Sitting of 6 August 1866

MINUTES.
— NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Carnarvon County, v. The Honourable Edward Gordon Douglas Pennant, now Lord Penrhyn.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Hon. Colonel Lindsay, for Abingdon.
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading — Indemnity [259].
Committee — Indemnity [259]; Extradition Treaties Act Amendment [247].
Report—Indemnity [259]; Extradition Treaties Act Amendment [247].
Considered as amended— Extradition Treaties Act Amendment [247].
Third Reading—Indemnity [259]; Extradition Treaties Act Amendment [247], and passed.
Withdrawn—Marriages (Ireland) (No. 2)* [123]; Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland)* [110].

METROPOLIS — MASTER OF LAMBETH WORKHOUSE.—QUESTION.
MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether the statement of Mr. Day, Master of the Lambeth Workhouse, in explanation of charges of gross misconduct preferred against him and Mrs. Day by Thomas Rawley, on the 6th of April, 1865, is satisfactory; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Poor Law Board to institute an official inquiry into the conduct of the master and matron of that Establishment?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the complaint to which the hon. Gentleman referred was made so long since as April, 1865, and on the 20th of June, 1865, the President of the Poor Law Board of that date returned an answer
2090
that he did not propose to carry the investigation further. The complaint made against the master and matron of the Lambeth Workhouse was that tea, sugar, and meat had been used by them for their own purposes in maintaining a portion of their family in the workhouse, contrary to the rule laid down by the Guardians. Inquiry was made into the circumstances by the Guardians, and they found that several of the charges were true, upon which they severely reprimanded the master and matron; and that the rest of the charges were frivolous and vexatious. That Return was made to the Poor Law Board more than a year ago, and the Board decided that they would take no further steps in the matter; and he might add that if the Guardians were not competent to inquire into such charges, they were unfit to discharge the duties which the law had imposed on them. Subsequent charges were made by the same person against the master and matron, but they were made in such a tone and spirit that the Poor Law Board did not think it right to make further inquiry into them. It was a great deal too late now for him (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) to re-open a question which had been closed by the Poor Law Board previous to his acceptance of office.

INDIA—GRIEVANCES OF THE INDIAN OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
MAJOR JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any, and, if so, what steps have been determined on with a view of finally remedying the grievances under which the Officers of the Local Army of India have now so long laboured?
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: Sir, we have come to the conclusion to offer to the officers some remedy for the grievances which have existed for so long a time; but I will not now enter into an explanation at any great length of what the proposed changes will be, for such explanation would carry me very far beyond the ordinary limits of a reply to a Question. I will, however, attempt—especially as this matter, though it may not excite very great interest among a large number in this House, intensely interests a large class outside — to describe the principal features of the measure which it is proposed to adopt. I will not now deal with those grievances which only apply to a limited

2091
number of persons, but will refer to those which apply to the whole Indian army; they relate principally either to the Staff Corps or to the bonus system. In 1861, when Lord Halifax instituted the Staff Corps, he took out of the Indian army all officers who had held Staff appointments for a certain length of time and formed them into a Staff Corps. This Staff Corps, however, was constituted on a system of promotion different from that which prevailed in the Indian army. In the Indian army promotion was strictly by seniority, but in the Staff Corps officers were promoted entirely by length of service. The inevitable result of that was that promotion in the two branches, which stood side by side, proceeded at a different pace; and officers taken out of the Indian army and put into the Staff Corps, if they came from regiments where promotion was going on very slowly, found themselves by the operation of the system of the Staff Corps very soon promoted over the heads of officers senior to themselves, whom they had left behind them in the regiments. This was felt as a great grievance by the officers of the Indian army. The matter was referred to a Commission, presided over by Lord Cranworth, and of which other persons of eminence were members, and they determined that the grievance alleged by the Indian officers was genuine. To remedy that grievance Lord Halifax issued a brevet, which had the effect of giving army rank to the officers remaining in the Indian regiments equal to that which they would have gained if they had gone into the Staff Corps. Nevertheless, there still remained the grievance that this brevet rank thus given to the regimental officers was rank without pay, and therefore that the senior officer saw the junior promoted over his head—not with regard to army rank, but with regard to pay. This was felt as a serious grievance; and there was yet another grievance connected with the Staff Corps. The officers taken to the Staff Corps left their names behind them on the list of the regiments, so that they blocked up the promotion of officers junior to them; and these junior officers had the aggravation of seeing the Staff officers enjoying not only, as they thought, better pay and promotion, but blocking up the promotion of others just as if they had not been taken to the Staff Corps. There was this further aggravation, that the occupation of the Staff Corps being more
2092
healthy than that of the Indian army (and in the Indian army every officer is interested in what accidents might happen to his senior) vacancies were not likely to be created so rapidly in consequence as in the Indian army. Her Majesty's Government have had, therefore, to consider how to meet these grievances. In stating the remedy which they propose, I am breaking no official confidence by saying that this part of the measure was agreed to by the late Government, and that, therefore, we share the responsibility of it, in some degree, with them. The measure proposed is this — whereas Lord Halifax originally only allowed Indian officers who had served on the Staff service to join this valued and envied Staff Corps, it is now proposed that all officers, who belonged to the Indian army before the amalgamation, shall be allowed to join the Staff Corps without any condition or undergoing any test whatever. So the summary of the matter is this — we say to the Indian officers, if you think a Staff officer is better off than you, we give you the position which you think more advantageous. We think that this is a measure which should satisfy any grievance the Indian officers feel on this head. With regard to the matter of bonus, the change of Government had taken place before any decision with respect to it was come to, and therefore upon this point the responsibility is our own. The House is, no doubt, aware of what is known as the bonus system. In the Indian army promotion was by seniority, and to prevent a block of promotion it was the practice for the officers to club together and raise a fund with which, as it were, to pay their superiors, below the rank of lieutenant - colonel, to retire, and thereby bring about promotion much earlier than otherwise would have been the case. When a certain number of Indian regiments were disbanded, and junior officers ceased to be appointed at the bottom of the list, the obvious result was that those who bad risen to a high rank and wished to retire were disappointed in the hope they had entertained that they would be bought out by the subscriptions of the officers below them. Lord Cranworth's Committee distinctly decided that the Parliamentary guarantee did not extend to the bonus. I believe the Parliamentary guarantee did not cover that system, and the Indian officers were in error in urging it. But, putting the guarantee aside, I think it is clear

2093
that if your servants have been largely damnified by any sudden or unexpected act of yours, the principle that is and ought to be observed in every branch of the public service is that we ought to do something to compensate them. And assuredly if there is any branch to which we should desire to apply that principle it is to those who risk their lives in our defence. Viewing the matter in that light, and not in the least questioning or attempting to reverse the decision of former Governments, we still thought it our duty to attempt in some way to meet the complaints of officers on this head. Now, the House will observe that the subscription of a bonus had for its immediate object to get a step of rank. That step carried with it increased pay; therefore, the object of that subscription was to a certain extent obtained. The officer got his advance in rank, and, of course, increased pay earlier through the subscription than otherwise. If he had not purchased out his superior officer, he would have had to remain longer in his inferior grade. Therefore, I say, the Indian officer has already got to a certain extent compensation for his subscription. We have no intention to pay that over again; but our proposal is this: — We understand it is stated by several officers that they have not received full compensation in that way—that they paid a very much larger sum than they had any immediate chance of receiving, in the hope that when they came to retire they would receive compensation from the subscriptions of their junior officers. Our proposal is that in each Presidency a committee shall be appointed which, as soon as an officer retires, shall inquire into his case in order to ascertain how much money he is really out of pocket in payments to officers who have retired, and the loss, whatever it be, the Government propose to make good to him. [Mr. STANSFELD: With interest?] No, not with interest. Considering the enormous stimulus to promotion that has taken place, the many advantages that officers have received, and that you never in practice give compensation to public servants for the whole of their loss, we think that interest on neither side should be allowed — either for or against the officer. The House, and especially those hon. Members who take an interest in Indian matters, may wish to know what this operation is likely to cost. We have had it calculated by General Hannyngton, a very competent authority on such a subject, and his view of the matter is that it will cost about £160,000,
2094
extending over twenty years. I think the charge will probably come much heavier in the earlier portion of that period, but it is impossible exactly to predict in what proportions it will come. My belief is, as far as I have been able to examine the figures, that this is an outside and maximum estimate, and that the expense will fall far short of that. But even if it should reach that amount, the House will not think it too much to remove a sincere, though it may be a mistaken, sense of injury from the minds of Indian officers. I will only conclude my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend by saying that I hope he will use his influence, if he is satisfied with this arrangement, and that all others who have taken up the case will use their influence, to do all they can to put a stop to a system of agitation most mischievous to the Indian service and most inconsistent with the ordinary attitude which officers ought to assume towards the Government. I do earnestly hope that as far as this House is concerned we may now close this thorny and disagreeable subject.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to know what period of service would be allowed to officers?
VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: For colonels appointed before 1862 it will be reduced from twelve to ten years. The officers to whom compensation for bonus will be given on retiring must be officers retiring below the rank of lieutenant-colonel.

IRELAND—WRECKS ON THE EAST COAST.—QUESTION.
MR. FITZWILLIAM DICK,said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has any objection to give a Return of the number of Vessels lost upon the East Coast of Ireland, particularising those between Kingstown and Waterford, between the years 1845 and 1865, both inclusive; stating the date of each wreck, the estimated value of the vessel and cargo, and the number of lives lost in each case?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in reply, that as he had already informed his hon. Friend, he could not give him the information asked for, not from any indisposition to do so, but because so much information as could be given was already before the House. It was inadvisable to be frequently extracting information contained in papers before the House, because it led to confusion and expense. It would

2095
be impossible to give any reliable information between 1845 and 1850, or, indeed, 1855, and it would be impossible to give any really accurate estimate of the value of the vessels and cargoes which had been lost. The Wreck Register, laid annually on the table of the House, contained in great detail all the losses for the year, and the Returns made in 1864 gave for five years all the particulars that could be given with regard to losses on the different coasts of the Kingdom. He would place in his hon. Friend's hands marked tables, showing all the information there was at the disposal of the Government. Communications were, however, going on between the Board of Trade, the Trinity House, and the Ballast Office, Dublin, with a view of improving the lights on the coast of Ireland, more especially with the view of preventing the numerous wrecks which unfortunately took place on that part of the coast to which his hon. Friend referred.

INCREASE OF THE JUDGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Graves), he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take into consideration the necessity for increasing the number of Judges, and the re-arrangement of the jurisdiction of the Courts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, the subject to which his hon. Friend referred was one undoubtedly of the very greatest importance. With regard to the Courts of Common Law, the Judges at present transacted a much greater amount of business than they had ever before transacted; and yet, notwithstanding the extent of the business so transacted, the difficulty of overtaking the business of the Common Law Courts was seriously injurious to the interests of the public. Liverpool felt that difficulty as much as any other place in the Kingdom, although there were three Circuits of which Liverpool took advantage. Although the Nisi Prius Court there had very prolonged sittings, there was still a considerable number of arrears left over, and many of the Liverpool cases had to be brought at great inconvenience to London. But, although the facts were palpable to every person, the remedy was by no means easy to devise. The questions connected themselves not merely with the business of the Courts
  2096
  of Common Law, but also with the arrangements of the Court of Admiralty, the Probate and Divorce Court, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He could only say it was impossible for the Government at the present moment to deal with the subject; but they had turned their attention to it. The subject was engaging the anxious attention of the Lord Chancellor, with the view of submitting to the Government, if possible, some arrangement to mitigate the evil so much felt.

