to be inquired into by a court martial should be made the subject of discussion in that House, and he was surprised that the hon. Member for Brighton, who was himself an old soldier, should not have taken the same view of the case. No one had heard of these occurrences, in one of the finest regiments of the service, with greater astonishment and regret than he had; and he could only say, that if a commanding officer, who had power to make his regiment the most comfortable and pleasant of homes, made it a hell upon earth, the sooner he was dismissed the better. At present, however, they did not know that Colonel Crawley had done so. They were in perfect ignorance of the facts. The hon. Gentleman had read extracts from the proceedings of the court martial, but he believed that no other hon. Member had had an opportunity of seeing them. The Commander-in-Chief in India was one of his oldest and dearest friends, and he was convinced that in the view which he had taken of the finding of the court martial he had been guided solely by a desire to secure the interest, the discipline, and the honour of the army. The Commander-in-Chief in India was entirely independent of the Commander-in-Chief in this country, and he regretted that the hon. Gentleman should the other night have been so anxious to cast obloquy upon His Royal Highness as to attack him without hearing the noble Lord who had come down to the House to explain the Memorandum which the hon. Gentleman now called in question.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought, if gross outrages were committed it was the duty of hon. Members, if requested to do so, to make in that House the statements of officers who were aggrieved. The general opinion of his military friends was that the state of this regiment was such as to render it necessary that the Horse Guards should make some change in its administration.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot help expressing my great regret at the course which my hon. Friend (Mr. Coningham) has adopted. He professes to stand up for justice, but he has himself been guilty of the grossest injustice, and has launched out into abuse and condemnation of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief without the slightest ground or reason. I am quite sure, at least I hope, that when he returns to the calm state of mind in which I hope that he will find himself in the morning, and reads the expressions in which, in the heat and warmth of debate, taking the part of his friend, Paymaster Smales—[Mr. CONINGHAM: He is no friend of mine]—he has indulged, in reference to his Royal Highness, he will feel regret for what he has said. The Duke of Cambridge stands too high in the estimation of the country and of the army for the admirable attention which he has paid to the interests of the service, and the justice with which he has acted in all that concerns the conduct of the army, to have his character or reputation in the least degree affected by the censures of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton; but I felt that I should not have performed my duty if I had not animadverted upon the course which my hon. Friend has thought fit to take. I can assure him that I regret very much that expressions have fallen from him which will do no discredit to his Royal Highness, against whom they were directed, but will not do much credit to him in the opinion of a discerning and just public.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought that the course taken and the language used by the hon. Member for Brighton were enough to satisfy the House of the prudence of the advice given to him by the noble Lord. The hon. Member had really attempted to make the House of Commons a court of appeal from the decision of a court martial, selected, no doubt, with a due reference to the characters of the officers composing it, and having the evidence before it. That was a more serious matter than the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. Their empire in India depended upon the efficiency and discipline of the army, which would not long be maintained if every time there was a regimental court martial an appeal was to be made to that House to reverse its decision. The hon. Member had strongly condemned the conduct of Sir Hugh Rose, but had not condescended upon any particulars. He should

  871
  like to know in what respect that most distinguished and gallant officer had failed in his duty to the public or the army. The proceedings of the court martial were submitted to him, and he himself passed an opinion upon them, as he was bound to do. A more unwise, more imprudent, more unfair, and more harsh course than that taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton could not well be adopted. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had taken what every one must regard as a very proper course, and in justice to Colonel Crawley, who was an old servant of Her Majesty of thirty or forty years' standing, the public were bound to wait and see if he could clear himself from the imputations which behind his back had been so lavishly cast upon him.

CASE OF CAPTAIN MELVILLE WHITE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the hon. Member for Brighton had not concluded his glowing statement with any Motion; and therefore as the discussion could not lead to any practical result, he believed he should be acting in accordance with the wishes of the House in bringing forward his own Question, which stood next upon the paper. Not seeing the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, perhaps the noble Lord at the head of the Government would have no objection to say, Whether any answer had been received from the Peruvian Government to the communication made about six weeks ago regarding Captain Melville White; and to what friendly Power, in case the reply was not satisfactory, Captain White's claims were to be referred?
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Supply considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BRUCE, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under the Local Government Act (1858), ordered to be brought in by Mr. BRUCE and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 165.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Officers of Royal Naval Reserve* (No. 131); Statute Law Revision (No. 133).
Second Reading—London Coal and Wine Duties* (No. 104).
Committee—Redemption of Rents (Ireland) (Nos. 110 & 134).
Report—Duchy of Cornwall Management (No. 135).

