Sitting of 16 March 1866

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [March 15] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Customs Acts; East India Military, &c, Funds Transfer; Exchequer and Audit Departments [Salaries, &c].
Ordered—Customs Acts*; East India Military, &c., Funds Transfer *; Practice and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment.*
First Reading—East India Military, &c, Funds Transfer * [75]; Practice and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment* [78]: Dockyard Extensions Act Amendment* [77]; Contagious Diseases * [78]
Second Reading—Court of Chancery (Ireland) * [lit], Debate adjourned; Consolidated Fund (£19,000,000) *
Committee—Exchequer Bills and Bonds* [46].
Report—Exchequer Bills and Bonds * [46].
Considered as amended—Parliamentary Oaths Amendment [13].

MR. SPEAKER'S ILLNESS.
The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the continued illness and unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, but he was desired to acquaint the House, that Mr. Speaker had received great benefit from the rest that had been granted him, and is making progress towards recovery:—Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker; and after prayers, counted the House, and Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July 1855.
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Sandwich, When the Report of the Commission on the Irish Constabulary, which sat recently in Dublin, and over which he presided, will be laid upon the table of the House?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, in reply, that the Report of the Commissioners had been presented to the Treasury, and was now under the consideration of the Government. He must remind his hon. and gallant Friend that this was not a Royal, but a Treasury Commission, and therefore it would not be laid upon the House as a mere matter of course. He was, however, authorized to state that, considering the importance of the subject, the Report and other papers would be laid on the table when the Government had decided upon the precise course which they intended to pursue.

  CHURCH RATE RETURNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. READsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has any objection to issue the forms of the Church Rate Returns at Easter (at which time the Churchwardens make up their books and change office) with a request that the Returns should be made within twenty-eight days, and not "in the month of June," as hitherto ordered by the Government?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the forms of the Returns might, no doubt, be issued at Easter, but the Secretary of State could not desire that they should be made up within twenty-eight days, and not in the month of June, as the Act of Parlia-
  420
  ment providing for these Returns expressly required that they should be made in the month of June. The forms were at one time sent out about Easter, but the consequence was that, owing to the change of Churchwardens, the Returns were very imperfectly made. Lately they had not been sent out till after Easter, and the Returns had come in better than before, being made by the same Churchwarden by whom the form was received.

  WAR BETWEEN SPAIN AND CHILI AND PERU.—QUESTION.
  MR. SELWINsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communication has been made by the Foreign Office to the representatives in this country of the Spanish Government, as well as to those of Chili and Peru, with reference to any vessels of war which their respective Governments may be building in English yards; and, further, what replies, if any, have been received?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had been in constant communication with the Ministers and agents of the Governments of Chili, Spain, and Peru with regard to any vessels of war that might be constructing for them in England, and had been assured by them that no such vessels should leave England during the continuance of the war. Her Majesty's Government had every reason to believe that no such armed vessels of war had left England since the war broke out. He might state that the Chilian Minister had of his own accord addressed a written assurance to Her Majesty's Government that no vessel of war now building should be allowed to leave England during the continuance of the war, and that the intention of Chili was to conform entirely to the law of this country.

  CLERKS OF CUSTOMS.—QUESTION.
  MR. TREEBYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Treasury have decided upon a revised classification for the London and Outport Clerks of Customs; and, if so, whether any, and what, steps have been taken for the ameliorations of the condition of the lower class of Her Majesty's Collectors of Customs at the Outports?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have already stated to the House that a revised classification for the Port of London has been

  421
  adopted by the Treasury. It is now completed in every respect except as to the numbers of one of the classes in two or three of the departments. I also stated a few days ago that the scale for the outports was under consideration, and this is nearly completed. The salaries of the collectors at some of the minor ports would naturally be considered with the salaries of the clerks, and the Treasury Minute on the subject will deal with both, though I can say nothing at present as to any increase in the rate.

CATTLE DISEASE—IMPORTATION OF SHEEP INTO IRELAND.

  QUESTION
  MR. COGANsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report that sheep have been recently landed in the North of Ireland from Scotland; if he has ascertained whether there is any truth in such report; and, have the Government taken any steps to punish this violation of the Law, and to prevent its recurrence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, in reply, that the transaction in question occurred in the month of January last, and that, so far as he knew, nothing of the kind had occurred since. The detailed correspondence on the subject would be laid upon the table, and orders had been given to the Coastguard and the constabulary which would prevent the repetition of such a proceeding.

  INDIA—RUSSIAN MARCH UPON BOKHARA.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY RAWLINSONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any information of the march of a Russian force under General Tchernaief from Tashkend upon Bokhara; and, if so, what may be the avowed object of such an expedition?
  MR. LAYARD: Sir, a rumour has reached Her Majesty's Government that the Russian forces have been advancing towards Bokhara, but no positive information has reached us on the subject, nor can we tell the object of the advance if it has taken place. But the Russian Government have given Her Majesty's Govern-
  422
  ment solemn assurances that they have no desire permanently to advance their frontier towards Bokhara.

  WRITS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. QUESTION.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to ask the Lord Advocate, What course he intends to pursue with regard to the Writs Registration (Scotland) Bill?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply, that he proposed to postpone the second reading of the Writs Registration (Scotland) Bill and the Summary Procedure Bill until the 16th of April. If the former Bill should be read a second time he should propose to refer it to a Select Committee.

  COPYHOLD AND LEASEHOLD FRANCHISE.—QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the amount, by the proposed Reform Bill, of the annual beneficial interest in a copyhold or leasehold property situate in a borough which will convey to a resident in a borough a vote for the county, as is now done by an annual freehold interest of forty shillings?
  MR. BEACHwished to know, at the same time, whether the 19th section of the Reform Act governs the qualification of copyholders, and the 20th section that of leaseholders in a borough to vote for a county?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the case is as stated by the hon. Member for North Hampshire, and I apprehend that the 19th and 20th sections of the Act contain a complete description and answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Heygate). The vote is given generally to the copyholds of the clear annual value of £10, and to leaseholds of the clear annual value of £10, if the lease in respect of which the elector claims to vote was originally granted for not less than sixty years, and to leaseholds of the clear annual value of £50 if the lease was originally granted for not less than twenty years. There is a provision also as to sub-leases and assignees of leaseholds. These sections remain untouched by the Bill. It is by the repeal of the following section, the 21st, that the class of voters referred to are let in.