FRANCE AND ITALY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any ground for the apprehensions that have been lately expressed by Signor Bianconi, a Member of the Italian Parliament, as to an intention on the part of the French Government to acquire a portion of the territory of Italy? When Baron Ricasoli, replying on the 15th of July to Signor Bianconi's inquiry, whether negotiations were in progress to cede to France a portion of Italian territory to the east of Genoa, used such terms as these, the matter would appear to be serious—
  "As long as I remain in the Government, and as long as I live, I cannot conceive the possibility of Italy losing one inch of her territory."
  It was extremely likely, nevertheless, that an attempt to obtain some Italian territory had recently been made. We know by what insidious means France obtained some territory from Italy a few years ago, and how it was denied up to the last moment that negotiations were in progress between France and Italy for that purpose. In consequence of Baron Ricasoli's statement, he would therefore beg to ask the noble Lord, Whether he is cognizant of any pressure having been lately put on the Italian Government by the French Government for the purpose of obtaining for France a portion of Italian territory? He must apologize to the noble Lord for not giving him notice of his Question; and, of course, the noble Lord would give whatever answer he pleased.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not able to give the hon. Member the information he seeks.

  REMOVAL OF MR. FARNALL FROM THE METROPOLIS.—QUESTION.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law

  2097
  Board, Whether the statement that appeared in the papers that day is correct, that Mr. Farnall had been withdrawn from the metropolitan district; and, if so, whether his withdrawal at this peculiar time had reference to any ground of complaint that he had against Mr. Farnall personally, or on account of the manner in which he had discharged his duties?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the statements which have appeared in the newspapers upon this subject are, to a certain extent, correct. Those relating to Mr. Farnall are entirely correct, inasmuch as I have assigned to him a district different from that in which he has hitherto been engaged. In making that change, Mr. Farnall was informed that I did not make it with a view to throwing any discredit upon him, or for the purpose of placing him in an inferior position to that which he has till now filled. The inquiries I have on hand I have thought advisable to have conducted by new Inspectors unconnected with the London district.

  MONETARY CRISIS—BANK RATE OF INTEREST.—QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had given notice of a Question that he intended to put to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer upon a subject of great importance. It referred to the letter addressed by the Government on the 11th of May to the Directors of the Bank of England. That letter was issued under special circumstances, by which the Bank of England was desired and empowered to part with a portion of their reserves for the benefit of the public at large; but in that letter was a restriction which had been very much commented on. It was to this effect, "that in the event of such recommendation being afforded, no discount or advance should be granted at a less rate than 10 per cent, and that Her Majesty's Government reserved to themselves to recommend the imposition of even a higher rate." The question of that limitation had been much discussed, and in many quarters it had been considered as a restriction of a very objectionable kind. The question he wished to bring before the House was, Whether Her Majesty's Government would have any objection to renew the letter to the Bank of England, omitting therefrom the condition affixed, of a minimum rate of 10 per cent interest?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Question of the hon. Gentleman really involves two inquiries. The first is, whether I should be prepared to recommend an infringement of the law; and the second, what are the conditions on which I should be prepared to make that recommendation, if I thought it proper. Now, Sir, if persons of great authority in the City of London, in consequence of the present state of our monetary affairs, are of opinion that such a change as the worthy Alderman has submitted should take place, and they would make a representation to that effect to Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's Government will give to such a representation a patient and candid attention; and after due consideration they would recommend the course which they would deem most advantageous to the public interest. But I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will see that that should rather be the course that should be pursued than that I should endeavour to give a brief reply to a mere casual Question on a matter of such importance, which requires such precise information to be placed before me, and also opportunity for the most mature consideration.

  INDIA—GRIEVANCES OF THE INDIAN OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will render available to Members of the House of Commons the Despatch which he proposes to send regarding the redress of the grievances of Officers in the Indian Army?
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: Yes, Sir, it will be laid on the table to-night.

DRILLINGS IN JAMAICA.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, in reference to a question privately given to him by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), it was true that one of the statements which he had made on a previous evening did appear to those who looked only at a single passage of the Report, without reference to the context, to be at variance with the statement of the Commissioners. He had stated that the outbreak in Jamaica was preceded by certain symptoms of an intended disturbance, and that drillings which had been proved to have occurred, afforded evidence that

  2099
  the outbreak was not accidental, but planned. This statement appeared to be contradicted by a passage from the Report of the Commissioners which he would beg to be allowed to read —
  "It appears also that in one parish two or three threatening letters were addressed to several persons, and that drillings were supposed to be taking place. Notwithstanding the alleged fact that threatening letters were previously unknown in the island, we were unable to attach any importance to those brought to our notice. As regards the drillings it was found upon investigation at the time that they were wholly unconnected with illegal objects."
  On examination, however, it would be seen that the passage he had just quoted did not refer to the drillings in Morant Bay, which immediately preceded the outbreak. The drillings alluded to in the passage he had quoted were drillings which had taken place some months previously in another part of the island, and the drillings to which he referred in his remarks of the other evening as having preceded the outbreak were described in another part of the Report. At page 13 of the Commissioners' Report, it is stated that for a week before the 11th of October there had been systematic drilling at Stony Gut, and that the men on those occasions assembled with cutlasses, sticks, and lances, and were exercised in companies under the directions of a man called Colonel Bowie, Paul Bogle and others; and a witness named Grant stated, that on one occasion, upon a signal from Bogle, not less than 300 negroes came out, variously armed, fell in in three companies, and were drilled under their various leaders. It was to these drillings that he referred the other evening, when he mentioned them as a proof of the existence of organization among the negroes before the outbreak.

RECREATION GROUND AT CHIGWELL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Who was responsible for cutting down 150 oak trees on the fifty acres of ground, reserved as Recreation Ground, from the common land in that neighbourhood; whether they have been cut down by the valuer of the Inclosure Commissioners; and whether the proceeding is not contrary to the recommendation of the Committee on Open Spaces of 1863?
  MR. WALPOLE,in reply, said, the
  2100
  trees so cut down had been felled, not by order of the valuer of the Inclosure Commissioners, but by the valuer of the parties interested in the common. The timber belonged to the lord of the manor, and instead of an unreasonable quantity having been removed, the valuation he (Mr. Walpole) had seen showed that there were hundreds of trees still remaining, and that, in fact, the trees removed were only such as were necessary to improve the beauty of the place, and fit it for the purpose for which it was intended.

THE CHOLERA.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. J. A. SMITH,who had given notice of a question upon this subject, was anxious to preface it with a few observations, and if necessary he should conclude with a Motion. The state of things in the East End of London was very alarming, but he imputed no blame to the Government; on the contrary, he wished to acknowledge the earnest anxiety which the President of the Poor Law Board and the noble Duke the President of the Council (the Duke of Buckingham) had displayed when representations were made to them on the subject. The House was probably aware that under the existing law all the powers of interfering on occasions of this kind were lodged with vestries and local Boards of Works, forming districts under the Nuisances Prevention Act. No doubt at the East End of London, where cholera existed to so great an extent, and which he was sorry to say was rapidly increasing, the Boards of Works had done a great deal towards carrying out the Orders of the Privy Council; but still they had come far short of the necessity of the case; and the results of omissions on their part affected not only themselves and those whom they immediately represented, but the comfort and convenience of the community so largely that he ventured to think that, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government ought to take some responsibility on themselves in reference to what may exist during the time Parliament is not sitting. He believed the whole community would welcome the interposition of some absolute authority in so serious an emergency. He might be allowed to mention two or three facts which had come within his own notice, and which he thought were facts that would justify the suggestion he had ventured to address to

  2101
  Her Majesty's Government. He was present that morning in Bethnal Green, where there was a population of 140,000, in company with an inspector who had been sent to this district by the Duke of Buckingham for the purpose of ascertaining what the state of the case was, and he found that no special arrangements had been made for burial, the usual slow process prescribed by the Poor Law Board being still in force. In Parliament Street and Hare Street the bodies of persons who died on Thursday were, up to yesterday, lying unburied, the inhabitants of the houses in question being very anxious to get rid of them, but finding no way of obtaining their removal. No hospital was yet opened in that district for the reception of cholera patients, not a single nurse was employed, and no medical comforts were provided by the vestry, except a provision of medicines and disinfectants, the application of these being left to the sick and their friends, without any supervision by qualified persons. These were facts which spoke for themselves, and which appeared to him to call loudly for attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the separation of the sick from the healthy, he was authorized by the inspector to state that in Poplar yesterday he saw on a first floor a youth suffering from cholera, a man asleep in the same bed, and within the house on the ground floor, just underneath the bed, stood a most offensive privy and waterbutt. No power existed to remove the sick or the healthy, or to remove or deodorize the cause of the offensive smell. These and other circumstances of a similar nature had induced him to take the liberty of making this statement to the House, the importance and urgency of which he felt most deeply. The hon. Gentleman, in proposing the adjournment of the House, concluded by asking the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether, viewing the extensive outburst of Cholera in the Eastern districts of the Metropolis, the Government are prepared to allow Parliament to separate without providing the means of summary interference in cases where the vestries may neglect the enforcement of sanitary precautions, or may omit or delay the necessary arrangements for the care of the sick, and the separation of the healthy from the dying and the dead?
  MR. AYRTONwished, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, to second the Motion for adjournment, and
  2102
  to thank his hon. Friend for having brought the subject under the consideration of the House. Had he taken that step himself his motives might have been liable to misconstruction. There had of late been a considerable disposition to put Questions in that House respecting the condition of the poorer classes in different parts of the metropolis, and outside the House a number of wealthy and influential persons had repeatedly directed attention to the subject. He thought, however, that they looked at the matter from one point of view only, and showed no disposition to consider the real source of the evils of which they complained. He endeavoured, some years ago, to bring about an investigation of that source by means of a Committee, but he was always thwarted by official obstructions, and it was only when the existence of the Poor Law Board was imperilled, that official personages would consent to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the operation of the Poor Law in the metropolis and other parts of the country. That inquiry abundantly confirmed the view which he had taken, and the Committee recommended, as the only method of eradicating the evils which existed, an enlargement of the area of administration, coupled with an enlargement of the area of charge. They further advised that a special measure should be framed to meet the exceptional condition of the metropolis. What action, however, had been taken on that Report? An Act was passed for the whole country, but the metropolis was put off with an infinitesimal measure for the relief of the casual poor, which he believed was only carried because of its insignificance, and because it did not give any practical effect to the principles enumerated by the Committee. Again and again had he pressed upon the Poor Law Board the necessity of acting on the Committee's recommendations, but nothing had been done, and until something was done there would be a frequent recurrence of the evils complained of. Appeals were now very properly being made to the benevolence of the community, and these appeals had been nobly responded to by many distinguished persons, by none more conspicuously than by a lady who had done so much for the welfare of the poorer classes in the metropolis — he meant Miss Burdett Coutts. He was informed, however, by a gentleman who had studied the subject, that all the contributions of the wealthier

