Sitting of 12 June 1865

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee Resolutions [June 8] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered— Comptroller of the Exchequer and Public Audit* [208].
First Reading—Companies Workmens' Education * [191] Lords]; Parsonages * [205] [Lords]; Comptroller of the Exchequer and Public Audit* [208].
Second Reading—Poor Law Board Continuance, Ac. [197]; Colonial Laws Validity* [183]; Colonial Marriages Validity* [181]; Penalties Law Amendment* [213]; National Gallery (Dublin)* [203]; War Department Tramway (Devon) * [204] [Lords]; Ecclesiastical Commission (Superannuation Allowances)* [201].
Committee—Roman Catholic Oath [86]; Record of Title (Ireland) [151] [Lords]—R. P.; Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment (recomm.)* [187]—R.P.; Crown Suits, &c.* [146]; Penalties Law Amendment* [213]; Inland Revenue*[169]; Lunatic Asylum Act (1853) &c, Amendment* [196].
Report—Roman Catholic Oath [86]; Crown Suits, &c* [146]; Inland Revenue* [169]; Lunatic Asylum Act (1853) &c. Amendment* [196].
Considered as amended—Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act Amendment [178]; Prisons* [141]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [177].
Third Reading—Defence Act (1860) Amendment* [176]; Procurators (Scotland)* [157]; Pilotage Order Confirmation (No. 2)[131], and passed.
Withdrawn—Writs Registration &c. (Scotland) * [48], [Mr. Dunlop].

WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
[Lords] (by Order.)
WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Bill read 2°.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed."
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he rose to propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, half the Members of which should be selected by that House and half by the Committee of Selection, with an Instruction to the Committee to introduce a provision into the measure to secure the erection of buildings suitable to the accommodation of the poorer population whose dwellings were to be removed by the Westminster Commissioners under the Bill. He should, therefore, move the Amendment of which he had given notice, on the ground that this was a hybrid Bill, partaking both of a public and private character.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "to a Select Committee, half the Members to be named by the House, and half by the Committee of Selection."—(Mr. Augustus Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. TITEsaid, this was distinctly a private Bill, and had passed the House of Lords as such. A Commission was constituted under a Bill which passed in 1860, for the purpose of winding up that most unfortunate speculation of the Westminster Improvement Commissioners in Victoria Street. The latter body raised £300,000 on mortgage and £700,000 on debenture bonds. The mortgages were of a most complicated kind, and they were remitted to the Court of Chancery, and as the money was realized it would be paid into that Court for distribution to those who were entitled to it. With regard to the £700,000, they were doing their best to realize such payments as remained. The Commission had remitted to them two improvements under the Bill of 1860 for the widening of two streets opening into Victoria Street, and the great charities in Westminster were all in favour of the Commission obtaining the powers sought by this Bill. The Bill was entirely unopposed, and they did not ask power to take down more than twenty-seven houses, which were of a most miserable description, and those in Union Court appropriated to the vilest purposes.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that there was no doubt whatever that this was a Private Bill, and he hoped that the hon. Member for Truro would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the Bill had passed through the House of Lords as a Private Bill, and if it had been a Public one it would not have been there treated in the manner it had been. He therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that in withdrawing his Amendment he must express his regret that the Bill had not been treated on this as it was on a previous occasion as a hybrid Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member appeared to be under a misapprehension with regard to hybrid Bills. When a Bill was introduced into that House as a Public Bill which involved private interests it was subjected to the same exami-

  45
  nation which was provided for Private Bills; but strictly Private Bills were never turned into hybrids.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question put, and agreed to. Ordered, That the Bill be committed.

THE SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY AND THE CIVIL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will be pleased to extend to the Officers and Clerks of the Civil Service, who have presented a Memorial, the Saturday half-holiday allowed in other Establishments?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was intended to appoint a Commission composed of a few persons connected with the Public Offices to ascertain how far the prayer of the memorial referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman could be complied with without materially inconveniencing the public service. It would be very desirable that, if possible, what the memorialists asked should be granted, but he was unable to state to what extent it could be done until after the inquiry had been made.

CUSTOM HOUSE CHARGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Custom House authorities charge the merchants for the attendance of their officers on goods in transit after their arrival within the docks, as, in that case, the officer is immediately removed from the ship or lighter, but this charge continues to be made though no officer is employed?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that the privilege of removing goods in transit without examination was given on condition that the merchant should defray all the expenses incurred by the Crown in consequence. Goods within the docks still required watching, the only difference being that the officer who watched them was on land instead of being on board the lighter.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he understood that one officer acted for a great number of ships.
  MR. PEELsaid, in that case the ships would only have to pay for one officer.

WEST INDIES POSTAGE RATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Postage of Letters from France to the West Indies, viâ Southampton, by the Royal Mail Steamers amounts to eight-pence, while that from England amounts to one shilling; and, if so, on what principle?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that our charge was 1s. per half-ounce from this country to the West Indies, and the principle upon which it had been fixed at that rate was in order to make the service, as far as possible, self-supporting. The French Government charged 8d. for a quarter of an ounce, and 1s. 4d. per half-ounce, from France to the West Indies, through this country. He did not know by what principle their rates were regulated, but they only paid us 1s. per ounce for those letters which we conveyed for them in our packets.

ROMAN CATHOLIC OATH BILL.

  [BILL 86.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Form of Oath.)
  MR. HASSARDsaid, that in consequence of the count-out on Friday night he was prevented from moving that it should be an instruction to the Committee to draw up one uniform oath to be taken by Members of that House. He understood it was incompetent for him to move now the Amendments of which he had given notice.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Sir, in rising to propose an alteration in line 32 of this clause I shall not feel it necessary to make any lengthened observations, having stated on a former evening the reasons which induced me to offer this Amendment to the Committee. The Bill originally was introduced on the ground that certain provisions in the oath taken by Roman Catholic Members were unnecessary and offensive, and attention was directed more particularly to that portion of the oath where the person taking it is made to declare that he doth—
  "Renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion that persons excommunicated by the Pope or other authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or other persons whatever,"

  47
  It was said, "You there make a Roman Catholic Member of the House depose that he disavows that which he does not admit ever was a tenet of the Church to which he belongs; and you make him do what is tantamount to saving that he does not intend to commit murder himself or countenance it in others—a demand which is directly offensive." Now, that has always seemed to me a very sound view of the case; and, accordingly, I was very glad to see that passage omitted from the earlier part of the proposed oath. In like manner, the latter part of the oath necessitates the repudiation of any intention to equivacate, evade, or use mental reservation— an assumption which Roman Catholic Members held it was an insult to a man of honour to put forward. The provision is offensive and unnecessary, and, therefore, I think it ought to be omitted. Up to that point I entirely go with those who propose this Bill, but there, I am afraid, my agreement with them stops. There is another part to which the arguments employed in bringing forward this Bill have no application whatever, and that is the part of the oath I propose shall be restored. It makes the person who takes it declare as follows:—
  "I do swear that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom."
  The Committee will observe that we are not engaged in composing one uniform form of oath for every Member of this House, though whether it may be the will of the House in a future Session to entertain that question I have no means of knowing. The work upon which we are engaged is simply the modification of the Roman Catholic oath; and the question is, how we are to remove from the oath everything which is unnecessary and everything which is offensive, at the same time preserving all that is substantial and all that designates the purpose and the end for which the oath in the first instance was introduced. In that view of the case I cannot help thinking that no argument has been advanced for omitting that portion of the oath which I ask the Committee to restore. The only one I have heard attempted has been this—that the defence of the Church,
  48
  of the Protestant religion, of Protestant institutions in this country, does not rest on an oath of this description, but on far higher grounds. I quite agree that the defence of the Church and of the Protestant institutions of this country rest on higher grounds—on the affections of the people, and on the persuasion entertained by the great majority that those institutions and that Church are best calculated for the happiness and welfare of the people. But I ask the Committee to observe how much too far the argument I have mentioned goes. In the oath which we propose to pass I find this provision—
  "I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the Crown, which succession, by an Act intituled An Act for the Further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants."
  You might just as well apply the argument here, and say the succession to the Crown does not depend on the oath to be taken by individual Members of Parliament, but on the loyal affections of the subjects of this country, and on the feeling pervading the whole of this land that the succession which has conferred blessings without number upon the country is not one they would willingly surrender. Yet we do take this oath as a mark and pledge from those having seats in this House that they will defend the succession which has become the established succession in this country. And in the same way it was as one of the guarantees for the security of the Established Church, not merely the branch of the Established Church in Ireland, but the Established Church as a whole—it was, I say, as one of the guarantees for the maintenance of the Protestant Government and of the Protestant religion in every part of the Kingdom, that this oath was introduced in the year 1829, and formed part of the terms upon which our Roman Catholic fellow subjects obtained seats in this House. As to its having proved efficacious in its operation, I will not trouble the House with a repetition of various instances which have been already brought under its notice. I might advert by name to the declarations, not of those who still sit with us, but of others who have passed from us, that this oath did prevent them from entering upon any aggressions on the Established Church and Protestant Institutions of the country; and though I cannot of course mention names, I speak with

  49
  considerable confidence when I say that many Members of the House at this moment feel themselves in the same way bound in honour by this oath. What is the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman makes? He wishes to have this oath abrogated, because he desires to be free to do the very thing the oath was framed to prevent. He says, in effect—
  "We desire to be perfectly free to attack the Established Church, to overthrow it when we can, where we can, and how we can; and because we find this oath an impediment in our way we desire to remove it."
  I trust the Committee will not assent to the proposition so openly avowed, and so completely antagonistic to the purpose for which the oath was originally introduced. In proposing to add to the clause the words of which I have given notice, I am simply moving to restore the oath, so far as it relates to the Established Church, to the form given to it in the year 1829.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, after the word "Realm," to insert the words,
  "I do swear, that I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this Realm, as established by the Laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by Law within this Realm; and I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant Religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom."—(Sir Hugh Cairns.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. HUNT: Sir, it is with great regret that I differ from my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down; and I feel anxious not to give a silent vote upon this subject. I have always fought with him in support of the Established Church, and I hope to do so again, and therefore, I am anxious not to lie under the imputation of being a supposed enemy of the Church by voting against his Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend has alluded to the possibility of some uniform oath being framed in a future Parliament in lieu of that now taken. I was in hope there was no need for delay, but that we might have taken advantage of this golden opportunity, and by sweeping away all marks of religious differences between persons coming to that table have handed down a glorious legacy from an expiring Parliament to its successor. For myself, I do not despair of seeing such an oath introduced and carried during the present Session, The hon.
  50
  Member for Waterford (Mr. Hassard) has told us that he was unfortunately prevented by an accident from moving his Resolution on Friday, which, if done, would have allowed the Committee to go into the subject today. I go even farther than the hon. Member for Waterford. I would like to see, not a uniform oath, but a uniform declaration, from all Members of the House. At present some hon. Members of the House are unable to take an oath, but they are allowed to make a declaration. I do not see, if the hon. Member for the Borough of Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) goes to the table and makes a declaration of allegiance, why the Member for the County of Northampton (Mr. Hunt) should not do the same. The hon. Member for Northampton objects to taking an oath. I do not; but I consider a declaration in my case just as good as an oath. I draw a distinction between a promissory oath and an oath to give true evidence. When you take an oath in a court of justice to speak all you know, you are aware of all the circumstances that can affect your mind at the time; but when you take an oath as to your future conduct, you take an oath without knowing what the circumstances may be, which may influence your mind when the time comes for action. I should like to see all promissory oaths done away with, and a declaration substituted. You, Sir, have ruled that we cannot so alter the Bill in its present stage, but I think it can be done on a future occasion, and I hope the House will consent to its being done. If in 1865 the House re-imposes a distinctive oath on Roman Catholics, we may be interposing an obstacle to the future consideration of the larger question of the substitution for oath of a general declaration. The hon. Member for Belfast puts it to the House that this oath is a great bulwark to the Established Church, and he is therefore anxious to preserve it. Now, I do not consider it any bulwark at all. I regard it as an obsolete, a clumsy, and a worn-out contrivance. It will be the same sort of defence as the Dannewerke was to the Danes, when expecting an attack by the rifled guns of the Prussians. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) says that, so long as we keep up this prohibition, certain hon. Members will be deterred from taking a certain course. Now, I think that every Member of the House ought to be free and competent to vote on any

  51
  question whatever. I think it tenable ground to say that the Roman Catholics should not be admitted to the House at all j but to say we will admit Members into the House, into a deliberative Assembly, and to add that they should vote only on particular subjects, or if they did vote on others that they should vote only in a particular way, is to impose disabilities of a highly objectionable character. And then would arise the question, who were to be the judges of the questions which the Roman Catholics should be allowed to vote on? There would be great difficulty in this matter. There was an instance quoted the other night by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard). The noble Lord said that many Members were of opinion that it was for the interest of the Church that church rates should be abolished; and, therefore, that hon. Members, notwithstanding the oath, might vote for their abolition. I am of a contrary opinion; and I think, therefore, that voting for the abolition of church rates would be a violation of that oath. But why should Roman Catholic Members be put in this position of doubt and perplexity? I say again, the Roman Catholic Member when he comes to this House ought to be able to give his vote on every subject that comes before the House. My hon. and learned Friend said that the oath had prevented Roman Catholic Members from voting on several occasions. But, if so, I say that is a reason for abolishing it. On a former occasion my hon. and learned Friend reminded the House that they were not imposing the oath for the first time. Well, that is an important admission. If it meant anything it meant that he would not insert the words in a new oath. But if the words—imposed under particular circumstances in 1829—were unreasonable or improper now, was that a reason why we should retain them? It is said that there was a compact in 1829. Well, I can understand that at that time the Roman Catholics were willing to come in on any terms. Persons for a long time barred out in the cold would not be unwilling to sit at the hospitable board within, even if they sat below the salt. But is it fair and generous to keep them to the terms of this bad bargain? I am prepared to place Roman Catholics on the footing of other Members by enabling them to vote on all subjects; and I shall, therefore, vote against the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it appears to me that the unmistakable tendency of public opinion in the last few years has been to meet the claims of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in a spirit of rational conciliation, and I ascribe that general tendency of public opinion to causes which, at the time, were calculated, I think, to lead us to believe that a very different result might be brought about. I attribute it to those circumstances popularly known as the "Papal aggression." At that time those who were then in the House will remember that what happened was really so misconceived, and I may be permitted, speaking historically, to add, so mismanaged by the Government of the day, that it did appear that there was a prospect before us of a prolongation of that religious rancour which it was the hope of the great majority of the nation had passed away. When the Prime Minister of the country appeared in his place in this House and informed us with all the authority of official responsibility that in the opinion of the Government there was a decided Papal conspiracy against the liberties of Europe, and that the ecclesiastical arrangements which had then taken place were part and parcel of that conspiracy, it appeared to us all that we were approaching a period of religious exasperation which would probably again disturb and darken society, for some time emancipating itself from that fatal influence. On the contrary, our expectations were happily disappointed. The result of that important event appears to have been exactly the contrary of what was expected. The result was really that it made the country much more tolerant than before; and that may be ascribed to this cause. There was so unmistakable a demonstration of Protestant feeling in England, a sentiment so profound, so fervent, and so extensive in favour of our Protestant institutions, that when the hubbub was over, and the excitement had subsided, there was a disposition to look on the claims of the Roman Catholics without distrust, to view them with candour, and to meet them in a spirit of conciliation. I believed at that time, and, from information which has reached me from many eminent members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, I believe now, that all that the great majority of the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom of England and Ireland, really desired, and what they now desire, is that they should enjoy the full and free

  53
  exercise of their religion. I believe that the Roman Catholics did not desire to obtain more; and I believe that the great body of their Protestant fellow-subjects did not desire to grant less. But, unfortunately, there are extreme parties on both sides. There is, Sir, an extreme Protestant party, and there is an extreme Roman Catholic party, and their views differ from the views which are, I believe, the convictions, opinions, and sentiments of the great majority of Her Majesty's subjects, whether Protestants or Roman Catholics. There is an extreme Protestant party who persist in believing that every Roman Catholic is a Jesuit. There is, on the other hand, an extreme Roman Catholic party who, the moment their aggressive indiscretion excites comment and perhaps a little distrust, immediately raise a howl that their Protestant fellow-countrymen wish to revive all the Roman Catholic disabilities. Now, if the opinions of either of these sections were predominant in this country the government of Her Majesty's dominions would be impossible. Fortunately, although noisy and bustling, they are limited in their influence, and the general sentiment of the country controls their violence and extravagance. What may be called the Gulf Stream of common-sense softens and subdues their violence and asperity. Hitherto we have succeeded—no doubt with some difficulty and with constant misrepresentation and misconception—but hitherto we have succeeded in supporting and realizing on both sides the policy which commenced in 1829, and which the general opinion of this country recognized as being sound, politic, and just. The violent section of the Roman Catholic party have always thought that they could advance their views by attacking the Established Church, and especially by attacking the Established Church in Ireland. I must, Sir, express my opinion, wishing to view the case in the same manner as an enlightened and patriotic member of the Roman Catholic party might do, that that is a very great error—I mean that it is a course which very much injures the advance of those views which have been on both sides recognized as just and desirable. If I might be permitted to view the question as a Roman Catholic Member, I should say that, being devoted to my religion, being anxious to obtain that full, fair, and free exercise of that religion which has been recognized
  54
  by leading men of all parties and by the great majority of this House and of the country as just and desirable, no course could be taken more opposed to the fulfilment of this expectation than an attack on the Established Church of this country. Into the question of the Established Church in England I do not now wish to enter. I would speak of the Established Church in Ireland, and I will confine myself to that point. That Church underwent some thirty years ago, in the memory of many Members of this House, a very stern and severe revision. Its wealth, always exaggerated, was then much diminished, and when diminished was distributed in a manner which tended greatly to its increased utility and efficiency. I should remember that the Established Church in Ireland really rested upon the spiritual sympathies, if not of a majority of the country, still on the spiritual sympathies of a very considerable minority, not to be estimated by numbers merely or by being in strict communion with that Church, and I should remember also that that very numerous minority were distinguished by their intelligence, by their property, by their zeal, and by a firmness of character which is universally recognized. I should remember, also, that totally irrespective of those circumstances peculiar to Ireland, it is a fact that the Established Church in Ireland has never been seriously menaced by the Roman Catholics without exciting and developing in this country the latent sympathies of millions of the population, which proves how deeply and keenly they are interested in its maintenance. If I were the character I have contemplated—and it is not a rare one—I mean an enlightened Member of the Roman Catholic body, I would look at the question of the Irish Church apart from ecclesiastical and spiritual considerations; I would look at it both as a politician and a statesman. I should remember, in the first place, that if there be anything which the experience of the last thirty years has proved; if there be any conviction which all our debates, our investigations, our Commissions of Inquiry, and our prolonged discussions have demonstrated, it is this—that what you want in Ireland is to create and not to destroy. And, under these circumstances, how far would the advancement and improvement of Ireland be favoured, if, by subverting the Established Church the immediate result would be to withdraw the beneficial

  55
  influence of a body of enlightened men spread over the country, distinguished, even by the admission of their opponents, for their piety and their active virtues? I would even press the case a little further, and I trust the Roman Catholic Members of the House will not find fault with me for doing so. I have no wish to insult their religion. On the contrary, I respect their ancient faith and the venerable see to which they defer. But I would ask them to recollect that thirty years ago Roman Catholicism made a partnership with modern Liberalism, the object of which was the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. That compact and confederacy were carried on under the most favourable circumstances. In consequence of it they have virtually had the government of England during the last thirty years. They have, with scarcely an interval, dictated the policy of England, and greatly influenced the policy of Europe. And what has been the consequence of the alliance between Roman Catholicism and modern Liberalism on the Established Church in Ireland? The Established Church in Ireland still exists. It has suffered no diminution in its influence, or decrease in its strength. I may, without exaggeration, say that its moral authority has increased, and that those who minister to its offices are generally recognized as a body of men who for their piety and learning, and for the fulfilment of the higher and loftier purposes of existence, are not second to any body of clergy in the world. But, may I ask my Roman Catholic Colleagues in this House what has been the effect of the alliance upon another Church, and one possessing their affectionate devotion. I will not paint the consequences of that compact. I will leave them to the consciences of Roman Catholic Members. They are fresh in their memory. The result has been to all but destroy the temporal power, and in some degree endanger the spiritual authority of that ancient throne, the fall of which, for the Bake of European peace and for considerations connected with this country is, I hold to be, regarded with apprehension. We know not the day that a telegram may not arrive announcing the fatal result of the policy adopted by the Roman Catholic population of this country for the destruction of the Established Church in Ireland. That being the view which a candid and enlightened Roman Catholic might be likely to take of this question, allow me to remind
  56
  the House in what position Parliament was this year with reference to the Irish Church. We knew very well that an association had been formed in Ireland, the main object of which was the subversion of the Established Church in that country. It was founded by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the most eminent prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, both for talent and authority, presided over its first assembly. I may be told and have been told, and have heard with much satisfaction, that that meeting and that association were no evidence whatever of the feeling of the great Roman Catholic body. But I ask my Roman Catholic Colleagues in this House to put themselves in our position, and ascertain what their feelings would be if they found themselves in a situation somewhat analogous. Suppose there was an association in this country formed by the bench of bishops and presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and supported by parties in authority, which was to pass strong and vehement resolutions; that, in consequence of the undoubted progress of the Roman Catholic religion, it was necessary that we should revive the Roman Catholic disabilities. It might be shown to them that none of the influential men of the Tory party belonged to such association, yet they would say, "If your bishops originated and the Primate presided at a meeting which passed such resolutions it is impossible to deny that that was a meeting representing Protestant feeling in the country, and we must take measures to defend our own interests." And who would blame them? That, unfortunately, we know was the state of things when Parliament met. Then came a debate, still open, the subject of which is the subversion of the Established Church in Ireland. It was not certainly introduced by a Roman Catholic Member, but with the greatest consistency by an hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn), who has a right to make Motions against all possible churches. Roman Catholic Members supported that Motion. I am sorry that they did so. I am astonished that such a thing should have happened, because it is impossible for us to be perfectly blind to the signs of the times in which we live. The signs of the times in which we live are not like the signs of the times thirty years ago, when compacts were entered into between Roman Catholics and Liberals for the destruction of the Established Church. The existing signs of the times are not favourable to

  57
  internecine hostilities between Christian churches, And I should have thought that Roman Catholics would have hesitated to attack any Christian Church though such Church were not in communion with themselves. Under these circumstances, the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) has come forward and asked you to repeal the Roman Catholic oath. I entirely acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any sinister design. I am quite convinced, from what I know of his character, that whether this were the first or the last year of Parliament, and without reference to any political considerations, the right hon. Gentleman would have taken the first or the best opportunity that offered for submitting the question in which he is warmly interested to our consideration. It was perfectly competent for any hon. Gentleman to bring such a Motion forward. It has been raised in this House before, if not in the present, in the last Parliament, and the question is one which any hon. Gentleman, whatever his political or religious views, was justified at any time in bringing forward. Nor is it a question which any one who studies political life could suppose would not some day or other be brought under our consideration. Under these circumstances. Sir, we have to consider the course which we ought to take. I myself object to the Bill as originally brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman. I think it an error to have made such a Motion. The Roman Catholic oath, as it now exists, contains nothing which a gentleman might not take. No one will contend for a moment that it contains anything which a gentleman of the highest honour and the nicest feelings might not take. I can myself truly say that if I were a Roman Catholic I should never hesitate for a moment in taking that oath. Although I might prefer another form of oath, I could not find in the form of it as it now exists any obstacle to taking my seat in this House. We must remember this. My hon. Friend who has just addressed the House seems to think that the oath was carelessly accepted by the Roman Catholics at the time of the passing of the Emancipation Act without criticism or cavil because they were influenced by the great political result which they could only obtain on that condition. Now, I must say that does not appear to me an accurate statement of the circumstances of the case. I will not too strictly criticize the conduct of great political leaders like Mr.
  58
  O'Connell or Mr. Sheil, who, with all the ardour of public life, might not have been very curious as to the terms on which they agreed to obtain so sovereign a result. But we must also look to the opinions of other men, and when I see one so distinguished for his purity of character, for his learning and high intelligence, and statesmanlike qualities as Archbishop Murray, I cannot agree that the grave advice given by Archbishop Murray corresponds with the spirit and sentiment attributed by my hon. Friend to the Roman Catholics who accepted this oath. You cannot interpret the public documents of an ancient country like England as you would the àpriori documents of a new society reared in the backwoods. Every public document in this country—and of all public documents, oaths—must be of an historic character. The oath that the Roman Catholics now take was framed from other oaths drawn up in other Parliaments, and I believe even in Irish Parliaments. They refer to great historic events; and when you have had in an ancient country contending dynasties, conflicting churches, civil wars, it is totally impossible that in public documents you will not find expressions indicating events, no doubt sources of great sorrow and regret, to many gentlemen, especially to those who profess the Roman Catholic faith. But this may be said of the Roman Catholic gentry, not only of England but of Ireland, that there is nothing in these expressions that can bring shame upon them. We are indebted to the Roman Catholic gentry of the United Kingdom, as much as to any portion of the population of this country, both for having built up its liberties and having given illustrious instances of loyalty to their Sovereign. Sir, this is not the only objection I entertain to this matter being brought forward. It concerns a speculative and not a practical grievance; it is likely to create alarm, likely to create prejudice, and likely to prevent the passing of measures which might have been of practical advantage to the Roman Catholics. I object, also, to this measure having been brought forward by an individual Member. I think, when measures of this kind are proposed, they should not be brought forward by individual Members; but if they are brought forward by an individual Member, I think it most unfortunate they should be, as in this particular case, by an individual Member professing the Roman Catholic faith.