REVISION OF THE STATUTE LAW.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY:* My Lords, I rise for the purpose of laying on the table of the House a Bill for the revision and expurgation of the Statute Law, from the earliest commencement of our recorded legislation down to the beginning of the eighteeenth century; the legislation, in fact, of about 500 years. Before I explain the provisions of my Bill, I would ask your Lordships to favour me with your patient and indulgent attention, while I offer some observations on the present state and condition of the Statute and Common Law. I will endeavour to speak in plain and simple language, avoiding the ordinary reproach of the lawyer that his words are taken from the vocabulary of his art. I solicit the attention of all your Lordships, as statesmen rather than as lawyers, because I feel convinced that the amendment of the law has suffered greatly from the circumstance of its being generally supposed that the subject belongs to lawyers exclusively. A great philosopher, who was also a great lawyer, has said:—"Jurisconsulti tanquam e vinculis sermo-cinantur." Lawyers, when speaking of legislation, discourse in chains and shackles; and what are they? They are the professional prejudices, the narrow horizon within which their views are bounded, and their blunted sensibility to evils with which they have been long familiar. But the same great author, Lord Bacon, treating of the
  776
  knowledge and handling of these subjects, says:—
  "Certe cognitio ista ad viros civiles propria spectat,"—adding, in language which I am happy to say is applicable to many of your Lordships, "qui optime norunt quid ferat societas humana, quid salus populi, quid æquitas naturalis, quid gentium mores, quid rerumpublicarum formæ diversæ, ideoque possint de legibus ex principiis et præceptis tarn æquitatis naturalis quam politices decernere."
  Your Lordships are aware that the law of England is commonly divided into the written and unwritten law. The written is the Statute Law, and the Common Law is described as the unwritten law of the land.
  The Statute Law is in a great measure supplemental to the Common Law, and a knowledge of the Common is necessary in order to enable a man to read and understand the Statute Law. The Common Law is traditionary—it is supposed to reside in the breasts of the Judges; and, accordingly, when it is necessary to ascertain it in this House, your Lordships require the attendance of the Judges, who are called upon to declare what that law is. In like manner, in the great court of equity to which belongs that large portion of natural justice which is ignored by the Common Law Courts, the Lord Chancellor originally had the power of determining what should constitute the rule of equity. This is, undoubtedly, a dangerous and a difficult trust. It is little less than legislative power, because the sources of the decision are of the most varied and uncertain description. Of the Common Law, much, no doubt, consisted originally of customs and usages, recorded only in the memories of men; much, of rules embodied in acts of the Great Council, of which no record now exists; much was derived from the civil law, relics of the old Roman jurisprudence, which remained so long throughout the land; and much was deduced from general maxims and principles handed down from one generation of lawyers to another. Thus the sources of the Common Law were in ancient times of the most indefinite character, and the power or liberty of judicial decision was equally unlimited. In the old time it was impossible to know what the law was until it was declared. The Judges were not only legislators, but the worst of legislators—legislators ex post facto.
  Consequently, at an early period, it was deemed necessary, for the protection of liberty, and in order to get some kind of

  777
  approach to uniformity, constancy, and regularity in the law, that the grounds and reasons of the Judges' decisions should be given. At first an attempt was made to do so by entering the reasons for the judgments in the rolls of the court; and our Court Rolls, preserved from the time of Richard I., contain repeatedly the reasons for the decisions and sentences In the reign of Edward I. the practice of reporting the decisions of the Judges began, and from that period we have a series of judicial reports of those decisions. That was a great security, because it was an approach to certainty in the law. It introduced the practice of appealing to former decisions as authority for the determination of similar cases, and thus originated that distinctive peculiarity of the English mind—the love of precedent, a love of appealing to the authority of past examples rather than of indulging in abstract reasoning. This was the only mode in which the Common Law was recorded, and the only mode in which it became known. These reports were kept for a considerable period of time under the superintendence of the judges themselves, and great care was taken in sifting and ascertaining the proper grounds of decision. The evil was therefore comparatively little; but in course of time, as the Reports multiplied, and as the personal superintendence and care of the judges were withdrawn, there being no provision for revising and digesting the Reports from time to time, great complaints began to arise; and so much inconvenience was felt, that as early as the time of Lord Bacon it became a subject of general dissatisfaction, and led to his publishing his celebrated proposal for the compiling and amendment of the law of England. I must admit—and perhaps in stating this I shall best recommend myself to your Lordships—that what I propose will do little, if anything, more than revive the proposal of that great man. The wisdom and excellence of that proposal have been admitted from age to age; and the fact that nothing has been done to give effect to it we must attribute to the singular inertia that characterizes the English Legislature. Lord Bacon himself says—
  "The common law of England is no text law, but the substance of it consisteth in the series and succession of judicial acts, which from time to time have been set down in the Reports; so that as these Reports are more or less perfect, the law itself is more or less certain, and indeed better or worse; whereupon a conclusion may be made, that
  778
  it is hardly possible to confer upon this kingdom a greater benefit than that these books should be purged and revised, whereby they may be reduced to fewer volumes and clearer Resolutions."
  In the time of Lord Bacon these Reports extended to, at the utmost, fifty or sixty volumes. During the 250 years that have passed since then nothing has been done in the way of revision or expurgation; but these fifty or sixty volumes have grown to between 1,100 and 1,200 volumes. Nay more, at this time there are at least forty or fifty distinct sets of Reports pouring their streams into the immense reservoir of law, and creating what can hardly be described, but may be denominated a great chaos of judicial legislation. The evil arising from this is manifest. As it existed in his time, it was described by King James I. in two speeches in 1607 and 1609, which to some extent may warrant his claim to the title of a wise king. Speaking at Whitehall in March 1607, he said—
  "Where there is a varietie and uncertaintie, although a just judge may do rightly, yet an ill judge may take advantage to do wrong, and then are all honest men that succeed him tied in a manner to his unjust and partial conclusions. Wherefore leave not the law to the pleasure of the judge. It were less hurt that all the approved cases were set down and allowed by Parliament for standing laws in all time to come.'
  And again, in 1609, he refers to the subject in these words—
  "Though it be true that no text of law can be so certain, wherein the circumstances will not make a variation in the case, &c. yet could I wish that some more certainty were set down in this case by Parliament, for since the very reports themselves are not always so binding but that divers times Judges do disclaim them, and recede from the judgment of their predecessors, it were good that upon a mature deliberation the exposition of the law were set down by Act of Parliament, and such reports therein confirmed as were thought fit to serve for law in all times hereafter, and so the people should not depend upon the bare opinions of judges and uncertain reports."
  Now, if that difficulty was felt then, and I think justly felt, your Lordships will at once understand how infinitely greater are the difficulty and the evil existing at the present time. The Reports are published without any judicial control or sanction, nor is there any provision to secure correctness or security against error; but as soon as a Report is published of any case, with the name of a banister annexed to it, the Report is accredited, and may be cited as an authority before any tribunal. The evil resulting from this state of things is, as to great part of it, sufficiently obvious, but it cannot be fully apprehended without