  2103
  classes of the metropolis put together would not amount to more than ld. in the pound on their incomes. If that were so, it showed how inefficacious a substitute private benevolence was for great public duties, and how necessary it was that the law should interpose to compel all persons to bear their due share of public burdens, whether willing or not. If such a measure of justice was rendered to those poorer districts, no difficulty, he undertook to say, would arise in grappling with the emergency; but at present all the sources of action were weakened and all the fountains of benevolence were dried up by a burning sense of injustice, the local authorities feeling themselves overwhelmed with burdens, while the wealthier classes were almost exempt. If those authorities were not equal to the dicharge of their duty, why did not persons of rank and position come forward to take part in the administration of affairs, and why was there not a Board of Supervision to bring to bear all the wealth and strength of the more fortunate districts upon the accumulated misery and misfortune of the poorer localities? Every one must deplore the calamity which had visited the metropolis. He recollected, however, predicting some years ago that such visitations would occur, and that the dead would be exposed in a way enough to make the people revolt against authority, unless steps were taken to alleviate these difficulties—a prediction which was now unfortunately fulfilled. Plenty of activity was displayed in the beginning of the Session in order to afford relief to the sufferers by the cattle plague, but now, when the Angel of Death was hovering over the metropolis, and when the greatest distress prevailed among the people, no disposition was shown to meet the difficulty in the proper way by obliging the rich to contribute to the necessities of the poor. Short as the remainder of the Session was, it was long enough for the purpose, if the disposition existed, to grapple with the difficulty. He commended the question to the consideration of the Government, and he warned them that it was idle to issue mandates from this or that Department to local authorities already overwhelmed by excessive burdens, for, exhausted as their resources were, they could not be expected to impose new charges on already over - taxed communities. The water supply had, no doubt, been a great source of the evil, but districts saddled with enormous rates for other purposes
  2104
  could not be expected to incur a large expenditure for a due supply of water. He had warned the House a few days since that the shortness of the supply of water was not only an inconvenience but was a source of danger and misery to the poorer classes, and that, if necessary, funds should be raised in order to enable that supply to be increased. He hoped that the Government would strike at the root of the evil, and then they would not be troubled again with a question of this kind, which arose out of that injustice and oppression which he and others believed was endured by the humbler classes of his country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. J. A. Smith.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I think that the observations of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) have gone far beyond the question which has been addressed to me by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. J. A. Smith). While, however, forbearing to comment upon his remarks, I must explain that the present Ministry, during the short time it has been in office, has not found it easy to deal with the difficulties connected with this subject, which preceding Governments have been unable to overcome. As to the administration of the Poor Law in the metropolis, I have already given the subject my best attention; I will continue to give to it as much consideration as possible, and I trust that when Parliament again meets I shall have at least some proposition to offer, which I trust will be acceptable, and which I can assure the hon. Gentleman will be framed in a spirit of sympathy with the poor, whether they be ratepayers or those who receive relief from the rates. The question put to me by the hon. Member for Chichester is of a different character. According to the law relating to the metropolis the responsibility of dealing with emergencies of this nature does not rest with the guardians of the poor, but with the various local vestries. The power of dealing with the various matters connected with the public health was retained in the hands of the vestries at their desire, notwithstanding that elsewhere such power had been placed in the hands of the guardians and of the local Boards of health. The vestries are under the Privy Council Office, where they have medical men at their command. The hon. Gentleman must recollect that we have just passed a Public Health

  2105
  Bill, which still continues throughout the country the powers now possessed by local bodies, and those bodies must not forget that they are now upon their trial, which in all probability will be a severe one, and that in the event of their failing to properly discharge their duties the powers now conferred upon them will be placed in the hands of others. To do those bodies justice I may observe that in many cases they are now—they ought to have done so before undoubtedly—making every effort to remedy the evils that exist in the poorer districts, and I hope that they will be able to cope with the difficulties with which they have to contend. They will be placed in a better position by the Bill we have just passed, and which, I hope, will become law to-morrow.
  MR. HENLEYthought the right hon. Gentleman had scarcely answered one part of the hon. Gentleman's question in a manner which would satisfy the public. A dreadful plague had fallen upon parts of this metropolis, and it was believed, justly or not he could not tell, that adequate measures had not been taken to prevent that disease from spreading. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said, with some appearance of justice, that the consequent burdens had fallen most heavily upon the poorer parishes; and, possibly, the question would arise whether, if parties thus burdened fell short in the discharge of their duties, it would not be from want of means. Now, that was a part of the hon. Gentleman's question to which the right hon. Gentleman had not addressed himself. Considering how very serious the calamity might become, he should have been glad had the right hon. Gentleman given the House an intimation that the Government would by a short Act have obtained some means of supplying any pecuniary want of the kind if they found that the requirements of the poorer districts were such as their means would not enable them to meet. If money could not reasonably be obtained in poor districts, then, either by a rate on the metropolis, or in any other way they saw fit, they could provide for the emergency. A penny rate in the metropolis raised something like £50,000. [Several VOICES: £60,000.] Well, that sum would go a long way towards providing precautionary measures, or the administrations of summary relief. It should be recollected that the cholera was not a gentleman who would wait until next February. He would do his work
  2106
  while hon. Members were away, and therefore he should have been glad to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government saw their way to some such measure as he had suggested.
  MR. NEATEreminded the House that he had made a suggestion similar to that offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire three days since, and the answer he had then received from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board was, that he was not prepared to introduce any measure such as he had proposed. He should, therefore, throw upon the Government the responsibility of any evils that might arise from their neglect of the public interest.
  COLONEL HOGG,as a member of one of the bodies referred to, could state that they had great difficulties to contend with in the discharge of their duties. The greater number of those bodies were most anxious to do their duty, and were using every exertion to remove all nuisances and dangerous obstructions in the metropolis. Their inspectors, however, told them that the owners of property would not do what was required of them, and that the magistrates would not convict when cases of refusal to remove nuisances were brought before them. They had thus to coax and persuade the owners of property to effect the necessary improvements, instead of being able to compel them by law to do what was right.
  MR. FREVILLE - SURTEES,as a member of one of the local boards, observed that their great difficulty was that, although they had power to appoint inspectors of nuisances, they had no power to compel the removal of the nuisances which the inspector might discover and point out.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It would be, I think, most unwise if, in a moment of alarm, and in a great hurry, the Government were to come forward and to ask for an Act which would change the principle upon which our system of local administration has been framed. I can only say that if a great emergency arises, Government will not shrink from the responsibility imposed by the new position of affairs.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  INDEMNITY BILL— [BILL 259.]
  (Mr. Secretary Walpole, Mr. Hunt.)
  SECOND READING. THIRD READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill read a second time, and committed; considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  On Motion that the Bill be now read the third time.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked whether more notice ought not to have been given, when it was intended to pass a Bill through all its stages, than the mere Motion of a Member of the Government? He was only desirous that the House should be on its guard against any infraction of its rules.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that in the last days of the Session it was not unfrequent that Bills should pass through the House in this manner. It was at the option of any hon. Member, if he thought it inconvenient or improper, to interfere; but if the body of the House was satisfied that there was no objection, then it had not been unfrequent that a Bill, if it had passed through Committee without Amendment or objection, should be read a third time and passed in the same day.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had given notice that this Bill would be necessary, although an Act had been passed that Session in reference to the abolition of certain oaths. He stated on Saturday that he should ask to be allowed to pass the Bill through all its stages this evening.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

EXTRADITION TREATIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]— [BILL 247.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he had a suggestion to make, and wished to know whether he was to put it in the nature of a simple clause, or propose it as an addition to the clause just adopted.
  2108
  The object of it was that the whole of the depositions upon which any person intended to act should be laid before the magistrate before the surrender was made. He did not wish, however, to interfere with the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid).
  THE CHAIRMAN: The first clause has been agreed to. The hon. Member should move a new clause. It will come in order after the clause of which the hon. Baronet the Member for Reading has given notice.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDthen rose to move the clause of which he had given notice, and by which he proposed that nothing in this or previous Acts should authorize the extradition of political offenders. He reminded the Committee that it was inconvenient to bring forward a measure of so much importance at this period of the year. The majority of the Members remaining in town were Members attached to the Government, and very little opportunity was given for any general expression of opinion on the part of the House. This circumstance gave the Government, in point of numbers, a giant's strength; and it was only to be hoped that they would not use it tyrannously. It was said on their part that this was not the time to propose an important Amendment of the Extradition Acts, because the present Bill was merely intended to free the operation of those Acts from a technical difficulty. But the promoters of the Bill themselves insisted that that technical difficulty had reduced the treaty with France to a mere dead letter. The Bill became by that circumstance an important Bill; and when the Committee were asked to give force and vitality to an enactment which had hitherto been a dead letter, it became their duty to consider whether without some safeguard its death would not be preferable to its vitality. It was said by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary that he was ready to agree to a clause of a workable character, and he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) should endeavour to show that the clause he was about to move was both workable and important. He thought there could be no doubt that there was a general impression in the public mind, and the mind of Parliament, that the existing Extradition Treaties did not authorize the delivering up of political offenders, but on looking to the Acts themselves they would find in them no such declaration. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary told the House

  2109
  that he was willing to consider favourably the introduction of such a clause, provided a proper definition could be given of a political offender, adding that in a rough and popular way that was perhaps possible. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) answered that he went very little beyond the noble Lord when he said it was possible, not only in a rough and popular sense, but for all practical purposes, to understand the phrase; and, in fact, the Attorney General admitted and even asserted this when he said that there was a clear understanding with foreign Powers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Baronet was mistaken in supposing that he said that there was a clear and distinct understanding with foreign Powers. What he said, and what he intended to say was, that in point of fact no demand for the extradition of political offenders had ever been made, and therefore that there must have been an understanding on the part of foreign Powers that treaties of this kind would not be used for that purpose.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that his recollection was according to what he had stated, and this recollection of the Attorney General's statement was confirmed by the reports in what were called the usual channels of information. However, it did not make a very material difference. The statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as now explained, amounted to this, that there was an understanding on the part of foreign Powers not to apply for any political offenders. But how could there be a clear and distinct understanding, either with or on the part of foreign Powers, upon a matter which in the next breath they were told was so obscure and dark that it required a definition, and for want of a definition nothing could be said of it in the Act of Parliament? It was, it appeared to him, one of those things which were clear enough to the ordinary intelligence, but which, if they attempted to define very much further, they would make darker instead of clearer. The first part of his (Sir Francis Goldsmid's) clause went so far in explaining what was a political offence, as to say it was an offence committed for the promotion, prevention, or obstruction of any political object. It did not define the word political, and any attempt to define the word would make more obscure what was sufficiently plain to ordinary understandings to act upon under the Extradition Treaties.
  2110
  The second part of his clause was intended to prevent any foreign Government, after obtaining the delivery up of a person upon a charge which might fail, but which was not political, from trying him upon a charge which was political. If he were told that it was wrong to impute any such possibility to any foreign Government, his answer was that Governments, in general, lost sight of fairness when they had to deal with political offenders, and further, that it was impossible for the French Government to consider that part of the clause as implying any imputation, inasmuch as it followed in substance the 7th Article of the French Treaty of May, 1852, which treaty, for reasons in no way connected with this clause, was not sanctioned by the British Parliament. As he inferred from the remarks of the noble Lord on Friday last that he was not satisfied with the clause as it at present stood, he had since ventured to submit to him two other clauses, either of which, although he did not like them so well as he did his own, would yet effect a great improvement in the Bill. One of those clauses was to this effect—that nothing in this Act, nor in any previous Act relating to any Extradition Treaty, should be deemed to extend to any political offence. That was a very simple clause. The other was to the effect that no person should be delivered up under that or any other Act relating to any Extradition Treaty except under a warrant from the Secretary of State certifying that it had been shown to the satisfaction of that Minister that the offence with which the person so delivered up was charged was not a political offence. If that clause were adopted, the Secretary of State would act under Parliamentary authority, without the possibility of any legal difficulty respecting the validity of the warrant, but subject to his being called to account by Parliament if his discretion were unfairly exercised. As to the contention of the Government that the existing treaties and the present Bill would be satisfactory without any amendment of the lattter—if so able and acute a lawyer as the Attorney General were advising a client in a matter of private right, he would never advise him to rely upon any understanding by the other party as controlling or modifying the sense of any written agreement. But this was a matter of far more importance than one of private right. When the persons administering foreign Governments were changed, what would