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

ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE.

  MOTION FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he rose to make the Motion on this subject which stood in his name, namely—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission, consisting of Military and Civilian Members, to inquire into the present constitution, system of education, and discipline of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, as well as into the general treatment of the gentlemen Cadets, as also into the rules and regulations under which candidates are admitted into those Colleges."
  A Royal Commission had not long ago inquired into the state of our Public Schools, and, although the results of its labours had not been all that might have been desired, still considerable benefits would accrue from them not only to the public schools themselves, but to the country at large. But, if it had been necessary to remedy the acknowledged evils of our public school system by issuing a Commission of Inquiry, surely it was not less needful to issue a Commission of Inquiry into our Military Colleges, upon whose good management depended the efficiency of those scientific branches of the army which the altered condition of warfare and the improvement of military science were daily rendering more important. That such an investigation was requisite was manifest from the fact that frequent outbreaks had taken place, and a feeling of insubordination had exhibited itself among the cadets at Woolwich and Sandhurst during the last few years. To understand the present state of matters it was necessary to revert for a moment to the past history of these two Colleges. The Royal Academy at Woolwich was founded in 1741. It then had only 35 cadets, who were entirely maintained and educated at the expense of the Government. In 1764 the pay of a gentleman cadet was half-a-crown a day, and this served to defray all the expenses of their living. During the American and Peninsular wars the number admitted to the Academy was increased and diminished according to the exigencies of the State. The College at
  424
  Sandhurst, founded in 1803, owed its origin to the very defective state of education then existing in the unscientific branches of the army, and the very great difficulty of obtaining competent officers to command our regiments; and there, as at Woolwich, the practice also prevailed of defraying the expenses of maintaining and educating the cadets by Government grants. Before 1831 there was no regular annual payment for the cadets. They were, in fact, recipients of the Government's charity, and their condition was very different from what it had since become. Now, as a rule, annual payments were exacted from them, and they had come very much to occupy the position of students in other ordinary educational establishments. Passing over the interval between 1831 and 1855—not because there had been no grounds of complaint during that period, but because they had not obtained that prominence which had unfortunately belonged to them within the last few years—they came to the years 1855, 1856, and 1857, which were very remarkable in our military annals. The Crimean War was then brought to a close, and the Indian Mutiny had broken out. There were several so-called improvements—he would not use the word "reforms," because that had, perhaps, at present, a doubtful and ambiguous meaning—introduced at that time in every military department of the State, and among others the system of competitive examinations. Without discussing the merits or demerits of that system, it was a singular fact, and one worthy of note, that very shortly after the establishment of the system of competitive examination very marked symptoms of discontent began to show themselves among the cadets, both at Woolwich and Sandhurst. In 1860 there were serious disturbances at Woolwich. If he had been rightly informed, the guns in front of the Academy were loaded by the cadets with loaves of bread and fired at the Lieutenant Governor's windows; while at Sandhurst the cadets farmed themselves into a body and marched off to an earthwork situated in the College grounds and there took refuge for the space of some two hours. That secession of the Plebs to the Sacred Mount—if it might be so termed—was mainly put down by the judiciousness of the Governor, who seems to have displayed a temporizing policy resembling that of the celebrated Menenius Agrippa. In 1863 there were fresh

  425
  disturbances in both of the Colleges. At Woolwich the outbreak arose, he believed, from the unpopularity of one of the subaltern officers; and the result of it was that some of the cadets took their practice swords and threw them into the bottom of the reservoir in the grounds of the Academy; one of the practice guns in front of the College being again surreptitiously fired off—a custom which appeared to take place on every succeeding anniversary of the great outbreak of 1860, as if to call the attention of the authorities to the existing state of things. Only last autumn there was again some practical joking at the expense of a corporal, which resulted In several cadets being rusticated or sent away, and which excited a great deal of scandal in the public newspapers at the time. Not that that in itself was a circumstance of very great moment, but when taken into consideration with other matters which he had already touched upon, it showed that a very serious feeling of insubordination and discontent continued to prevail among the cadets. Then came the very natural question, what was the origin and cause of all these disturbances? Grievances, they knew, were of two kinds; those that were imaginary and those that were real; and under the first head might be found some military and even political grievances He thought, however, he should be able to show that that was not the case with the cadets at the Military Colleges, but that, on the contrary, they had some real foundation for the feeling that had led to those outbreaks. Students were not in the habit of quarrelling with their bread and butter, or of living in a chronic state of insubordination, unless they had some good cause for it. There was no doubt that the origin of that state of things was that, whereas the age of admission at Woolwich was formerly from fourteen to sixteen, and at Sandhurst from thirteen to fifteen, it had been suddenly altered, and the cadets were admitted to both Colleges at from sixteen to nineteen years of age, and in the case of gentlemen who had been to the Universities even up to twenty-two and twenty-three. So that these Colleges for boys were losing their character and becoming Colleges for men. The case of a graduate who had passed his examination at a University and been admitted as a gentleman cadet in one of the Military Colleges would best illustrate his argument. Most hon. Members knew what College life in a University was. The
  426
  graduate enjoyed a large amount of liberty and many privileges. He had a room to himself, luxuriously furnished, and a servant to wait upon him; and, provided he attended the appointed prayers and lectures, and returned to his room at a certain hour in the evening, nobody could interfere with him. He could amuse himself according to his tastes, entertain his friends, and, in fact, do almost whatever he pleased. Every house was open to him, except, perhaps, public and gambling houses, and places of a similar character. When, however, the youth entered the Military College, although in no way controlled by the Articles of War or the Mutiny Act, he was at once subjected to a discipline very severe—discipline, he might almost say, of a Spartan character. He had to share a room with three or four other cadets of like age, while his dormitory, instead of having a carpet laid upon the floor, was scattered with sand, and the furniture was of the commonest kind. His cupboard, too, in which he put his goods and chattels, was not inaptly termed a birdcage. The very convicts in the nearest prison were, to a certain extent, better off, seeing that they at least had privacy in their cells. Every morning the cadet was compelled to brush his own clothes and perform other menial duties. Wine and spirits were forbidden him, he not being allowed even to partake of those light wines with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been so much identified. It was necessary for the House to recollect while he was making these statements that he was talking of young men nineteen years of age. Each cadet was allowed for his diet 2s. per day, which was disbursed by the College authorities; but at Sandhurst the food was much better than that supplied at Woolwich. The superiority I in this respect at the former place was i due to the industry and admirable management of the quartermaster; but at Woolwich the food was not only inferior in i quality, but scanty in quantity. Hon. Members who had been in the habit of paying 5s. or 6s. a day for their dinners would, perhaps, be able to imagine, he trusted that they might not realize, what luxury 2s. per diem would provide at Woolwich. Besides more than six hours' study each day, the cadet had to undergo drill for an hour and a half, and therefore he had few hours for leisure. He was at I all times compelled to wear his uniform, and unless he had on a good-conduct stripe