  779
  adverting to the authority which is sometimes conceded, and sometimes denied, to a reported case, according to the practice of our courts of justice.
  If, therefore, your Lordships will indulge me with your attention for a few moments, I will describe the exact value, authority, and weight which reported decisions—that is to say, precedents—have by the rules of English law, and the manner in which their authority is sometimes admitted to almost an extravagant extent, and at other times denied, in courts of justice. The law on the subject may be explained in Very few words, both with regard to the authority of decisions in similar cases, and their authority for the purpose of determining new cases when they arise. Lord Coke says, "Our book cases are the best proofs of what the law is." Chief Justice Best says, "The judgments of the Courts of Westminster Hall are the only authority that We have for by far the greater part of the law of England." Chief Justice Tindal, an honoured name, in a Very recent case in this House, said, "Decisions of the Courts of Common Law are at once the best expositors, and the surest evidence of the Common Law itself." The doctrine of Mr. Justice Blackstone is that precedents and rules must be followed, unless they are flatly absurd and unjust. An ornament of your Lordship's House, whom, as he is not present, I may name, Lord Wensleydale, says—
  "In our system of judicature we are bound by precedents, and by the authority of previous cases, unless they are plainly and manifestly founded on erroneous principles."
  Now, I beg the House to observe the enormous amount of uncertainty which is contained in these enunciations of the mode of ascertaining the law, particularly when it depends upon a rule being extracted from a number of varying and discordant cases. The rule of the great commentator is, that a precedent may be rejected when it is absurd and unjust. The rule of Lord Wensleydale is, that precedents must be followed, unless they re plainly founded on erroneous principles. The result, therefore, is, that each succeeding Judge has it in his power to determine what is absurd, what is unjust, what is the measure of erroneous principle. Nor is this the only evil inherent in the present system, for there is another necessarily inherent also, and it is this—in the language of Lord Bacon—that the unlearned age governs the more learned, be-
  780
  cause you take your rule as it is laid down in an early and undeveloped stage of society, and you are compelled to abide by that rule, if, for instance, it has regulated the disposition of property, until the Legislature intervenes to rescue the law from the necessity of following that which is often unreasonable and absurd. But the contradiction and anomaly do not end there, as I will render plain to your Lordships by citing one or two instances of the manner in which decided cases are occasionally dealt with by courts of justice. We have all heard the vulgar phrase "the glorious uncertainty of the law." It is the common opprobium of our system, which has passed into a proverb, and the saying has taken its rise in the fact that no man can tell with certainty whether a particular case which he finds recorded, and which is supposed to govern the particular case in which he is interested, will or will not be followed by the Judges. Now, let me justify these words by some examples which I have taken without much research, and as they came immediately to hand. Others more striking, I dare say, might easily be found. The Court of Queen's Bench in 1801, when it was constituted of Judges of great reputation, speaking of a single case which had been decided by the same court only three years before, disapproved it, and yet considered the case before them as concluded by its authority, and that the matter having passed in rem judicatam, the merits could not now be entered into. On another occasion Lord Ellenborough said, "With a decided case exactly in point, it would be extraordinary if we were to apply a different rule of construction, although, if it were to be decided now for the first time, I should not think that decision right." In many instances the language is, "It is better stare decisis; the very case has already been determined." Lord Eldon says, "Where there is a decision precisely in point it is better to follow it." In a multitude of cases the authority of a single case, though not fully approved, has governed judicial decisions. The language used is, "Although if the matter were res integra, it might admit of difficulty;" or "although the doctrine is not founded on good sense," or "not bottomed in reason," or "although the Court cannot approve or cannot understand the reasons," yet the authority of the case must be followed; and courts ought no longer to reason on the rule but adhere to it. On the