  2111
  become of understandings with or on the part of them? The Amendment he proposed, therefore, would afford an important security; and moreover, it would give a protection to any English Secretary of State who might be pressed by a foreign Minister to surrender a political offender. He had heard it, if he was not mistaken, stated in the course of the discussion on a former occasion, that any offence that could be considered as political, any killing in the attempt to overturn a dynasty, would not come within the wording of the Bill as it stood; but he believed, nevertheless, that such an offence as that which had been alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster in connection with the attempt made by the present Emperor of the French at Boulogne would be regarded in the light of an assassinat under the French Penal Code. The 296th and following Articles of that Code laid it down that homicide committed voluntarily was meurtre, and that when there was premeditation, though without ill-will against any particular individual, the offence amounted to an assassinat. Now, in the instance which he had just mentioned there could, he thought, be little doubt that the homicide had been accompanied with this kind of premeditation.
  MR. NEATErose to order. It was not proper, he contended, that an hon. Member should discuss in that way the serious question whether such a crime as that of which he was speaking had or had not been committed by the Emperor of the French?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, there was, so far as he could see, nothing in the remarks of the hon. Member for Reading which transgressed the bounds of order.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDdisclaimed all wish to say anything which could fairly be regarded as insulting to the Emperor of the French. He was merely arguing that a person placed in a similar predicament might, under the provisions of the Bill as it stood, have to be delivered up, and that it was not proper that we should be placed under such a necessity. He hoped that he had said enough to show that the clause which he proposed was not only necessary to the vindication of the honour of this country and the preservation of the right of asylum, but that it would tend to maintain rather than endanger our friendly relations with foreign Powers. The right of asylum had, even in the time of many now living, sheltered
  2112
  several eminent politicians, and some who deserved the name of great patriots and statesmen. We had seen it protect some men who had previously ruled, and some who had afterwards been called to rule, over mighty nations. It was a right to which he believed all Englishmen attached the greatest importance, and to which they were anxious to adhere. In conclusion, he begged to move the following new clause:—
  "That nothing in this Act, nor in any previous Act relating to Treaties of Extradition, shall be construed to authorize the extradition of any person in whose case there shall be reasonable grounds for belief that his offence, if any, had for its motive or purpose the promotion or prevention of any political object, nor to authorize the extradition of any person the requisition for the delivery of whom shall not contain an undertaking on the part of the Sovereign or Government making such requisition, that such person shall not be proceeded against or punished on account of any offence which he shall have committed before he shall be delivered up, other than the offence specified in the requisition."
  Clause brought up, and read a first time.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he perfectly sympathized with the feeling which had prompted the hon. and learned Member to propose the clause, but was of opinion that the first part of the proposition should be left to the Councils of the Government, and if any violation of it took place, that would be a matter for the consideration of Parliament. But the second part of the clause stood on very different ground. It provided, that in every document presented to the magistrate the offence for which the extradition was demanded should be specified, but he did not think the meaning of the words sufficiently clear. He believed it would be improper to entail on any court the necessity of judging whether the offence was political or not, but thought the courts had a right to expect and demand, not that the Habeas Corpus Act should be suspended against all foreigners in this country, but that the document should be in the nature of a warrant, and state the offence for which the authorities of this country were required to aid a foreign Government in the extradition of a prisoner. He proposed that the latter part of the clause should read as follows:—
  "Such person shall not be proceeded against or punished on account of any offence which shall not be specified in the document demanding the extradition of such person."
  The magistrates ought to act under what was equivalent to a warrant, but to require the courts to define political offences

  2113
  was to require them to undertake a duty beyond their competency.
  MR. NEATEsaid, that whether the hon. Member for Reading had or had not transgressed the rules of the House in the observations which he had made, it was, he thought, extremely undesirable, as a matter of taste and judgment, to mix up with the discussion of the question before the Committee the precise legal appreciation in which a certain act of the Emperor of the French was to be held. To speak of such an act as approaching assassination was, he contended, to give of it a totally erroneous description. As to the proposed clause, whatever might be said with respect to the first part of it, the second must, he thought, be indignantly rejected by the Committee. What, he should like to know, was the meaning of the first part, if not that any man who came to this country after having made an unsuccessful attempt on the life of a foreign Prince should here find a secure shelter? It would apply to such cases as that of Orsini, or that of the misguided youth who endeavoured to murder Count Bismarck; but it was, he contended, important to make a distinction between political offences generally and political assassination. The one was an offence against the Government of a country; the other an offence against the universal morality of all nations. He, for one, could not see why a difference should not be recognized as existing between insurrection and assassination, just as in ordinary warfare the seeking to take an enemy's position and the getting up a plot to murder his General were looked upon in a different light. An insurrection for the purpose of altering the form of Government was totally different from assassination. Indeed, the British constitution might be described as only the result of a series of great political crimes. He thought the late Government adopted a mistaken mode of dealing with this question, for before making a convention they should have referred the matter to a Committee of the House, and then they would have known on what basis to enter upon a treaty. He thought it desirable that the whole subject of Extradition Treaties should undergo revision.
  LORD STANLEYthought that there was some force in what was said by the hon. Member who began the debate as to dealing with a question of this kind at so late a period of the Session; but it was
  2114
  not the fault of the Government that the question was only now under their consideration, and he had to remind the Committee that if the Bill were put off till next Session the Treaty of 1843 would drop. He admitted, with the bon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Neate), that the whole question was one of great delicacy and difficulty, and one that required more systematic examination than it had yet received. No doubt there were several offences which on the score of general morality and general policy it was desirable to include in the treaty. With regard to the particular question now before the Committee, it seemed to him that the fact of the treaty having been almost a dead letter since 1843 was a strong argument against its anticipated abuse; because there was nothing in it to have prevented the French Government, had they been so minded, from making exactly the same use of it as it was suggested they might do if the Bill were passed in its present form. The real difficulty about the clause was, how to define a political offence. The definition of the hon. Gentleman would include every political assassination whatever, and would prevent the extradition of such men as Orsini, Booth, the assassin of President Lincoln, and the murderer of the witness who had recently been shot in Ireland for giving evidence against the Fenians. What, then, was our security if the Bill passed as it stood? In the first place, it was exceedingly doubtful whether political offences were included even in the French Code under the term "murder or attempted murder." Moreover, the magistrate would have to decide the case, not according to French, but according to English law. In the next place, it was perfectly well-known what were the cases that the treaty was intended to meet; and though it was generally held that the phrase, "it shall be lawful," was mandatory, and not merely permissive when applied to a public officer, he doubted whether any Secretary of State could be compelled to interfere in a case where it was understood that the law was not intended to apply. Lastly, it was impossible to conceive the French Government so blinded by passion or revenge as to insist on putting the treaty in force in a case which they knew would lead to its instant abandonment by this country. He thought also that in a case like this international courtesy demanded that the treaty should not be materially altered without communication with the other party to it. As

  2115
  for the proposal that the French Government should be required to enter into an undertaking that they would not try any person for any offence other than that for which he had been given up, he thought that that would be a very feeble protection indeed; for, assuming for the sake of argument that the French could act in the manner suggested—and he really begged pardon for assuming it even for that purpose—he could only say, that a Power which could act in such a manner would not be bound by an undertaking of the kind proposed.
  MR. J. STUART MILLfelt that many of the sentiments which they had just heard from the noble Lord were of a very reassuring character, and if the noble Lord were always to be Foreign Secretary, he should not require much further security; but since the country was not likely to be always so far favoured, he could not help regretting that the deliberations of the noble Lord had not led him to frame some other clause, if that already proposed did not meet with his approbation. It should be remembered that if a person charged with political assassination were not given up, he would not necessarily escape punishment; for he might still be prosecuted in the country where he had sought refuge. Nobody wished that political should enjoy any more impunity than any other kind of assassination; but if we had only the alternative of trying in this country persons charged with political offences, or of giving up everybody charged with homicide of a political character, he (Mr. Stuart Mill) should prefer the former. At the same time, he did not think it impossible to define political offences. Various attempts at definition had, to his knowledge, been communicated to the noble Lord. One of them, suggested by a learned Gentleman, he would Mention. It was, "Any offence committed in the course or in furtherance of any civil war, insurrection, or political movement." That he thought would not include political assassination. It appeared to him that this matter required much more consideration than it had yet received; the more one examined into it the worse it looked. There was at the present moment the utmost uncertainty as to the nature of the inquiry which an English magistrate was bound to make, previous to delivering up any person charged with a political offence. He found in the papers before the House two entirely different views of the law of this country. The Extradition Act said—
  2116
  "It shall be lawful for any justice of the peace, having power to commit for trial, to examine upon oath any person or persons touching the truth of such charge, and upon such evidence as according to the law of that part of Her Majesty's dominions would justify the apprehension and committal of the person accused if the crime had been there committed, it shall be lawful for the magistrate to commit the prisoner into the custody of the officers of the Power so demanding him."
  Now, it was stated in the able and excellent letter of Lord Clarendon to Lord Cowley, that a magistrate, when called upon in this country to commit any person for trial, was authorized to examine into the truth of the charge; that, according to our practice, when a person has made oath that another person has committed a certain crime, a warrant is issued for his apprehension; and that the next step is to bring the accused person before a magistrate, when the accuser must appear with his witnesses and be confronted with him in open court, and it must be proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate, before committing the prisoner for trial, that there was sufficient primâ facie ground for believing, first, that the crime had been committed, and next, that the prisoner was the party who had committed it. According to this view of the law, it would be in the power of the person accused, before the order is passed for delivering him up, to produce witnesses and have them examined. By the treaty now entered into, the prisoner might be delivered up on the production of written depositions. But he had always understood that, although the depositions might be received in evidence, yet conformably with our practice it would be open to the prisoner to produce counter evidence in contradiction to them, which might show them to be untrustworthy. But now look at the memorandum of the Conference at the Foreign Office on the 8th of February. It was there stated that an impression prevailed in France that the English magistrate actually tried the case; and that that impression was unfounded. Of course it was, because there was a great deal of difference between the inquiry previous to committal and the actual trial. But, then, the memorandum went on to say, that when the prisoner was brought before the magistrate he would be entitled to have the depositions read in his presence; but that he would not be allowed to controvert the truth of those depositions, or to produce counter evidence, except as to his identity. Could there be a more flagrant case of

  2117
  contradiction between theory and practice? They were entitled to ask Government whether the law laid down in the Act or the practice laid down in the Foreign Office memorandum was right. If the practice wore to prevail over the law, a law should be made to legalize it; but it ought to be considered whether such a law would not be an absolute enormity. Could it be dreamt of that even in respect to an ordinary offence, depositions taken unknown to the person charged—which he had no opportunity of disputing—with reference to which he was not permitted to cross-examine his accusers, should be sufficient to require his surrender? Were these depositions, produced in evidence in a court in this country, to be made the grounds for delivering up a person to be tried in the country in which the depositions were made, on the sole condition that he was not shown to be the person named in the warrant? If he really were the person charged, was he not to be allowed to tender any evidence to show that the depositions did not establish a case against him? That was a subject on which the noble Lord the Secretary of State should tell them his mind. Then they had been led to think that there was an understanding with foreign Powers, including the Government of France, that political prisoners should not be delivered up. It now appeared, however, that there was no such understanding, but it was assumed that the French Government would not ask them to deliver up such persons. If that was the case, it was extremely honourable to the French Government, or to our own, perhaps to both—honourable to the French Government if they did not desire to have such persons delivered up, honourable to the reputation of our own Government in foreign countries, if the absence of the demand was grounded on a conviction that it would not be complied with. They had the noble Lord's assurance that he would not deliver up such persons, but they ought to have some more complete security. Was that intention grounded on an understanding that the treaty did not require us to give up persons charged with political murder, or on a belief that, although the treaty did bind us to deliver them up, the demand would not be made? Surely it would have been better to have some words inserted in the Act showing that it was not the intention of Parliament that the Act should authorize the extradition of political offenders. It was admitted
  2118
  that the Act in terms admitted the extradition of political offenders, but we were told that the right was not exercised. That might be the case with regard to a particular Sovereign, but what security had they for the conduct of his successors. It seemed now that there had not been even a verbal understanding, and that absence of any demands from which it had been sought to infer one, might have arisen only from the circumstance that during the period which had elapsed there had not been a sufficiently strong desire for the surrender of any person included in the class referred to, to induce the French Government to demand his extradition. It was said that we could get rid of the treaty in six months, but that could not or would not be done until something irrevocable had taken place, until, perhaps, some illustrious exile had been delivered up, whose surrender would cover this country with ignominy. He entreated the noble Lord to apply his mind to the subject, and see if it were possible to insert words that would show at least the will and intention of Parliament that the extradition should not extend to political cases, so that there might be something to be relied upon by the Secretary of State in justification of the course he might have to take. This Act was an experiment which they were going to try for the first time, and surely it would be worth while to try it avowedly as an experiment. Would the noble Lord limit the duration of the Act to twelve months? At the expiration of that time they would perhaps have better means of judging than they had now, and might be able to renew the Act from time to time for a longer period.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not rise to repeat the statements which had been already made by the noble Lord on the subject of Extradition Treaties, which well deserved the consideration of the House; but when the hon. Member for Westminster suggested that the operation of this Bill should be limited to the period of twelve months, he must remind the hon. Member that these treaties were themselves limited in their duration. The treaty with France might be determined by a notice of six months, the treaty with the United States might be determined without notice, and he believed the treaty with Denmark might be determined in the same manner. Therefore the present Bill, though general in its terms, could be limited at the instance of the Government to a period of