  427
  could not quit the College and go beyond a distance of two miles. He was expected, too, to be in his rooms at ten o'clock, and the lights were extinguished at half past ten. These facts showed that the condition of the cadet was hard enough; but this was not all. The cadet was at the heck of subaltern officers, who could punish him for the most trivial irregularities. When he was sick he was not permitted to have attendance in his own room, like an Undergraduate at the University or a schoolboy at Eton or Harrow. He was placed in the common hospital, and treated like a private soldier, neither better nor worse. It was not necessary to go into the question of the length and severity of the studies at the Military Colleges, although it would be a fit subject for a Royal Commission to inquire into. He, however, called the attention of the House to the preliminary examination which every candidate was obliged to pass before he was permitted to enter Woolwich. According to the new regulations of the Council of Military Education every candidate was obliged to obtain 2,500 marks, 700 of which must be for pure mathematics. He held in his hand a syllabus of the differential and integral calculus which every candidate was obliged to pass before obtaining admission into the Academy, hut, as it was a subject of a somewhat abstruse character, he would not trouble hon. Members by reading it. It might suffice to say that he submitted several of the questions asked at the last July examination at Woolwich to a gentleman of great mathematical attainments, who was a tutor at one of the large Colleges at Cambridge, and his reply was, "It is quite impossible that young men of the age you speak of could answer these questions; it would require some of our best men, at least two or three years older, to do justice to them." There was another matter into which it was necessary that a Royal Commission should inquire and report upon. He had long—having regard to economy, to the interests of the country, and to the interests of the cadets—doubted the advantage of having two Military Colleges, believing that one would adequately supply all the necessary wants of the Army. This was not an original scheme of his, but it had been approved by very high military authorities, and had received the sanction of more than one War Minister. It was, in fact, brought before the House some years ago, and had it not
  428
  been mixed up with the subject of competitive examinations, he believed the House of Commons would also have given its approval to the scheme. It was a matter, however, which required further consideration. The College of Marlow was founded at a time when military education was very defective, when a destructive war was raging which threatened our national existence, and when there was a great scarcity of competent officers. The circumstances of the present day, however, were very different from those at the time of the establishment of the College at Marlow. The country was not at war. There was now a Council of Military Education, which required every candidate for admission to the army to undergo a week's examination at the least. The necessity, therefore, for having a special College for the unscientific branches of the army no longer existed. He recommended that the two Colleges should be amalgamated. In that way—and this was an additional reason for the change—a great saving of public money would be effected. The Army Estimates for the present year showed that Woolwich cost about £9,000 more than it brought into the Exchequer, and Sandhurst £17,000. Now, were one College to be substituted for the two, £26,000 might be saved, and the 400 cadets now on the muster rolls of the two Colleges would be as well educated, and certainly better treated, for the money. The executive officers and professors at both Colleges were out of all proportion to the number of cadets. At Sandhurst, for instance, there were sixteen executive officers and twenty-nine professors to 222 cadets, or, in other words, there was one professor or executive officer to every five cadets. At Woolwich, however, it was even worse, for there there were fourteen executive officers and thirty-four professors to 180 cadets, or one professor or executive officer to every four cadets. He had made inquiries at the public schools and Universities, and found that in those establishments one master or tutor was held to be competent to educate and look after from twenty to twenty-five undergraduates or schoolboys. At Harrow there was one master to twenty-two boys, and the Public School Commission were of opinion that one master was quite competent to look after and educate some thirty boys. What was the inference to be drawn from these facts? Why, that there were too many professors employed, or else that the cadets at Wool-