  781
  other hand, a single case is frequently overruled, although it is declared that "no case can be entitled to more respect," or that it is a case to which "the Court looks with great respect," or that it is "a deliberate judgment," or because "the Court cannot conceive the principles upon which the decision is founded." Sometimes the Court says of a decided case that it stands altogether by itself, and sometimes the antecedent decision is tossed aside in a rude manner, as where Lord Ellenborough says, "The case referred to has had its day, and it is time it should case."
  These things are not to be lightly regarded, because your Lordships will be kind enough to remember what is the position of the lawyer who is called upon for his opinion. A case is laid by a client before his adviser. The latter searches in his books of precedents. He finds that a particular case has been decided which he thinks will govern the one submitted to him, and he gives his opinion accordingly. Then he goes into court, and finds, to his astonishment, that the case may be treated either for or against his client, in the manner I have described; the result being that it is impossible to predicate with any degree of satisfaction or of certainty beforehand what will be the issue of a cause. Now, is that a condition in which the law of the land should stand? Is this a condition in which what is denominated a science should be permitted to remain?
  But there is a further and a great peculiarity in the law of England, which is this:—By a legal fiction it is supposed that the law contains within itself the materials for the decision of every case, however novel in its circumstances; and, accordingly, when the Judges have a new-case before them, they do not profess to arrive at the law by reasoning, by theory, or by philosophical inquiry, but they profess to discover it by searching among the records of former decisions for cases which are supposed to be analogous to the case before them; and they derive from these analogies the rule which they desire for the determination of the particular case. I will refer your Lordships to the words of two of our most eminent Judges, explanatory of the mode of reasoning adopted by them for the determination of new cases It was described by Lord Chief Justice Tindal in an elaborate case which occurred in your Lordships' House, where the circumstances were new, and the relation had not previously existed, and accord-
  782
  ingly where new principles and modes of interpretation had to be discovered. On that occasion he said—
  "I think it a safer course on this occasion, as I find has been the opinion of other Judges from the earliest period of the law, to adhere to any rule that can be inferred from the cases, rather than to institute another, although another rule may appear upon general principles more reasonable and just."
  No doubt Lord Chief Justice Tindal spoke in the spirit of the law in which he had been educated, and which he was bound to administer. But I leave it to your Lordships to consider whether it be advisable to continue to grope among the records of ancient eases until you find something similar; and to adopt new rules—not existing rules, be it observed—but new rules by inference from old cases, although other rules would "appear upon general principles more reasonable and just." Lord Wensleydale followed the Chief Justice, and he described the mode of procedure in new cases in these words—
  "This case, therefore, is in some sense new, as many others are which continually occur; but we have no right to consider it, because it is new, as one for which the law has not provided at all; or, because it has not yet been decided, to decide it for ourselves according to our own judgment of what is just and expedient. Our common law system consists in applying to new combinations of circumstances those rules of law which we derive from legal principles and judicial precedents; and, for the sake of attaining uniformity, consistency, and certainty, we must apply those rules, when they are not plainly unreasonable and inconvenient, to all eases which arise."
  We are therefore led, whenever society gives birth to new combinations of circumstances, to the obligation of finding the rules which are applicable from such analogies as can be drawn from previous decided cases. Let your Lordships bear in mind the huge bulk of these eleven hundred volumes, and observe what an uncertain task it must be to find out from the chaos the materials for decisions on new cases. It is impossible to tell beforehand what may be the decision.
  But a judicial opinion is also a legislative enactment. It decides a particular case, and it sets a precedent for all future cases. Therefore the Judges become legislators—legislators ex arbitrio; and, with this vast variety of material from which to select, what an impossibility for any one to ascertain beforehand the nature of the law that will be enacted. This is no idle statement or exaggerated picture. Let me bring it home to all your Lordships recollections by a simple narrative of what

  783
  occurred the other day. Tour Lordships remember, when the railway mania was rife, numerous companies were formed. Each company was initiated or formed by a provisional committee, who were appointed to take the necessary steps to bring the scheme into practical operation. Liabilities were incurred to a large extent, services were performed, goods were ordered, lawyers and surveyors were employed, and the liabilities of these committeemen were very serious. Many persons who had merely lent their names because they had been solicited to do so, found that actions were brought against them, although they had not participated in the acts which led to the debts for which they were sued. It was a new case; and the question arose, How was it to be dealt with? For years it was held that the only analogy to this system was that of partnership, and therefore, as a provisional committee most resembled a partnership, all the rules applicable to partnership were applied to these provisional committeemen. As we know, one partner is the agent of, and may bind another partner in all matters relating to the partnership; consequently it was held that the provisional committeemen who concurred in giving orders, did by those acts bind other committeemen who knew nothing of the transaction. The result was that hundreds were ruined. The liabilities thus created were of enormous extent, and many persons were obliged to leave the country; but at last it occurred to an eminent Judge, a Member of your Lordships' House, to question the analogy, and then it turned out that there was nothing of legal resemblance between a provisional committee and a partnership. Then happened that is continually occurring in this country. There was a flow of the tide one way, to be succeeded by a revulsion another way, and the refluent wave consequent upon the alteration of the judicial decision, in its turn, brought ruin to many who had trusted to the former exposition of the law. That is an example of the evil consequences of men being left without rudder, without light, without compass or chart, in traversing the immense sea of judicial precedent whenever a new combination of circumstances arises.
  But those among your Lordships who are thoroughly conversant with the subject—and they are many—will perceive the gross logical error committed by lawyers in the use of the word analogy.
  784
  Analogy, as your Lordships well know, means equality of ratios, the sameness of two relations; and thus, if one relation be well known, it may serve to explain the other which is less known. Objections, therefore, in the relation which is less known, may be repelled by showing that they do not hold good in the relation which is well known. Such is the correct use of analogy in Bishop Butler's celebrated work. But in the vocabulary of the lawyer analogy means nothing but "resemblance," and when he has found or fancied two things to be like one another, he calls them analogous, and treats them as subject to the same rules. Thus, in the case I have cited, a provisional committee was supposed to be like a partnership, and immediately the incidents of partnership were transferred to it. The reversionary interest of a married woman in stock held by her trustee was supposed to resemble what is called at law chose en action, and accordingly the properties of a chose en action were applied to it, to the great inconvenience of the community. Hence it is that Paley has described the pleading of lawyers as "a competition of" (falsely-styled) "analogies.
  These dangers and fallacies in legal reasoning, both in argument and decision, are greatly augmented by the circumstance that the materials for competition and argument are of that loose, indefinite, and uncertain character which I have described. But even that is not the full extent of the evil. It is not merely that the materials are of this indefinite extent; it is not merely that the application of them is so uncertain; it is not only that they are sometimes weighed in one scale and sometimes in another, but there exists in English law a peculiarity which it will surprise your Lordships to know. That which is known and published and accepted, may be nullified by that which was wholly unknown until it is produced and applied. It is competent to counsel when arguing, and for the Judge when deciding, to produce a mere manuscript decision, something that has never been printed or published, and which no one has ever heard of before. The advocate produces it from his pocket-book, or the judge produces it from his pocket-book, and that is the law of England. So, when a case has been considered and is mature for decision, proceeding upon authorities printed and known to all, suddenly there is produced some manuscript and unknown case, by which former