  59
  I think that imparts a considerable difficulty into our treatment of the subject, because you are not called upon by the right hon. Gentleman to decide between the existing oath and an uniform oath. That is a policy of a different character. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to decide between an oath that now exists and a re-constructed oath. What is the re-construction? It consists greatly of omissions—omissions which might, under other circumstances, raise questions of controversy, whether they meant anything or nothing; but when a Roman Catholic Member suggests the re-construction of an oath and makes many omissions, the natural inference in the minds of the great body of the people who are not so learned in political life and history as ourselves, is, that there must be some object in these omissions, and that if the object is favourable to the Roman Catholics it is unfavourable to them. Under these circumstances they are naturally alarmed, and there is often much prejudice as well as sound objection favoured by such a course. I think, under these circumstances, it is much to be regretted that such a measure should have been brought forward by an individual Member in such a shape. I therefore come to the conclusion that if the Roman Catholic oath is to be altered, it ought not to be succeeded by another Roman Catholic oath—that it would be better to leave it as it is, with the idea of a grievance—I do not wish to depreciate it, but, after all, it is not a practical grievance—than that we should come forward again and propose that there shall be a separate oath for Roman Catholics as distinguished from the Protestant Members of this House. Sir, my hon. Friend who has just addressed us has stated that, in his opinion, there ought to be no oath at all, and this shows you the great difficulty of the subject with which we have to deal. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) begs us to re-construct the Roman Catholic oath we are entering upon a subject replete with difficulties, which demands our most mature and earnest consideration. And one point is, whether we should not have a declaration instead of an oath? I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that oaths ought to be as rare as they are solemn, but I believe that there are occasions—and the taking of a seat in this House is one of those solemn occasions—when the sanction of the Most High may be ap-
  60
  pealed to, not with irreverence, but with a due sense of the important duties which Members of Parliament are called upon to discharge. I think we should fall into a great error if we held out the idea in this age, when secular feeling is, I think, too much encouraged in the transactions of public life, that it is our business as much as possible to remove from the conduct of the highest public affairs the sanction of an oath. Another question has arisen in this discussion. The Secretary of State, who has addressed us, says that if there ought to be an oath it should be merely the oath of allegiance. But why, if this limited and utilitarian view of affairs is to be taken, should there be any oath at all? Some may doubt that the Throne would be less secure if there were no oath of allegiance. The Queen reigns in the affections of her subjects, and if we were all sitting here without taking the oath of allegiance I do not imagine we could diminish Her Majesty's authority. But the experience of mankind has taught us that the order and propriety of life are best consulted by the citizens of a State periodically declaring, on solemn occasions, their allegiance to the fundamental principles of their commonwealth and appealing to divine sanction—and I am not prepared to resist or oppose what I believe to be the consequence of the experience of mankind. But why should we take the oath of allegiance as proposed by the Secretary of State? The form of the oath of allegiance is mediæval. So long as these oaths were not disturbed, the oath of allegiance was one which we could take without any scruple, and in which we found the least difficulty. But if you are to frame new oaths—above all, if you are to prepare uniform oaths—the question may arise whether you should take the oath to an individual Sovereign or to the Constitution of the country. I do not see that we ought in a free country merely to take the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. I believe we are also bound to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution. It seems to me there is something rather barbarous in the idea that all difficulties may be solved in a free country by merely taking the oath of allegiance to a Sovereign who acknowledges her authority to be limited, and whose proudest boast is that she rules by constitutional authority. I know when you come to the question of allegiance to the Constitution under which we live a difficulty arises, because part of that Constitution

  61
  is the Church, I think on that subject there are considerable errors: some misunderstandings which it is desirable to remove, and difficulties which, after due deliberation and discussion, might disappear. We have a good many Churchmen in this House. We have a great many Motions made and a great many discussions in which the interests of the Church and the constitutional privileges of the Church are called in question, and I have contended, along with others, against any diminution of the political status of the Established Church in our constitutional system. But not because I believe in the phrase that is often thrown at our heads that "the Church is in danger." On the contrary, I bold that it is possible that all the Motions that are brought forward by Gentlemen below the gangway might be carried—that the alliance between Church and State might be terminated altogether, and yet that the power and influence and authority of the Church might not be diminished. Nay, if the Church retained her property—and the tenure by which it is held is of so complicated a character that confiscation would be more difficult than many persons imagined—I believe the power of the Church might be increased. But if that alliance were terminated, I ask what would become of the power of the State? I believe that would be greatly diminished not only in degree but in quality. And, Sir, it is not the Church that is in danger, but the Slate that is in danger by Motions which would lead to the great changes which some hon. Gentlemen desire. I cannot help believing that it is perfectly possible, without curtailing the full Parliamentary power of criticism over the institutions of the country, that an oath might be framed which every Member of this House, whatever may be his religion, might freely take, and which no loyal, sensible, and truly religious man would hesitate to take. These are reasons, among others, which show the immense difficulties of the questions that must arise before we can come to any matured legislation on this subject, and all these reasons tend to prove that to deal with these questions satisfactorily, and as becomes statesmen, is the duty and province of the responsible advisers of the Crown. I know that the responsible advisers of the Crown have said that they will not undertake it. It was once undertaken, in a certain degree, and they failed
  62
  in that case, not from any of the difficulties which I have suggested, but because they attempted, by the re-constructing of oaths, by a side-wind to carry a measure which ought to have been carried in a direct manner, and by the omission of words which I, for one, will never consent to omit from any oath framed in this House. Under these circumstances, if the Cabinet of the Queen will not undertake the duty, there is what I may call the Cabinet of the House of Commons, and that is a Select Committee. When I asked Her Majesty's Government to give a morning sitting, in order that the debate might be carried on, not hurriedly, and at a late hour, it was my intention to have moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with an instruction to that Committee to consider whether it was not practical to frame one uniform oath. But it was intimated to me by the highest authority that the question was in such a position that I could not consistently with our forms submit such a Motion to the House, therefore the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman has taken its course, and it is in Committee to-night. How are we to deal with it? I repeat my objection that I very much regret the attempt to frame another Roman Catholic oath. I think it would have been better for the Roman Catholics, I think it would have been better for the country generally, that the existing oath should be left untouched until the matter had been dealt with in a more comprehensive manner. But the House has by repeated majorities otherwise decided, and therefore I am obliged to consider how far I can meet the just claims of the Roman Catholics on this subject. The oath has been stated with great succinctness by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns). I will not admit that the language in the existing oath is a reproach. If it were so, I would not for a moment oppose its omission. I think this feeling on the part of Roman Catholics is rather of a morbid character. There are gentlemen, indeed, who have written to me that the bull Cœnœ Domini is still in existence, and I believe the Pope never repeals his bulls; and they fear some terrible calamity hanging over the country in the shape of the Roman canon law, from which I myself have certainly never experienced as yet any evil consequences. But we must look at all these points historically, and as men of the world. Granting that the bull Cœnœ Domini is still in

  63
  existence—granting that it is part of the Roman canon law, and may be the law of a portion of the Roman Catholic diocese of Westminster, I cannot help remembering that during the greater part of this century, if not before, there have existed the most confidential and friendly relations between the Court of Rome and the Sovereigns of this country, who hold the Crown by a Protestant tenure. I cannot forget that there have been between these Powers respectively good offices and expressions of obligation on both sides. I cannot forget the expressions of gratitude, in the handwriting, not of the present, but of a recent Pope, towards the English Sovereign who contributed to the restoration of his power and his estates. When I know all these things, how can I be so much frightened as I might otherwise have been, and perhaps ought to be, by the bull Cœnœ Domini? I have no objection to certain alterations in the oath. If it displeases Roman Catholics to be accused indirectly of equivocation—which, by the way, every Protestant gentleman six years ago submitted to, and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I am told, even to this day, takes an oath containing the same language—by all means let the words be omitted. But when I am asked to consent to omit the language which my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) proposes to re-insert, I find that a much graver matter. If you ask me whether I believe that the Established Church—and even the Established Church in Ireland—depends for its strength and its security upon any oath that can be taken in any place, I candidly confess that, were that so, I should have very little confidence in the future of the Established Church of this country. I do not think the Established Church in England depends upon that oath, nor do I think that the Established Church in Ireland depends upon it. The latter is sometimes spoken of as a weak Institution and in peril. Now I think it a strong Institution, and do not consider it in peril; and I have no doubt, from the causes which I have intimated, that the Established Church in both countries will continue to exist, will flourish, and will increase in authority and influence. But if you ask me what will be the consequence at this time—looking at the Motions that are made in this House, at the associations that are formed in Ireland, at the feeling prevalent throughout the country—if you ask me what will be
  64
  the consequence of Parliament coming forward at this time and agreeing to the omission of language which was formerly introduced into these documents for the purpose, if not of defending the Church, of at least showing that the Parliament of England resolves to recognize its authority and maintain it, I say that I believe it would be most unhappy and disastrous, and especially to the Roman Catholics themselves. I believe such a course would be more calculated to revive the acrimonious religious discussions, which it has been our policy for a quarter of a century to put an end to—to lead to exacerbation of feeling on religious matters—and to give authority to the unfounded statements that are made with regard to the conduct of Roman Catholics generally throughout the country, than any other course that we could pursue. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation as to the course which I ought to pursue. I shall support my hon. and learned Friend in the introduction of the words which he has proposed; and I do so, not because I suppose the introduction of the words necessary to the maintenance of the Church—next to the Throne the strongest Institution in the country—but because I believe that if there be a general opinion that Parliament has renounced its allegiance to the Established Church in this country there will be such a sentiment of alarm, and perhaps of indignation, that the policy which I have always supported and still wish to support —namely, the meeting the just claims of my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen in a spirit of rational conciliation—will be greatly obstructed and endangered.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, upon the second reading of this Bill I stated at some length the opinion of the Government, and, therefore, I shall only trouble the House now with very few observations. And, in doing so, I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) into those topics which he has introduced into the discussion, and which, I think, only tend to divert us from the plain and simple issue which we have before us. The right hon. Gentleman has raised questions about the expediency of maintaining the temporal power of the Pope, and as to the effects of disunion of Church and State—questions of great importance, but out of place, I think, on the present occasion. Neither will I go into the question raised by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt). whether

  65
  we should not be wise in abolishing all oaths and substitute for them declarations. That, again, is a question deserving consideration on a fitting occasion, but not raised by the Bill before us. The real question is—are our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects preferring a claim which can properly and reasonably be made by members of that church? They urge a claim to seats in this House on terms of perfect equality with their Protestant fellow-subjects; and the question we have to decide is, whether good cause has been shown for granting those claims. With the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman as to the different spirit in which questions of this kind are treated now from what they would have been some years ago, I entirely concur. In 1854 the Government of Lord Aberdeen proposed to Parliament a Bill, the effect of which would have been to establish one uniform oath, precisely in the form now suggested by the Bill of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell), but that Bill was opposed, and successfully opposed, by the right hon. Gentleman and the great party of which he is the head. In the year 1859 a Bill, identical, I believe, to the letter, with that now proposed by my right hon. Friend, was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman at that time Attorney General for Ireland, now Mr. Justice Fitzgerald; and parties were so evenly balanced that leave to introduce the Bill was only granted by a small majority. That Bill, again, was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and the whole of his party. Now, Sir, what do we see? The Bill proposed by my right hon. Friend has had its principle affirmed in two divisions by majorities in each case of about seventy. And, more than this, we find that those who refused on the former occasions to sanction any alteration in the Roman Catholic oath, now freely admit that there are parts of that oath which it is desirable to expunge, and they limit their opposition merely to the omission of those parts of the oath which are embodied in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns). I think we may certainly hail this result of the discussion as a proof that questions of this kind are entertained in a spirit of greater fairness and moderation, and with greater Christian charity than on former occasions. As to the apprehension expressed by the right hon. Gentleman at the close of his speech, that if the words relating to the settlement of property and the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland
  66
  be omitted from the oath, a strong feeling may be excited in the country which will possibly prove injurious to Roman Catholics, let me remind him of the fact to which I adverted on the second reading of the Bill. No one can doubt the attachment to Protestantism of the Protestant Dissenters, or suspect them of any sympathy with the doctrines of the Church of Rome, yet they have petitioned that this Bill may pass, considering that the principle embodied in it is just and reasonable. And now we come to the point really at issue—namely, the retention of the words, maintaining the settlement of property, and the declaration that Roman Catholic Members will not attempt to subvert the Protestant Established Church. It is needless for me to repeat the argument that the oath does not contain any real defence of the Established Church. The right hon. Gentleman plainly conceded that, in his opinion, it does not constitute any such defence; though he seems to imply that in the minds of other persons it might be so considered, and that its abolition might excite feelings detrimental to the Roman Catholics themselves. I think they may well take their chance of any such feeling arising. Will anybody seriously contend that the retention of this oath is of any advantage to the Established Church or to the Protestant faith in this country? I stated before, that in my opinion the oath is unnecessary and ambiguous, and that was a reason why, at all events, it should be modified. No one has attempted to deny that a portion of the oath is ambiguous in its terms; that different interpretations may be put upon it, and therefore that it docs not operate in the manner in which persons who are anxious to retain the oath desire that it should do. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke of an alliance between the extreme sections of the Liberal party and Roman Catholic Members for the subversion of the Established Church in Ireland, had his attention directed to the fact that, not very long after the passing of the Act requiring the present oath, Lord Derby, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, introduced the Church Temporalities Bill, which not only reduced the number of archbishops and bishops, but interfered materially with the temporalities of the Irish Church. I never heard that any reproach attached to the Roman Catholic Members for supporting Lord Derby in passing that Bill by large majo-

  67
  rities. Other questions have since arisen; but the terms of the oath mainly go to this—that Roman Catholic Members shall not use their power for the subversion of the Established Church, and it is clear that the Church Temporalities Act could neither have been proposed by the Government nor understood by the House as a subversive measure. As regards the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), I say nothing. He is a member of the Church of England; but his Motion, undoubtedly, received the support of some Roman Catholic Members. As to questions upon which Roman Catholic Members are to vote or not, I say a man's own conscience can be the only guide in the interpretation of the oath. Some men will take different views of the obligations imposed upon them from those entertained by others; but we have no right to doubt that they will act conscientiously in obedience to an oath open, as I have already stated, to different constructions. If the oath is open to this ambiguous construction, that is a reason why it should not be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman desires to see one uniform oath established for all Members of Parliament. I hope this may soon be accomplished; but what he added about the difficulty of framing one uniform oath showed how inexpedient it would have been for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) to forego the advantages he has gained by the position in which his Bill now is, in order that another Bill might be introduced for establishing one uniform oath. If this Bill passes, the oaths taken by Protestant and by Roman Catholic Members will be so very similar that I cannot conceive it possible that we shall not soon come to an uniform oath. But insert the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman and you raise an insuperable barrier against the attainment of that object. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he would impose on Protestant Dissenters the same oath which he wishes Roman Catholic Members to take—that they will not attempt to subvert the Established Church? If not, the insertion of those words is a declaration that you will not have a uniform oath; that you propose to perpetuate the distinction—a distinction to which you attach no value, and which is no security to the Established Church. It is these useless distinctions we wish now to abolish. For these reasons I think it inexpedient to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and
  68
  learned Gentleman (Sir Hugh Cairns). I believe the best thing you can do, under present circumstances, is to pass the Bill as proposed by my right hon. Friend, reserving for future consideration the question of whether you will have an uniform oath. Towards the attainment of that object I believe this Bill is an important step, and I hope it will eventually insure that result.
  MR. WHITESIDE: Sir, to the debate of 1854 the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey), I think, has unintentionally made an erroneous reference. The Conservative party, as he has accurately stated, defeated the very bad Bill then proposed. But why? Because a number of Gentlemen who sat behind the Ministers, finding out the attempt that was made to overthrow the Act of Supremacy, which asserted the jurisdiction of the Crown in all matters and things ecclesiastical and temporal, although willing enough to pass a measure that avoided that subject, the moment they discovered the great and fundamental interference with our ancient laws contemplated by that Bill voted against the right hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party acted on that occasion in accordance with their principles, and not only maintained the Articles of the Church but upheld the interpretation which every great lawyer has always put upon the Constitutional law of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) the other night asked what he, no doubt, considered a very awkward question—whether I believed the oath which I had taken. He put that question triumphantly. He had just then returned from his rustic meditations, and I think my right hon. Friend must have been engaged either in the composition of a beautiful poem or in writing a piece of biography, since he failed to apprehend the principles of the Constitution of his country. The word to which his question pointed was "jurisdiction." If he had bestowed a moment's thought upon it he would have remembered that "jurisdiction" was the word employed in the Articles of the Church, where it is distinctly stated that "the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction within the realm of England," a declaration justified by the opinion of every lawyer who has written on the subject. I will give him a scrap from Sir Matthew Hale, because I should not like my right hon. Friend to suffer under the unhappy notion that the oath which he has taken was not founded on fact. Sir Matthew Hale says—

  69
  "The supremacy of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical is a most unquestionable right of the Crown of England, that there had been encroachments made by the Papacy under that loose pretence in ordine spiritualia, and these had gained great strength, notwithstanding the security which the Crown had by the oath of fealty and allegiance, and required to be unriveted by the power of Parliament."
  The Bill of 1854, to which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) referred, covertly and in a very sly manner proposed to get rid of the Oath of Supremacy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very clever speech on that occasion; endeavouring to set aside the principle of the supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters. I believe many persons in this country of a peculiar cast of mind and of peculiar opinions would be very glad to do so. I shall now quote a few opinions of eminent authorities and distinguished men on this subject. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud would be satisfied with that of Lord Lyndhurst. Lord Lyndhurst said that the—
  "Supremacy of the Crown in ecclesiastical matters was part of the common law, part of the Constitution of the country."
  Nor do I think he will disapprove that of a former Lord Chief Justice. It was as follows:—
  "The declaration contained in the oath of Supremacy is but the affirmance of a proposition which is logically and politically true as an essential principle of independent Sovereignty."
  These were the words of Lord Ellen-borough.
  MR. HORSMAN: Why not give Lord Chelmsford's opinion?
  MR. WHITESIDE: I prefer to give what suits me. To speak seriously, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), on the occasion to which I have referred, surprised me. I did not believe that any gentleman in England, particularly anyone who, like my right hon. Friend, belongs, as I believe, to the Church of England, could imagine that an oath framed in the terms of the Oath of Supremacy could be taken by Members of Parliament not believing it to be true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) said, these oaths have an historic meaning and an historic character, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud expresses a doubt as to whether the oath taken by the Protestant Members of this House can be truly taken, he must allow me to remind him that it was not on the question of transub-
  70
  stantiation that the oath was framed, but the great debate and the great dispute was as to the supremacy of the Pope of Rome or the Crown of England, and loyal Catholics in taking the oath took it honestly and conscientiously. Therefore, I believe the right hon. Gentleman will never again ask me the question whether I can take the oath believing it to be true. I venture to assert that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) had brought in a Bill directly doing away with the supremacy of the Crown he would have involved himself in a debate which would not have finished by the end of August, because this is a subject not to be got rid of in a cursory manner; it is one upon which whole essays have been written, and upon which the great sages of the law have instructed us. The oath to which this Bill refers is said to be offensive. Now, there are two or three Gentlemen, Friends of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who have given opinions on this subject, and no person knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the opinions of Gentlemen who change their politics lose much of their value. Not only did the late Sir Robert Peel declare that he had drawn up the oath as a compact—[Mr. HORSMAN: No, no!] I say, yes. Sir Robert Peel, in 1849 said—and this supports the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli)—that it might be taken by a man of the nicest sense of honour. Sir Robert Peel said—
  "The law has provided an oath, to be taken by the Roman Catholic, which qualifies him to take his seat in either branch of the Legislature. That same oath, to which the Roman Catholic has no conscientious scruples and takes without the slightest difficulty, which was formed that he might take it without difficulty, gives him, with respect to civil offices, as well as to Parliament, a clear and unquestionable qualification."—[3 Hansard,cv. 431.]
  These are the words of Sir Robert Peel, and I therefore think the interruption of my right hon. Friend was unnecessary. And then there is the opinion of Lord John Russell. Now, Lord John Russell changed his opinion afterwards—of course he did; it is the fashion of the day. But Lord John Russell, replying to a proposal to change something in the Roman Catholic oath, on the question before the House, said—
  "He did not think it would be wise to disturb a settlement which had been made after so many conflicts and so much consideration, and which, as he had understood, the Roman Catholics had supported as a full and complete admission of