  429
  wich and Sandhurst were so unmanageable and so stupid that they required five times the number of tutors and masters which was necessary in the case of our Universities and public schools. He would not enter into the question whether one College would answer the wants of the country in other respects than those which he had mentioned; whether, for instance, officers passing through it with a uniform system of education would be equally tit for the Artillery and Engineers as for the infantry Upon that point he would simply observe that Addiscombe, in the days of the old East India Company, was able to supply officers for every branch of the service, while during the late Civil War in America West Point furnished a sufficient number of skilled officers to the large armies which were engaged in that contest. Surely, then, one College would meet the requirements of our small army, more especially as the majority of officers were admitted by means of direct examination. Lastly, he was of opinion that if a single College were substituted for the two now in existence many anomalies of which we at present had to complain would be removed. The system of competitive examination, for example, was enforced at Woolwich, while that enforced at Sandhurst was the system of examination by selection. There were Queen's and Indian cadets at Sandhurst, but none at Woolwich, The time of residence at Woolwich was something like two years, whereas at Sandhurst it was only one year, a period hardly sufficient to enable the cadets to learn the discipline or profit by the education afforded by that establishment. Those, then, were the reasons which induced him to ask the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the education and discipline of our Military Colleges. It had often been said, and he thought with some justice, of both Woolwich and Sandhurst, that they were neither barracks, schools, nor colleges, but institutions combining the faults of all three. He was most anxious, then, that there should be one College founded on the best system which could be devised, where the cadets, men in age, might be treated like men, in a manner similar to their brothers and cousins at the Universities, where in short they should be treated as officers with a certain amount of liberty, but under some control, rather than as schoolboys at Dotheboy's Hall or private soldiers having no liberty at all. When that was done, and not till then, we should
  430
  hear no more of those disgraceful occurrences which had been so long a scandal to the army and the country, and which had brought so much discredit on the system under which they had been perpetrated. The noble Lord concluded by moving an Address.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, the question had been placed so well before the House by his noble Friend, that he felt assured the Secretary for War could scarcely refuse to accede to the proposal made. In most of the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord he entirely concurred, but he did not quite agree with him in thinking that men before entering the army were at all the worse for a little roughing. Many Gentlemen opposite no doubt recollected the time when at Eton they had to brush not only their own, but the boots and clothes of other persons; nor were they to be regarded as worse members of society on that account. Before he sat down he wished to express a hope that the noble Marquess at the head of the War Office (the Marquess of Hartington) would inform the House whether it was true that the Government had deemed it right to reduce, under certain circumstances, the amount of provisions for the cadets at Woolwich? The question was one of importance, because growing lads required not only good food but a sufficient quantity of it. He was reminded by an hon. Friend sitting below him that a few years ago horses which had become unserviceable for the artillery were used as food for the cadets. That, no doubt, was an exaggeration; but he should like to learn from the noble Marquess whether the food of the cadets had been reduced, and, if so, whether he thought it right that those young men should be put on short commons?
  Amendment proposed.
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission, consisting of Military and Civilian Members, to inquire into the present constitution, system of education, and discipline of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and of the Royal Military College at Sandhurst, as well as into the general treatment, of the gentlemen Cadets, as also into the rules and regulations under which candidates are admitted into those Colleges,"—(Lord Eustace Cecil,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. ACLANDsaid, that as one who felt a deep interest in the subject under discussion, he thanked the noble Lord for the manner in which he had introduced it to the House. In consequence of the notice that had been given by the noble Lord in reference to this subject he had deemed it his duty to spend a day at Sandhurst. The question, however, was not, he thought, so simple as the clear and able statement of the noble Lord would make it appear. It had been investigated by two Commissions and one Committee of that House, and the point was whether Sandhurst and Woolwich were so managed as to provide the professional knowledge requisite for an officer in the army, without discouraging the liberal education suitable to an English gentleman? How those two requirements were to be combined was a matter which it was not easy to decide. He could not help thinking that it was extremely difficult to learn any business except by experience in that business itself. The views which he entertained on the subject he derived from no less an authority than one of the most distinguished officers of our army, the late Field Marshal Lord Seaton. No officer ought, he thought, to be raised to the post of captain without distinct professional knowledge beyond an acquaintance with the ordinary regimental duties, but he thought that knowledge ought to be acquired after joining the service, and a good liberal education was the best preparation before entering the army. The important subjects involved in the question had not been neglected by the Council of Military Education. The Commander-in-Chief had given to them his best attention, and if the present Military Colleges were not all that the army required, it was not for want of due consideration. Having visited Sandhurst so lately, be could state, with respect to the birdcages and other hardships to which it was said the cadets were exposed, that he believed them to belong to a bygone state of things, although there was little doubt that formerly the boys were treated with an amount of restriction and espionage which did not, in his opinion, furnish the best mode of forming the characters of English officers. He understood that many alterations were in progress, and was glad to find that the responsibility with respect to Sandhurst rested on two officers, who were fully competent to the discharge of the duties required of them,
  432
  for in addition to their military acquirements, they had received the advantages of a public school education. The cadets were governed by a code of honour, which was administered by officers in the army, who treated them as gentlemen and friends. His opinion was that young men intended for the army should be encouraged to profit by a liberal education, and that having received that, they should be further encouraged to acquire the science and knowledge of their profession after they had entered the service; but he much doubted the use of teaching men their drill at College. The great Lawrence in India said that any dolt could learn his drill in six weeks, but the higher qualifications for an officer required time and experience. However much young men might be taught about drill at College, when they joined their regiments they would have to learn their duties over again. Of Woolwich he could not speak from personal experience, but he had been told by a very distinguished officer that the standard of trust and confidence in the cadets there too had been a good deal altered for the worse of late. He ought to add that he had been informed by the father of a young officer who had entered the corps of Engineers with great distinction, that he had spoken of Woolwich as a miserable place, his great objection to it being that while there his word as a man of honour was not trusted. This was a subject which deserved the attention of Government. He trusted that the noble Marquess, who had now succeeded to a post of the highest importance, for which he had exhibited great qualifications, would not be turned aside from sifting the whole question of military education.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he desired to call attention to one point relating to the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. The competitive system of examination pursued there for entrance had attracted to the annual competition some of the best taught young men in all the great schools of England, and when they found that out of 150 persons who were examined only seventeen or eighteen passed, that was sufficient to show that the test was very severe. A great hardship connected with the first examination was that, though they were then put through their classics and various other branches of a liberal education, in the great schools for their proficiency in which they derived a great proportion of their marks, the same subjects