  2119
  six months. He agreed with the hon. Member that it might happen that they would not terminate the treaty without the occurrence of something that would be to all of them a subject of regret. But that was more likely to happen if they adopted the hon. Member's suggestion and extended the Bill to twelve months than if they reserved the power of terminating it in six months. He thought there was a grave misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Westminster as to the case of a person who, having been guilty of assassination, took refuge in this country, and defended himself on the plea that it was done from a political motive. The hon. Member thought that such a person ought not indeed to escape from punishment, but that he ought to be tried in this country. But he could not be tried in this country—it was impossible. It might be said that the impossibility was only technical, but he believed it was deeper than a technicality. No person could be tried in this country except for an offence that was committed against the peace of the Sovereign of this country. He would, therefore, be altogether free from punishment. The hon. Member read a passage from a memorandum in the Foreign Office to the effect that a person accused of crime would not be allowed to plead anything whatever in his own defence, to deny his identity with the person named in the warrant of demand. But he (the Attorney General) differed from that opinion. As he understood the Act of Parliament of 1843, a magistrate was required to take the same amount of evidence with regard to a person demanded to be delivered up as would justify him in the apprehension and committal of a person accused of crime in this country. The copies of the depositions against the person accused were to be received in evidence, but only as one ingredient in the case. But suppose the person accused was in a condition to show that the fatal blow which caused the death of the person of whose murder he was accused, was not struck by him but by somebody else, he would be at liberty to produce that evidence to controvert the depositions, and the magistrate would be bound to discharge him in the same way as he would do if the alleged crime had been committed in this country. The hon. Member for Reading had not at all answered the objections which were formerly made to his Amendment. The hon. member proposed that nothing in this Act or in previous Acts should be construed
  2120
  to require the extradition of persons whose offences were committed from political motives. But the hon. Member did not care so much for inserting this Amendment in the present Act. What he observed was to modify the provisions of the previously existing Acts. But the hon. Member must observe that in all the existing Acts the Sovereign had entered into treaties with the Foreign Powers, and what Parliament was called upon to do was to ratify those treaties, and give the Sovereign power to carry them into effect. The bargain was made between the Sovereigns, and the hon. Member proposed to introduce a new ingredient into the bargain which did not exist at the time the bargain was made. It might have been unreasonable that this new ingredient had not been introduced at the beginning; but to introduce it now was simply to break the bargain which the Sovereigns had made and Parliament had ratified; it was to infringe upon treaty engagements, and that without notice to the other side. He thought the House would not be willing to enter upon such a course as that. The only possible offence which could give occasion for the introduction of the political element was murder or the attempt to murder. Now what the Committee was asked to do by the Amendment of the hon. Member to put it into simple English, was this—that every person who had committed a murder in a foreign country and had fled to this should be given up, provided always that if he had committed that murder from a political motive he should not be given up. Now supposing such to be the interpretation of the law, he asked what answer would be given by England in certain cases that might be referred to. He would put the case that had lately shocked the whole civilized world— the murder of the President of the United States. Suppose that the murderer bad escaped to this country, and that a demand had come from the United States for his being delivered up, what would this country have said? He could not have been punished in this country; and would we have said to America, we admit the man has committed a murder which shocks humanity and the whole civilized world, but we believe that he was actuated by motives of a political character, and therefore we think that he ought to be kept in this country and not given up? Or, take a case of more recent occurrence. Suppose that a police-sergeant or informer had been assassinated

  2121
  in Ireland in cold blood from motives of revenge, or a desire to promote the Fenian movement, and that the murderer had escaped to France or to the United States, would we be satisfied if we were met by the answer, we agree that the man has committed a murder, but we believe that he did it somehow from political motives, with a view to help forward the Fenian insurrection, and therefore he cannot be delivered up. He thought the House ought to be careful how it sanctioned such doctrines as these. He thought there was some confusion of ideas between political offences and murder committed from political motives. He agreed with those who held that under no Extradition Treaty ought a man to be delivered up for what was popularly called "political offences." But those offences had nothing to do with murder; they were acts which were punished in different countries in different ways—they did not involve assassination, they related to the overturning of a Government or the alteration of a system of law; and, as the hon. Member for Oxford had said, they had often been committed in our country's history, and had led to wholesome changes in our Constitution, though there was no doubt they would at the time have been punished by our laws. These were the things which he understood by the term political offences, and the House, he was sure, would never agree to deliver up such offenders. But, on the other hand, the House would be justified in delivering up murderers and assassins, even though they should plead that they were actuated by political motives. He thought they had perfectly good security that the proposed Extradition Treaty with France would not be abused. In the first place, they had the power to terminate the treaty after six months' notice. The second security was this, that it was not compulsory upon any particular Secretary of State to put the Act in force by sending a person accused before a magistrate, because the words were, "it should be lawful for one of the Secretaries of State to signify the requisition to act to the magistrate;" but these words did not apply to any one Secretary of State in particular. But the third security, and that which to his mind was better than the other two, was this— we might demur as we pleased to the definitions given in the French Code of criminal law; but, according to the words of the Act of Parliament, the magistrate who committed must have before him such evidence
  2122
  as, according to the laws of England, would justify the apprehension and committal of the person accused if the crime were committed in England. Therefore, the magistrate must have before him such evidence as he would act upon in regard to an English subject. With respect to the latter part of the hon. Member's Amendment, which required that the person should not be tried for any offence but that for which he had been given up, we should certainly have a well-founded complaint against any country that demanded a man to be given up for one offence, and then proceeded to try and punish him for another. But, on the other hand, to put such words into an Act of Parliament which did not exist in the treaty, would only be offering a gratuitous insult to the foreign Power to whom it applied, without securing any real advantage. The hon. Member for Reading had said that in the Treaty of 1852, which fell through, there was a proviso of that kind. But in that case it was absolutely necessary, because the offences specified were so numerous— he believed they exceeded twenty and nearly exhausted the whole criminal law— and therefore it was necessary that we should have the double security that none of the offences should be political offences, and that no one should be tried for a different offence from that for which he had been given up.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERargued that certain offences, besides being offences against municipal law, were also offences against human civilization. In such cases extradition was necessary, because the separation of countries into distinct Governments was pro tanto an impediment to the punishment of offences, and that was an evil for which it was necessary in the interests of society to provide a remedy. If the clause proposed by the hon. Member was assented to this country would, in a manner, be forced to sanction murders committed for a political purpose, and would thereby unavoidably be mixed up in foreign complications.
  MR. AYRTONhoped that the hon. Member would withdraw the clause he had proposed, to which there were two unanswerable objections. The first objection to the clause was that it proposed to alter the terms of the treaty between this country and France, which could only be done by agreement between the two contracting Governments. The second objection was of a rather more personal character, as the clause

  2123
  was so worded as to appear to give some moral right to murder people for political differences. He should regret exceedingly if any person who shot him in the lobby were to find a safe asylum in France, on the ground that he did not like his speeches in the House. As all persons connected with public affairs were in some sense political personages, if the clause were agreed to, any one holding a public office might be murdered with impunity. He should ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it would not be better to agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Westminster to limit the duration of the treaty to some definite period, as the original treaty was now at an end. ["No, no!"] The treaty was at an end, inasmuch as the French Government had given notice to terminate it. [Lord STANLEY remarked that that notice had been withdrawn.] He contended that the notice to terminate the treaty had not been withdrawn. All that the French Government had done was to give their consent to the treaty continuing in force for another six months. Therefore, as the original treaty was at an end, there would be no difficulty in making the new one terminable at a certain definite period, so as to enable the House to re-consider the matter during the next Session.
  MR. KINGLAKEhad heard with great satisfaction the observations that had fallen from the noble Lord, because he understood him to acknowledge, with that candour that was so characteristic of him, that the legislation upon this subject, as varied by the Bill now before the House, could not fairly be relied upon as legislation of a safe character. He did not doubt that, owing to the Bill being introduced so late in the Session, and there not being, therefore, sufficient time to discuss it, hon. Members attached more importance to the measure than really belonged to it. In due time the subject would receive careful consideration. The Committee could not better express their feeling upon the matter than by acceding to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Westminster, and limiting the duration of the Act to one year. The Attorney General had said that the best way of proceeding in order to make the treaty a temporary one was to make it terminable at six months' notice, so that, when the House wished to reconsider the matter, the notice might be given. That would scarcely be a courteous mode of proceeding, neither would it accord
  2124
  with his view, which was that the object of limiting the duration of the Act was to obtain a sort of Parliamentary expression of opinion that the House was not satisfied with the opportunity it had had of putting the legislation upon this subject upon a proper basis. The noble Lord read a passage from the Act of Parliament which stated that the Act was permissive, and was not compulsive; but he omitted to observe that the connection with the foreign States, including that of France, was compulsory, and that if the stipulated conditions were complied with the Secretary of State had no option but to hand over the accused. Therefore, that branch of the security upon which the noble Lord relied had failed. Under these circumstances, he begged to move that a clause be added to the Bill, limiting the duration of the Act to the 1st of September, 1867. An opportunity would thus be afforded of giving to the measure full consideration.
  LORD STANLEYcould not have consented to the introduction of a clause which would have altered its principles, but he could have no difficulty in acceding to the proposition of the hon. Member, that the duration of the Bill should be limited to one year from the 1st of next September. In the course of the next Session the House would have an opportunity of carefully and deliberately considering the subject.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDthen withdrew his Motion, and Mr. Kinglake's clause was added to the Bill.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSmoved the insertion of a proviso necessitating the production of all the depositions taken in any case by the French magistrate, as well as the mere certificate, but the proviso was negatived without a division.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  CURRENCY AND BANKING.
  MOTION FOR ADDRESS. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for resuming adjourned debate, on Motion fur Address [31st July] read.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that in spite of the late period of the Session at which they had arrived, many hon. Gentlemen who felt extremely interested in this subject had hoped that the Government would have been able to secure an hour for