  785
  opinions are subverted, and the Judge yields to the force of this new discovery. Surely no one thinks that the law of England ought to remain in the state which I have described. In what way, then, is the change to be made? I intend to take Lord Bacon as my guide in his proposal to amend the laws of England, who describes exactly the work which it is my hope I shall be enabled to initiate, and which it will be the fortune of those who succeed me to complete. The first thing to be done with these Reports is to revise and to expurgate them, to weed them of decisions that are in contradiction with one another; where there are opposing decisions, to settle those which ought to remain; and to cleanse out and get rid of all matters that are not warranted by the present state of the law, or applicable to the existing condition of society. I divide the Reports into three classes. The first class would include all the old Reports to the end of the 17th century; the second would include the Reports of the 18th century and down to the death of George III.; and the third would include the Reports to the present time. I trust I may be successful in obtaining a Commission that may be directed for the purpose of accomplishing these objects. As to the old Reports, I propose that we should preserve only the conclusions properly come to; that in the second period we should weed the Reports of what is useless, and retain only those cases which are fit to be used as precedents; and to perform a similar work in respect of cases of the present time. The result will be a body of recorded precedents, brought into a moderate compass, and occupying, we may estimate, but a tenth of the bulk of the present Reports. The law being thus purified and refined, contradictions and uncertainties, if not entirely removed, will be materially reduced, and a much more satisfactory state of things will be the result. Such is the present state of the common law.
  I now turn for a few moments to the corresponding state of the statute law, for there is a remarkable similarity between them. The statute law is contained in forty-three or forty-four thick quarto volumes, commencing with the 20th of Henry III. The statutes are printed without the least regard to order; there is no system or arrangement. They are printed just as they have been passed, chronologically. There is, of course, a great variety of subjects, and enactments on the same subject are
  786
  dispersed and scattered over an immense extent of ground. Unfortunately, our legislation has been always extemporary. We wait till a grievance is intolerable, and then we apply ourselves to a remedy which does not go beyond the grievance. Our legislation has always been on the spur of the moment; nay, more, it unfortunately happens that the manner in which the legislation is conducted, contributes more than anything else to the evils that he so palpably on the surface of the statute book. You have no persons to assist you who are trained or educated in the great work of legislative composition. But legislative composition is one of the most difficult things that can be conceived. When you address yourselves to a new statute, after having considered the general principle of the proposed measure, the Bill is subjected to the process of Committee, and there it constantly happens that things are grafted upon a statute, under misconception, at variance altogether from the original conception of the framer. Your new Acts are patches on an old garment. You provide for the emergency, but you pay not the least regard to the question whether the piece you put into the old garment suits it or not. Such being the mode of your legislation, it would be utterly impossible that your statute book should be other than it is—a mass of enactments and of statutes which are in a great degree discordant and irreconcilable. Hence the utter imposibility frequently of arriving at a consistent interpretation.
  This, then, being the state of the law and of the statute book, what I propose is the course dictated by natural good sense, that it shall be revised and expurgated—weeding away all those enactments that are no longer in force, and arranging and classifying what is left under proper heads, bringing the dispersed statutes together, eliminating jarring and discordant provisions, and thus getting a harmonious whole, instead of having, as at present, a chaos of inconsistent and contradictory enactments. With that view, we have with considerable care, and, I am sorry to say, after a long period of time than I had desired, as the first step, examined and revised the whole of the statute roll from the 20th Henry III. down to nearly the end of the eighteenth century. The statutes that are weeded out may be described as those which are no longer applicable to the modern state of society,—enactments