  433
  were of no use to them in the half-yearly examinations which followed, and that would sometimes involve the suspension of a cadet for six months, or his expulsion from the College. It was a great hardship that the subjects which ruled the admission of a cadet to the College should so totally differ from those which were required afterwards that those subjects which led to his admission should not contribute in any degree to his future success. Another matter that he desired to call attention to was the hardship sustained through the small number of commissions without purchase which were set apart for cadets at the Military Academy at Sandhurst. Owing to some alterations in the service, the authorities were unable to give nearly so many of those commissions without purchase as the cadets had had reason to expect. In the case of a poor man—who had obtained a large number of marks for learning and good conduct—that might lead either to his having to abandon his career or to very great difficulty in his obtaining the money necessary to enable him to purchase his commission. He thought the Government ought to keep faith with the cadets, and ought to make such arrangements as would give a sufficient number of commissions to meet the promises held out. With respect to the discipline at Woolwich and Sandhurst, it had been his fortune during the last few years to gain some knowledge of that, and he did not think that that discipline was too strict. On the contrary, he believed it was attended with this great advantage, that the cadets should learn to obey before they came to rule. If there was a fault in the discipline of those establishments, it was not that it was too strict, but that it was not uniform. If young men were subjected during a week to a system of rigid discipline, and then were; given two days' leave of absence and allowed to run all over London without any control, it was not likely that they would submit without impatience to the discipline which awaited them on their return. As to the question whether the military academies should be united, no doubt that would be an economical step, but he did not believe it was an undesirable thing that officers should have to pass through a Military College. Turning to the practice of other nations, he found that in France, in Prussia, and in nearly every country in Europe where a disciplined force was maintained, persons desiring to enter the army were obliged to submit themselves to
  434
  the special education provided for them at military academies, and he thought the House would do wrong to discourage a course of instruction which had so far been attended with the best possible results. There were points connected with the two institutions adverted to well worthy of the attention of the Secretary for War, but the object should be not to weaken them but to make them more uniform and efficient. Above all, let those who entered them feel that the conditions on which they did so would be fulfilled.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I am sure that the subject brought forward by the noble Lord in a manner so able and creditable to himself will be admitted to be one of great interest and importance. Still I do not think it desirable that the House should agree to an Address for a Commission of Inquiry. The noble Lord is probably not aware that not further back than 1857 there was a Commission, though not a Royal Commission, appointed by Lord Panmure, to inquire into the whole subject of military education. That Commission consisted of Colonel Yolland, of the Engineers; Colonel Swift, of the Artillery, and the Rev Mr. Lake the Commissioners then investigated the whole subject, travelled over the whole of Europe, made themselves acquainted with the various plans of military education in Europe, and investigated the system at that time in force at Woolwich, with reference more especially to the scientific branches of the army. They made a very full and able Report, and I am prepared to lay the Report on the table or to place an adequate number of copies of it in the Library of the House. The system of the Military Academy at Woolwich was materially changed shortly after the appearance of that Report, and the new system at present in force there was almost entirely based on the recommendations of the Commission. Various modifications were also made in consequence of the suggestions of the Council of Military Education, and the result, as far as the scientific branches of the army are concerned, are admitted, I believe, to be eminently satisfactory. I did not understand the noble Lord to say that the system at present in force left anything to be desired in a scientific point of view, but he called attention to complaints on the part of cadets of their treatment, and to disturbances which have taken place. Those disturbances have not been frequent,

  435
  and it is some time since any disturbance of a serious nature has occurred, either at the Academy or the College. Whenever disturbances have taken place, and have been brought to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, he has always had them thoroughly investigated by officers entirely unconnected with the College or the Academy, and the cadets have been invited freely to come forward and state their grounds of complaint. Some modifications of the system have in consequence been made, but it has generally been reported that there were no real grounds for complaint. It appears to me that the question raised is simply this, whether we are to continue to adopt at the Military College and Academy any system of strict military discipline at all. I do not think that in the army any difference of opinion exists on this subject. I do not think it is desirable to allow the cadets the same amount of liberty which is enjoyed at the Universities in this country. I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) that it is desirable that those who are to be placed in command of others should first be taught by a tolerably severe system what it is to obey. In the next place, it must be remembered that the instruction given at these institutions is not intended merely for the benefit of the cadets themselves, to take or to refuse—it is a national object that is contemplated in requiring them to make the best use of their time, that they should not leave without having acquired the knowledge which they came there to acquire. These institutions were kept up at considerable expense to the country, and the House would, not be willing that the cadets should be left to the exercise of their own inclinations, as men are left at Oxford and Cambridge—that it should be entirely optional whether they should make use of the opportunities which are placed in their way, and if they choose to neglect them altogether. Another point referred to was the severity of the examinations for admissions to the Academy and the College. Now, the general scheme of the examination was recommended by the Commission to which I have referred; and, although it is possible that in some instances questions of a more difficult and abstruse nature than may appear necessary were put into the examination paper, it does not follow that it is expected they should all be answered. Those who are acquainted with the system of examination
  436
  know very well that it is not uncommon to put down questions which it is not supposed many of the candidates will be able to answer; but there may be some of unusual attainments who are able to answer them, and who thereby will greatly improve their position in the Academy. That would not deter candidates from competing, and will not tend to make any undue proportion of them unsuccessful. Another point is, whether it is necessary to have these Colleges at all, but I will not enter into that at all, because I think the advantage of having them is sufficiently obvious. Another subject adverted to is, whether it be advisable to have both the Academy and College. This subject was fully considered by the Commission to which I have referred. The proposal of Lord Herbert for the amalgamation of the two institutions did not originate in any mere view of the saving that might be effected. His plan, which was rejected by the House, was, no doubt, that military education should be begun and carried on in the same institution; but supposing a cadet to show either unusual talent or peculiar aptitude for the higher scientific branches of the army, he should after a certain time be transferred and have the opportunity of pursuing them. I will express no opinion as to whether it is desirable that the whole scheme of military education should be contained in one institution—it is a difficult question, but I may say that the inquiries show that the present system has worked very well upon the whole. For myself, I cannot say that I think it would be desirable that any change should at present be made in the present system. No sufficient cause has yet been shown why it should be altered. I have now only to say a single word in reply to the hon. and gallant Officer (Major Knox) who has asked me a question as to the alterations which have been made in the rations of the military academy at Woolwich. All that has happened is this: Finding on inquiry a short time ago that the system of providing rations at Woolwich and Sandhurst was different, and that the provisioning of the cadets at Woolwich appeared to be conducted in a very wasteful manner, it was thought advisable to assimilate the system at Woolwich to that at Sandhurst. The cadets have as much food as it is possible for them to eat, and if there is any deficiency in this respect it would be immediately brought to the attention of the Horse Guards or the War Office by the