  71
  their claim to sit in Parliament."—[3 Hansard, cv. 439.]
  And, again—
  "If they took the shorter form of that oath and substituted it for the Roman Catholic oath, as settled in 1829, they would he taking away"—
  What is the expression of Lord Russell?
  "the foundation of that settlement, to which many Members would also object."—[3Hansard, Ibid p. 440.]
  But that is not all. Mr. Goulburn, in 1854, said—
  "He was the only Member in the House who was a Member of the Duke of Wellington's Cabinet in 1829, and who was a party with the late Duke in framing the oath which now stood in the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. When the measure was proposed by the noble Duke it was more ample and freer from restrictions than any which the friends of the Roman Catholics had previously proposed to the House; and all the restrictions previously sanctioned by Plunket and Grattan were studiously omitted from the Bill, the Duke of Wellington being willing, relying upon the good faith and honour of the Roman Catholics, to waive all objections felt to their entering the House so long as they swore to the form of oath then proposed. From that time to the present he had, in common with the late Sir Robert Peel and with all the Members of the Wellington Cabinet, distinctly refused to concur in any measure which should interfere with that great compact which was then entered into. He warned the House, and, above all, his fellow-countrymen of the Roman Catholic persuasion, to beware how they lent their efforts to the introduction of the first step towards the violation of the compact then entered into. Such a course would, he thought, tend to inflame the passions of the people, and possibly endanger the substantial provisions of that Bill of 1829, which had been found to be so beneficial to the country at large, and produce such an amount of religious discord throughout the country as it would be vain to attempt to repress."—[3 Hansard, cxxxiii. 970.]
  That was the argument of a Gentleman who had been a party to the framing of the oath, and what, then, does the House think of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, that the oath was forced upon a reluctant minority by an overpowering majority? Now, where is his authority for that statement? Let him produce it, and I will undertake to convince the Roman Catholic Gentlemen of this House that the Roman Catholics themselves were the persons who drew up the substantive part of the oath. How did they draw it up? My right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) alluded to the evidence of Archbishop Murray before the House of Lords in 1825. In answer to the question whether there was any intention on the part of Gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion to meddle with the property of the Established Church, he said, "Not at all;" and added that there was not the least objection on their
  72
  part to make a declaration that they would not attempt to divert the property of the Established Church to the uses of their own church. Now, what did Archbishop Murray do, he kept his word? He returned to Ireland, and, together with the other bishops of his church, drew up a declaration which I will ask hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns) to compare with that Amendment. In the declaration signed by the Roman Catholic bishops in 1826, they declare they will defend the settlement of property in this country as established by the laws now in being; that they abjure any intention to subvert the Church Establishment for the purpose of endowing their own Church; and that they will not use any privilege to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government. These were the words of the document which was signed by Archbishop Murray, and by every Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland; and hence it was that Archbishop M'Hale, the only surviving one, had point blank refused to join that association in Dublin, by whatever name it called itself, which had for its object the subversion of the Church of Ireland, and to plunge the country into confusion. The Roman Catholic bishops "declare that they will defend (he settlement of property in this country as established by the laws then in being;" and these are the very words introduced by the authority of the late Sir Robert Peel into this oath. The next thing they said was that they abjured any intention to subvert the Established Church for the purpose of introducing any other in its stead; and they also declared that they would never make use of any privilege of which they might be possessed to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government of this country. Therefore the very words of their declaration were the words which were introduced into this oath by Sir Robert Peel. You find, therefore, Sir Robert Peel speaking of the agreement then come to as a compact; Mr. Goulburn calling it a compact, and Earl Russell speaking of it as a fundamental settlement. And these are the words which are now described as most offensive to every Roman Catholic Gentleman in this House. Now, I always prefer to be fortified by the opinions of the most eminent Roman Catholics. I do not study canon law much myself, because I do not like it. As to the words about the settlement of property, the late Sir Frankland Lewis put

  73
  a question to the Professor of Canon Law at Maynooth, wishing to know whether there was any law by which the property of the Church in Ireland could be taken from her. The answer of the learned professor was that there was a law of limitation by which Church property, even in Rome, which had been out of the possession of the Church for 100 years, could not be claimed by the Church, and that there was no law, human or divine, which could justify an interference with Church property in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell, in his evidence before Parliament, entered into a learned dissertation upon the Act of Settlement, which deserves the attention of Roman Catholic Gentlemen, because it was drawn up in their favour. The head of their Church in Ireland, I observe, when censuring Mr. Justice Keogh the other day for his lecture on Milton, said something about Oliver Cromwell, who was a very distinct and terrible character. Now, observe, Oliver Cromwell destroyed your Church, and he and the Puritans, as far as they could, meant to extirpate your race. Your nobility were wanderers over the continent of Europe. They were stripped of their property, their fortunes, and their rank; and the Puritan was the first person who ever expelled the Roman Catholic gentry of Ireland from their Parliament. Oliver Cromwell said they were not fit to sit in Parliament, and I should like to know who could contradict Oliver Cromwell? Who restored them? Those who believed in the Established Church. The Duke of Ormond, Charles II., and the Act of Settlement restored them. And now you, the Roman Catholic Members, are surrounding yourselves with the political descendants of the Puritans, who would destroy my Church and yours afterwards. I congratulate you on the union. In the Act of Settlement your Roman Catholic nobility and gentry, to the number of upwards of 100 are named, and by its instrumentality Churchmen restored them to their fortunes, estates, and titles without further inquiry, and they took the place to which they were entitled in the Parliament of their country. But the same law restored the property of the Church that had been torn from it in evil times. Now, I should like to know this. Do you hold it to be just and conscientious to form an association to upset a portion of an Act of Parliament which gave you your property? What objection is there to preserve in this oath the declaration which was recommended in substance by Mr. O'Connell himself, and which in the words I have read was sug-
  74
  gested by Archbishop Murray and the Roman Catholic bishops. If I were asked, "Why do you rely so much on the other words, and what objection have you to take out these words relating to the Church?" I would answer by giving four conclusive reasons. The first reason is the publication of Earl Russell's new edition of his book on the British Constitution. In his preliminary essay he holds out the prospect of another appropriation clause. His triumph was so great on a former occasion that the noble Earl intimates to certain sections of the Liberal party, "if you join me in attacking the property of the Church in Ireland we may accomplish something for general purposes hereafter." The noble Earl's statements on the property of the Church in Ireland are a mere series of fictions. He says that the property of the Primate, if well laid out, would produce £180,000 a year, whereas I find his income is only £8,000, and for the first year the charges were £12,000. The income of the Bishop of Cork, so far from reaching the amount stated by the noble Earl, is under £2,000 a year. The noble Earl ought to have gone to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before he published a new edition of his book, and asked them for the facts. My next reason is the letter of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who, with that frankness and simplicity characteristic of him, says, if I am asked to join your association in Dublin, I will do so on two grounds. One is to overthrow the property of the Church, and the other to overthrow the laws regulating the settlement of property, and among them the absurd law of primogeniture. My third reason is the programme of that association to which I have referred, setting forth their desire to overthrow the Church, in the way of which desire many speakers and writers in Ireland have truly stated this oath is a very unpleasant obstruction. In the last debate I thought I heard the hon. Member for Louth use the words that this oath ought to be removed in order to unlock the mouths of Irish gentlemen, and let them loose at that great nuisance—the Established Church. [Mr. KENNEDY: I said to unmuzzle the senators.] The hon. Member is correct, I said "unlock," which is not so poetical, and I accept the hon. Member's term, and I say that, being a Churchman, if I can keep you muzzled I will do so. You made an arrangement fairly, and you have kept it honourably. I could name a Gentleman in this House—the hon. Baronet who represents Dundalk

  75
  (Sir George Bowyer)—whose scrupulous sense of honour, whenever the property of the Church of Ireland has been discussed, has prevented him from uttering one word in derogation of the solemn obligation which he has incurred by the oath. The last of my reasons is the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the Irish Church. That was a speech that ought never to he forgotten. During the short time I was absent in Dublin a gentleman of opposite politics to myself said, "We have found our man; we have got our leader." I said, "And who is to be your leader?" He replied, with the greatest frankness, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer; he has promised to deal with the Church of Ireland." I say that was a mischievous speech, and combined with the other circumstances I have mentioned, and with the feeling of a portion of the public press in Ireland, I object to dispense with an oath that is sought to be got rid of, not only to "unmuzzle" those whom it muzzles, but to enable a combined attack to be made by the enemies of the Church upon an Institution which they undertook not to disturb. I have been startled during these discussions to hear the light way in which oaths have been spoken of. It is a dangerous doctrine when applied to an oath such as this, drawn up by eminent statesmen of the Conservative party. The Duke of Wellington recorded his opinion that, whether the security were great or small, it was entered into for the satisfaction of the Protestant mind of the country, and was one of the conditions on which the Emancipation Act was passed. The right hon. Richard Anthony Blake, the Chief Remembrancer, the friend of a distinguished Irishman, the Marquess of Wellesley, gave evidence before the House of Lords in favour of the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland, and being called upon to explain that evidence, he said—
  "The Protestant Church is rooted in the Constitution. It is established by the fundamental laws of the realm. It is rendered, as far as solemn Acts of the Legislature can be rendered, fundamental and perpetual. It is so declared by the Act of Union, and I think it could not now be subverted without danger to the general securities we possess for liberty, property, and order."
  Believing, Sir, as I do, that the Established Church of Ireland is a security for order, peace, and prosperity, I will resist the removal of obstacles to those who tell me beforehand with perfect frankness that they mean to overthrow the Church. If I am asked what is the meaning of this oath, I
  76
  ask in return whether any Member in this House will stand up and say that it was intended that those who took it should join together for the overthrow of the Church? The oath was framed in order that the settlement of property, so far as regards the Church, might be undisturbed. That settlement was overthrown in the short reign of James II.; it was afterwards restored; since then it has been from time to time disputed; and these words in the oath are of historic significance. Because they were fairly and properly introduced into the Emancipation Act; because they were suggested at the time by the Roman Catholic prelates themselves; because they do not hurt the conscience; because they do not offend the most scrupulous delicacy of sentiment or feeling in the mind of any Gentleman in this House; and lastly, because they assert a principle which is right, and just, and true, I heartily support the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. HENLEY: Sir, I voted for the second reading of this Bill, but I had not an opportunity then of stating why I did so, and therefore I trust the House will allow me to state the course I intend to take at the present moment. The Home Secretary says he objects to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hugh Cairns), because he thinks the Roman Catholic Members ought to be here upon a footing of perfect equality with all other Members. He laid down that as the broad basis upon which he was founding his vote. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. Hunt) said he would be no party to continuing a distinction in the oath, and therefore he would not vote for the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend. But, supposing that this Motion be not carried, I ask whether we should stand upon a footing of perfect equality? No man can say that we should. In the first four lines of the oath, both Roman Catholics and Protestants swear affirmatively to four things; they swear to do allegiance, to disclose any traitorous designs, to support the Succession to the Throne, and to support the Dignity of the Crown. Now, when you come to discuss these matters as casuists it is difficult to say, looking to the common-law theories as to the Dignity of the Crown, which includes its Supremacy, how far the oath can be taken affirmatively by persons who, when they come to the negations, stop short of this. But then comes the difference. We Protestants declare that no foreign Prince, Prelate, or Potentate has any jurisdiction

  77
  of any sort or description in these realms. The Roman Catholic, I believe, do not, and cannot conscientiously make this declaration. We use words which are larger than those he can employ, and which embrace every possible contingency. Do we, then, stand in the position of equality spoken of by the Home Secretary? I say we do not. Then what is the position? The Roman Catholics form, say, a fifth part of the subjects of these realms. They are affiliated to the great body of Christians out of the country. They possess an organization made more perfect within these last few years, and growing more perfect every day. Under these circumstances, when this country consents to let the Roman Catholics take an obligation short of what we take— because that is the real fact, it is of no use disguising it—it is an obligation less in amount than that under which we come—is it unreasonable, as they do not wish to stand on the same ground as we do, to say, "Give us an assurance that you do not want to use this power to damage the Protestant Church in this country?" I think this is not unreasonable; and I never understood that it was felt to be unreasonable at the time it was agreed upon. Whether it affords a great or a small security is to me of no consequence. If the words will be a great security to the Church we ought, looking at the increased attacks on the Established Church, to retain those words; if they are a small security I should still be unwilling to give them up. I cannot shut my eyes to the change in the position of this country from what it was when this agreement was come to. We cannot say that the Roman Catholic Church is less completely organized, less powerful, or less aggressive than it then was. Can we say that the attacks on the Established Church have! diminished? Before 1829 or 1830 these attacks were almost unknown. For a few years after that period they were very much pressed. In 1844, 1845, and 1846 they were pressed again, especially by the noble Earl now Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Earl Russell); and now these attacks are cropping up once more. Is this a time to give up that which may be a great or a small security for the maintenance of the Establishment? I, for one, am not willing to do so. I have a strong opinion, shared by the great majority of the country, as to the great blessings we derive from the maintenance of the Established Church, and I will not give up anything which I believe may be a security to the Church,
  78
  The Home Secretary said the oath was an ambiguous one. If so, why do not those who think as he does propose a form of words which shall he an equivalent for these, and which shall not be ambiguous? But the fact is that they want to get rid of these words altogether. I voted for the second reading of the Bill for the following reason:—In 1858, I think, the forms of oath we take were generally re-cast. In recasting that oath the declaration as to the lawfulness of murdering ex-communicated Sovereigns was got rid of out of the oath we take, though it was retained in the Roman Catholic oath. I thought it might be felt unfair to insist that this declaration should be made by Roman Catholics, and I wished to get rid of that. I was also quite willing to get rid of the jurat, which I always thought might be deemed offensive. These considerations induced me to vote for the second reading of the Bill. But the part of the oath we are now considering is of substance; and I, therefore, readily support the introduction of these words, believing that they are of some use for the security of the Established Church, and being sure that great alarm will be felt throughout the country if we consent to give them up.
  MR. HORSMAN: Sir, having had an opportunity of stating my opinions to the House at some length on a former occasion, it did not occur to me that I should take any part in this debate. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) has made so severe an attack upon me for my ignorance of history, he has convicted me of such gross errors of fact, and has covered me with so much confusion, that I feel constrained to vindicate myself. Part of that vindication will be an appeal to the House to join with me in requesting the right hon. Gentleman to set me that example which is more valuable than a whole volume of eloquent precept. Fortunately, we have an historical record of whatever statements we make in Parliament, and we are thus on either side brought to a test from which there is no escape. In passing I may say that when I spoke the other day of the jurisdiction of the Pope in this country, I stated that one of our difficulties was that there were so many different constructions put upon it by different authorities that it puzzled those who had to take the oath to know what it meant. The right hon. Gentleman has given me the authority of Lord Ellenborough and Lord Lyndhurst. Well, I could have given him many other authorities

  79
  equally eminent and conclusive. I satisfied myself, however, by giving one which was peculiarly deserving of the respect of the right hon. Gentleman, because it was the opinion of a noble Lord who was Chancellor when the right hon. Gentleman was Attorney General for Ireland—I mean Lord Chelmsford. But the right hon. Gentleman said that he only quoted the authorities which suited his own convenience. The question is this:—The Act of Emancipation has been described as a compact between the Roman Catholics and the Government of that day. I deny that. I assert that there was no compact, that none was avowed, that none was implied, and I say that Sir Robert Peel went out of his way to repudiate any such compact. In order to make the history of this period clear to the right hon. Gentleman, allow me to recall to his recollection one fact. Hon. Members opposite take their stand on the Act of 1829. What was the principle and policy of that Act. By their speeches this evening, hon. Members opposite are repudiating the principle and thwarting the policy of the Act. I will prove what I say by quotations. In appealing to the venerated authority of Sir Robert Peel (you must recollect that we are not speaking of the Sir Robert Peel of 1850, whose memory we so much revere), but of the Sir Robert Peel of 1829, who was no friend to the principle of Catholic Emancipation, but who avowed he yielded to fear what he denied to justice. Only a few years before—in 1825—he tendered his resignation to Lord Liverpool because he was in a minority on the question of Catholic Emancipation in this House. In 1827 he refused to join the Cabinet of Mr. Canning; and why? You will remember Mr. Canning's memorable words when he said of the Catholic claims, "In the name of expediency they are politic; in the name of humanity they are charitable; in the name of God they are just;" and Sir Robert Peel asked how he could take office with Mr. Canning after he had given expression to such sentiments as those. Again, in 1828 Sir Robert Peel stated that further consideration had only confirmed him in opposition to the principle of Catholic Emancipation. In that year Sir Robert Peel was so little advanced in his opinions that he opposed the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, as proposed by Lord John Russell. In 1829, however, Sir Robert Peel was a convert to the expediency of granting Catholic Emancipation. He was a man of sagacious and
  80
  generous temperament, and when he determined to yield he determined that the concession should be large, generous, and effective. Sir Robert Peel, in introducing the Catholic Emancipation Bill, anticipated the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and laid down principles from which he was determined that there should be no departure. The first principle which he laid down was that the Act should accomplish perfect equality between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the Legislature. Sir Robert Peel said—
  "If we are to relinquish the system of exclusion, let us secure the advantages of concession. If we are to settle the Catholic question, let us settle it at once and for ever."
  [Cheers from the Opposition Benches.] I have often known hon. Gentlemen cheer too soon, and I would now advise them to wait a little—
  "Settle it, I mean," continued Sir Robert Peel, "so far as political rights are concerned, by the restoration of equality."—[2 Hansard, xx. 757.]
  Sir Robert Peel had to carry out this principle of equality, but the difficulty of Sir Robert Peel may be illustrated by the position of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) this evening. He had to mediate between conflicting passions—the passions of Roman Catholics on one side, who cried out "No exclusion," and the passions of those who cried out "No surrender!"—and he framed this oath. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire says that, as far as concerns the security of the Established Church, he does not care a rush for it; but there are those behind him who take a different view. Sir Robert Peel was obliged to make this compromise in order to conciliate the men opposed to the measure. That was the position of Sir Robert Peel in 1829, but he determined that a future age should be emancipated from the difficulty in which he was placed. He foresaw that people would say, "Here is a compact;" and here is the manner in which he repudiates such an assumption—
  "It is the result of no compact with any party or with any individual. The Roman Catholics have not been consulted in respect to it; and for two sufficient reasons. First, because it is better suited to the dignity of legislation that it should be independent of previous compacts with the parties whom it is to affect; and, secondly, because it is not fair upon the Roman Catholics themselves to require them to give their previous assent to the conditions, or securities, or restrictions with which it may be necessary to accompany the measures of relief."—[2 Hansard, xx. 755.]
  Will the right hon. Gentleman say after

  81
  that that this is a matter of compact with the Roman Catholics, when Sir Robert Peel declared that he studiously avoided anything like compact, in order not to interfere with the future action of the Roman Catholics? He foresaw that the measure he was framing must be imperfect, and therefore he laid down the principle on which a future generation might act, though he was too much enthralled to act upon them himself. Sir Robert Peel not only said that there was no compact, but he anticipated the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, because he said that part of the intention of the Government was that no restriction should be placed on the speeches or votes of Roman Catholic Members. Is that denied? If I understand the Amendment, it means that the Roman Catholic Members are under the obligation of an oath which restrains them from taking part either in debates or divisions on the question of the Irish Church. If that is not the meaning of the Amendment it has no meaning at all. Now, Sir Robert Peel, with great foresight, saw and cut that ground from under your feet. That very restriction was proposed to Sir Robert Peel, and what were the terms with which he rejected and repudiated it? This is part of history, in which I am ignorant, and the right hon. Gentleman is so extremely conversant. Sir Robert Peel said—
  "Another proposal has been made, by a right hon. Friend of mine, (Mr. Wilmot Horton) made from the best motives, and supported with an ingenuity, ability, and research worthy of the motives and of the character of its author. My right hon. Friend has proposed, with a view to calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the Roman Catholic Member should be disqualified by law from voting on matters relating, directly or indirectly, to the interests of the Established Church. There appears to me numerous and cogent objections to this proposal. In the first place, it is dangerous to establish the precedent of limiting by law the discretion by which the duties and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exercised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand what are the questions which affect the interests of the Church. A question which has no immediate apparent connection with the Church might have a practical bearing upon its welfare ten times more important than another question which might appear directly to concern it. Thirdly, by excluding the Roman Catholic from giving his individual vote, you do little to diminish his real influence, if you leave him the power of speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a jealous and distrusting but ineffectual precaution, you tempt him to exercise to your prejudice the remaining power of which you cannot, or do not
  82
  propose to deprive him, I believe there is more of real security in confidence than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccompanied by effectual guards. For these reasons I am unwilling to deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either House of Parliament of any privilege of free discussion, and free exercise of judgment, which belongs to other Members of the Legislature."—[2 Hansard, xx. 758.]
  Now, I say that Sir Robert Peel anticipated and answered the arguments now being put forward. Is it nothing that a large section of the Members of this House should be placed in a position of inferiority by being compelled to enter it upon conditions from which others are exempt? Does not that imply inferiority? Every other Member, no matter what his creed, may vote upon every subject which comes before the House. The Roman Catholic alone is debarred from the exercise of that right. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) said the other day that Henry VIII. complained that he was only half a King; may not the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard), who represents a Protestant constituency, say that he is only half a Member of Parliament? The real objection is that which has been stated by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt). A Roman Catholic may put his own construction upon the oath, and a Protestant may put his own construction upon his conduct; and therefore an honourable, high-minded, and conscientious Roman Catholic, acting upon his conscience and taking his own view of the oath, may find the finger of scorn pointed at him from the other side of the House, and may next clay see columns of the newspapers teeming with reproaches against him for having violated an oath which, in his conscience, he does not believe that he has violated. But there is another case which has escaped the notice of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt). Apply it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). The right hon. Gentleman takes an oath in this House that he will do nothing to weaken the Established Church, but he takes another oath as a Privy Councillor that he will upon every question openly, conscientiously, and solemnly give such advice as he believes to be for the public good. The question of the Irish Church comes on; he has to advise upon that question, and he thinks, let us suppose, that that Church ought to be abolished. He has taken an oath in this House binding him not to interfere with the Established Church in