  787
  which have become wholly obsolete—enactments which have been repealed by obscure and indirect processes, which is one of the evils with which we have to contend, because it perpetually happens that a particular enactment is in effect repealed without its being said so, by the indirect process of another general law. Sometimes it is repealed silently by the introduction of another rule, if that rule be inconsistent; but while these conflicts exist, and until they are extirpated from the statute book, they are and will be constantly the cause of uncertainty. I may just bring to your recollection how common it is in a modern Act of Parliament to say, "all former enactments inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed." Or you repeal so much of an Act as relates to such and such a matter; but it is often extremely difficult to determine what is inconsistent, and what is included in the words "relating to."
  We have endeavoured to apply a remedy to this state of things. The task was one of great difficulty and delicacy. The reason for every alteration will be found in the schedule given opposite to the description of the enactment to which it applies. This was done in order that the work might be accomplished with something like that certainty and assurance of safety with which works of this kind ought always to be accompanied. You should be perfectly satisfied of the accuracy of the conclusion, that the particular enactment which is supposed to be swept away comes within the general clause of expired, obsolete, inconsistent, unnecessary, or repealed enactments. In carrying out this plan, of course it becomes most desirable to preserve intact all those ancient monuments of our legislation, connected with our political rights and institutions, on which no man should lay his unhallowed hands. Those statutes which may be considered to have become stones in the edifice of the constitution are preserved wholly intact; and no enactment or statute is touched that may be considered to have entered into the common law, or formed the foundation of any rule of practice or procedure, or may be referred to as the basis on which the right or title of property is made to rest. Such a work required great care and circumspection, so that in the process of excision no existing right should be impaired. When this is done—when the statute book has been cleared of superfluous and
  788
  unnecessary matter—I hope to propose that another process be gone through to which the previous labour is merely introductory. The enactments spread throughout the statute book relating to different subjects must be brought together in a collected form. I shall propose, therefore, to have a systematic classification of the subject matter of your legislation, preserving, however, the order of time, because the order of time in regard to enactments is most material for the proper understanding of the law, but arranging the different portions of the statute book under appropriate heads, so as to present an accurate and methodical analysis of the law comprised under each head. And I hope, concurrently with this, that the corresponding parts of the common law extracted from the Reports may be added, so that in that shape you may have a digest of the present law, both common and statute. I use the word digest advisedly, because your Lordships may frequently hear any procedure of this kind described as an approach to codification.
  Now, I am not at all disposed to disguise my own individual opinion that it is to the form of a code that the law of any advanced nation ought ultimately to be reduced; but I am not at all prepared to say that the law of England is now in such a state that it may be codified with advantage and success, and for this reason—that a codification of law is the last result which it attains when it has been perfected and has reached its maturity. But if law is still in a transitory condition, it is not fit for that process. I regard the English law as still in a state of progress, because you have still in it the relics of barbarous times—you have still got that absurd division between the province of common law and the province of equity; not the distinction which is inherent in the nature of things between the written rule and the equity required for its just application, but two antagonistic systems; because, my Lords, you still have cases which would be decided one way on one side of Westminster Hall, and another way on the other side of Westminster Hall. Therefore, until you have got over that, and are in a condition to tell your statesmen and jurists that there is now unity and concord and certainty in the law of England, and unity in its forms of procedure; until you have attained to that, which the process of digesting will, I hope, facilitate, and of which it will be the introduction, you are

  789
  not in a position to approach the formation of a code. Neither are you in a position to approach the framing of the code until you have got among the body of your lawyers that which is still wanting; viz., precision of language, a complete and settled legal vocabulary, and accuracy in legislative construction and composition, which will supply the means of framing Acts of Parliament and rules of law with more simplicity, clearness, and exactness than at present characterize any of your attempts at legislation.
  It is remarkable that the original proposal made in the reign of Edward VI., with regard to the improvement of our statute law, is thus recorded by Bishop Burnet in his "History of the Reformation," vol. ii. Speaking of a plan for the amendment of the law, sent up by the Commons to the Lords in 1549, he says:—
  "It was proposed that the common and statute laws should be, in imitation of the Roman laws, digested into a body under titles and heads, and put in good Latin. But this was too great a design to be set on foot or finished under an infant king."
  The subject of the consolidation and expurgation of the statutes of this country was also brought forward again and again in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Sir Nicholas Bacon proposed, in a few words, that "the Acts should be digested into titles," and expressed the same thing as I have, in a greater number of words, described as the systematic classification of enactments according to their subjects, Lord Bacon, in his last address to King James, offers a digest of the laws of England as an argument for the mitigation of his punishment. In 1650 a Committee was appointed by Parliament "to revise all former statutes and ordinances now in force, and consider as well which are fit to be continued, altered, or repealed, and how the same may be reduced into a compendious way and exact method." The same thing was repeated in 1653, when a Committee was appointed "to consider of a new model or body of the law;" but the most definite Resolution was that which was passed by your Lordships' House in 1816, in which, after conference with the other House of Parliament, your Lordships embodied your opinion of what was necessary with regard to the statute law in the following words:—
  "That from the present state of the statute laws of this realm, it is highly expedient that effectual measures should be taken to arrange the
  790
  matters contained in the statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in the statutes passed in the separate Parliaments of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, under distinct and proper heads."
  That Resolution, I am sorry to say, has not been acted upon. It stands upon record as a monument of what this House, after deliberation and consultation with the other House, determined ought to be done in this matter. Undoubtedly this task requires a great deal more labour than the weak force placed at my disposal could accomplish.
  My Lords, the work that has been done has been the work of four years; yet you will not be surprised at that period having been occupied by it when I tell you that the services of two gentlemen only are at the command of the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the Crown, and those two gentlemen receive such inadequate salaries that they are enabled to give up only such hours to this employment as they can subtract from their ordinary professional avocations. I hope and trust that in the debates on this measure it will be the opinion of the House that this proposal ought, both with respect to the common and the statute law, to be prosecuted with more effect. If it be prosecuted with more aid, I should hope that the process of revision and expurgation of the statute book will not take much more than another year; and then the arrangement and classification of the different subjects of our enactments may be proceeded with. In that way we may expect to have the body of our statutes relieved from the chaotic state of disorder in which it now stands. I intend, my Lords, that the Commission should also direct its inquiries into another important point—namely, the correction and improvement of the present system of reporting, because it is of no use to reduce, expurgate, methodize, and arrange that which exists, unless we have a means of preventing the recurrence of the evils which now exist.
  If your Lordships should confirm that view, I shall undoubtedly at some future time ask you further, to give me a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining what is the best mode by which the future legislation of this country may be conducted so as to secure an improved form in the composition of Bills. When the task of expurgating and classifying the statutes has been completed, it will still be necessary to adopt some, system for revising