  437
  authorities at Sandhurst. The hon. and gallant Officer, therefore, need be under no apprehension if he has any relative there that he is in danger of being starved. No complaint has been made of the quality of the food given. Another point was referred to by the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Ayrshire—namely, that there had not been provided for the cadets at Sandhurst so large a supply of commissions, without purchase, as had been anticipated. But the number of cadets at Sandhurst has not been raised to the full establishment, and the proportion of commissions is not very far below the proportion anticipated. The want is entirely owing to exceptional circumstances. It has arisen from the amalgamation of the Indian with the Imperial army, and the necessity of giving, without purchase, a considerable number of commissions to officers in the Indian service. But these are now nearly provided for, and a number of commissions henceforward will be at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief for the cadets at Sandhurst. I feel that not only the House but the Government and the authorities of the War Office are much indebted to the noble Lord for bringing this subject before their attention; but I do not think it would be advisable to agree to the Address which he has moved. I believe the Council on Military Education is fully competent to investigate the matter. The subject of discipline is not, indeed, under the immediate cognizance of the Council; the Commander-in-Chief is responsible; but I am quite sure that no disturbance or complaint was ever made that did not receive careful and immediate attention. I do not think it would be desirable altogether to abandon the principle of keeping up strict military discipline; it is quite possible, however, that some particulars, not very vital, may be annoying, and alterations might be made. The subject, I am sure, will be carefully dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief and his advisers; and I do not think it advisable that the House should take any step in the matter.
  GENERAL PEEL: There can, Sir, be no difference of opinion either as to the importance of this subject, or the merits of the speech by which it was introduced. My noble Friend (Lord Eustace Cecil) wishes us to see the Report of the Commission, and I must, say I was rather surprised to hear what fell from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War on that
  438
  subject. The Commission was appointed by Lord Panmure, not only to make inquiry with reference to our own army, but also with reference to the other armies of Europe. It was on that Report that he decided to have only one College; and when I came into office in 1858, the Estimates had been prepared. It was then stated that the cadets at Woolwich should afterwards be removed to Sandhurst. An appeal was made to me that the candidates preparing for Woolwich would then be too old for Sandhurst, and measures were taken to enable them to appear at Sandhurst. What was my surprise when I brought forward the Estimates; the very Government that had prepared them turned round and voted against them. It is said that Lord Herbert was of opinion that there should be only one Military College, where those who distinguished themselves most should be selected for the Artillery and Engineers, and afterwards go to Woolwich; but it was only to the arsenal that was intended. With respect to the statement that the College of Sandhurst was entirely paid for by the public up to 1831, I may say, having been there myself in 1814 and 1815, the cadets then paid their own expenses. With regard to the cadets at Sandhurst, the great advantage was that they were able to hold their commissions and continue their studies at the same time. There is no doubt some ground for the complaints of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil); but if the cadets at Woolwich and Sandhurst had all the comforts he had described while they were, undergraduates they would find themselves ten times worse off afterwards. No doubt the noble Marquess is perfectly right in saying that the competitive examinations and the altered ages at which the students are admitted are causes of the insubordination complained of. The competitive examinations are now so high that youths, instead of going direct from the public schools, go to cramming schools, where the discipline is nothing like what it is at Woolwich and Sandhurst, and that no doubt makes them afterwards unwilling to submit to closer discipline. I am convinced that there is great advantage in all officers going through a preliminary residence at a Military College—not merely in order to learn their drill, for that, I allow, is a secondary consideration; but the advantage consists in learning the character of the man before he gets his commission. When he has once obtained his commission it is a very difficult matter

  439
  to get rid of him without going before a court martial, whereas, if by a previous knowledge of him you find that a person is likely to make a good officer he will then obtain his commission, but if you find him unpromising he will not have it. Another reason why the examination for admission into Sandhurst is of a high character is that people go there to compete for the commissions which are given without purchase. The cause of the number of candidates falling off is, as I pointed out the other day, because too many commissions are sold, and a sufficient proportion of them is not offered for competition. Were it only for this reason I should vote for a Commission of Inquiry into these schools, but if my noble Friend likes to wait till we see the Report of Lord Panmure's Commission he can do so. I am convinced, however, it was Lord Panmure's intention to have only one College, and it was undoubtedly my own intention to, but I was out-voted by the people who brought in the Estimates.
  CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, he thought no one acquainted with the present condition and the past history of these Colleges could doubt that very great reform was needed. The question, moreover, whether there should be one or two Military Colleges, was of great importance. The right hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken, than whom there was no higher authority, had expressed his opinion in favour of a single College, and that opinion had been backed by other high authorities; but he (Captain Vivian), for reasons which it was unnecessary to go into on that occasion, humbly ventured to offer an opposite opinion. The Council of Education was not the body to decide a matter of this nature. A question of such importance could only be properly considered by a Royal Commission. The Secretary of State for War objected to the Motion which had been so ably brought forward by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil), on the ground that a Commission was in existence that had been appointed by Lord Panmure; but he knew very well that great alteration had been made at Woolwich and Sandhurst not only with regard to the education of the cadets, but also as to the period of life at which persons were admitted, and this step alone had materially affected the administration of those Colleges. He hoped on these and many other grounds that his noble Friend would consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission, and he was persuaded
  440
  that it would be attended with great benefit to the service.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 132: Majority 20.