  83
  Ireland, and he has taken another as a Privy Councillor which obliges him to advise its abolition. This is not the case merely of an unnecessary or doubtful oath, but of two absolutely conflicting oaths. I will not be tempted to go further into this question, but with reference to the reproach which has been levelled at my right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) for bringing this Bill forward because he is a Roman Catholic, I must say that if the Government will not introduce a Bill, and if no Protestant Member will introduce a Bill, I think my right hon. Friend has only exercised a wise discretion in proposing a measure which will rescue himself from a great reproach, and confer a great boon upon all his co-religionists.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to state that the late Sir Robert Peel, to his dying day, instead of in any way relaxing the opinion he expressed in 1849, had learnt by experience the value of the securities he had in that year recommended the House to retain, and which it was the object of this Bill to remove. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had read history in a very strange manner. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to persuade the House to accept certain expressions, which fell from the late Sir Robert Peel in 1829, in opposition to the tenour of the Act which Sir Robert Peel then carried, and to his deliberate opinion expressed in 1849. The right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe that the late Sir Robert Peel had gained nothing by experience in those twenty years. In 1854 the late Mr. Goulburn had assured him (Mr. Newdegate) that Sir Robert Peel, so far from undervaluing the securities which he willingly accepted and adopted in 1829, adhered to them as he did, being himself a Member of the Government which adopted these securities—not as a matter of compact if the right hon. Gentleman opposite objected to that word—but on the authority of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland. So far from departing from those securities, Sir Robert Peel, within one year of his death, and although favourable to the admission of Jews to that House, warned the House not to depart from the settlement of 1829, lest this country should be involved in those bitter controversies which it had been his object to calm and assuage. He (Mr. Newdegate) warned the Protestant Dissenters of this country of the mistake they were making on this question. Their predecessors had made a like mistake. But
  84
  one year previous to the Revolution of 1688, in 1687, the Dissenters and Quakers had been so attracted by the declaration in favour of religious equality issued by James II., that they attended him bareheaded with expression of their gratitude, and yet the very next year they were compelled to concur in the deposition of the King, because they found that the power and tyranny of Rome had become almost supreme in this country, although there was not one Roman Catholic to a hundred Protestants at that time, yet Jesuitism insinuated itself into the affairs of State. This attempt at Supremacy, on the part of Rome, was defeated at the Revolution. Previous to the reign of Elizabeth no oath was taken by any Member equivalent to that now accepted by each Member at the table—no oath such as that established in 1829. Why should that oath be abrogated? The House was told that it was painful to Roman Catholics to have to repudiate the doctrines ascribed to them. But what was the language of the Encyclical letter of last December? That letter touched, not only on matters of religion, but of jurisdiction, for the Pope asserted it to be criminal for any Roman Catholic to hold that the temporal affairs of States and Nations were exempt from his authority.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 166: Majority 19.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported,without Amendment; to be read 3° on Thursday.

  AYES.

  Annesley, hon. Col. H.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Astell, J. H.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Conolly, T.

  Barrow, W. H.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Beach, Sir M.

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Dick, F.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Benyon, R.

  Du Cane, C.

  Beresford, D. W. Pack-

  Duncombe, hon. A.

  Bernard, hon. Colonel

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Boyle, hon. G. F.

  Edwards, Colonel

  Bremridge, R.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Brooks, R.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Bromley, W. D.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Fellowes, E.

  Bruen, H.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Butler, C. S.

  Floyer, J.

  Caird, J.

  Forester, rt. hon. Gen.

  Cargill, W. W.

  Forster, Sir G.

  Cave, S.

  Fraser, Sir W. A.

  85

  Getty, S. G.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Murray, W.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Naas, Lord

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Greenall, G.

  Noel, hon. G.J.

  Greenwood, J.

  North, Colonel

  Grey de Wilton, Visct.

  O'Neill, E.

  Grogan, Sir E.

  Packe, C. W.

  Haliburton.T. C.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Papillon, P. O.

  Hamilton, Viscount

  Parker, Major W.

  Hardy, G.

  Patten, Colonel W.

  Hardy, J.

  Peel, rt. hon. General

  Hartopp, E. B.

  Pennant, hon. Colonel

  Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

  Phillips, G. L.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Powell, F. S.

  Hill, hon. R. C.

  Pryse, E. L.

  Holford, R. S.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Salt, T.

  Hotham, Lord

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Howes, E.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Ingestre, Viscount

  Shirley, E. P.

  Jolliffe, rt. hn. Sir W.G. H.

  Smith, A. (Herts)

  Jolliffe, H. H.

  Smith, S. G.

  Kendall, N.

  Somes, J.

  Kennard, R. W.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Ker, D. S.

  Stronge, Sir J. M.

  King, J. K.

  Stuart, Lieut. Col. W.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Sturt, Lieut. Col. N.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Knox, Colonel

  Taylor, Colonel

  Knox, hon. Major S.

  Tollemache,.J.

  Langton, W. G.

  Torrens, R.

  Langton.W. H. G.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Leeke, Sir H.

  Treherne, M.

  Lefroy, A.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill-

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Leslie, C. P.

  Turner, C.

  Long, R. P.

  Vance, J.

  Lowther, hon. Col.

  Verner, Sir W.

  Lytton.rt. hn. Sir G. E.

  Verner, E. W.

  L. Bulwer

  Walcott, Admiral

  Macaulay, K.

  Waldegrave- Leslie, hn G

  Malins, R.

  Walker, J. R.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Welby, W. E.

  Miles, Sir W.

  Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

  Miller, T. J.

  Williams, F. M.

  Miller, W.

  Woodd, B. T.

  Mills, A.

  TELLERS.

  Morgan, O.

  Cairns, Sir H.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Whitmore, H.

  NOES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Adam, W. P.

  Bright, J.

  Antrobus, E.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Bruce, Lord E.

  Bagwell, J.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Baring, H. B.

  Burke, Sir T. G.

  Baring, rt.hn. Sir F. T.

  Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G.

  Baring, T. G.

  Bass, M. T.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Bazley, T.

  Carnegie, hon. C.

  Beale, S.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Cheetham, J.

  Berkeley, hon. H. F.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Berkeley.hn.Col.F.W.F.

  Clay, J.

  Blake, J. A.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Cogan, W. H. F.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Coke, hon. Colonel

  Brady, Dr.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  86

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Maguire J. F.

  Corbally, M. E.

  Majoribanks, D. C.

  Cox, W.

  Martin, J.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Mills, J. R.

  Davey, R.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Moor, H.

  Dickson, Colonel

  Moore, C.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  North, F.

  Douglas, Sir C.

  O'Conor Don, The

  Doulton, F.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Duff, M. E. G.

  O'Farrall, rt. hn. R. M.

  Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

  Ogilvy, Sir J.

  Dunne, M.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Onslow, G.

  Ennis, J.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Evans, T. W.

  Packe, Colonel

  Ewart, J. C.

  Padmore, R.

  Fenwick.E. M.

  Paget, C.

  Foljambe, F.J. S.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Forster, C.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Forster, W. E.

  Palmerston, Viscount

  Foster, W. O.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C.

  Peel, J.

  French, Colonel

  Pilkington, J.

  Gavin, Major

  Pinney, Colonel

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Pollard-Urquhart, W.

  Gilpin, C.

  Portman. hn. W. H. B.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Potter, E.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Potter, T. B.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Pritchard, J.

  Goschen, G. J.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Greene, J.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Gregory, W, H.

  Russell, F. W.

  Greville, Colonel F.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Scholefleld, W.

  Grosvenor, Earl

  Scully, V.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Seymour, W. D.

  Hadfield, G.

  Seymour, A.

  Hassard, M.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Henley, Lord

  Smith, M. T.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Stacpoole, W.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Stanley, hon. W. 0.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Stuart, Colonel C.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Howard, Lord E.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Tottenham, Lt.-Col.C.G

  Jervoise.Sir J.C.

  Tracy, hon. C. R. D. H.

  Kennedy, T.

  Turner, J. A.

  Kinglake, A.W.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Layard, A. H.

  Vyner, R. A.

  Lawson, W.

  Waldron, L.

  Leader, N. P.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Western, S.

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Westhead, J. P. Brown-

  Lever, J. O.

  Whitbread, S.

  Lewis, H.

  White, hon. L.

  Locke, J.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Longfield, R.

  Wrightson, W. B.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  TELLERS.

  MacEvoy, E.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Mackinnon, W. A.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  RECORD OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.

    (Lords)— [BILL 151.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Every Description of Title may be recorded, and need not be registered in the Deeds Registry. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 72, s. 51).
    MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved, in line 25, to leave out—
    "And no delaration of title so entered upon the record shall be registered in the office for Registering Deeds in Ireland."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he admitted the force of the Amendment, and proposed to meet the right hon. Gentle-man's views by the addition of certain words to Clause 16.
    MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Any Person obtaining a Conveyance or Declaration may decline to have his Title recorded under this Act).
    MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved, in line 35, to leave out "not." He said his object was to render the Bill completely permissive, as the promoters of it said they wished it to be.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must object to the Amendment, on the ground that the word proposed to be left out would not, in the slightest degree, affect its permissive character.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Books of Record not to be inspected without Leave. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53, ss. 15 and 137. Index to be made).
    MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved, in line 26, to leave out from "inspected" to "judge," in line 29, and insert—
    "In like manner as the registry of Deeds in Ireland may be inspected by the public under the Statutes Regulating the Registry of Deeds Office."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must oppose the Amendment as calculated to gratify the curiosity with regard to private property of persons not interested in it. It might even be used for fraudulent purposes.
    MR. HASSARDsaid, that for 150 years they had courted publicity in this matter in Ireland, instead of shunting it, and it had always been found beneficial.
    MR. SCULLYsaid, he would prefer an open registry, but did not wish to do anything that would endanger the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would concede the addition of words, giving an enlarged power of inspection, intermediate between the clause and the
    88
    Amendment—adopting, in fact, the clause for the English Registration Act.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Every charge, &c., to be entered in Record of Title. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 53, s. 32).
    MR. SCULLYsaid, he approved of the Bill so far as it provided for the registration of title, but objected to the enactment providing for the establishment of another Registry of Deeds.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he very much preferred the system of registration of title to the system of the registration of deeds. He would support the clause, though it was not as perfect as it might have been.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Other Deeds may be recorded, on Evidence of due Execntion. Originals or Copies to be retained in Court).
    MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved, to leave out clause. He said the clause made of this Record of Title another Registry of Deeds Office. He objected to this double system of registration.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was not intended to fetter the modes of transfer.
    Clause, with Amendments, agreed to.
    Clause 40 (Interests, &c. may be recorded by Reference. No Appeal to lie if the Judge declines to record separately).
    MR. SCULLYsaid, the Attorney General seemed to think that a charge under a settlement could be recorded was out-out reference to the settlement. He submitted that everything within the settlement should be made known, thus giving notice to the parties who should purchase the charge under that settlement.
    Clause agreed to.
    MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved the following clause:—
    "That any perons who has obtained from the Commissioners for the Sale of Incumbered Estates in Ireland or from the Landed Estates Court a conveyance or declaration of title, or who shall hereafter obtain the same, may apply every five years by summary petition, supported by such evidence as the Court shall require, to be declared the owner, with registry of indefeasible title as originally granted by the Court; and upon the declaration of the Court, granted and registered or recorded as may be required by law, the person named therein shall be deemed owner as declared, to all intents and purposes."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he must object to the clause.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the clause was likely to introduce a new question as to costs.
    Clause negatived.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

  POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE, &c, BILL— [BILL 197.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. C. P. VILLIERS,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its objects were to provide for the continuance of the Poor Law Board for a limited period, and to introduce some Amendments of the general law regulating the relief of the poor. Had not the Session been so far advanced, and a dissolution so near at hand, he should have submitted to the House a measure of a more extended character; but as the time at their disposal was so short, and hon. Members seemed so disinclined for controversy, he had abstained from introducing matters which might have excited some difference of opinion. At one time there was a great disinclination to renew this Commission. Memorials had been presented a few years ago for limiting the power of the Board, and petitions to this House had complained of the manner in which the Board exercised its authority. This led the House to agree to a very full inquiry into the administration and operation of the law, and, after a very lengthened investigation, the Committee made their Report, having come to the conclusion that not only was it essential to the good working of the law that some system of central supervision should exist, but, rather in opposition to what had been recommended on the part of the Poor Law Board itself, the Committee decided that the time had come when the central authority should be rendered permanent, but not at the suggestion of the Poor Law Board, rather indeed in opposition to a proposal which he himself made to them—that the time had come when the Department which was to have the supervision of the administration of that law ought to be placed upon a permanent footing. Under the peculiar circumstances of the present Session, to which he had referred, and as the country had had but little as yet considered so important a change, he had not thought it right to adopt that recommendation of the Committee, and by this Bill he only proposed to renew the powers of the Board for—a
    90
    shorter time than usual—for a period of three years, so that in the next or succeeding Session the question as to whether it should be placed upon a permanent footing might be fully considered and deliberately decided. For similar reasons, he had confined the Amendments of the law which he proposed to make under this Bill to those of giving more distinct and effective application to that, the policy of which had already been decided upon by the Legislature, and to give effect to which, indeed, the Poor Law Board had already issued its general orders. For instance, in the 19th section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV. there was the most distinct recognition of the principle of equal respect for different religious professions of the inmates of workhouses, and it was provided that they should have the attendance of ministers of their own persuasions, and should not be compelled to attend the services of a religion other than their own. The Legislature had been consistent on this matter for the last thirty years in all measures that involved the same question. The case of the industrial schools might be mentioned as strictly analogous to the case of the workhouses. In the Industrial School Act provision was made for the distinct entry of the religion of every child in a book for that purpose. In order to carry out the intention of the 19th section of the Poor Law Act, the Poor Law Board had from time to time issued general orders requiring that a book should be kept in which an entry should be made of the religious persuasion of every person who was admitted to the workhouse. These orders had been but very imperfectly obeyed, in some cases they had been entirely disregarded; and the result had been the occasion of much confusion and of much angry controversy between the authorities of the union and the clergy as to the religion of the inmates. The poor among the Roman Catholics stated that their children had been brought up as Protestants, and Protestants had given evidence that where Roman Catholic parents had changed their religion their children were still brought up as Roman Catholics. This arose from the want of a proper system of registration of the religion of the children. The Bill would give the Poor Law Board more power to enforce obedience to their orders in this respect than they at present possessed. The Committee recommended that in the case of workhouses in which there were more Roman Catholic than Protestant inmates, the Roman Catholic ministers

    91
    who attended them should be paid out of the rates; but, as he desired to introduce nothing novel, or, as he said before, likely to provoke dispute, into the Bill, he had not adopted that recommendation. He had confined his Bill to carrying out the known intentions of the Legislature, as they had been already declared in different Acts. The Bill simply provided for the registration of the religion of the inmates of the workhouses, and the register being made accessible to the ministers of religion visiting the union. Another amendment of the law which he proposed to make was to provide for the better classification of the inmates of workhouses; this was a matter to which the Poor Law Board had always attached the greatest importance, but to which guardians, in consequence of the additional expense which it might occasion, had been indisposed to attend to. Hitherto the Poor Law Board had been powerless in the matter, because there was a limit to the expenditure which they could compel the guardians to incur for this purpose; but a clause in this Bill would give the Board the power to direct the guardians to effect the arrangements requisite to secure a better classification of the inmates. The last clause of any importance was that which enabled the Poor Law Board to dissolve the old incorporations, known familiarly by the name of Gilbert's Unions. Many of these had dissolved themselves voluntarily; others, through some defect in their constitution, gave the Central Board the power of bringing them within their jurisdiction, and only about twelve of them were now left, who administered the law much in the way it used to be done before the Poor Laws were reformed. The only thing preventing their dissolution hitherto had been that the consent of two thirds of the guardians was requisite, which of course, in some cases, it was difficult to obtain, and a clause in this Bill would enable the Board to dispense with that consent in future. He did not mean to say that all the Gilbert's Unions were ill-managed, and any which were well conducted according to the modern system would not of necessity be dissolved under this Bill. The remainder of the Bill consisted only of details of less importance, and which-might be postponed if any real objection existed on the point. They embodied, however, improvements which had been long demanded, and which he imagined would excite no opposition. The Bill contained nothing that was novel in principle, or
    92
    to the best of his recollection that had not been unanimously supported by the Committee upstairs. He trusted, therefore, the House would be willing to read the Bill a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. C. P. Villiers.)
    MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not intend to oppose the Bill. The first clause was necessary, for it would not do to let the Poor Law Board drop all of a moment. But he noticed that the title of the measure being "The Poor Law Board Continuance, &c, Bill," one clause was devoted to the continuance of the Board, and twenty-six or twenty-seven clauses were contained in the et cetera. He would not weary the House by going through the et cetera, but the House and the country had a right to complain that this Bill embodying, in part, the recommendations of a Committee which had sat for three or four years, was not brought forward till after the Whitsuntide recess, when by the issue of the electioneering address of one Member of the Cabinet at least Parliament had been warned that its days were numbered. There was one of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman had oddly left unnoticed, and this was Clause 19, in which he had taken power to prohibit the Bible in workhouses—at least to prohibit "any religious book"—and he presumed we had not yet attained to that pitch when the Bible or Prayer Book would cease to be accounted a religious book. The right hon. Gentleman, doubtless, would not abuse the power vested in him any more than anybody else, but this was certainly one of the "insignificant details," which deserved a little consideration. Every clause in the Bill did one of two things; either it increased the arbitrary powers of the Poor Law Board, or else it exempted the Board from doing some of those things which had been found necessary to enable the country to administer those arbitrary laws beneficially. Penalties for infringing the orders of the Board hitherto could not be enforced by magistrates at petty sessions till the orders under seal had been circulated to those petty sessions. By this Bill, however, the right hon. Gentleman made it no longer necessary to distribute these orders, but only to send them to the Clerk of the Peace for the county. In the name of common-sense, how were magistrates at petty sessions, in such a county as Yorkshire, to know anything about documents sent to the Clerk of the Peace. He knew

    93
    from experience that the Poor Law Board were pretty active in laying informations against those who did not obey their rules and orders. Again, it might be very proper that parties should be put under a Poor Law auditor, but why should large villages and towns at present under the Watching and Lighting Acts have their position altered without notice to the parties? Neither they nor the House should be called on to deal post-haste with the provisions of this Bill. The proposal to charge upon the rates the superannuation of the registrars of births and marriages was a totally new matter, upon which they ought to have the opportunity of consulting local opinion. Regarding the persons who were to be subject to the vagrant laws, the provisions were exceedingly vague and arbitrary, and altogether the manner in which the Bill was brought forward was most unsatisfactory. To sweep away the Gilbert Unions without the opportunity of saying a word for themselves was a tolerably strong proposal. He had no knowledge of these unions; they might be either so perfect as to put the guardians of Poor Law Unions to shame, or so bad that they ought to be put down at once. Experience, however, of the working of some of the Poor Law Unions, even in London, had shown that the Poor Law authorities were far from perfect in their own management. As he had stated, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he reserved to himself the right to take whatever course he thought fit in Committee. If this Bill were really what it professed to be, a continuance Bill, the best course would be to confine its scope to the simple object of continuing the Board for another year, striking out all the other clauses, and leaving to a future Session the consideration of the question whether the Poor Law Board should or should not be rendered a permanent body. There were a great number of questions to be discussed, and therefore it would be a great advantage if the Bill were to be made merely a continuance Bill, and the proposed measure postponed until next Session.
    LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made two bold assertions—namely, that there was nothing in the Bill open to controversy, and that he had the authority of the Committee which sat on the subject for everything proposed in it. Now, he had been a Member of the Committee appointed in 1861 to take the subject of Poor Law Amendment
    94
    into consideration, and he was desirous of vindicating the conduct of that Committee before the House from the supposition that they were answerable for all the clauses contained in the Bill, many of those clauses being, in fact, the sole invention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board. One of these clauses not only gave the right hon. Gentleman power to forbid the circulation of any religious book in the workhouses, but made any pauper reading any book not authorized by him liable to punishment. He wished to know in whom lay the control, who was the chief censor of this index expurgatorius, and whether the sacred conclave was to be assembled in Whitehall Place. The clause which applied the Vagrant Act to persons relieved out of the workhouse who refused to perform the work required of them was another invention of the right hon. Gentleman, for which the Committee were in no way responsible. The only point upon which the Committee had been thoroughly unanimous was that an end should be put to this system of half and half legislation, that the House of Commons should make up its mind no longer to continue the system of prolonging the existence of the Poor Law Board for three or five years at a time, but should decide once for all whether the Board should be done away with altogether or should be made a permanent institution. The proper course open to the right hon. Gentleman was to have brought in a simple continuance Bill this Session, so that when Parliament next met the question might have been fully discussed, and the recommendation of the Committee that the institution should be made a permanent one have been adopted or rejected. Both the Committee and the House had good reason to complain of the time which had been chosen by the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in the Bill. The Committee sent in its Report in May of last year. The right hon. Gentleman delayed the bringing in of the Houseless Poor Act—one of its recommendations—until the last fortnight of the Session, so that it was impossible that the provisions of the Bill could be properly discussed, and he now asked them to pass the present Bill under almost similar circumstances. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman as to the general principle of the Bill, but he could not approve his bringing the matter before the House, founded as it was upon an incorrect—he said it without meaning any offence—statement. The