  2125
  its discussion. The present state of the House, however, rendered a further discussion of the question impossible, and after consulting various friends who would probably have wished to speak upon the subject, he had thought it advisable not to persevere with his Motion. He had, however, a few days previously urged upon the President of the Board of Trade the advisability of the Government appointing a Commission to visit the great centres of industry in the country, and to take the evidence of merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, who regarded themselves as having been subjected to great hardship and inconvenience. He was sorry to say, however, that though personally he met with every courtesy and kindness at the hands of the right hon. Baronet, the right hon. Baronet did not see his way to the adoption of his proposal.
  MR. GILPINtendered his thanks to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) for having brought forward this subject. It was one that excited great attention, and he regretted it had not been fully discussed. He hoped, however, what discussion had taken place would encourage the Government to take the subject into their consideration during the recess.
  Order discharged.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. (No. 283.)
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading — Indemnity* (284).
Second Reading—Public Health (270); Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance (276); Patriotic Fund* (277); Constabulary Force (Ireland) (278) negatived.
Committee — Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (247); Poor Law Amendment* (248); Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation* (234); Inclosure (No.2)* (236); Public Libraries Act Amendment* (279); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (280); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (254); Railways (Ireland) Temporary Advances* (255); Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment* (256); Oysters Cultivation (Ireland)* (257); Naval Discipline* (258); Dockyard Extensions* (259); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland)* (260); New Zealand* (261); Prisons* (263); Industrial Schools (282); Reformatory Schools (281); Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries)* (271); Expiring Laws Continuance* (272).
Report—Court of Session (Scotland)* (230); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (247); Poor Law Amendment* (248); Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation* (234); Inclosure (No. 2)* (236); Public Libraries Act Amendment* (279); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (280); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (254); Railways (Ireland) Temporary Advances* (255); Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment* (256); Oysters Cultivation (Ireland)* (257); Naval Discipline* (258); Dockyard Extensions* (259); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland)* (260); New Zealand* (261); Prisons* (263);

2069
Industrial Schools (282); Reformatory Schools (281); Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries)* (271); Expiring Laws Continuance* (272); Cattle Diseases Prevention Act Amendment (No. 2)* (262).
Third Reading—Public Health (270); Straits Settlements* (211); Metropolitan Commons* (250).
Royal Assent — Crown Lands [29 & 30 Vict. c. 62]; Glebe Lands (Scotland) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 71]; British Columbia [29 & 30 Vict. c. 67]; Land Tax Commissioners' Names [29 & 30 Vict. c. 59]; Militia Pay [29 & 30 Vict. c.60]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order [29 & 30 Vict. c. 61]; New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government [29 & 30 Vict. c. 74]; New Forest Poor Relief [29 & 30 Vict. c. 66]; Courts of Justice [29 & 30 Vict. c. 63]; Inland Revenue [29 & 30 Vict. c. 64]; Colonial Branch Mints [29 & 30 Vict. c. 65]; Public Works, Harbours, &c. [29 & 30 Vict. c. 72]; Public Works Loans (Ireland) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 73]; Carriage and Deposit of Dangerous Goods [29 & 30 Vict. c. 69]; National Gallery Enlargement [29 & 30 Vict. c. 83]; Pensions [29 & 30 Vict. c. 68]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [29 & 30 Vict. c. 58]; Parochial Buildings (Scotland) Act Amendment [29 & 30 Vict. c. 75]; Fees (Public Departments) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 76]; Parishes (Scotland) Act (1844) Amendment [29 & 30 Vict. c. 77]; County Assessments [29 & 30 Vict. c. 78]; Ecclesiastical Leases (Isle of Man) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 81]; Standards of Weights, Measures, and Coinage [29 & 30 Vict. c. 82]; Dean Forest (Walmore and the Bearce Commons) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 70]; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland) 1866 [29 & 30 Vict. c. 84]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 79]; Land Drainage Supplemental (No. 2) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 80]; Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland) [29 & 30 Vict. c. 88]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries [29 & 30 Vict. c. 85]; Rochdale Vicarage [29 & 30 Vict. c. 86]; Thames Navigation [29 & 30 Vict. c. 89]; Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment [29 & 30 Vict. c. 87].
Lieutenant-General the Right Honourable Sir Hugh Henry Rose, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., General Commanding Her Majesty's Forces in Ireland, having been created Baron Strathnairn of Strathnairn in the County of Nairn and of Jhansi in the East Indies—Was, in the usual Manner, introduced.
Edmond Gordon Douglas Pennant, Esquire, having been created Baron Penryhn of Llandegai — Was, in the usual Manner, introduced.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE DWELLINGS OF THE WORKING CLASSES.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the First Lord of the Treasury. Some short time ago an Act was passed empowering the Treasury
2070
to advance monies to companies formed for improving the dwellings of the working classes in towns and other populous places; and in that Act it was provided that the Treasurer should draw up regulations as to the terms upon which money should be advanced. A great number of persons were impatient to commence operations, so soon as the regulations were made known; and he should therefore be glad to hear what progress had been made?
THE EARL OF DERBYwas happy to say that the regulations had been prepared, and he expected to be able to lay them upon the table that evening.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL—(No. 270.)
(The Lord President.)
SECOND READING. THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that the question of the public health had received so much attention, and had been so frequently the subject of legislation within the last few years, that it was quite unnecessary for him to enter into the reasons that had induced the late Government to bring in this measure, or the present Government to carry it on. Almost every year in the last twenty had shown some new attempt at improving the sanitary condition of the country, and during the present Session a Bill on the subject had been introduced into the House of Commons, and having gone through a Select Committee, in which it was carefully discussed, and subsequently through a Committee of the Whole House, it had passed the other House of Parliament. That was the Bill now before their Lordships. The measure dealt with a great many matters, but it might be divided principally into three parts. The first dealt with the case of the sewer authorities, and the amendment of the Sewage Outfalls Act of 1865; the second part amended the powers of removal of nuisances under the Nuisances Removal Act; and the third part was of a miscellaneous character, but comprised, perhaps, the most important part of the Bill. It amended the law in reference to several points which it was found could not be dealt with under any previous Act of Parliament. The defects of the present law in these respects were proved to give rise to very serious evils, which were especially important at such a

2071
time as the present, when serious epidemics prevailed. In the third part, the principal subjects dealt with were those of the regulation of lodging-houses, the power to parishes to provide hospitals and places of accommodation for the sick; the prohibition of persons suffering from any infectious disease passing through the public streets, or in public vehicles; and the prohibition against persons keeping open lodging-houses; keeping within their lodgings persons suffering under any epidemic or infectious disease. There were also most important powers with respect to burials; and also clauses in reference to cases of infectious or epidemic disease breaking out on ships or vessels in port, but at places beyond the present jurisdiction of the local boards. The fourth part of the Bill simply extended its provisions to Ireland. One very important part of the Bill was that which gave power to the Secretary of State, in the event of the local authorities under certain circumstances not electing, to exercise the power vested in them. The present state of some of the principal towns, and also parts of this metropolis, rendered it of the greatest possible urgency that additional powers should be conferred upon local authorities and those whose duty it was to deal with sanitary matters in towns; and it was also found to be of great importance to amend some of the defects and want of powers that were found to exist under the present law. He felt that this Bill was of such importance that, if the House should agree to the second reading, he should be justified in asking their Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders, so as to pass the Bill through the various stages, and enable it to become law at the earliest possible moment. He might mention that in the other House the matter had undergone considerable discussion; two or three points especially had been dealt with by the Select Committee, and subsequently by a Committee of the Whole House; and it had been modified in accordance with what was felt to be the general opinion of the public and of the other House.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord President.)
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the Bill was necessitated by the very great anomalies which existed under the present state of the law with regard to the public health. It was most important that something should be done with regard to the water supply; and to his mind the most important portion of the Bill was that which related
2072
to that subject. He thought, however, that some amendments would be found expedient, whenever it should be deemed convenient to consolidate all the laws relating to these questions.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he did not doubt that this was a measure of the highest importance; but still, he could not conceal from himself that it proposed to confer very large powers in a very summary manner, and he thought it rather sharp practice to ask their Lordships to pass a measure of such importance through all its stages with such rapidity. Still, the requirement was urgent, and their Lordships must conform to the necessity of the case. He was anxious to express his gratitude both to the late and the present Government for having brought in and forwarded this measure. But strong as some of the provisions of this measure were, it did not, in his opinion, go far enough to remedy the ten thousand evils of which they had to complain— something was required in order to strengthen the hands of the Government. Let their Lordships consider that though we were not insensible to the present necessity, we had been utterly regardless of the prevention of disease, and had despised the experience we had been gaining for so many years. In 1830, and afterwards in 1849, we had been told of the condition of the water supply and of the pernicious consequences of overcrowding; and now, after thirty years of warning, we were in a worse condition with respect to both. In the history of the world he did not believe there was to be found an instance of so many thousands huddled together in so disgraceful, filthy, and indecent a manner as now in the City of London. There was a great deal which ought to attract attention in the question of the water supply, not only in regard to the quality of the water, but also in reference to its distribution and the conduct of the Companies, and he therefore gave notice that, in the course of the next Session, he would call their Lordships' attention to the whole subject of the water supply of this metropolis, with a view to its improvement. In the Registrar General's Report a few days ago there was an account of a visit of the Deputy Registrar to the East End of London, which contained a statement of the water he saw, tasted, and analyzed. If their Lordships read his description of the internal condition of the

2073
dwellings, and the supply and condition of the water, they would see that it was perfectly disgraceful and horrible. He hoped another Session would not be allowed to pass without providing a remedy. It was absolutely necessary that larger powers should be conferred on those engaged in the administration of the internal affairs of the metropolis. He was glad the Bill had been brought in, and he was sure the powers which it conferred would be most ably exercised by the noble Duke who was now charged with the duty.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONwished to be allowed to notice some changes and modifications which would be introduced with respect to a matter cognate with that dealt with by this Bill. By the Passenger Act it was provided that every ship carrying 100 passengers should be provided with a surgeon. It had been represented that in the present state of cholera a ship carrying fewer passengers would be subjected to very great danger if it had no surgeon. It was therefore resolved that in the course of a few days an Order in Council should be issued which would require that after the 20th instant every ship carrying passengers should take a surgeon with it.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived; Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order) and dispensed with; Bill read 3a, and passed.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 282.)
(The Earl of Devon.)
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 282.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHexpressed his regret that the provisions with respect to the visitation of children not belonging to the Established Church and their attendance at divine service had been left permissive in their character, because it had been found that in nine cases out of ten simple permission amounted practically to absolute prohibition, owing to the bigoted opposition to which those professing the Roman Catholic religion were exposed. He was consoled, however, by the assurance given by the Home Secretary that the whole question should be considered during the recess with a view to legislation next year, when he hoped that that which was now permissive would be made compulsory.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL.
  (The Earl of Devon.)
  (No. 281.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, that the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) applied to this Bill as well as to the previous one, and he therefore desired to express his own readiness, and that of the Government, to place the subject, with a due regard to the rights of conscience, on a satisfactory footing. It was in no way intended, by postponing any clauses for carrying out this object, to preclude what he hoped would be satisfactory legislation next year.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHregretted an Amendment which had been made in this Bill in the course of its passage through the other House, the effect of which was to make the visitation by a priest or minister of a youthful offender, and his attendance at a service other than that of the Established Church, dependent upon the requisition of a parent or guardian, who might be resident at such a distance as to render his interposition practically impossible.
  THE EARL OF DEVONconcurred in regretting that the original clause had not been retained in the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended.

  HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRE LAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (The Earl of Derby.)
  (NO. 276) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I rise to move the second reading of this Bill; for nothing would have been more gratifying to me than to be able to state to your Lordships that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the condition of Ireland was now such, and the discontent and the conspiracy which have long prevailed had become so far extinguished as to allow us to revert to the provisions of the ordinary law, instead of asking for the continuance of the

  2075
  extraordinary measure of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. But, however desirable it might be that such a course should be pursued, we cannot undertake the responsibility of allowing Parliament to disperse without first taking powers to carry into effect the provisions of the Act which has been considered during the present Session indispensable for the preservation of the peace of Ireland. I need not now refer to the circumstances which were stated by Her Majesty's late Government at the commencement of the Session, as the reason why there should be confided to them the extraordinary powers they demanded—and which were confided to them, I believe, without a dissentient voice being raised in Parliament—for the purpose of protecting the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of Ireland from the effects of one of the most dangerous and treasonable conspiracies which ever existed in any country. I am quite sure this extraordinary measure was not applied for one single moment before it was necessary:—indeed, if I were to express my own opinion on the subject, I should say that the fault of the late Government was rather in delaying the application of the remedy until the conspiracy had attained to a strength and confidence which rendered it much more difficult to grapple with than would have been the case at an earlier period. Still, this was a fault no doubt on the right side, because no Government, without some absolute necessity, would be desirous of going beyond the ordinary powers of the law, and thereby curtail the liberties of the people. The operations after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were carried out by the Executive, under the authority of the noble Earl whom I see opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), with an amount of firmness, and at the same time of temper and moderation, which reflect the highest credit on the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office. The effect of the measure in restoring peace and tranquillity to Ireland was most remarkable. I am happy to say that during the present year the returns from the assizes show a remarkable diminution in the amount of ordinary crime in that country; but, at the same time, with regard to the Fenian conspiracy, although the measures which were adopted have checked its outward manifestation, I cannot flatter myself that its spirit has been by any means subdued. That is also the opinion entertained by the late Government. The spirit still exists to a dangerous extent,
  2076
  and with an impulsive population like that of Ireland, the permission to agitators to carry on their operations unchecked by any extraordinary measures of coercion would be liable to throw the country again into the greatest confusion and danger. The measure passed at the beginning of the Session has been acted upon, as I said before, with temper and moderation. A very considerable number of persons have been arrested under its provisions, but of these a large proportion—I believe more than one-half — have given security for their future good conduct, and the observance of the law, and have been thereupon set at liberty. It is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's present Government to extend that system as much as possible, and to allow the dismissal from prison of all persons who can give any security, or who can hold out any prospect that they will act for the future as loyal subjects of the Crown. But there are a considerable number of persons from whom no such security can be obtained or expected, and who, in point of fact, still maintain the language of defiance towards the authorities. Now, to let all these persons loose upon society would, in my opinion, be to incur a responsibility which no Government with a proper sense of duty to its Sovereign and the country ought to take upon themselves, for a period of five or six months during which the sittings of Parliament will be suspended. But it is not only with regard to the persons who in Ireland have been removed from the scene of their dangerous attempts—nor is it with regard to them chiefly—that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act has had a most beneficial effect, and that its repeal would be most injurious. A great portion of this formidable conspiracy is not of Irish birth. It comes from foreign agents—self-expatriated Irishmen perhaps—who carry on a treasonable conspiracy against the land of their birth, being secure under the laws of the country to which they have transferred their allegiance. At the time of the passing of the Suspension Act we know that a great number of these persons were in Ireland, spreading their opinions among the impulsive and easily deluded population of that country. When the Act was passed, and they found themselves amenable to the law, a great many returned to America, and from the time of their departure the maintenance of peace in Ireland is attributable rather to their absence from the country than to the imprisonment of those who remain.

  2077
  The repeal of the Act at the close of the Session would give to those persons the opportunity of returning to Ireland with perfect impunity, and of renewing those designs which they have never abandoned, and which they now put forward in the United States with the utmost confidence and effrontery. Repeal the Act and you will again admit those dangerous agents into Ireland, and the population will be exposed afresh to all the dangers from which the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act has exempted them. I think it is much more with reference to these foreign agents, who would return to renew sedition and agitation in Ireland, than to the native population, that it is desirable to renew the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. I certainly believe that with the renewal of that dangerous element, and with powers conferred upon the Government — which will, I feel confident, be executed with firmness and at the same time with moderation, and with an anxious desire to protect the peaceable and loyal inhabitants of the country—I believe that though this suspension may be regarded as, and in fact is, a curtailment to a certain extent of the liberty of the people, the well disposed portion of the population of Ireland will hail it as the greatest protection to their lives and liberties during the ensuing autumn and winter. I trust that at the commencement of next Session the state of matters will be so far improved that we may be able to ask Parliament to revert to the ordinary powers of the law; but, at the present moment, I am convinced I should not be doing my duty if I did not ask your Lordships to intrust to the present Government until the next meeting of Parliament the same powers which were intrusted to the late Government.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Derby.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will share, as I do, the regret expressed by the noble Earl as to the necessity for again proposing that the Habeas Corpus Act should be suspended in Ireland; but I am bound to say, that had I remained in office, it was my intention to recommend to the late Government that this course should be adopted, and from communications with my late Colleagues, I have reason to know that my recommendation would have been acted upon. Your Lordships will therefore see that I cannot do
  2078
  otherwise than approve the conduct of the present Government in bringing forward this Bill. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) alluded to the state of ordinary crime in Ireland, which I am happy to say is at present at a very low ebb. That fact has been adduced by some persons as a reason for objecting to the continuation of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; but I think a little reflection and consideration will satisfy your Lordships that there is no direct connection between ordinary crime in Ireland and the Fenian conspiracy, against which this Bill is exclusively directed. The ordinary crime of Ireland had for a considerable time—after an increase occurring during a series of years of bad harvests—again steadily diminished, and when the Fenian conspiracy was at its height, ordinary crime was at a much lower ebb in the country than it had been for some years. There is, in fact, no connection between the two things, except that the criminal population might be ready to take advantage of disorder and confusion to pursue their avocations. There is no doubt that at the present moment the tranquillity of Ireland, and the absence of crime from the country, is a subject of just congratulation; but I nevertheless feel it my duty to say that I agree with the noble Earl in believing that a dangerous spirit continues to exist in some portions of the population. I think that in consequence of the conspiracy never having broken out into actual rebellion, few persons, except those who have had the opportunity which I have had of seeing all the information that could be collected by the Government, know how formidable and how dangerous a conspiracy really existed in Ireland. I should have felt more hesitation in speaking in this way—because it might seem to magnify any merit of mine in preventing an outbreak—if that opinion had not been expressed by the noble Earl opposite; but, as that opinion has been expressed, I think it is my duty to state to your Lordships and to the country that I am persuaded that since the year 1798 there has not existed so dangerous a condition of the minds of people in Ireland as that which existed in the past year. I say this deliberately, after much reflection and consideration, and after communicating with those who played a principal part in the movement of 1848. I think there can be no doubt that the conspiracy in the

  2079
  last-named year, though it actually broke out into a slight rebellion, was far less formidable than the conspiracy which I hope we have now to a considerable extent overcome. The reason why this conspiracy was so formidable was that alluded to by the noble Earl—namely, because to a great extent it has its roots in a foreign country. If it were not for the encouragement and support which the conspiracy received from persons who were themselves exempt from the dangers incurred by those who remained in Ireland, though there might exist in some parts of Ireland discontent bordering upon disaffection against the Queen's Government, yet such disaffection would never have assumed the form of a conspiracy which could be at all formidable and likely to endanger the tranquillity of the country. But as long as you have a large and extensive society in a foreign land, supported by considerable sums of money, and sending emissaries into Ireland for the purpose of sowing disaffection throughout the country, you will not be free from solicitude concerning the possibility of an outbreak. Another fact well worth attention is that the persons who were most active in promoting the conspiracy were not the poorer and more ignorant classes, but persons I can best describe as belonging to the artizan and small tradesman classes. It would be a mistake to suppose that many intelligent persons were not connected with the conspiracy. It is quite true—and the circumstance is a most fortunate one—that there were no owners of property or persons occupying high social or professional position in Ireland who took any part whatever in this movement; but, at the same time, the leaders and moving spirits of the conspiracy, though belonging, as I have said, to the artizans and humbler trading classes, were, nevertheless, persons whose energy and ability rendered them difficult to contend with. As regards the farming classes — of whom I have frequently seen it asserted that they did not sympathize with this sedition—I regret that in its full extent I cannot repeat that statement. In the South and West of Ireland, although the occupiers of farms did not take a prominent part in the conspiracy, yet, as a matter of fact, it was known that had the rebellion actually broken out in many parts of the country they would have been prepared to join it. I do not intend to pursue this theme, but I have said enough to show you that this sedition,
  2080
  the rise of which has been comparatively slow (for it has been in preparation for some years) cannot be expected to vanish in a moment by the mere enactment of a law suspending the Habeas Corpus, in the same manner that sedition vanished in 1848; and I am convinced that it is only wise and prudent to continue for a time the exceptional powers of the Government, because if those exceptional powers did not exist you would see a revival of sedition, you would lose the opportunity of stamping out the embers, and of preventing the rebellious spirit from again attaining formidable dimensions. More than this—there would be extreme inconvenience in the expiry at the present time of the exceptional powers given to the Government, for there still remain in prison under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant a considerable number of persons; and suddenly to let these persons loose without any guarantee whatever as to their future conduct would have an exceedingly injurious effect. It might very possibly happen that not long afterwards some fresh seditious movement would take place, and Parliament being then not sitting, the Government would find itself in a position of embarrassment from not having power to deal with the emergency. And therefore this must not be looked upon as a measure of coercion, levelled in an invidious manner against Ireland, but as a measure of ordinary precaution, such as any Government, looking to its safety and security, would adopt at the present moment. I am convinced that even the Fenians themselves would acknowledge this measure to be wise and sensible. I have myself received more than one letter from persons who had been confined under my warrant and were subsequently released, expressing, I am happy to say, their satisfaction with the manner in which they had been treated during their imprisonment, and stating that it was impossible to blame the Government for taking measures such as any Government with a regard for its security must be expected to take. The writers were perfectly honest in their admissions that they had intended to overthrow the Queen's Government, but added that they thought the Government perfectly justified in taking means to prevent their success. No persons, I venture to think, would be more surprised than those still in prison if Her Majesty's Government took so unwary a course as suddenly and without any guarantee to release them all from confinement.