  IRELAND—FENIAN PRISONERS AT WATERFORD.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BLAKE, in calling the attention of Mr. Attorney General for Ireland to the severe restrictions to which the prisoners arrested under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act are subjected to in the gaol of Waterford, and to inquire whether specific directions were given by Government as to the treatment of these prisoners; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the nature of such directions; to which of the prison authorities they were transmitted; and through what medium; said, that in bringing before Parliament what he considered the unnecessarily severe restrictions to which the political prisoners confined in the gaol at Waterford were subjected to, he could assure the House that he would not bring the matter forward unless he felt quite sure there was great hardship in the case which he was about to detail, and that it ought to be redressed without delay. He had voted against the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act chiefly from a feeling that so extreme a measure was not required, and that it was more than probable it would be used in a very arbitrary and tyrannical manner by underlings of the Government anxious to show their zeal. What was going on in the city he represented went very far, he thought, to prove he was right in his anticipation. Over a dozen prisoners were confined there on suspicion of complicity with the Fenian conspiracy. The prison was a new building, constructed, he supposed, on the most approved principle for punishment and security. To aid the prison authorities in more effectually guarding the prisoners he alluded to, a military guard was provided, armed sentinels paced up and down before the doors of the cells, and in the exercise yards. Hitherto the Board of Superintendence had the management of the prison, and their directions were carried out by a local inspector and the Governor. He thought the section of the Act of Parliament which he would read was very clear, as to their powers and duties—

  441
  "7 Geo. IV. s. 3, c. 74.—It shall and may be lawful for the Board of Superintendence to inquire concerning the due performance of the rules and regulations in and by this Act prescribed, and required to be observed in prisons throughout Ireland, and also concerning the due performance of such rules and regulations as may have been, or may from time to time be made, by or under the authority of His Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, and also to inquire into the conduct and situation of the prisoners in every such prison or bridewell."
  However, as he was informed, from the time the political prisoners were confined, it seemed as if the Board surrendered their power, so far as these prisoners were concerned, or the power of directing their course of treatment was assumed by a Government officer, Mr. Goold, stipendiary magistrate, a highly respectable gentleman, who, he was sure, only did what he was directed by superior authority. The prison was built on the cellular system; and the supposed Fenian sympathizers were each placed in separate confinement Rule 9 of Prison Regulations lays down that—
  "All prisoners shall be admitted, at proper time in succession, to air themselves in the yard, or yards, for at least two hours every day; except prisoners under sentence of death, or such as are disorderly, or when there may be sufficient cause to apprehend that any escape may be attempted."
  The directions given to the Governor appear to have been that these prisoners should be exercised alone; so that having only two exercise yards, he was not able to have more than two exercising at the same time; and having other prisoners to exercise as well, he could not, as stated, give the political prisoners the two hours a day, so that they were in solitary confinement twenty-two hours out of the twenty-four. The Governor, a retired officer of the navy, was a very humane, upright man, and he had no doubt obeyed his orders as kindly towards the prisoners as he possibly could; and he took for granted that Colonel Roberts, the local inspector, a much respected gentleman, only obeyed some one else's order in directing that the prisoners should be deprived of some of the privileges enjoyed before conviction. Besides being shut up in those cells for upwards of twenty-two hours, these unfortunate men were not allowed to see either their families or friends, or even to consult with the legal advisers, which the former were anxious to send them, in order to prepare cases to submit to the Government with a view to their liberation.
  442
  It might seem incredible that a prisoner should be deprived of the benefit of seeing a legal adviser; but there was one case of the truth of which he believed, which would surprise them. A blacksmith, named Dillon, was arrested for having arms. His wife employed an attorney to defend him, expecting he would be tried at the assizes. The attorney sought admission to him to get instructions, but was refused; so, also, was the wife. Ultimately, the man was not put on his trial; but had he been he would have appeared at the bar without being allowed to adopt the proper means to defend himself. Whoever was accountable for that monstrous act ought to be exposed, and censured. The prisoners were not allowed, even under the inspection of the Governor, to receive or send out any written communications, so that in many instances their poor families were left without information or instructions how to carry on their business, the consequence of which might be very serious. At night, gas was left lighted in their cells, in order that the sentinels might see whether they were in them, although their only mode of getting out, us the door was guarded, would be to make a hole with their bare hands in the solid stone wall, and another in the outer wall; but since Stephens had outwitted the Government, there was an impression that a Fenian could make light of bolts and stone walls. For some Sundays past the prisoners had not been allowed to go to mass even though a military guard was in the prison. When first he heard those statements he hardly believed so much cruelty, injustice, and absurdity would be perpetrated in the blacksmith's case. He wrote to the attorney, a very leading practitioner, to know if what he heard was true, and he confirmed every word of it. He saw by a local paper that the prisoners had complained of part of their treatment to a committee of the grand jury who visited the prison. The latter reported the matter to the jury on their return, and as it was usual to lay such matters before the Judge, he supposed the Executive had heard of it also; but nothing had been done. He had numbers of letters from trustworthy persons confirming all he stated, and he would now like to know from the representative of the Irish Government in the House what had he to say about it? Was it by the orders or with the knowledge of the Government that the prisoners were treated with all this useless