    95
    principle of the creed register was most warmly contested; and, although the Roman Catholics carried their point, the masters of all the London workhouses opposed them most strongly, and he complained that the right hon. Gentleman had not fairly represented the feeling of the Committee upon the subject. One of the difficulties they had to contend with was the education of pauper Roman Catholic children with Protestant children, and the Committee adopted a conciliatory clause, under which Roman Catholic children could have been educated in the school with the consent of their parents; but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted any conciliatory provision of the kind from his Bill. As there were so many questions of importance to be discussed, and as at that period of the Session it would be ridiculous to try to amend the Bill, he called upon the right hon. Gentleman to turn his Bill into a simple continuance Bill, so that the matter might be fully gone into in the course of next Session.
    MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought that the objections taken by the noble Lord were perfectly just. The Bill had only been placed in the hands of Members on Friday. There were a number of unions who were opposed to many of its clauses. The Government would gain nothing by pressing the measure. The guardians and not the Poor Law Board would have to carry it out, and time till next Session ought to be given to allow of its provisions being considered by the country.
    SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he thought that the reason urged by the hon. Member for Perth ought to have weight with the Poor Law Board. Many of the Boards of Guardians met only once a fortnight, and could not therefore be acquainted with the nature of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman by his proposition to take power to coalesce a number of parishes, giving them only one guardian, was interfering directly with the principle of the Poor Law, which was, that representation should be according to taxation. Many parishes with the smallest population had a large amount of rateable property, but power was taken by the Bill to suppress by the veto of the Poor Law Board the representation of those small parishes, except as annexed to a larger and more populous parish. This was a power which the country would hardly be prepared at so short a notice to sanction. He thought time ought to be given, and that the Bill should be a simple continu-
    96
    ance Bill. If the obnoxious clauses were not withdrawn, it would be his duty to propose that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    MR. NEATEsaid, he cordially concurred in the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman should make the Bill simply a continuance Bill. There was one matter which ought particularly to he kept in mind, and that regarded the medical profession. The medical profession ought to have an opportunity to bring the grievances which, rightly or wrongly, they held themselves to suffer before the House, and which, if the present opportunity was refused them, could not be afforded them. The condition of the vagrant or casual poor also was one which required revision. It was most desirable that the Poor Law Board should have powers to enforce uniformity of treatment; and that the poor should not have to go from one place to another in order to obtain better treatment. It was understood in the late debates that a Committee would be appointed next year who would take into consideration the power which the Central Board possessed of deciding as to the limits of unions. The result of the inquiries of such a Committee might be a modification of that power of the Central Board. He did not say a word against the principle of making the Poor Law Board a permanent one, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to be content with the triumphant majority by which his Union Chargeability Bill had been carried in another place, and take this continuance Bill for one year only, in order to give the next Parliament an opportunity of considering the many important questions that had been raised.
    MR. KNIGHTsaid, that in one respect the Bill flew in the face of repeated decisions of the House. There was a clause in the Bill which would materially interfere with a very useful Act, the General Lighting and Watching Act, under which small towns and large villages had been enabled to form little municipalities for the purpose of effecting certain improvements. There were 300 or 400 of these little municipalities, all of which would be astonished to find themselves deprived of the powers which they possessed under that Act if this Bill passed. Nothing was so offensive to the Poor Law Board as the existence of such little municipalities, and it was their earnest wish to get them under their thumb. It was a perfectly wanton thing to introduce

    97
    a clause which would so seriously affect the rights of those little municipalities. The House had repeatedly decided that this Board should look after the poor and nothing else; and if they became a permanent Board he feared—from this perfectly wanton attempt in a continuance Bill to get hold of these 400 little places —that there would be great difficulty to keep it in the right path.
    MR. PACKEsaid, unless the right hon. Gentleman would be content to pass simply the first clause, and to leave the other clauses to be dealt with by the new Parliament—clauses which it had been truly said the guardians had had no opportunity of considering—he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
    LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. C. P. Villiers) was rather hardly dealt with. Some blamed him for doing too much, and others for doing too little. He himself was inclined to blame him for doing too little. Having had some experience of the working of the Poor Law Board during the severe distress in the manufacturing districts, he could wish the Board to be permanent. But his right hon. Friend did not take steps to make it permanent. That showed his right hon. Friend's modesty. He (Lord Edward Howard) was one of the original sinners in this matter. In 1860 he took the liberty to make a Motion, which, to a certain extent, was the cause of the appointment of the Committee. That Committee sat in 1861, in 1862, and every year down to last year, with the exception of one, and his right hon. Friend was not forgetful of the recommendations of the Committee. This was another instalment of them, and after the long consideration of the matter upstairs he hoped it would be adopted. Instead of blaming his right hon. Friend they should rather urge him on. He was thankful to his right hon. Friend, for half a loaf was better than no bread, and he did not think that any argument had been adduced to-night which should prevent his right hon. Friend from going on with the Bill. How did hon. Members know that they were so near the end of the Session? There were some forty or fifty orders on the paper to-night, and all those orders could not be got rid of in a hurry.
    MR. BROMLEYsaid, he had been glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) state that the measure provided for the better classification of the poor within the workhouses, but having
    98
    carefully looked through the Bill he had been unable to find anything in it which would tend to that effect.
    MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, that the Bill, though containing valuable elements, omitted two-thirds of the recommendations of the Committee which sat for three years; and he thought that more time ought to be given, in order to do justice to the subject. He hoped proper Medical Inspectors would be appointed to workhouses.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that the President of the Poor Law Board was scarcely justified in asserting that this measure contained very little more than the powers of the existing Act. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. P. Villiers) asked the House to enact into law very stringent regulations, and he did not make any provision for supplying petty sessions with copies of the Bill, if it became law. He proposed to increase the direct power of the Poor Law Board over the Guardians, and the House was asked to do this without notice of their intentions to the Guardians, who would naturally view such a course with extreme jealousy, which would not be diminished by the introduction of the clauses for teaching children. This clause was introduced at the instance of the noble Lord (Lord Edward Howard), the only Member who had spoken in favour of the Bill, and who, he supposed, must be taken as an exponent of a certain class of Roman Catholic opinion. Recently the noble Lord wrote two letters to certain parties in Liverpool—letters which were published in the Roman Catholic newspapers; and in them he stated that he was urging upon the Legislature to intrust the education of the Roman Catholic children to the Roman Catholic priesthood. In these letters the noble Lord very candidly told the Roman Catholic priesthood that the state of morality among Roman Catholics of Liverpool particularly, and other large towns, was not such as would commend the effect of their exertions to the Legislature, and yet he now advocated this Bill for committing the education of Roman Catholic children to them. This Bill contained another blow at the parochial system—of which, though the Poor Law Board was jealous, the House was not— power was sought to suppress the representation of any parish of small population in the Board of Guardians. Step by step the Poor Law Board was inducing the Legislature to strike down the parochial

    99
    system which had proved so beneficial to the country. He thought that Members ought to be allowed the opportunity of consulting their constituents as to whether that entirely uniform system which the right hon. Gentleman was so bent upon carrying out was acceptable to the country. There had been strong objections to what was termed ticketting Dissenters, and yet the proposal was to ticket Dissenters in workhouses. This required more consideration than the right hon. Gentleman seemed willing to permit, in his haste to pass this Bill. He joined in the all but unanimous appeal which had been made to the Government to content themselves with a simple continuance Bill, and not to thrust upon the country, without due notice, provisions which would create difference of opinion and the greatest dislike among all classes.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he must blame the Government for introducing this Bill at so late a period of the Session. The House and the country had not had proper opportunity for considering the changes in the law proposed. He was disappointed not only at what the Bill contained, but at what it did not contain. He regretted to see the Poor Law Board disposed more and more to grasp the powers that ought to be left to Boards of Guardians, and he was disappointed to find that the Poor Law Board had not thought that a greater liberty might be given to the Guardians. After thirty years' experience Boards of Guardians might be presumed to know their business. They ought to have some real power over their servants, but they could not appoint the lowest of their officers without a reference to London. They could not appoint a cook, a nurse, or a porter; they could not fix or alter their salaries, or dismiss them, without referring the matter to London. The right hon. Gentleman might have relaxed some of the more stringent portions of the central administration, for it did not become either the dignity of the Poor Law Board, or that of the Boards of Guardians, to hold the reins so tightly over the latter. The House ought to have a fuller opportunity of considering these changes in the law.
    MR. HENNESSYsaid, that at this moment there were thousands of Catholic children in workhouses in England taught by Protestant teachers and clergymen. The Roman Catholics regarded that as a great grievance. The Select Committee recommended that little children in workhouses, up to the age of twelve years, should be removed to schools where they
    100
    could be taught by teachers and clergymen of their own denomination. The Committee also recommended that in workhouses in which there were many Roman Catholics, a Roman Catholic chaplain should be appointed, but there was no such provision in the Bill.
    SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought it would be better for the interests of the poor, the Poor Law Board, and the public, that the Government should merely propose a continuance Bill for one year, and leave the larger question to be dealt with by the new Parliament. The medical treatment of the poor was a subject which called for inquiry, but no mention was made of it in the present Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he must decline to follow hon. Members through the several clauses of the Bill It must be apparent to the Government that the Bill was too wide to be dealt with at this late period of the Session. There were many provisions with regard to lighting and watching, and the union of parishes which, he thought, would come as a surprise upon the country. It was based on the Report of the Select Committee, and yet not a clause of it came up to the recommendation of the Committee. The Committee disapproved of the construction of the Poor Law Board; but there was no remedy in the Bill. Though there were parts of the Bill with which he concurred, he could not concur with other parts. He thought that children of the Roman Catholic religion should be educated by those in whom they had confidence. He would recommend all the clauses except the first to be dropped.
    MR. SPEAKERthen put the Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. PACKEsaid, he had moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had not understood the hon. Member to go the length of moving the Amendment; but if the hon. Member stated that he had done so he should accept his statement.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Packe.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he thought that the only way of dealing with the

    101
    objections urged against the Bill was to read it a second time, and allow them to be considered in. Committee. He hoped hon. Members would make some allowance for him if he confessed that he was puzzled to understand what was really meant by the opposition that had been offered to the Bill. It was argued on the one hand that the Bill did not follow the recommendations of the Committee, and it was contended on the other hand that it went too far in following those recommendations. As he understood him, the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) said that the recommendation of the Committee in respect of the children of Roman Catholic parents was not adopted in the Bill; neither did the Bill give full effect to the recommendations generally as to Roman Catholics in the workhouses. Now, what ground had the noble Lord to complain of this, when his noble Friend the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) expressed himself satisfied with the good intentions, as he said, of the President of the Poor Law Board, and was satisfied that I had proposed all that could be carried, and gave his support to the Bill? The noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) was the Member of the Committee who had proposed to have paid priests for the workhouses; and it was true he (Mr. Villiers) had not adopted that recommendation because he felt sure that it would create great difference of opinion, as very different views on this subject were held by guardians throughout the country, and it would be inconvenient to have those discussed at the present time; but, as he thought there would be little difference of opinion with regard to the registration of the different religions of the inmates, he had embodied that recommendation in the Bill. The noble Lord told the House there was a recommendation of the Committee, that when the parents of Roman Catholic children in a workhouse wished those children to be placed in Catholic schools it should be obligatory on the guardians to comply with that wish. The Committee never had recommended anything of the sort. They had recommended something much short of that; that orphan children might be sent to these schools, after application made to the Central Board; but, as he thought there would be a difference of opinion on the point, he had not adopted their
    102
    recommendation. What they had recommended was, that the Poor Law Board might receive an application to them from the friends of the children, and on their being satisfied that there was reasonable ground for conceding it, that all orphans under twelve years of age not belonging to the Established Church, might be ordered to be sent to schools of their own denomination, which had been certified or licensed by the Poor Law Board, and where the managers were willing to receive them. But what had that to do with the question that it should be made obligatory on the guardians to send Catholic children to schools whore it was the wish of their parents they should be so placed? He had been astonished, also, to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) assert that the Committee, having given their attention to the medical question, it should have been dealt with in this Bill. The fact was the Committee did consider that subject deliberately, and reported that there were no sufficient grounds for materially interfering with the present system of medical relief.
    MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to explain. He had not said that the Committee had come to any opinion on the subject. What he had said was that the subject was one which had been very much considered by the Committee, and that it ought to be considered by the House.
    MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman complained of this omission in the Bill, and I repeat that the Committee reported that there was no sufficient ground for changing the present system of medical relief. This, then, furnished no ground for postponing the Bill. Two clauses had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), and if the House thought they were objectionable, he was perfectly willing to withdraw them, seeing that they did not result from the inquiry before the Committee. One was the repeal of the clause in the Act requiring copies of the Poor Law Board's orders to be sent to clerks of petty sessions, and providing that certain orders should be sent to the clerk of the peace. The reason this clause was inserted was because it was an expense, and that the clerks of the petty sessions generally concurred in saying that there was no kind of use in sending those orders there; and, with regard to the other clause, providing that the accounts under the 3 & 4 Will. IV., the General Lighting and

    103
    Watching Act, should be rendered subject to audit, frequent representations had been made to the Board urging the insertion of such a provision. There was no immediate necessity, however, for the clause, nor did he attach much importance himself to Clause 11, which was inserted only because it was supposed to be a matter of great convenience to small townships that they should in future unite with others for the purpose of choosing a guardian, and had no other purpose whatever in view. The two clauses which seemed particularly offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite, were, first, the one by which the Board would be able to acquire power at once to establish a better classification in workhouses, which in certain respects were extremely defective, and that which enabled them to dissolve some of the Gilbert Unions. Now there had been much complaint as to the classification now existing in workhouses, which confounded the good and bad together; and, as to the dissolution of the Gilbert Unions, though that is to be opposed now on the ground of private interest, it was especially from the opposite side of the House that complaints to him of their inconvenience had proceeded. The Poor Law Board did not desire to extend their power, they repudiated the idea altogether, but it was the deliberate opinion of the Committee that more power ought to be given to them for certain purposes. The Board were encumbered with power already—but further power and control had been forced upon them. He hoped the House would go into Committee, and then any clauses which might be deemed really objectionable to discuss at this time might be withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he thought the Gilbert Unions ought not to be dissolved without proper warning to those bodies.
    MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that constant notice had been given in answers to questions this Session, that the subject would be dealt with in this Bill. With regard to better classification it had not only reference to classify the vagrants and casual paupers in the workhouse, but to empower the Poor Law Board to order any Board of Guardians to provide for a somewhat better classification of the inmates of all kinds.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, the clause enabled the Poor Law Board to put its hands into the pockets of the ratepayers, for the erection of additional buildings, to any extent it thought proper. There were some absurd provisions. Under this Bill
    104
    a child twelve years old was to be at liberty to choose his religion with the consent of the Poor Law Board. Thus a child in Yorkshire might become a Mahomedan or a Mormonite under the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to was provided for by his predecessor in the last Government, and was the law at present.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that if, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, all the clauses of the Bill were to be withdrawn one after another in Committee, it would be better to withdraw the Bill at once and bring in a simple continuance Bill.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 69: Majority 7.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday.

  CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 178.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that the Bill proposed to abolish the local police in the town of Belfast, and he now proposed, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry, to move the following clause:—
    (Restrictions as to Age)
    "Notwithstanding any regulations requiring persons entering the Constabulary Force to be unmarried or to be under a certain ago, the Inspector General of the Constabulary Force in Ireland shall admit into the said Force any constable of the said local Police Force whose age shall not exceed forty years, and who within one calendar month after such notification in the "Dublin Gazette" as aforesaid, shall apply to be admitted, and who in other respects shall be eligible according to the said regulations."
    Clause brought up, and read 1°
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must oppose the clause. Under it men would be taken into the constabulary who were not practised in its rules, and the Inspector General was decidedly of opinion that these local police should not be admitted into the Irish constabulary force. If any of them complied with the regulations of the force, they would of course be accepted, but he held it was undesirable they should be admitted as a body. It would also cast an additional expense on the country.
    LORD NAASsaid, he should support the clause. It was hard that the town of Belfast should be charged with the superannuation of any of these men who were eligible for the general constabulary force.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 61: Majority 2.
    Clause read 2°, and added.
    Another Clause (Inspector General of Constabulary,)—(Sir Robert Peel.)
    Clause brought up, read 1a; 2a; and committed; considered in Committee, reported, with an Amendment, and added.
    LORD NAAS LORD NAAS moved to insert schedule—
    [Same as Schedule in Bill before amended.]
    Clause 3, leave out after, "whereas it is expedient to alter the distribution of the Constabulary Force," to "Provided," and insert "in the several counties and towns in Ireland, and to allot to the town of Belfast a just proportion thereof; Be it therefore Enacted, That the Schedule to this Act annexed, and the distribution of Constabulary Force therein provided, shall be substituted for the Schedule annexed to the Act of the twentieth and twenty-first years of Her Majesty, chapter seventeen."
    Brought up, and read 1°.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be now read a second time."
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would remind the House that in 1867 the Lord Lieutenant would have power to re-allot the amount of constabulary for each county, and until that time he could assure the House that no change would be made in the charge upon the respective counties.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that although a personal promise on the part of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) was a sufficient guarantee for his own intentions, it was not a security for the future action of any Lord Lieutenant who might exercise power before 1867.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) would adhere to the schedule in the Bill.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he thought there should be some more specific arrangement provided for in the Bill.
    In answer to The O'CONOR Don,
    LORD NAASsaid, that in re-inserting the schedule he proposed adopting the numbers inserted by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel).
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he would, in that case, consent to the Motion of the noble Lord.
    LORD NAASsaid, he would then withdraw his Motion, for the purpose of allowing the right hon. Baronet to propose the amended schedule.
    Motion and Schedule, by leave, withdrawn.
    New Schedule added.
    An Amendment made.
    Clause 4 (Increase and Reduction of Numbers of Constabulary by Lord Lieutenant).
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, to leave out the words "three hundred and twenty," in order to insert the words "two hundred and seventy,"—(Lord Naas,) —instead thereof.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. The latter number had been adopted after considerable discussion in Committee. He could not yield on this point.
    SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he supported the Amendment on the ground that the lesser number was recommended by all the witnesses who were examined on the Commission.
    Question put, "That the words 'three hundred and twenty' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 47: Majority 2.
    Another Amendment made.
    Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolutions [June 8] reported.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that when the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) asked a question the other evening with regard to an item charged for the travelling expenses of Lord Amberley he was unable at the time to afford the explanation. He desired, however, now to state that Lord Amberley was acting as private secretary and attache to Mr. Elliot, and that his Lordship was so named in the documents which were, in conformity with the usual custom, forwarded to the Foreign Office. Those documents should he produced if the hon. Member desired to see them.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he thought that their production would be very desirable.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE.—LEAVE.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL SIR ROBERT PEEL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to continue and amend

  107
  the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1856.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue and amend 'The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1856."'—(Sir Robert Peel.)
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he opposed the introduction of the Bill, which was a coercive measure, and wholly unnecessary. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  COMPTROLLER OF THE EXCHEQUER AND PUBLIC AUDIT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER., Bill to consolidate the offices of Comptroller of the Exchequer and Chairman of the Commissioners for Auditing the Public Accounts, ordered to he brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 208.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Militia Ballots Suspension*; Militia Pay*; Trespass (Scotland)*(146); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2)* (147).
Second Reading—Railway Debentures &c. Registry* (99) [H.L.]; Union Chargeability (122); Local Government Supplemental (No. 3)* (127),
Select Committee—On Locomotives on Roads appointed and nominated. (List of Committee), and on June 13 Lord Harris added in the Place of Duke of Sutherland, Earl De Grey in the Place of Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Earl Ducie, Viscount Strathallan, Lord Calthorpe, and Lord Wenlock added.
Third Reading—Inclosure (No. 2)* (154); Lancaster Court of Chancery.*

UNITED STATES—BELLIGERENT RIGHTS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I wish to I ask the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question with regard to two documents which have lately appeared in the public papers, having reference to American belligerent rights. The first of these documents appears to have been communicated by the noble Earl himself to the different Departments of Government, and the second purports to be a Proclama-
2
tion of the President of the United States. The first document, addressed by the noble Earl to Government officials, is to the effect that peace having been restored throughout the territory of the United States, the status of the Confederates as belligerents must be taken to be henceforth abandoned. When that document was issued, the statement it contained that peace had been restored throughout the territory of the United States was not quite accurate; but, since the document was issued, the Confederate army, which was then in existence, and which was holding the extensive district on the further side of the Mississippi, and was said to be a powerful force, well organized, and capable of continuing the contest, has altogether surrendered; while the chief of the Confederate States, who for four years has maintained a struggle against the whole power of the United States, and who represented a population of seven or eight millions, is now a prisoner in the hands of the Federals and is awaiting his trial. The statement contained in the document issued by the noble Earl is, therefore, now practically correct, It may not be out of the way that I should express a hope, entertained not only by myself, but by the noble Earl opposite, not only by this House, but by the country at large and by the whole civilized world, that the party which has achieved