  791
  future reported, cases so as to check the uncertainty and confusion they introduce into the law. For, observe the manner in which error grows up in the law. A case is decided, say, by a Vice Chancellor, or by one of the courts of law at Westminster. The decision may be bad, but one of the parties to the litigation may not have the means of appealing against it, and so it is not corrected by a higher court. Then this bad law is recorded in the Reports, and passes unnoticed for three or four years. It is then cited as a precedent before another Judge. That other Judge says, "I find that Mr. Justice A B, or Mr. Vice Chancellor C D, decided a case from which the case now before me cannot be distinguished;" and thus a bad precedent is accepted and confirmed. The thing therefore becomes inveterate, and bad law is established, there being in our system no agency at all to exercise that which ought to be exercised—namely, an annual revision of the reported cases, with power to determine what is to be regarded as entitled to authority, and what ought not to be quoted hereafter for the purpose of determining the law. All this might be accomplished by what is called the institution of a Department of Justice. At all events, there ought to be some mode and power of revising these Reports from time to time, as long as you adhere to the practice of making them guides for judicial decisions. I could say much more on this difficult and important subject, but I am afraid I have already trespassed too long upon the time of your Lordships.
  I trust I have not given an exaggerated or distorted account of the evils which require to be remedied. In the works of our best and most philosophical jurists those evils are forcibly depicted as matters loudly calling for legislative interference. It is with confidence that I submit the Bill which I now hold in my hand to your Lordships, and I earnestly hope that you will not allow this attempt to deal with a question of paramount importance to be added to the unsuccessful efforts of former years.
  The noble and learned Lord then presented a "Bill for promoting the Revision of the Statute Law, by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary."
  LORS BROUGHAMsaid, their Lordships were deeply indebted to his noble-and learned Friend for his full and luminous statement. He had often brought for-
  792
  ward the same subject—the consolidation of the law—in both Houses of Parliament; but he did not think he had ever painted so dark a picture of the state of the law—both of the common and the statute law—as his noble and learned Friend had laid before them to-night. Not that his noble and learned Friend had at all exaggerated; on the contrary, he had given chapter and verse for all he stated, and in some respects he had passed rather too lightly over the evils which existed. His noble and learned Friend had laid down two propositions—one in reference to the consolidation of the common law as found in the decisions of the Judges, the other in reference to a revision of the statute law, and classing it under proper heads. Beyond doubt, the revision of the statute law would be a most useful, but, at the same time, a very difficult operation, and he believed it could only be done in one way—namely, by Parliament giving its confidence to certain individuals, and adopting the result of their labours almost as a matter of course. That confidence was equally required, whether it was a digest of the common law or a revision of the statutes; for if a Bill of a hundred and fifty or two hundred clauses were to be brought in for discussion in both Houses of Parliament, their Lordships knew by experience what the result would be. He joined with his noble and learned Friend in lamenting that we had not a Department of Justice, though he thought it would be entirely out of the question to allow it to have anything whatever to do with revising the decisions of the courts of law and equity. That the Reports contained many bad decisions was a fact which could not be disputed, but the only way in which those decisions could be altered was by the Judges themselves, by the appellate jurisdiction, or the act of the Legislature. He also agreed with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that many errors arose from the present mode of framing Act a of Parliament, and hoped that some change would speedily be introduced. He hoped his noble and learned Friend would be more successful than himself, and that in the end there would be some safe and convenient means provided of preparing and examining our legislative measures before they became law. If there were some Department charged with this duty, in the end no one would bring in a Bill, or propose an Amendment in a Bill, without consulting it. He gave his cordial assent to the first reading of the Bill.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, his noble and learned Friend proposed two objects as likely to arise from the present measure—a consolidation and abridgment of the decisions of the courts of common law, and a revision of the statute law. With regard to the first of these objects, the consolidation of the common law, he was afraid, though he should be most happy to find himself mistaken, that his noble and learned Friend had undertaken an impossible task. It was a fallacy to talk about doubts as to what the law was, as being that which gave rise to the difficulties in administering the law. Except in comparatively rare disputed cases, there was no difficulty in ascertaining what the law was; but it was impossible to make a law ah ante which would exactly meet all the different combinations of facts which arose in the varying circumstances of social life. All that could be done was to apply the analogies of former cases to the new circumstances which arose from time to time. If a new state of circumstances arose to which former principles could not be applied, it became then the duty of Parliament to interfere and make a new law. He admitted that lawyers, unknown to themselves perhaps, might be bound by trammels which made them sometimes obstinate with reference to proposed reforms; but he did not believe, that if a perfect code were drawn up, it would make the law a bit more certain than it was now. Even the Code Napoléon did not make the law more clear when difficult questions arose. Some time ago there was a case before the Privy Council in which it became of great importance to ascertain what was the law of France. The opinion of twelve of the most eminent lawyers the Bar of Paris could produce was taken, and six of them decided one way and six another. No code could say what would be the law on a set of circumstances arising fifty years after. But he should listen with the greatest satisfaction to any proposal for making the law more clear, and if it could be done by the sort of digest proposed by the noble and learned Lord, he certainly should have nothing to say against it. With regard to the second branch of the subject, he rejoiced that the noble and learned Lord had introduced a Bill for the revision of the statute law. There were more difficulties in the consolidation or revision of the statute law than were apparent at first sight. He spoke with some experience on the
  794
  subject, though he confessed that his efforts in this direction had not been so successful as he could have wished. Still, the criminal law and other subjects had been consolidated. In any attempt to consolidate and revise the statute law so as to make anything like a complete system of it, there was this difficulty at the outset—the whole law of the country might be codified, but it was impossible to codify the statute law, which was simply a supplement to rectify the omissions of the unwritten law. When he held the Great Seal, he came to the conclusion that the best mode of consolidating the statutes was to begin with the statutes passed in the last Session, and to read them through section by section, and to see exactly what had been done by Parliament on every subject, from the present back to the remotest time; then to take the Session before, and so on, working backwards. This had been done up to the commencement of the century; and if it were continued, he had no doubt that the work of revision and expurgation would in time be completed. But though they could not codify the statute law, they might greatly improve it by the consolidation of all the various laws relating to the subject—for instance, the Church. In respect of the first object, therefore, he did not think his noble and learned Friend's Bill would lead to any result; but, with regard to the latter, he thought it perfectly practicable, and he wished his noble and learned Friend success.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that one great objection to the codification and revision of the statute law, in addition to the difficulties of which the noble and learned Lord had just spoken, was, that they might settle the statute law of England under half a dozen different heads, but they had Parliament sitting every year which passed many new laws, which would unsettle those that had already been consolidated or codified. He thought that the proposition made in reference to those statutes which were no longer in force would work very great convenience to lawyers and others; but still he thought that there would be very great difficulty in carrying it into effect. He agreed that there was very great inconvenience arising from the multitude of Reports of decisions in the law courts, there being frequently three or four sets of Reports for one court published by different booksellers, who competed for the priority of furnishing information. His noble and learned Friend