  2081
  As the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) has observed, the powers conferred by the Act have hitherto been exercised with moderation; there can therefore be little hesitation in renewing them. I have obtained a return of the number of persons who had been arrested up to the time of my leaving Ireland, and I find that they were in all 756 persons, of whom, on the 23rd of July, when the return was made up, there remained in prison 339. Your Lordships will see from this that although a considerable number of persons were necessarily arrested, the Government showed every disposition wherever they had an opportunity of doing so to release the prisoners, either on condition of their leaving the country or of their giving bail. And I cannot pass from this branch of the subject without acknowledging with gratitude the temperate manner in which the United States Consul in Dublin, instructed to make various representations with regard to persons who were either native-born United States citizens or naturalized American citizens, conducted his representation. As United States Consul he naturally did not shrink from the duty of bringing under my notice the cases of such persons as his Government felt interested in; but it is only due to that gentleman to state that throughout the communications which I had with him he showed very great moderation, and, if I may be permitted to use the word, very great discretion. I am satisfied that in what he did he was acting under the direction of the United States Minister in London. We have accordingly to thank both the United States Minister in London and the United States Government in America for the very prudent, moderate, and friendly manner in which they behaved with regard to all American citizens, born or naturalized, who might happen to be arrested under this Act. It gave me great satisfaction to be able to release several of these persons on their undertaking to return to the United States. This action of the American Government is the more important, remembering that there exists in that country a society formed for the express purpose of carrying on treason against the Sovereign of these realms. Nothing tended more strongly to discourage the hopes of the Fenians than the discovery that although, owing to the peculiar character of the Government of the United States, they might be permitted to carry on meetings and form societies
  2082
  without let or hindrance, the moment they actually broke through the neutrality laws and invaded a friendly country, the United States authorities did not shrink from doing their duty, but interfered in the most prompt and effectual manner. The noble Earl opposite has been pleased to mention with approval the manner in which I exercised the power given under this Act. [The Earl of DERBY: Hear, hear!] I can assure the noble Earl that such approval is to me a matter of very great satisfaction; for, although the result has been so far fortunate that no rebellion actually broke out yet I can unfeignedly assure your Lordships that the whole of the last winter was a time to me of very great anxiety. The noble Earl said, but with a personal courtesy that deprived the observation of all unpleasantness, that possibly the measures of the Government were not taken sufficiently soon. Now here I must observe that there is nothing more difficult than rightly to estimate the true nature of a conspiracy of this kind, and to know the precise moment at which it is ripe enough to strike; because your Lordships will see that the information which we now possess was not then before the public, and was only before me in a broken and fragmentary form, so that it is very probable that if we had struck at the conspiracy sooner the public might have said we had made "much ado about nothing," and that we had exaggerated into the importance of a conspiracy what, after all, was but sedition of a very ordinary kind. I am free to admit that I thought it my duty to allow the organization, as long as it was possible with safety to the country, to develop itself, taking care always so to have my eye on the conspirators as, if possible, to prevent them from breaking out into open violence. Had it been necessary, at the first whisper of sedition, to take means to crush the conspirators I should not have hesitated to adopt that course; but, the conspiracy having already arrived at a certain pitch, I am convinced that it was wiser to allow it to develop itself, taking measures, meanwhile, to root it out as far as possible. It would be most ungrateful in me were I not to seize this opportunity of acknowledging the general—I may say the universal support which I received from Irishmen of all ranks and of all parties, without distinction of creed or opinion, in the measures which I took to sustain the authority of the Crown

  2083
  and cause of law and order. On this occasion Irishmen showed that they, like Englishmen on other occasions, could forget party dissensions, and unite in support of the Queen's Government—a support, as your Lordships may easily suppose, most necessary and indispensable to the Government at such a crisis. This conspiracy was distinct from former associations in this—that whereas in 1798 you had many landed proprietors and many members of the legal profession connected with the conspiracy, on this occasion I do not think it could be asserted by any one that a single landed proprietor or person connected with the learned professions was in the slightest way connected with the movement; at least, if there was an exception, it was of so slight a character as to confirm the general rule. I acknowledge the debt of gratitude which the Government owe to the gentry and nobility of Ireland for the support which they gave upon this trying occasion. But when I say this, I feel bound to add that I think what has happened on this and on former occasions, and the necessity which has been found at every outbreak for suspending the constitutional liberties of the country, are facts which should make your Lordships and everyone interested in the welfare of the United Kingdom reflect most seriously on the condition and prospects of Ireland. Since the Union you have had no less than three movements of this kind—in 1803, in 1848, and again in 1866; and these were but the continuance of revolutionary movements which have unfortunately characterized the country since the time of Queen Elizabeth. A country in that state cannot possibly make progress or attain prosperity; and I think an occasion of this kind is one when we should carefully reflect upon the condition and prospects of that country, and consider whether there are any measures by which we may not merely repress the Fenian Conspiracy, but prevent such conspiracies from being formed in future. At this period of the Session it would be out of place for me to enter upon a discussion of the various social disorders of Ireland and the various remedies which have been proposed; but I am confident of this—that those who look carefully at the condition of the country will see that it is impossible for England to perform its duty to Ireland as long as no attempt is made to deal with the important question of the tenure of land. When the Bill of my noble Friend who
  2084
  now sits upon the cross-benches (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was before the House I made some remarks upon this important subject; and now, without going into the details of the measure, I will again venture to impress upon your Lordships my opinion—namely, that this is a most urgent question for the consideration of Parliament. I hold that this country is directly responsible in this matter, and bound to see that the present state of things be not perpetuated in Ireland; and that, while employing the great military power which we possess for the purpose of suppressing rebellion and preventing conspiracies, we must at the same time seek out and remove as far as we are able the causes of these things. Unless this course be followed and remedial measures be adopted they will be, I am convinced, forced upon the attention of Parliament. I know it is most distasteful to people living in that part of the United Kingdom to think that their condition requires exceptional measures, and that they cannot be dealt with exactly in the same manner as those who hold land in England or Scotland; but I think the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury will not differ from me when I say that the position of Ireland is such that exceptional measures in regard to the land tenure are absolutely required. I believe that the question of land tenure is one which most interests the people, and I am convinced that it is a question which Parliament should first consider and first endeavour to solve. There are, however, other and very formidable evils, among which I may mention those connected with the Established Church. It is sufficient to mention the fact that there is in Ireland an Established Church to which no more than some 700,000 persons out of a population of more than 5,500,000 belong. Undoubtedly, that is a great and formidable evil, with which I am convinced some day Parliament must deal. At the same time, when you look at the condition of the mass of the people, that which most interests them is the question of land tenure. Of course, I am of opinion that the measure which the late Government brought in was in its principle suited to the occasion; but, at the same time, without in the slightest degree abandoning the principle of that measure, I may say that I do trust that Her Majesty's present Advisers will take the subject into their serious consideration; and if they can devise a

  2085
  measure better suited to the state of Ireland than ours was, I, for my part, promise it my most hearty support. There are some subjects in which a settlement ought to be brought about by an agreement of both sides of the House, and I am convinced that Irish questions are amongst them. Ireland is a country with which English statesmen have been singularly unsuccessful in dealing; but if we can devise any measure by which that country can be brought more into sympathy with the rest of the United Kingdom, by which we shall touch the hearts of the Irish people—which we have never yet touched—we shall add to the glory and strength of the Empire more than by any other measures we can possibly devise. I shall not detain your Lordships any longer by alluding to the various topics which naturally suggest themselves to my mind, after residing for a period in Ireland, and paying great attention to those things which are connected with its welfare. I will only say that, although remedial measures for that country are largely called for, the first necessity is security, which no Government can neglect to provide, and therefore I cannot but support the Bill now before the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEexpressed his regret that the noble Earl who had just spoken with so much weight, authority, candour, and absence of all party spirit in regard to the Bill before their Lordships, should have thought it necessary to deviate from that topic to enter upon others, which compelled him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) to express his dissent from the views which he had advocated. The noble Earl, when speaking on the subject of land tenure, alluded to a treatment of property in Ireland, of which he was in utter ignorance, differing in opinion from Mr. O'Connell, Bishop Doyle, and from every good authority on the subject, not one of whom contemplated the re-distribution of land and the deprivation of the present possessors of their property.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could not allow it to go forth that he advocated the re-distribution of land, observing that he could not see how a charge of supporting such a Fenian measure could be founded upon anything he had stated.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the Bill introduced by the late Government would, had it been passed into law, have effected a re-distribution of the
  2086
  land; and if the noble Earl did not look upon it in that view, he differed from those who supported the Bill in the other House, and the various societies and associations that urged its acceptance on the very ground that it would have the effect he had stated. He was sorry the subject should have been mentioned, but he had not introduced it. He denied the assertion that the landlords of Ireland had been unwilling to entertain the subject in a spirit of justice and of equity; and the reason why a proper settlement had not been arrived at was the party spirit which had been aroused throughout the country. He did not wish to lay any particular blame on the legal profession, but he held that they had contributed much to prevent an amendment of the present unsatisfactory state of the law in Ireland in regard to landlord and tenant. There was, however, never less cause for the mention of such a matter than on the present occasion, when their Lordships were discussing a Bill proposed for the purpose of repressing Fenianism. The noble Earl and the various Members of the late Government had over and over again during the Session stated that Fenianism was not an Irish rebellion, that the farmers of Ireland had nothing whatever to do with it, that it was not connected with the question of landlord and tenant, but that it had its origin in America, and was supported by American gold.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the importance of the subject would be sufficient excuse for again interposing. He had stated to their Lordships most distinctly that the conspiracy had its root in Ireland, but that that which made it more dangerous was the encouragement it met with from without; and so far from believing that the conspiracy was not sympathized with by the farmers of the West and South, he would again tell the noble Marquess that if the rebellion had broken out ill the South and West of Ireland nearly the whole, if not the whole, of the tenant farmers would have joined the rebellion.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he clearly understood the statement of the noble Earl, but he did not say that a single large tenant farmer in Ireland would be found sympathizing with the movement. The noble Earl had said very truly that the chief supporters were shop-boys and artizans, and he left out farmers. Generally speaking, the farmers had the greatest reluctance to mix themselves up with

  2087
  the conspiracy. Nor had he mentioned the clergy, who possessed considerable power in the rural districts. Nor had the noble Earl made any reference to the North and East of Ireland. For his part, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not believe that the small farmers of the West had any sympathy with the conspiracy. But he rose to enter his protest against the notion that by altering the Law of Land-lord and Tenant disturbances in Ireland would be prevented. He could not for a moment entertain the idea of Ireland being left to herself; but he had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that the loyal men of Ireland would have been strong enough and willing enough to beat the disaffected had the opportunity been afforded them. His noble Friend had got his information from the police; but had be (the Earl of Kimberley come in personal contact with the tenant farmers of the country he would have found a state of things very different from that he had represented. Tranquillity could not be obtained by tampering with the rights of property, but by securing equal justice to all. He would not say anything upon the Established Church, to which the noble Earl had alluded, as this was not the proper occasion for so doing. He concurred in the wisdom of extending the period of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, believing that in order to make property secure this step was necessary.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 278.)
  (The Earl of Belmore.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH,in expressing his gratification at the introduction of this Bill, again called attention to the case of the girl Catherine Geoghan, who had been so badly treated by the police sub-inspector, having been dragged out by her hair and dreadfully bruised while in the custody of the police.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, all he could remember about the case referred to was that an inquiry was made with regard to the conduct of the sub-inspector,
  2088
  and the result being not altogether satisfactory so far as the official was concerned, it was recommended to the Treasury that he should not receive the full pension to which he would otherwise have been entitled. The Bill before the House was, substantially, that prepared by the late Government, and the matter was one of very great urgency, because, unfortunately, the constabulary force was at present considerably below its proper number; while all those who knew the nature of the duties which the force had to discharge, and the recent rise of prices which had taken place, must come to the conclusion that an increase of pay was not only justly due to this force, but was urgently necessary. At some future time, when Ireland was no longer menaced by conspiracy and was in that state of security and tranquillity which she ordinarily enjoyed, it would be a matter for consideration whether the total number of the constabulary force might not be somewhat reduced, but at the present time such a reduction was out of the question. If this conspiracy had not so disquieted the country, it would have been his duty, in recommending that the pay of the force be increased, to ask the Government to consider whether its total number might not be safely reduced, while at the same time their pay should be augmented. One fact would probably be sufficient to show that this course might be taken:—The present number of the constabulary, if kept up to its proper quota, was precisely the same as it was thirty years ago, whereas the population of Ireland was no more than two-thirds what it was at that period. No question of reduction could be entertained now, but hereafter it would be a proper matter for consideration whether the number of the force might not be safely reduced. He would take this opportunity of acknowledging the invaluable services performed by the Irish constabulary while the Government were engaged in endeavouring to suppress the conspiracy. It was not too much to say that the conduct of the force during the whole of this period was beyond all praise. In a force entirely recruited in Ireland, more than two-thirds of the number being Roman Catholics, and drawn from all classes of people, there was not one, or more than one, single case in which the fidelity of any member of the force was open to the smallest suspicion. And when it was remembered that it consisted of 10,000 men, he thought it would be admitted

  2089
  that no country possessed a force of a more thoroughly satisfactory and loyal kind. Independently of the general reasons which existed for increasing the pay of the constabulary, he felt glad that the opportunity of increasing it should present itself at this time, and that Parliament was able in this way to mark its sense of the services of that excellent and valuable force.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Three o'clock.