3
such signal success will follow a course not dictated by revenge or violence—that they will seek not to exasperate the feelings of their former antagonists, which have been already too much embittered; but will endeavour, by deeds of conciliation and of mercy, to re-cement, if possible, a union so nearly dissolved; and that they will consent to treat those whom the fortunes of war have placed at their disposal not as revolted subjects, but as vanquished, though not dishonoured, enemies. On the course taken by the United States will materially depend the estimation in which they will be held by the civilized world, and, therefore, this is a subject which cannot fail to be of vital importance to them. I now wish to call the attention of the noble Earl to the answer which he gave the other evening to the question of the noble Baron (Lord Houghton), who asked him whether, under the circumstances which had occurred, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government still to continue to acknowledge the belligerent rights of the Confederate States. The noble Earl then gave an answer which was satisfactory to this House—namely, that this must depend entirely upon the course the United States themselves thought fit to adopt in the matter, and that as soon as the United States ceased to avail themselves of belligerent rights as against neutral commerce, this country would cease to acknowledge belligerent rights on the part of the Confederate States. Now, I desire to call attention to that answer, and to the light in which it is to be regarded in connection with the Proclamation lately issued by the President of the United States. That Proclamation directs that certain ports are to opened, but that others shall, for various and particular reasons, be closed for the present, and that the crew of any merchant vessel attempting to enter such closed ports shall be treated as pirates. No doubt the President of the United States exercises great powers, but surely he does not possess the power of changing the international law of the world. He may claim to exercise belligerent rights, and so establish a blockade, or he may make municipal regulations excluding vessels from certain ports; but he cannot by force of a proclamation justify the infliction on those infringing these regulations the penalties attaching to piracy. The penalty for the violation of a blockade is well defined and the offence itself cannot be construed into the crime of piracy. To force an entry
4
into these ports can simply be regarded as smuggling, and the assumption that any person guilty of an infringement of the regulations of the Proclamation is to be held guilty of piracy is one which it is impossible to pass unnoticed. I, therefore, wish to ask the noble Earl whether he has reason to believe that this alleged Proclamation of the President of the United States is genuine; whether that Proclamation has been communicated to him; and whether in that case he has taken any notice of it, and has protested against a doctrine which it is impossible for us to acknowledge, and whether he is prepared to communicate to Parliament any papers he has in his possession on the subject. I also wish to ask the noble Earl how far the circular he has sent round is compatible with the answer he gave the other evening, in which he stated that belligerent rights would not be withheld from the Confederate States so long as the United States put forward a claim to interfere with neutral commerce.
EARL RUSSELL,who was very imperfectly heard, said, I will first state the circumstances under which the letter alluded to by the noble Earl was issued. From what we had heard from time to time the noble Earl has been led to believe that the Confederates would be able to continue the contest in one part at least of the Southern States; but from the more recent accounts it appears that the success of the Federals has increased from day to day, and that the Confederates are correspondingly less able to keep up the contest with their adversaries, and that the surrender of the entire armies of the latter was to be daily expected. Under these circumstances we had to consider what course we should pursue. There was some difficulty in the matter, because we had no regular communication from the United States assuring us that, as regarded neutrals, belligerent rights on their part had been abandoned. On the other hand, there was great difficulty in our continuing the concession of belligerent rights to the Confederates, because of the entire cessation of war on the continent of America, and of the fact that there were at sea two vessels, and only two—the Stonewall and the Shenandoah—which were supposed to be Confederate cruisers. One of these was supposed, or understood, to have been disarmed and given up to the authorities at Havannah; and the other, the Shenandoah, had put into various ports in the

5
Australian colonies. Obviously it would have been an anomaly, when the war in America had entirely ceased, that the Shenandoah should be going about from port to port in the British dominions obtaining coals and provisions under the Queen's Order of 1861. It was, under these circumstances, the question of puting an end to the belligerent rights came under the consideration of the Cabinet. Practically the whole of the American States were under the authority of the Government of the United States; the whole of the frontier is now in the possession of the United States Government. Since then Galverston has been given up to the United States' authorities, and General Kirby Smith has surrendered; so that there is no military force whatever under Confederate authority. Before I wrote the letter to which the noble Earl refers I had an interview with Mr. Adams, the United States' Minister in this country, and I asked him whether his Government were ready to abandon their belligerent rights. He said he had no instructions on the point, but he was convinced that his Government were prepared to adopt that course. The communication made to the French Government on this point was still more explicit. That being the state of affairs, we believed it was due to the United States and to our own position to adopt the course which I indicated in the letter to which the noble Earl has called attention. I have no objection to lay the letter on the table. It has been published in the London Gazette, and it has been communicated to the maritime Powers generally. I may add that from Madrid and Copenhagen, as well as from Paris, we have received communications expressing a concurrence in our views. With regard to the question of the noble Earl on the subject of the Proclamation of the President of the United States, I must say that the document is certainly a very curious one. While, no doubt, it is right enough to announce in the Proclamation that, after a certain date, namely, the 1st of July, the Southern ports will all be open to foreign commerce —the reason given for the delay being the necessity for making certain Custom-house arrangements—the sentence at the end of the Proclamation with regard to piracy is somewhat startling. Sir Frederick Bruce states he has been advised that, according to the American law, persons attempting to enter those ports could not be convicted of piracy for that act; and that if persons
6
should be arrested while attempting to enter them no Court of the United States can find those parties guilty of piracy. We must, therefore, presume that it is only intended to hold this threat in terrorem over parties who might be disposed to make the attempt. In the letter which I wrote it is stated, that within a certain time vessels sailing under the Confederate flag will be permitted to enter our ports and disarm. At the same time Her Majesty's Government do not pretend to in any way interfere with the legal rights of the United State3. As to what the noble Earl has said, with respect to the action of the American Government, I took occasion, when addressing your Lordships on the assassination of President Lincoln, to express my great regret that a man whose views appeared to be so just, and who had so pledged himself to a course of mercy, should have been taken away at the moment when he could have put into practice those principles to which he had expressed so firm an adherence. I would again express my opinion that for the peace of the United States and of the world it is most desirable there should he no appearance of passion on the part of those who have now the guidance of the affairs of the American nation.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl has not answered my question as to the Proclamation threatening a penalty not warranted either by the law of America or by international law. The noble Earl presumes that this Proclamation is held in terrorem over persons who might be disposed to enter those ports; but I want to know whether the United States Government have communicated the contents of this document to Her Majesty's Government, and whether he has asked for any official explanation of a threat which it is not competent to the American Government to carry out, and which is entirely opposed to international law. The document has been published in an official form to the whole world, and it is hardly consistent with our position that no notice should be taken of it.
EARL RUSSELL: It can hardly be said that no notice has been taken of it, as we have this despatch of Sir Frederick Bruce.
THE EARL OF DERBYasked whether the noble Earl would lay the documents on the table.
EARL RUSSELLwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS BILL—(No. 161.)

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that as the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke), who had charge of the Bill, was not present, he would move that the Lords whose names stood on the Orders of the Day be of the Committee, namely—

  D. Richmond.

  E. Romney.

  D. Sutherland.

  V. Melville.

  Salisbury.

  V. Eversley.

  E. Caithness.

  L. Silchester

  E. Hardwicke.

  L. Rossie.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Stanley of Alderley.

  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, he rose to call attention to what he thought the very unfair way in which names for the Committee had been selected. The course pursued was only calculated to lead to the belief that it was intended to defeat the Bill by a side-wind. He had been requested to move the second reading of the Bill; but he thought it better that it should be undertaken by a noble Lord on the other side. The Earl of Hardwicke agreed to do so; but the impression from his speech was that he was unfavourable to the Bill; and he finally assented to the proposition that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He (Lord Kinnaird) asked the noble Earl to allow him to see the proposed list of the Select Committee, and was referred to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), who had moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. On seeing the list, he found that the majority of Peers on it had either spoken against the Bill or had in private expressed opinions unfavourable to it. He asked the noble Earl to put on other names, and it was agreed that the list should not be handed into the clerk that evening in order that he might have an opportunity of consulting the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill. He waited on the noble Earl at his own house, and represented to him that the Committee would not be considered fair, as having prejudged the case. The noble Earl agreed at once to add other names, and on having a list handed to him of Peers in whom the agricultural interest would have confidence, he said that he would put them all on. That was on the 29th, and on the 30th the names stood on the Orders of the Day. He arrived in the House almost five minutes after the Order came on, and was informed that the noble Earl opposite had complained of the addition, and insinuated that
  8
  there was something irregular in it. It was explained that it had been done by the noble Earl who moved the second reading (the Earl of Hardwicke), and he invited the noble Earl who wished to have the Bill referred to a Committee to be present in the House on the Thursday, to communicate with his noble Friend who moved the second reading. The noble Earl said he would be unable to attend; but to his (Lord Kinnaird's) surprise there appeared in the Votes for the Friday another list of names, This, he thought, was an insult to those Peers whose names had been removed without communication with them, and was a proceeding not worthy of the House. He could not help thinking that such a course of proceeding was extremely unfair, and was not consistent with the mode in which their Lordships' business was usually conducted. He had no interest in the matter except as the owner of two traction engines; but in his district he was satisfied that no magistrate could interfere with them. But the case was different in England, where the Home Secretary had issued an order prohibiting the travelling of traction engines upon public roads except at night, the result of which would be to put a stop to the use of those machines. He was surprised to find that the opposition to this Bill should proceed from the party opposite, who called themselves peculiarly the "farmers' friends." That there was a strong feeling among noble Lords upon this subject he knew, because one noble Lord had given notice that any of his tenants who should use an engine near a road should lose his farm; and in the county of Kent the police had given notice that if an engine merely crossed a turnpike road in the daytime a fine would be enforced. He thought the subject had not been properly dealt with, and he should move that the names of Lords Wenlock, Harris, Ducie, and Strathallan, should be added to the proposed Committee.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he had expected that the Earl of Hardwicke would have been in his place that evening to move the names of the Members of the Committee; but in his absence he (the Earl of Carnarvon) considered that, as he had originally moved that such a Committee should be appointed, it was only fair he should submit to their Lordships the names of its Members. He should, however, disclaim any responsibility for the selection of those names, and he thought it was not fair to charge him with attempting to pack

  9
  the Committee and to prejudge the question. His only object was that the Bill should be carefully considered, because he believed it to be a dangerous measure. The list was the one he had originally proposed, with the addition of two names recommended by the noble Lord opposite. He believed it was a perfectly fair list; but he had not the least objection that there should be added to it the names which the noble Lord had suggested. He thought that it would be better upon occasions of that description to abstain from imputing motives, and he was not aware that he said anything to deserve the noble Lord's censure.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that he felt satisfied with the noble Earl's explanation, as far as the noble Earl himself was concerned. But the fact remained that the list had been changed, and he thought he had a right to complain of the manner in which that change had been effected.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was clear that there had been some little misunderstanding upon this matter, and he thought it would be more regular if, in the absence of the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke), the noble Lord would postpone his Motion for adding the names of the noble Lords he had mentioned to-morrow.
  Motion agreed to.
  And on Tuesday June 13, Lord Harris added in the Place of Dulse of Sutherland, Earl De Grey in the Place of Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Earl Ducie, Viscount Strathallan, Lord Calthorpe, and Lord Wenlock added.

UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL—(No.122.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in moving the second reading of this Bill, I must express my regret that the duty has not fallen into more competent hands. That regret is, however, much lessened by my full conviction of the justice and wisdom of the measure; and this, and the fact that your Lordships are well acquainted with the subject, will render it unnecessary for me to trespass on your attention with many facts or arguments to induce your Lordships to consent to the second reading. The Bill is intended to remedy evils with regard to the settlement of the poor which were complained of in Parliament itself more than eighty years ago; and since that time there have been incessant complaints, both with regard to the treatment of the
  10
  poor and the unjust and sometimes excessive incidence of taxation upon the ratepayers. Many of your Lordships remember the serious agricultural riots of 1830, and the great inquiry which was subsequently instituted; your Lordships are also well acquainted with the Act which was passed in 1834. At that time the Commissioners were unanimous in recommending that the settlement and chargeability should be extended from the parishes to the unions; but it was found impossible to embody that recommendation in the Bill owing to the serious opposition which it encountered from the close parishes. There is no doubt, however, that that Bill effected most important and useful changes. It established a central authority and committed the administration of relief to a more intelligent and responsible body. But, at the same time, the evils proceeding from the chargeability to the parish were rather aggravated than otherwise; because, as the general charges of the union establishments were fixed, not upon the rateable value, but upon the general average, there was an additional inducement to parishes to endeavour to get rid of their poor. In 1839 the Commissioners in their Report expressed their deep regret that that portion of the Bill relating to union charge-ability had not been carried. In 1844 Sir James Graham brought in a Bill without success, and in 1845 renewed the attempt with the same result. But in 1846 Sir Robert Peel introduced and passed the Personal Irremovability Act, intended as some relief to the landed interest in consequence of the repeal of the Corn Laws. By the provisions of that Bill no pauper could be removed if he had remained in one place without obtaining relief for five years; but then the expense of his relief subsequently fell, not upon the union, but upon the parish to which he belonged. This was felt to be so intolerable that next year it was found necessary to introduce a Bill transferring the chargeability of this particular class of pauper from the parish to the union. This, no doubt, was a great step in advance. Great irritation was, however, felt by the larger and more populous parishes, and in consequence a Parliamentary Committee was appointed in 1858. The Committee reported, I believe, in 1860, that with regard to the chargeability to the unions, instead of the general average, the rateable value should be taken, that the area of residence should be extended to the whole union, and that the period of residence should be reduced from five years

  11
  to three. An Act was passed in 1861 carrying out these recommendations; and it will perhaps he curious to your Lordships to learn how different were the results from what had been expected. Between 1855 and 1861 the charges on the common fund for the irremovable poor were something like 22 per cent. The year preceding the passing of the Act they were 24 per cent, the year succeeding 44 per cent, and they have constantly gone on increasing until at the present time the charges upon the unions, as compared with the charges upon the parishes, exceed one-half, or 51 per cent. The present Bill is intended to carry out that which was recommended by the Commissioners of 1834, but only partially adopted at the time. There was one difficulty with regard to the settlement of any of these questions, which the Union Assessment Act of last year has removed. By that Act power was given to parishes to unite themselves into an union; but as it was necessary to procure perfect unanimity on the part of all the guardians of the parishes concerned, the desired object has usually been frustrated because of the interested opposition of at least one guardian, and the Act has proved almost inoperative. There is no doubt that all the changes that have taken place in the Poor Law have been of great benefit to the poor themselves, and that the removals have much decreased in consequence of the legislation which has been made upon this subject. In 1841 the removals in England numbered 23,000; and in 1861 they had diminished to 13,500. The Irish especially have greatly benefited, for during the distress of 1847 the removals from Liverpool alone were 15,000, and during the late cotton crisis they numbered from all Lancashire only 404. This Bill proposed to throw the relief of the poor, not upon the parishes, but upon the whole union. It therefore renders unnecessary the removal of paupers from parish to parish in the same union, and therefore takes away a constant source of discord among guardians. It further reduces the term of three years' industrial residence to one year. I apprehend that great benefit to the poor will attend the transfer of the power of removing paupers from the overseers of the parishes to the guardians, who are likely to exercise the power with much greater care. It will be of much advantage, too, that the stimulus to the removal of the settled poor will be diminished. For many years the destruction of cottages and their non-erection in the places where they were
  12
  most wanted has been a crying evil. The Commissioners reported upon this point in 1834 in very strong language, and the destruction of cottages has been shown to inflict great hardship upon the labouring poor, and to be productive of great demoralization from the overcrowding and the mixing of both sexes in the same rooms. The Commissioners appointed by the Poor Law Board in 1850, to inquire into the question of union chargeability, took evidence to show that it was the custom of the close parishes to throw the labourers upon the open ones, thereby inflicting great injustice upon the ratepayers, and producing dreadful demoralization by crowding the labourers and their families into lodgings wholly inadequate for their decent accommodation or any proper separation of the sexes; and a metropolitan Member has recently stated that it is utterly impossible, after the statements made by the owners of close parishes themselves, to deny that cottages were pulled down for the purpose of saving such parishes from the cost of maintaining the poor, of whose labour however they had availed themselves. Mr. Caird, a Member of the other House, was particularly encouraged by Sir Robert Peel to report upon the state of farming, and that Gentleman stated in his Report that in a great many instances labourers were obliged to live at a great distance from the place where they worked, and that sometimes they had to walk as far as four miles in the morning and evening; and he said that in some instances farmers lent donkeys to those of their labourers who were so circumstanced, in order that they might not become too exhausted for their work by these daily forced journeys. Most of your Lordships are probably members of the Royal Agricultural Society, and your Lordships will find that nearly every one of the prize essays of the Society, in dealing with almost every county in England, insists on the great advantage to agriculture which would result from not binding the labourer to the place in which he was born. There is a Report to which I must allude, which has not been drawn up to support this measure, as it has been received since the Bill was prepared. Dr. Hunter was requested to report to the Committee of Privy Council with regard to the sanitary arrangements of the cottages of the poor; and, although some of his statements have been called "sensational," they have been borne out by the more recent testimony of a Poor Law Board Inspector. I do not think it is surprising that a humane

  13
  and intelligent man, finding evils existing of the grossest description, not owing to natural causes, but to vicious legislation, should have expressed himself strongly; and what we have to consider are, not the expressions he has used, but whether the facts he gave are accurate or not. I know that there is one statement made by him which has been impugned, and that has reference to the figures which he took from the Census, and for which he is certainly not responsible, giving the number of houses and the increase of population. He found that in about 800 parishes there was an increase of the population, with a decrease in the number of houses. It has been endeavoured to be shown that this is fallacious, because it does not agree with the Return subsequently moved for in the House of Lords; but in that subsequent Return no care was taken to distinguish between the inhabited and the uninhabited houses—Dr. Hunter's statement, including all houses, whether inhabited or not, while the Return in question comprises inhabited houses only; and the fact remains that, while about 180 or 190 of those parishes have the same number of houses or rather more, and 100 have exactly the same, about 600 have a reduced number. Dr. Hunter gives a description of an open parish in Cambridgeshire where the labourers employed in several adjoining parishes reside, and where he found the cottage accommodation to be of a very disgraceful and overcrowded character. Some complaints were made that he had exaggerated the true state of the case; but the Poor Law Board sent an Inspector afterwards to the place to inquire into the facts, and that officer's Report showed that Dr. Hunter had in no one respect exaggerated the truth. The Inspector states that he found that the rector and other inhabitants of the parish expressed themselves as aggrieved because their parish had been singled out for comment, when it was not worse than others in the neighbourhood, as far as the cottages were concerned, and was even better in regard to drainage and freedom from nuisances. The working of the system in making the open parishes pay for the labourers when sick, whereas the adjacent close parishes enjoy the benefit of their labour when they were well, is unquestionably most unjust and anomalous. Here, my Lords, is a letter recently addressed to the Poor Law Board by the clerk of the Bourne Union, illustrating by an individual case the hardships to which labourers are exposed —
  14
  "Bourne, March 3, 1865.
  Sir—I am directed by this Board to request the advice of the Poor Law Board upon the following case, and as to the course they should pursue under the circumstances. Thomas Skeith, aged thirty-two, an able-bodied man, his wife, and three children, belonging to Careby, in this union, are now in the workhouse; the guardian has offered him work at 12.s. a week, upon which the Board, considering the man not destitute, having work to go to, are inclined to discharge him the house; the man is willing to go—in fact, would not be in the house if the guardian would also find him a house or lodging in Careby or at any village near, and here lies the difficulty. Careby is the sole property of a resident gentleman, and there are no spare, nor, indeed, not sufficient cottages for its own poorer class; the pauper says he cannot (and in this the Board have proof) got either lodgings or a house within any reasonable distance, and, taking the nearest place in which he could obtain a house, he could neither walk to or from his work daily, nor could he afford to keep up a house for his family and a lodging near his work for himself, and he cannot get work in a place to which he does not belong.
  "I am, &c, J. L. BELL, Clerk."
  That, my Lords, I think is an example of a shocking state of things. It is quite impossible to deny that the labourer is kept in a position of positive serfdom by that state of things. He may be ready and anxious to work, and yet by the operation of the law he is unable to avail himself of the offer of employment. As has been wittily remarked, it would be about as easy for a tree to remove itself with its roots to a neighbouring wood as for such a labourer to remove himself to a parish in which he might find work. The second point, of perhaps the greatest importance in this Bill, is that it will place the irremovable poor upon the same footing as the settled poor. The irremovable poor are employed without reference to their skill or industry, but simply owing to the fact of their irremovability. Such a system discourages industry, because the settled poor man knows that it is not only the interest, but the necessity of the farmer to employ him, while it discourages the deserving ablebodied man, because he knows that, however skillful and able he may be, his labour cannot be made use of till all the other labourers have been provided for. And this is not only a disadvantage to the labourer himself, but also to the farmer, because it obliges him not to employ the best man, but, for the reason I have stated, to hire a worse man because he happens to be settled in the parish. Upon this point I will appeal to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, who has given evidence showing

  15
  that the present system is a gross injustice to the industrious labourer. I think, my Lords, I have said enough to make out a prima facie case for the second reading of this Bill. But I see upon our paper the notice of a Motion of a fatal character as regards this measure. I therefore venture to ask your Lordships to bear with me while I make a few observations on the objections which may possibly be raised in this debate. And first, it may be said that inquiry is demanded. I think I have shown that this matter has for years been inquired into, and not only that, but the results of those inquiries have to a certain extent been acted upon, and by each successive inquiry and the results of its partial action thereupon the Legislature has been induced to proceed a little further in the direction of this measure. Therefore I say that, having inquired for thirty-five years, it is time now that we took some decisive action on a subject of such great importance to the country. Another objection, which is rather more plausible, is that it is necessary before passing this Bill to make some arrangement for the revision of the existing unions. Now, I do not wish to contend that in the original formation of the unions all the parishes were always grouped together in the most perfect and most convenient manner. No doubt local circumstances sometimes made it less perfect than it otherwise might have been. But it is said that a Committee of the other House which sat in 1847 recommended that facilities should be given for revising the boundaries of unions. Now, I would give one reason why this Bill should not be delayed for any such revision. The Report of the Committee in question was made nearly twenty years ago, and the unions have now become such recognized and settled divisions for many purposes that they could not be changed without very great inconvenience. Let me quote to your Lordships on this point a letter addressed to the Poor Law Board by Major Graham, the Registrar General. That letter says—
  "General Register Office, Somerset House,
  May 29, 1865.
  "Sir—I observe that perons desirous of changing the boundaries of unions are making urgent representations to the Poor Law Board that extensive alterations should be made in them. I take the liberty of remarking that if such a course be adopted great inconvenience and derangement will occur in this office, formed nearly thirty years ago for the civil registration of births, deaths, and marriages, upon the basis of Poor Law Unions,
  16
  this department being intimately connected with the arrangements of the Poor Law Board. Since 1837, births, deaths, and marriages have been registered in unions; and Boards of Guardians have provided register offices fitted with fire-proof repositories for the safe custody of the public records suitable to the population of each union, the inhabitants of which now know where to resort for the purpose of obtaining certified copies of the registers; if boundaries of unions are changed, and new register offices are consequently provided, increased expense and inconvenience to the public will ensue. Since 1837 the number of births, deaths, and marriages registered in each year in unions has been compared, and all calculations as to number of births of each sex, and number of marriages according to the rights of the Established Church, and by civil contract, and all calculations as to rate of mortality, have been annually based upon the numbers thus recorded in unions, such calculations being extensively used by the Lords of the Privy Council, and by Local Boards of Health, and by medical officers of health. The same system has also been adopted by the Poor Law Board in their valuable Reports, giving from year to year statistics as to pauperism and industrial employment in each union. In the decennial Census, also, there is the same arrangement. In the Census tables presented to Parliament in 1851 and 1861 is to be found from 1801 to 1861, arranged in unions, a comparison of the number of males and females, showing increase and decrease at each of these seven periods, accompanied with a statement as to houses, ages, occupations, birthplace, and number of families, for purposes of comparison. At the next Census of 1871 all calculations will be materially lessened in value if great alterations are made in the boundaries of existing unions. The circuits of County Court Judges are also founded on the basis of unions as at present formed. And for the balloting of militia authority is given by statute to Courts of Lieutenancy to adopt Poor Law Unions. For these reasons I venture to deprecate the changes which are recommended. As to parishes and townships under the Act of Elizabeth, and in Gilbert Incorporations, I am aware that from time to time changes are unavoidable; and I know that it is most desirable that they should be formed into unions; but I presume to express a hope that the Poor Law Board will not be induced to make extensive changes in unions already formed and used for the purposes I have above indicated.
  "I have, &c,
  "GEORGE GRAHAM, Registrar General.
  "The Secretary, Poor Law Board, Whitehall.
  "When the unions were originally formed local difficulties prevented in some instances the selection of the most convenient groups of parishes, but the existing areas have been so long established that it would be as difficult to interfere with them as with the boundaries of counties."
  The third objection is that large areas have been found to fail in times of pressure, and are unfavourable to economy in administration; but I believe this objection to be entirely without foundation. The Commissioners of 1834 were not of that opinion, and they adduced a great many facts which totally contradicted that view