  795
  proposed a Commission to examine these different Reports, and purge them of what was contradictory or inconsistent; but surely this would be to substitute the Commission for their Lordships' or some other competent court of appeal. The Commissioners also must decide without argument, or they must have the cases reargued before them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to guard himself against being supposed to be attempting a codification of the law, for a codification would imply a re-writing of the law. He by no means intended that, for a great part of the statute law had received judicial decision settling its meaning; and to-substitute a new text would be to give abundant cause for controversy. It was said that each line of the Statute of Frauds Was worth a subsidy; but, on the other hand, it was said that the cost of construing that statute had amounted to half a million. What he proposed in reference to the statutes was simply this:—to bring together the dispersed enactments, according to subjects, and to make an analytical digestive arrangement according to the natural order, and to harmonize the statutes thus brought together, where it was found that there were opposing enactments. As to the decisions, what was the course now adopted by text writers? The book of his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) upon the law of vendors and purchasers of estates was accepted by the Courts as a code or digest of the decisions upon that subject. The way in which this was done was by the writer expunging what he considered bad, and retaining that which was good in the decisions; and if this could be done upon that subject, surely it might be done upon others. In conclusion, he could only express the hope that he would have their Lordships' assistance in dealing with the measure now before them.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 133.)

REDEMPTION OF RENTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 110.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to Order).
  Clause 10 (Reservations or Exceptions to go with the Rent).
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved the addition of certain words to the clause, with a view to refer sales of Reservations
  796
  of Minerals to a Judge of the Landed Estates Court for his sanction.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that he thought that the best thing to do with the clause was to omit it altogether. Here was a Bill to provide for the sale of certain fixed rents by a tenant for life, the proceeds to be invested for the good of the estate. There was no objection to that, as any accountant could compute the value of such rent; but this clause provided that all exceptions and reservations, such as minerals and other royalties, might also be sold. These royalties might be of very little value now, but it was impossible to tell what the value of them might be hereafter, and how much the remainderman might be damaged. He hoped his noble Friend would not press the clause, of which he moved the ommission.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhaving replied,
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, That the Clause as amended stand Part of the Bill? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 134.)

DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 118.)—REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he proposed to strike out Clauses 8, 9, and 10, which related to the purchase of land from incapacitated persons. The principle was a new one, and he hesitated to adopt it, particularly as the same object, he believed, could be accomplished under the Settled Estates Act. With regard to Clause 39, regulating the grants of sites for churches, chapels, or schools, he had given notice of one in substitution of it, which he believed satisfied the objections heretofore urged against this provision.
Clauses 8, 9, 10, and 39 struck out.
New Clause moved in substitution for Clause 39, by which the Duke of Cornwall is empowered to grant buildings or sites for churches or chapels, burial-grounds or cemeteries, and for residences for the ministers; and for parochial or district schools, and for residences for the masters or mistresses; and also buildings or sites for buildings solely for the purpose of Divine worship by any denomination of non-conforming Christians; but the grant

797
for any one of these purposes is limited to one acre, or a building not exceeding in value £200.
New Clause agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended. (No 135.)
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half past Ten o'clock.