  17
  of the case. The Commissioners took 100 large and 100 small parishes, and they found, upon carefully going through the accounts, that the charges were four or five times greater in the small than in the largo areas. Again, in the City of London Union, from which I have presented a petition in favour of the Bill, the expenses of administration are very much greater than they are in the larger metropolitan parishes outside the City. The Poor Law Inspectors, in reply to a question on the subject, gave answers totally at variance with this objection to the Bill. We have received a letter from the Board of Guardians of the Docking Union—a Union which has availed itself of the provisions of the Act of 1834, and united its parishes together for the purposes of uniform rating—that shows that the system has worked admirably, and that after its adoption the expenditure do-creased 10 per cent, whereas in the surrounding districts the charges have only decreased l·82 per cent. The system is also working well at Oxford and Cambridge, which are unions for rating and settlement under local Acts, and the local authorities of both towns are in favour of the Bill. Sir Edmund Head, a great authority upon this subject, in a letter to the President of the Poor Law Board, prefacing the reproduction of an article addressed by himself to the Edinburgh Review, shows how illogical is the objection not to allow unions to pay all instead of half their charges, as at present. If the argument in favour of the limited area is to have full weight, the objectors, to be consistent, ought to ask the Legislature to take a step backwards and restore the control of the relief to the overseers of the parish. Another objection to this measure is that it will confer a benefit upon the towns to the disadvantage of the rural districts. If the towns have been paying more than their share hitherto, I can see no objection to the pressure of the burden being equalized; but I believe the statement contained in the objection to be incorrect, for many towns, such as Torquay and Bedford, instead of gaining will lose by the operation of the Bill. In my opinion the old and poorer towns will be the gainers, while the new and richer will be the losers by it. With regard to the town of Aston, to which reference has been made, it will lose greatly, whereas every surrounding parish will gain by the Bill. The last objection is that it is unjust to transfer the incidence of taxation in the manner proposed by the Bill. But every
  18
  alteration in the incidence of taxation is open to the same objection. Does not every fresh Budget of every Chancellor of the Exchequer shift the burden of taxation from one class to another? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer produces a War Budget, and it seems that the charges will fall too heavily on one class and too lightly on another, are not attempts constantly made to adjust the burden more fairly? And, even if the objection were valid, it is too late to make it now. The Act of the 1st of Elizabeth—the Act which first introduced the Law of Settlement—might certainly have been open to the objection; but that Act was confirmed by that of Charles H., which was followed up by the Act of George III., and by that of 1846, when Sir Robert Peel shifted 20 per cent of the whole of the tax for poor relief from one class of persons to another class. In the following year still further changes were made; while the greatest change of all was made when Parliament imposed upon the whole of Ireland a new Poor Law system. The reasons in favour of the Bill are many; one is that it will do away with the want of uniformity in the present system, by which one portion of the poor is relieved from one fund and another portion from a different fund; and another reason is that it will result in providing sufficient accommodation for the labouring poor, under the defect of which so large a part of them are now suffering, and that it will release the farmers from that practical restriction which confined their choice of labourers to those who were settled in the parish. By passing this Bill you will give practical effect to the principle of union rating and union settlement contemplated by the Commissioners of 1834, and partially provided for by the Poor Law Amendment Act, and you will act in accordance with the recommendation of Committees of the House of Commons, and especially of the Committee on Poor Law Relief, who made their Report last year; and you will be adopting the principle of the scheme which has been advocated by all eminent statesmen who have given their attention to the subject, such as the late Sir James Graham, Sir George Lewis, and by writers of such practical experience as Sir Edmund Head, and you will be acting in conformity with the decision of the House of Commons who have passed the Bill by such large majorities, composed not merely of town Members, or

  19
  of Members of one party, but whose numbers were swollen by a large number of country Members. My Lords, notice has been given that the Motion for the second reading is to be met by an Amendment of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Rutland) that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Upon this Amendment I have to say that, in the first place, it is irregular. The noble Duke may object to the second reading of the Bill, but it is not in accordance with the custom of your Lordships' House, to move that a Bill be referred to a Select Committee until it has been read a second time. The second objection I have to offer is, that the House of Commons will not receive the Bill if it be sent back to them with any changes in the clauses made in their Lordships' House, as being an infringement of their privileges. It is also to be recollected that those Bills which are referred to a Select Committee are usually Bills of great detail which cannot be considered conveniently in a Committee of the whole House; whereas this Bill is one the principle of which is affirmed in a single clause, and that that principle is merely expanded and defined in the several other clauses. My noble Friend (the Duke of Rutland) is a most popular and liberal landowner, and is incapable on a question of this sort of being influenced by considerations as to the effect of the measure on his own property; but many landowners are of opinion that the Bill will not be of advantage to owners of land, and there is a belief that the opposition to it is dictated by class interests. I should regret if any noble Lord who is not in favour of the Bill should be led to vote for it through fear of his motives being misconstrued; but if any noble Lord, on the other hand, does not think that the reasons for the Bill are good, he ought to show so by his vote in public and in the full House, and not to refer it to a Select Committee, where the discussion will be in private. It may, in reply, be said that the House of Lords is entitled to reserve to itself the right to improve the Bill, and that, when they have done so, it will be for Her Majesty's Government to introduce into the House of Commons a new Bill in accordance with those improvements. This would be asking the Government to make bricks without straw. How could the Government, approving as they do the Bill which is now before your Lordships, and after this Bill has received the approval of the House of Commons, consent to undo all that has
  20
  been done by undertaking to bring in a new measure? I hope the Bill will receive a full discussion on the second reading, or on whatever other stage a debate may be thought desirable; but I must ask your Lordships to understand that Her Majesty's Government distinctly object to the proposition of referring it to a Select Committee. I have great hope—I trust I am not too sanguine in the expectation—that your Lordships will agree with the Government and the House of Commons that this is a Bill which should pass, as a measure important to the labouring classes, and therefore vitally important to the whole country.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid: In rising to second my noble Friend's Motion, I will make a promise almost always broken as soon as made—not to detain the House at any length. This time the promise will be kept, for I have merely to state in support of this important measure, that it was in the contemplation of the Government of which I was a Member in 1833, and that we strongly desired that it should form a part of the great change which we then effected in the laws relating to the poor. My lamented Friend Lord Althorp endeavoured to carry this into effect; but, after repeated attempts, he was compelled to give up that intention, and indeed the great amount of the changes which we were then carrying through made it incumbent on us to postpone this to another time, desirous as we were of then introducing it. When I moved the second reading of the great Bill in this House, I stated that thirty years would not pass under the new system before we should add to it this important measure of making liability continuous in the management, and I trust that my prediction is now about to be fulfilled.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord President.)
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND,in moving the Amendment of which he had given notice—that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee—said, he wished, in the first place, to dispose of the objection that it was not in his power, on the Motion that the Bill be now read the second time, to move as an Amendment that it be referred to a Select Committee, by referring to a precedent from the Journals of their Lordships' House. On the 27th of February, 1835, on the Motion of the Duke of Richmond, a Bill for the Abolition of Tolls,

  21
  which was read a first time, was referred to a Select Committee; and in regard to the observation of the noble Earl the Lord President that the tendency of his Motion was to defeat the Bill he frankly avowed that if it should do so it would not break his heart. He had two objections to the Bill—firstly, that it would work with great injustice and unfairness as between one class of the community and another; secondly, that it would tend to the total destruction of the parochial system. He believed that no one who considered the provisions of the Bill impartially could fail to see that it would relieve one class of the community at the expense of another. It was of course of his own neighbourhood that he could speak with the greatest authority, and he would refer to the union of Grantham. He found that the operation of the Bill would relieve the town of Grantham of rates to the amount of £1,100 a year, and would impose that amount on the smaller agricultural parishes in the neighbourhood. That was a large burden to impose on poor agricultural parishes. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had only done him justice in supposing that merely personal considerations would not influence him in respect of this measure. Even although the Bill affected him individually he hoped he would have the courage to perform what he considered a public duty; but so far as he was concerned, this Bill only made a difference of £9 a year. But, on the other hand, a clergyman wrote to him from Leicestershire that in his parish the rates would be doubled, though there were only thirty inhabitants in it, and not one pauper; this clergyman would have to pay £30 a year. Another gentleman told him that though on his estate there were only five labourers, all of whom were ablebodied, he must pay £130 a year. If they were about to change the incidence of taxation in this manner they ought to make the great manufacturing and commercial interests pay their fair share of the burden. It was right in former times to place the burden of supporting the poor on the owners of land; but now largo fortunes were made by the manufacturing interests, and they ought to be called upon to pay in proportion to their earnings. A house in the town of Grantham which was rated at £100 a year, and in which thousands might be earned, and a farmer's land, three miles off, rated at £100 a year, which might return him perhaps nothing,
  22
  perhaps a few hundreds, were to be rated equally under the Bill. Let him take another case; that of a mill employing 300 hands. A cotton famine came, and these people were thrown out of employment; the mill under these circumstances would not pay a single penny towards the poor rate, because it was closed, and the consequence was the district had to support the mill hands. As these would be some of the effects of the Bill, he thought he was not going too far when he asked for such an inquiry as would enable their Lordships to thoroughly understand all the bearings of the question. But he did not know that he should have troubled their Lordships on the subject, were it not for the great objections he entertained to the Bill as destroying the parochial system. In that way he believed that it would inflict an immense injury on the working man. In the agricultural districts the way in which the parochial system worked was this. A labourer was thrown out of employment in consequence of something or other—perhaps a frost. The farmer knew that if he did not find him something to do he would have to support him in the "workhouse; and he argued in this way:—"If I find him employment during the two or three weeks of frost I shall get the benefit of his labour; but if he goes into the workhouse I shall have to pay 8s., 9s., or 10s. a week without getting any return. "If this Bill were passed the poor man would lose that safeguard. This was no theory merely; many facts might be brought forward to show that it was what often happened. Last winter a friend of his in Leicestershire told him that one day a labouring man came to him to ask what he should do, as he had been thrown out of employment. His friend asked the man whether he had been round to all the farmers in the parish, and he said he had. "Well," said the gentleman, "I can't find you employment myself, but the best thing you can do is to go back and tell them that if you can't get employment you will go into the workhouse." The man went away, followed the advice, and employment was found for him immediately. Another instance he had heard of from the chairman of the Sleaford Board of Guardians. That gentleman told him that the only time he was really afraid of the operation of the New Poor Law was some ten years ago, when a body of some sixteen labourers came to him to tell him they were out of employment, and asking

  23
  what they should do. The chairman said, "Well, I can't find you work, but the best advice I can give you is that you all go into the workhouse, and depend upon it you won't be there long." The men followed his advice and went in; but they were very soon found work, for the farmers knew that they would have to pay more for them in the workhouse than they would have to pay if they were at work. But if this Bill passed, the labouring men would not get work in such cases—the workhouses would be filled, and the rates would be increased. In the name of the labouring man, therefore, of the old decrepid and infirm man, who could only give half a day's work, he called on their Lordships to pause before they passed this Bill. He trusted that their Lordships would show that they were the friends of these poor people, and that they were not afraid to record their votes with his. He had in his hand a statement from the surveyor of roads in the Newark district, which showed that if this Bill passed it would throw into the workhouse a great number of men who were now maintained by working upon the roads. This officer had prepared a list from which it appeared that out of the seventy-eight men employed under him, only nineteen were able-bodied men receiving the full wages of 2s. a day. Upon the passing of this Bill all but these nineteen would probably be thrown out of work, because as the parishes having to maintain their own roads, and not having to maintain their own poor, would insist upon the roads being repaired at the least possible expense which could only be done by employing the best men. In many of the rural parishes the burdens would be much increased; and the poor who were not ablebodied would be sent into the workhouse, which to them would be an imprisonment for life. The only argument he had heard in support of the Bill, was that in certain close parishes cottages had been pulled down, and, further, that the labourers in some instances had to walk long distances to their work. He did not for a moment deny that instances might be found throughout the country in which cottages had been pulled down, and the labourers had to get cottages in the neighbouring parishes. He also did not deny that the labourers sometimes had very long distances to walk to their work and back. But the question was, would this Bill prove a remedy for this state of things? It was certainly a
  24
  question which required very great consideration; and he must certainly say that he doubted very much whether the Bill would provide a remedy. He believed that the reason why cottages were not built was that they did not pay. If landlords built cottages, and put a sufficient rent upon them to pay, the consequence would be that the labourers could not inhabit them because they could not afford to pay that rent. His own belief was that if this Bill passed there would be still fewer cottages. At the present time there was throughout the country a great movement in favour of building cottages; but he feared that this movement would be arrested by legislation of this kind. Partly from benevolence and partly from interest the movement was spreading, and the landlords were beginning to discover that it was not for their interest to pull down cottages and drive the labourers into other parishes. Where cottages had been pulled down the rates had decreased in their total amount, but the value of property had decreased in a greater proportion and the rate in the pound had increased; whilst in other parishes into which the labourers had been driven—as he admitted they had in some few instances—in these parishes the rates had, indeed, increased, but the value of property had increased in a greater proportion, and the rate in the pound had diminished. As the owners of property pondered these things the condition of things complained of would altogether cease, and there would be erected more cottages than had been built of late years. Now, with regard to the long walk of the labourer to his work, he believed that there was great exaggeration on this matter. No doubt in some instances they had to walk long distances, and he believed that in some cases they preferred the walk. Not long ago he himself was about to build some cottages, and, being in doubt as to where he should build them in the village or in the fields, he took the advice of those best able to judge. He got most contradictory advice, and, therefore, be built in both places—a part near the fields where the work was done, and a portion in the village. Those which were by the fields he could get no one to occupy, and the only answer he got when he inquired what was the cause, was that the labourers did not like to live in a lonely spot, but preferred to live in the village. The labourer did not like to live away from everybody else; he liked to be

  25
  near the church, and near his club, and in a spot where his wife could, when she wished to go out, find some one to take care of the bahy. These were practical matters of which Mr. C. P. Villiers and his Poor Law Commissioners knew nothing —they did not understand it, and he hoped that their Lordships would send the Bill to a Select Committee, so that the matter might be explained to them. He should like to say a few words in reference to the question of area. It was now proposed to extend it; but he believed that all previous experience was opposed to such a course. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) himself had mentioned one instance which occurred in the time of Elizabeth. He had said that the burden of taxation was shifted in the time of Elizabeth; but the truth was that the change was from a large area to a small one; and why? It was because the poor found that the large areas were intolerable. In the reign of Charles II. the same thing again occurred, and the reason was stated in the Act in this way—
  "The inhabitants of certain northern counties, and of many other counties, cannot, by means of the largeness of the parish, have the benefit of the Poor Law."
  Coming to more recent times, when the New Poor Law was introduced into Ireland, in 1837, they had very large areas; and ten years afterwards Sir George Grey had to propose a Boundary Commission; and the Commissioners made some fourteen Reports. It appeared that in the north and east of Ireland, where the unions were smallest, the people were employed the best, and in the south and west, where the unions were largest, they were the worst employed; and the Commissioners recommended that the unions should be reduced from large ones to small ones, and that the electoral districts should be likewise reduced; and this was done. He hoped, therefore, that noble Lords connected with that country would give him their support in seeking to obtain for England the same justice that had been done to Ireland in this respect. Now, with respect to removals, which were mentioned as one of the great evils of the present system, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) admitted that the number of removals had enormously decreased. He (the Duke of Rutland) knew that in his own union, when the poor law came into operation, the removals, compared with what they now were, were as twenty-seven to one; in the last year
  26
  there were but six removals from one parish to another within the union; and he was informed on very good authority that if things were only allowed to go on as they now were there would soon be almost none from parish to parish and very few from union to union. The Bill was beginning to operate upon this question even before it had passed. A neighbouring Union had sent notice to the Grantham Union that they would allow no more outdoor relief, but the paupers must be sent to their own Union, the object being that the friends of the pauper might support them for a year, when they would become chargeable to Grantham. The same thing was going on all over England, and the poor were being forced out from the places where they lived, and driven to their own unions. He wished to refer to Dr. Hunter's Report, and he would observe that it was a Report which appeared to have been got up in great haste, for the Doctor had not time to investigate thoroughly the circumstances of the districts through which he passed. In 1849 there were eight Commissioners sent into fourteen counties, but Dr. Hunter was himself sent through the whole of England. What he did was to go here and there to find out parishes where cottages had been pulled down; but if a Committee were granted they could fully investigate the matter; and he might observe that when Mr. Baines, in 1854, brought in his Union Chargeability Bill he gave up the question of these open and closed parishes. The noble Earl had not alluded to the Committee of 1860, and, therefore, he need not refer to it; but he begged to remind their Lordships that it was not until 1864, after three new Members had been added to the Committee, who were known to entertain views favourable to union rating, that any Report was made in its favour. If the Bill was passed on the slight evidence possessed upon the subject the country would be unjustly and wrongly treated, and therefore it was that he protested against this measure being passed in this slovenly and off-hand manner. He entertained a strong conviction that if they legislated upon this subject without sending the Bill to a Select Committee it would be an entire failure, and would create ill-feeling between towns and country, but above all they would destroy that feeling of unity of interests and that affection which now existed between the rich and the poor man—the employer of labour

  27
  and the employed, between the man who found work, and the man who did the work, and therefore it was that he hoped their Lordships would vote in favour of the Amendment. He did not think that the objection that by so doing they would be putting themselves in opposition to the House of Commons, would weigh one instant with their Lordships, because a few weeks hence the present House of Commons would be scattered all over the country, and a new House would be elected who might be of a different opinion upon this subject; and therefore it could not be said that their Lordships, by sending this Bill to a Select Committee, would be putting themselves in opposition to the House of Commons. He hoped their Lordships would think that he had made out a case for a Select Committee, and would agree to his Amendment.
  Amendment moved to leave out from ("be") to the End of the Motion and insert ("referred to a Select Committee.")—(The Duke of Rutland.)
  Question proposed, "Whether the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he unfortunately felt obliged to differ from all the conclusions to which his noble Friend (the Duke of Rutland) had come—in fact, he thought that if his noble Friend's arguments were worth anything they went against the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 itself. The opinions of persons who were entitled to consideration, and the Reports of Committees and Commissions, were uniformly in favour of the adoption of union instead of parish rating, and Bills had been introduced both into their Lordships' House and into the House of Commons embodying that principle. Moreover, the Irremovable Poor Act of 1861 rendered this change almost indispensable. The results of the Irremovable Poor Act, which had been in operation for three years, were very remarkable, for, as shown by the noble Earl who introduced the measure, 51 per cent of the poor all over England had been charged to the common funds of the unions, and this was a most important fact to be borne in mind in dealing with this Bill. The principle of the Bill had been adopted in the original Poor Law Act of 1834, and had been expanded in 1861—it had been found to work beneficially, and this Bill proposed to extend its operation still further. If they regarded the condition of the poor in England, they
  28
  would find it to be very unsatisfactory. They would find that while in one parish labour was insufficient, in another and an adjacent one it would be superabundant; that while in one parish the labourers were accommodated in blocks of beautiful and convenient cottages, their neighbours crowded or herded in places where none of their Lordships would like to crowd stock. They would find, too, that one parish, only very recently rated to the poor at all, had at its side a less fortunate neighbour upon whom the rates fell very heavily. As a rule, the lightly rated parishes would be found to belong to one, two, or three proprietors only; while the heavily burdened parishes belonged to a great number of small proprietors. The origin of the present state of things was not of recent date. With reference to the demolition of cottages, he might say that he did not believe that demolition was carried on to any great extent. Even in this direction, however, he thought that the Bill would effect much indirectly. He had taken considerable interest in this subject, and had made rather extended inquiries on his own estates. In a parish in Northamptonshire, belonging almost entirely to himself, out of thirteen men and three boys employed by one farmer, only two resided in the parish, and in case of sickness or old age all the rest of his labourers would fall for support on the neighbouring parish. He had a Return of the rates of two adjoining parishes, and he thought it would be curious to compare these with the rate of the close parish just alluded to. He would take the one that was in the same union. In that close parish in 1860 the amount paid to the common fund was£1 19 s.; there was no relief at all to the poor or the lunatic; in 1861£2, and in 1862 £1 17s. was all that that property paid to the maintenance of the poor. In 1863 the Irremovable Poor Act came into operation, and the contribution rose in that year to £30, and in 1864 to £22 6s. In the neighbouring open parish to which he had just referred the charge to the common fund in 1860 was £88 3s., in 1861 it was £81, and in 1862 it was £74 6s.. But observe the remarkable change wrought by the Irremovable Poor Act. In 1863 from £74 6s.. the amount fell to £38 10 s., and in the following years it stood at about the same sum. The clerk of the union informed him that the effect of that Bill on the two parishes he had quoted would be that in

  29
  the close parish the rate would be increased from £22 6s., its present amount, to £57 5s., whereas the open parish, which, under the existing system, paid £190 16 s. 6d., would by that Bill have to pay £99, or a decrease in the open parish of about 50 per cent. This, he thought, was sufficient to show the great hardship now borne by the open parishes in having to maintain in their sickness and old age the poor who worked in the neighbouring parishes. He had made inquiry, and confidently believed that on his estates for the last fifty years not a single cottage had been demolished without better ones having been built in their place. No doubt the science of agriculture had greatly increased of late years, and there had been an increased demand for labourers; but unfortunately new cottages had not been built in proportion. He should be sorry to see the Amendment of the noble Duke passed, for he thought it would be the greatest possible boon to the labourer if parochial chargeability were done away with. It would be an enormous benefit to the labourer to have the area of his labour extended. The present law worked most prejudicially on his interests. A farmer wished to employ a certain number of men. He employed two or three of the most skilled and best-conducted men in the village, and he would be glad to get a labourer from the neighbouring parish; but he knew that there were two or three idle men with their wives and families in his parish, and that if he did not employ them he must help to maintain them. He, therefore, discarded the well-conducted labourer in the next parish. That depreciated the value of good labour, and dragged the good labourer down to the dead level of the bad one. The present Bill would likewise benefit the farmer by giving him better labourers to do his work; and it would, moreover, remove the discouragement which now existed to the building of cottages. A proprietor would be enabled to obtain better rents for his cottages if the higher class of labourers were encouraged, fie happened himself to live in Norfolk, in a union which had the honour of having adopted the principle of union chargeability. He referred to the union of Docking, which comprised thirty-six parishes. A tenant of his, who had been Chairman of the Board of Guardians, had furnished him with information as to the operation of the principle there. That gentleman had written a letter to him on the subject, to which he could not
  30
  help calling their Lordships' attention. After stating that he attended a Board where there was a fair attendance of Guardians, and had talked over points to which he had called his attention, the writer said—
  "But one opinion was expressed, and which I am quite sure is entertained by every guardian in the union, and the more so by the ex officio, that the adoption of the union instead of the parish rating has worked most satisfactorily, and that no one has seen cause to regret its adoption. One most important result has been that to the good labourer it has been of much benefit, has raised his moral character, and enabled him to find ready employment in the several parishes (thirty-six) of the union. The employers are too glad to employ men of good character coming from any parish in preference to those of their own parish of doubtful or inferior character. I also asked the opinion of the guardians as to the effect upon wages, and we are perfectly in agreement that the average wages of our labourer has been, and continues to be, somewhat in advance of the rate paid throughout the county generally. I am quite confident that the rates in the Docking Union have not increased in a greater degree than other unions in the county, but, I believe, rather the reverse. I ascertained from our books that we have scarcely had an able-bodied labourer in our workhouse for some years."
  He believed, then, that this Bill was not only sound in theory, but sanctioned by practice. The noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) thought it would check economy, but he himself believed it would cut down expense. There were some 15,000 parishes in the country and only about 600 unions. Therefore, by diminishing the extent of removals they must proportionately diminish cost. It was often said that the large parishes would no longer have an interest in looking after the expenditure; hut if the large parishes did not care to look after the expenditure the farmers in rural parishes who had an addition made to their rates would, he thought, be inclined to look rather sharply after it. With regard to a revision of unions, he believed that some acts of injustice would be done if some alteration were not made in that respect. Let him take the case of the union of Northampton. There the union extended into rural districts nearly all round the town; but in one direction it extended much further. There were two parishes in the union, one nearly seven and the other five miles from the town, where the rates would be considerably increased; while another parish, almost a suburb of Northampton, one and a half mile from the town, would not be affected at all, as it belongs to a union of a strictly agricultural nature. Here the re-distribution of unions would be clearly an act of justice.

  31
  No doubt cases of hardship might arise out of the proposed change, but he had no wish to jeopardize this measure, which was of so much importance to the poor and to the country, by endeavouring to introduce safeguards against such cases of partial injustice. He thought it would even be better that a little injustice should be done than that so valuable a measure should fail to be passed into law.
  THE EARL OF ST. MAURsaid, that one of the main points to be considered in connection with this measure was that of taxation. There were, he thought, two principles which might be appealed to in rating the taxation—they might tax a man in relation to his property, or they might tax him in relation to his employment of labour. He thought in neither case was the taxation fairly apportioned, for in the former case landed property was heavily taxed, whereas funded property was lightly taxed; and in the latter instance the employer of the labour might contrive in many ways to evade the payment of the amount of his fair share of the burden of supporting his workmen when no longer capable of working. It must, however, be borne in mind that in whatever way they raised the taxation there must always be a great difference between those who lived in the towns and those who lived in the country. The great evil of the present system, in his opinion, was that it kept the labourer fixed to the place where there was, perhaps, no demand for his labour. This Bill was founded on the recommendations of the Committee of 1861, but that Committee had expressed a very slight opinion on the subject, relegating it to the further consideration of Parliament. A Return laid before Parliament showed that, while the removals from parish to parish were only 366, the removals from union to union were over 5,000; so that after all it would only be the smaller number which would be touched by this Bill. He had intended to propose Amendments on the Bill, but he should not press them.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid, he felt it his duty to give his cordial support to the Bill. He considered it a great wrong that those who had enjoyed the advantage of the poor man's labour while he was able to work, should be able to relieve themselves of his support in sickness and age; and this wrong the present Bill would, to some extent, diminish. The noble Duke who moved the Amendment had referred to the diminution of
  32
  extent of the electoral divisions in Ireland; but the result had been the creation of close and open parishes, which all persons must deprecate, and the production of inequalities of rating in populous and thinly-inhabited districts. The consequence had been that many cabins had been pulled down with a view to reduce the rating, and that was not a result which it could be desired to see produced in England.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The noble Earl the President of the Council, in moving the second reading of the Bill, expressed a hope that it would not be treated in a party spirit. I concur in that wish; but I must say that if anything like party feeling be imported into this subject, Her Majesty's Government will have to thank themselves for that result. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill into the other House is a Gentleman of great Parliamentary reputation; but I confess I was very much disappointed with the course he has pursued in reference to this measure. Not a single taunt had been spared, not a single imputation had been wanting, in the addresses of the right hon. Gentleman which could stir up animosity and bitterness of feeling among his political opponents.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I really must call the noble Earl to order. It is out of order to refer in this manner to debates in the other House, and if the noble Earl should pursue this line of remark I shall feel it my duty to answer the charges he makes against my right hon. Relative, which are wholly incorrect.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I have said all I desire to say upon that point, but I do not think the noble Earl need have put the rule to which he refers so strictly. I may be permitted to observe that the Report which the Government has laid before Parliament gives me another, and, I think, a reasonable ground of complaint against them. That Report related to the condition of the agricultural labourers in England. When a Report is issued by the Government with its official imprimatur we expect that it shall contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; but we find that in another place, to which I will not more particularly refer, as the noble Earl is so strict in enforcing the rule of the House, the statements in that Report were completely demolished.
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: They were the usual agricultural Reports which are laid before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I am referring to the Report upon the conditions of the agricultural labourers of England. When we find that that Report contains misrepresentations of fact in page after page, then I say we have some reason to find fault with the Government. [The Earl of CLARENDON: Hear!] The noble Earl cheers, but he must remember that that Report was put forward by the Government as the foundation of this Bill. [The Earl of CLARENDON: Hear!] Really I must appeal to the House whether I ought to be subjected to such un-Parliamentary interruptions.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I do not think the noble Earl opposite is acting altogether in conformity to the usages of Parliament. Surely the noble Earl does not mean to say that no Peer can utter a word about the Poor Law Board. No doubt the Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board is the noble Earl's relative; but, in discussing a subject of this kind, what can be more natural than to remark upon the course pursued by the President.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I assure the noble Earl I did not intend to apply my remarks personally to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board. I was simply commenting upon the Report which was quoted as justifying the introduction of this Bill. I do not know that the President of the Poor Law Board had anything special to do with that Report, which came from the Privy Council. In that Report it was stated that the inquiry had been but partial, and could not he exhaustive; and it is just upon that ground that I object to the statements contained in it being used to warrant the introduction of this measure. When an inquiry is partial and not exhaustive, those who make it should be careful to represent only facts. In order to show the value of that Report, I may refer to a passage in which, referring to some cottages built by the Duke of Bedford, it is observed, "It is ungracious to criticize, but more could be done if money was not lavished on useless, and often noxious, porches." I think any gentleman who could write such a paragraph must be either ignorant or ill-informed. There is no portion of cottage accommodation so necessary as a large protecting porch. I do not wish to go further into that matter, but I simply want to know what is the real object and end
  34
  of the Bill. I quite admit, with the noble Duke who has moved the Amendment, that there are certain difficulties involved in this subject; that there will be a considerable shifting of burdens, and that in many instances some injustice will be done if this Bill passes. I have again to find fault with the Government, because if they had brought in a preliminary measure for a revision of the boundaries of unions the difficulty would in some degree have been met. If this Bill passes in it present bare and naked shape it is inevitable that an amount of hardship must be inflicted in some cases that need not have been inflicted. I am not, however, upon these grounds prepared to object to this Bill. There has been no change in the Poor Law since 1834, which has not led to a shifting of burdens and alterations in the charges upon property. All recent legislation upon this subject, however, seems to be tending to one point. And now arises a serious question. It has been urged that this Bill is only a part of still greater changes, and that if we agree to union rating we shall come ultimately to an equalization of the metropolitan poor rates, then to county rating, and, finally, to a national rate fixed upon the Consolidated Fund. I put aside the question of equalizing the metropolitan poor rate, because the circumstances are peculiar; but if I thought that either county rating or a national rate would follow the passing of this Bill I think it would be a fatal objection to it. But I do not think there is any substantial reason for such apprehension. The Bill is the substitution of a larger for a smaller area of rating, making the union the unit instead of the parish. That is a change, I admit; but I also find that the Bill is a security for standing still in the future. At this moment we have an undeniable, and, logically, indefensible anomaly—we have one area for rating and another for management; but the moment you remove that anomaly and make the area of rating and the area of management coterminous, you take up a position by which the argument for further change is removed. I cannot concur in the argument of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) who believes that the widening of the area of rating will be attended with a diminution of the jealousy and watchfulness exhibited by the Guardians over the expenditure. I do not entertain any fears of that kind. There may be, and I think there will be, at first, a

  35
  slight increase of expenditure; but I do not think that that will be permanent when things have settled down into their ordinary course. The farmer who is elected Guardian of the parish will soon cease to draw any distinction between the primary fund, in which he is personally interested, and the common fund, in which he is interested only in a secondary degree, and will soon feel that his personal interest, as well as that of those he represents, is to attend to the proper and economical expenditure of the moneys intrusted to his charge. But who are those who really at this moment transact the financial business of the union? Are they the representatives of parishes A, B, C, D, or E, or of the parishes comprised in the union generally? I believe that in nine cases out of ten the work devolves upon a small minority, who, from local reasons or special interest in the subject, are regular and systematic in their attendance. I think that the work will practically remain in the same hands as before, and the management will follow in precisely the same channel, and I cannot therefore imagine that the formidable results are likely to accrue from the passing of this measure which some Members of your Lordships' House anticipate. My noble Friend the Duke of Richmond has placed in my hand a Return from the union over which he presides. That Board consists of forty-six elected and thirteen ex officio Guardians; and out of those fifty-nine the average attendance for the twelve months ending in March of the present year was only eleven. The noble Duke is unfortunately absent, owing to a family bereavement; but I have his authority for stating that he substantially concurs in the view of the subject, which I have had the honour of laying before your Lordships. I think it is plain that as soon as the measure becomes law you will have to increase the discipline and severity in jour unions. If, however, the Bill contemplated any such course with respect to the metropolis, such a fact would weigh greatly against the Bill in my mind. I may say, in conclusion, that both the advocates and the opponents of this measure appear, in my opinion, to overrate its probable results. My noble Friend (the Duke of Rutland), on the one hand, apprehends consequences more formidable than are likely to arise; while Her Majesty's Government, on the other hand, promise more than is likely to be realized; for,
  36
  according to their account the labourer will, in consequence of this Bill, be set free and enabled to carry his labour into the most profitable market. The Act, however, and I believe it is a fair and moderate statement, will have the tendency to remove a certain amount of artificial restriction which now weighs upon the labourer; and, on the other hand, I believe it will have the effect of removing a certain amount of discouragement which the landlord encounters in providing cottage accommodation. I have noticed, and I have no doubt your Lordships have also remarked, that in many of our country parishes the race of ordinary labourers is inferior to the preceding generation. This is, no doubt, in a great degree attributable to the growth of towns which have been gradually absorbing the best and the most intelligent of our labouring class; the recruiting sergeant has drawn away many; and others have left because the cottage accommodation is not sufficient either in quantity or in quality to tempt them to remain. The question is, undoubtedly, a very difficult one. For my own part, however, after having given a good deal of consideration to the subject, I shall support the second reading of the Bill.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I cannot help thinking, after giving the subject some consideration, that Dr. Hunter's report, which has been so often alluded to, conveys no overcharged picture of the condition of the agricultural labourer. In the south of England the condition of the agricultural population is much to be deplored. The wages are miserably low, and, while in the north of England they are 14s. a week, and oftentimes more, in the south labourers receive only 8s. or 9s.—a pittance on which I can scarcely conceive how they manage to exist—he is also miserably lodged. This state of things has produced the results which might reasonably be expected, for farmers who have taken farms in the south have felt bound to confess that though the price of labour is nominally cheap, it is in reality dear. The measure now under your Lordships' consideration is one which I believe cannot fail to effect much good; for by the law as it at present stands the agricultural labourer is placed in a position destructive to all motives to industry, and one which is demoralizing, corrupting, and injurious in its effects, it is also mainly owing to the state of the law that the present low rate of wages is maintained,

  37
  and that labourers become, from their misery and poverty, both physically and morally unfitted for their labour. I shall, therefore, give my most cordial support to this measure, because I believe it is intended and calculated to remove the obstacles which prevent the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes in this country. The noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) who has moved the reference of this Bill to a Select Committee has virtually called upon us to reject the measure altogether; for, although his Amendment is otherwise worded, your Lordships all know that his real object is to defeat the Bill—and, indeed, the noble Duke scarcely concealed his desire for its rejection. If, after the second reading of the Bill, it had been proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee to examine into its details, I could have understood a Motion of this kind; but to send the measure to a Select Committee before it has received a second reading can have no other object than to obtain information to enable you to judge whether its principle is good or not; and such an inquiry at this period of the Session would be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. The measure is one calculated to remove obstacles which now prevent the improvement of the labourer's condition, and those who attended to the noble Duke's speech must have observed that it furnished the most conclusive arguments in favour of the Bill. The noble Duke said that when there is a frost the labourer can get employment, because he goes to his employer and tells him, "If you don't employ me, I shall go to the union, and that will cost you more." Does not the noble Duke see that that is the very vicious principle against which this Bill is directed, and against which also the New Poor Law Act of 1834 was directed, though ineffectually, because the provisions making the area of taxation coterminous with the area of administration were not adopted—the vicious principle, I mean, of setting relief against wages? The same principle which makes the farmer employ his parishioner during the frost also makes him employ him in the summer, though he is ever so bad a workman, in preference to an inhabitant of another parish, though he is ever so clever a workman. But for the existence of that pernicious system, how can you account for the fact that there is such a difference in the rate of wages paid in the north as compared with the south of England? You have a vicious law which
  38
  keeps the labourer settled in a particular parish and makes him reluctant to give up his settlement in that parish, and you thus prevent the improvement of the labourer's condition by preventing the natural diffusion of labour throughout the country. The noble Duke says the Bill, by causing a great shifting of burdens, will produce extreme injustice; and he told us that the rector of a parish in Leicestershire stated that there were only thirty inhabitants in that parish and that his correspondent now paid no poor rates, whereas, if this Bill passed, its effect would be to make him pay £30 a year. And this the noble Duke calls a very great injustice. Now, my Lords, I say that the injustice is in the present state of the law. An agricultural parish with only thirty inhabitants and no paupers, and which will have to contribute £30 a year, must contain land of very considerable value, which again must be cultivated by means of labourers drawn from other parishes; and when those labourers, with their wives and families, now happen to fall into destitution, they must be thrown upon those other parishes for support. The injustice, then, is in maintaining a state of the law which enables the owners of property in certain districts to obtain labour from other quarters to cultivate their land and produce their rents without contributing their fail-share towards the relief of that destitution which will always exist. I will not, my Lords, at this hour, trespass further on your attention. I am convinced that the more you think of this measure the more you will see that it is sound in principle, and that it will carry into effect the views of those distinguished men, the original Commissioners of Inquiry into the Poor Law, to whom the public owes a deep debt of gratitude for the manner in which they exercised the functions assigned to them, and laid the foundation of, perhaps, the greatest reform that could be effected in any country. We are now asked to carry into effect their views, and the views, I believe, of almost every man who has been either a Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner under the new Poor Law, and also of our ablest writers on political economy.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he should support the Amendment of the noble Duke behind him. The Bill was propounded as a panacea for all ills, and as designed to produce a new state of things among the poorer classes of this country—to secure

  39
  them more uniformity of employment and provide them with better cottages; but he did not believe it would do anything of the sort. It proceeded on a wrong principle, because it did not settle the question which required settlement—namely, the question of settlement itself. Indeed, the passing of that Bill would throw an impediment in the way of the permanent and proper adjustment of that important question, by dealing only with a part of it, and giving an advantage only to those classes who would have an interest in preventing its complete and satisfactory adjustment. The Bill contained a provision declaring that poor persons should not be removed from the union in which they had resided one year. How would that affect a town like London? Almost every parish there was a union, and if a pauper went from one parish to another he became removable, and would be sent to the country parish to which he belonged, to the relief of the town in which he had laboured the best days of his life. This would not occur generally in the country unions, and this partial treatment of the subject will operate prejudicially against a fair adjustment of the settlement question. The operation of the New Poor Law in the agricultural districts had been, on the whole, beneficial; but it had not worked well in the metropolis, and mainly because those who had to administer it in the metropolis were not acquainted with those whom they had to relieve, while in the country they were both acquainted with and interested for them. The Bill sought materially to increase the area of taxation; but the argument to be drawn from past experience was against such a course. When the compulsory Poor Law was established in the reign of Elizabeth, the area of rating was something like the sessional division—namely, the districts in which the justices met. In the 39th Elizabeth it was made parochial, from which we may judge that the larger area had not been found to work well; and fifty or sixty years after, in Charles H's time, it was found necessary in the north, where the parishes were large, to reduce the area so as to make the rateable districts coincide with the townships, and the preamble of the Act for this purpose states—
  "Whereas certain counties by reason of the largeness of the parishes within the same have not nor cannot reap the benefit of the Act of 43rd Elizabeth for the relief of the poor."
  If it was urged that these precedents relate
  40
  to distant periods and a different state of society, he would refer to the latest legislation on this subject. When the Poor Law was introduced into Ireland the unions were the first rateable districts; but they would not work, and after an experience of eight or ten years a Commission was appointed who reported in favour of reducing the areas, stating that—
  "To avoid impositions by affording local examinations and control, as well as to approximate to the natural condition of family support, some division of the country into contributory districts has been thought necessary."
  When he was examined before the Committee of 1860, he stated that relief was compulsory charity, and that the object must be to get it under the same influences as were brought into action when charity was exercised, and at the same time consider its bearing as compulsory as affecting the interests of the ratepayers as well as of the poor. The Bill would give no security that in large districts proper discretion would be exercised in the administration of the funds; and although it was admitted that in many cases injustice would be done by making the existing unions the areas for common rating, it would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to alter them, How was it possible to get other parishes to unite as proposed for the purpose of uniform rating? Was it likely that the parishes adjoining the Northampton Union, mentioned by the noble Earl opposite, would unite with that union when all that they could obtain by such a change would be a considerable increase in their rates? The questions involved in the Bill were of the greatest importance, and should not be dealt with by Parliament until after the fullest inquiry had been made with reference to them. The Returns showing the alterations which had been made in the rating of parishes by the operation of the Act of the year before last had not yet been laid on the table, and until that was done they could not judge how far that Act had been just in its operation. He did not think the character of the guardians of the poor would improve under the proposed system. They would not give so much personal attention to the poor; they would have less interest in keeping down the expenditure by finding employment, and the result would be most unsatisfactory, both to the poor and to the ratepayers. Those who argue against a different amount of rates charged on parishes within the same union as unjust, for-

  41
  get that every landed proprietor acquired his property under those conditions, He had bought or inherited it with the knowledge that it was subject to taxation of a given nature and extent. Parishes had been mentioned where this Bill would alter the rates to the extent of 3s. in the pound; but if a man had purchased property upon a certain estimate of value, and then this Bill passed and reduced its value 3s. in the pound, he surely had a light to complain that his property had been seriously decreased in value, while the property of his neighbour had been proportionately increased. This was not the case of an imposition of taxation; for the first time, as in Ireland, where a uniform rate had been introduced, no similar system having existed before, it was the change of a burden which had been borne from the time of Elizabeth to the present day; and it was a burden of which no one had any right to complain, because he had acquired his property subject to it. Suppose the case of a farmer who had just taken a farm upon a lease for twenty-one years, this Bill might make this difference to him, that he would have to pay a great deal more for his farm than he had expected and calculated when he made his bargain. Surely such a man would have a right to complain. So many questions had been raised and so many interests were involved by the Bill that they could do no better than postpone it until they had fuller information on various points, and until anew House of Commons had given their opinion upon it, and the delay of a year in passing the Bill ought not to weigh for a single moment. He should certainly support the Motion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  On Question, Whether the Bill be referred to a Select Committee? Their Lordships divided.—Contents 24; Not-Contents 86: Majority 62.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Then the original Motion was agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  CONTENTS.

  Rutland, D. [Teller.]

  Bandon, E.

  Bantry, E.

  Bath.M. [Teller.]

  Haddington, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Mayo, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Powis, E.

  Winchester, M,

  Selkirk, E,

  42

  Stradbroke, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Berwick, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Moore, L.(M. Drogheda)

  Churston, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Denman, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  De Ros, L

  Sherborne, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L.(L. Chancellor.)

  Winchester, Bp.

  Abinger L.

  Somerset, D.

  Belper, L.

  Bolton L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Camoys, L.

  Camden, M.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Westminster, M.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Albemarle, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley)

  Cadogan, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Chichester, E,

  Clarendon, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Cowper, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  De Grey, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E,

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Devon, E.

  Ducie, E. [Teller.]

  Heytesbury, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Grey, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Keane, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Minto, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Morton, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Monson, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Romney, E.

  Russell, E.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Rivers, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird)

  Spencer, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

  Strafford, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Verulam, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Eversley, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Sondes, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Ely, Bp.

  Taunton, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Truro, L.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Walsingham, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Wenlock, L.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Wentworth, L.

  House adjourned at Ten O'clock, Till To-morrow, half past Ten O'clock