  443
  annoyance, certain to prove detrimental to their health, and probably to their reason as well. He was not then going to censure the Government for arresting these men, although he, believing the proof of being engaged in the conspiracy was very trifling, indeed, against some of them. But whatever justification there might be for arresting them, there was none at all for treating them worse than the untried murderer or robber. He begged of the Attorney General to make inquiries into the truth of the statements he had made, and to put a stop to inflicting such severities on untried and uncharged men. He would respectfully ask him were the Government justified when they suspended the Habeas Corpus Act in also setting aside the local prison authorities, and directing a course of treatment towards men whom they had not sufficient evidence to put on their trials, as if they had been found guilty? If the Government were accountable for this they were committing a most unjust and highly impolitic act; and if the act was really theirs, and that they persevered in it, they might feel assured they would only earn for themselves the disapprobation of every well-thinking man, the contempt of foreign nations, and incur the deserved resentment, not only of the prisoners themselves, but of a numerous body of their countrymen at home and abroad, who would be certain to sympathize with them.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he thought the manner in which the Government carried out the extraordinary powers conferred upon them ought to be jealously watched. Those powers, however necessary, should be exercised in the way that was in the least possible degree offensive to the people of the country. Persons were now sometimes taken up in Ireland upon very trifling reasons, and they certainly ought not to be subjected to any harsher or more stringent restrictions than were necessary for their safe custody, and the prevention of their carrying on any conspiracy against the Government. It should be understood that the Government took charge of that class of prisoners, and that the magistrates should not be held responsible either for their safe custody or for the mode in which they were treated, and he trusted that orders to that effect would be issued. He would recommend that the Government should send round to the different gaols instructions stating what was the treatment which the prisoners should receive.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Members that these prisoners ought not to be subjected to any restrictions save those which were required for their safe custody; and he believed that that rule had been fully adopted in the gaol of Waterford. As soon as he saw the Notice which the hon. Member had put upon the Paper he caused inquiries to be instituted upon the subject, and these inquiries led him to believe that the hon. Gentleman had been misinformed upon the case. He had been furnished with a statement from which it appeared that these prisoners were not subject to any severe restrictions, and in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman whether the Government had given specific directions with respect to their treatment he had to observe that the prisoners who were taken up under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, who were not arrested upon trifling, but upon grave and serious grounds, were under the control of the Local Board of Superintendence, in common with other classes of prisoners, and the Government, therefore, had no authority to give any orders as to their treatment. The treatment to which the prisoners arrested under the measure for the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were subjected was no exception to that rule. It so happened that the local authorities applied to the Inspector General of Prisons to know how those persons were to be treated, and the answer of the Inspector General was, that they should be treated as untried prisoners; that they should be allowed to supply themselves if they pleased with food, and that they should not be compelled to wear the prison clothes. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was further informed that those instructions had been complied with—that the prisoners received through their friends abundant supplies of good food, and that they were not obliged to wear the prison clothing; so that the statements made upon the subject by the hon. Gentleman were not well founded, and he must have been misled by his informants.
  MR. MAGUIREthanked the hon. and learned Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) for having expressed the opinion of every rational man in the country on that matter—namely, that while the Government had a right to be supported in the maintenance of law and order, they would not only deserve censure if they went one jot beyond

  445
  what necessity required, but would greatly assist in spreading a feeling of discontent in Ireland. These prisoners must be regarded as men who had been proved to be guilty of no crime; and it would be monstrous to treat them with a severity to which unconvicted burglars and murderers were not subjected. When they had got hold of a man like Stephens they did not keep him safely, and now they appeared to be adopting very harsh and severe restrictions against every miserable creature on whom they laid their hands. He had a satisfactory account of the rules enforced in the gaol in the city of Cork, but it was asserted to him that that class of prisoners in the Cork county gaol were treated with greater vigour than ordinary untried prisoners. Many of these persons had been taken up in his own city and in other parts of Ireland, against whom no case could stand for a moment before a Judge of Assize; and out of the 500 they could not fairly reckon upon obtaining verdicts for the Crown against 200. He understood that in the county gaol of Cork the prisoners were allowed but two hours for exercise each day, and that during the other twenty-two hours they were kept in solitary confinement. They were only permitted to see their relatives twice a week, and they could not have free communication with a legal adviser, for the warders were present when friends came to see them. Now, that was a state of absolute and rigorous punishment, which he held to be utterly unjustifiable; and, although he admitted that a satisfactory answer had been given by the Attorney General for Ireland to the statement made by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), he thought that in the case of the county gaol of Cork the powers given by the recent Act had been greatly abused. At the time when the House resolved to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act the Government promised distinctly that the powers intrusted to them should be exercised with prudence and clemency. He contended, however, that the Government had not acted according to its promise, and that persons who had not been proved guilty of any offence by a jury of their countrymen ought not to be treated as the prisoners were at the gaol of Cork. Such harshness and cruelty were not necessary to preserve the peace of the country. He urged the Government to institute a searching inquiry into the antecedents of the prisoners, and, if it, should be found that there was no real
  446
  reason for detaining them from their families and ordinary employment, to liberate them. Should, however, conclusive evidence of the guilt of the men be found, of course then they should be held in custody.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not recollect any promise being given by the Government that the powers vested in the Executive by the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act should be exercised with great leniency. But however that might be, the first object of the Government was to preserve the safety and the peace of the country, and after that to see that no unnecessary hardships were inflicted. As it was a matter of considerable importance, he thought it desirable that there should be no misunderstanding with respect to it. It was obviously right and desirable that no unnecessary hardship should be inflicted on those prisoners. The case of those confined in the gaol of Waterford had been brought under the notice of the House; the Attorney General for Ireland had inquired into that case; and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) admitted, after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the charge made in that particular instance had not been borne out. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the alleged ill-treatment of prisoners in the county gaol of Cork. Now, upon that point, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could only state that when any such abuse as that of which the hon. Member complained was indicated in any credible manner, the Government would immediately cause an inquiry to be instituted for the purpose of ascertaining whether such proceedings had actually taken place. The Government held firmly by the principle that unconvicted prisoners who were arrested under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act were to be treated in the same manner as all other untried prisoners. He ventured to promise, on the part of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, that inquiry would be made into the Cork county gaol case, or any similar case; and that was the only assurance he could then give upon the subject.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, there had been two statements made upon that occasion—one with regard to the gaol of Waterford, and the other with regard to the county gaol of Cork; but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Maguire) who had alluded to

  447
  the latter subject had laid before them mere general allegations, and had stated no specific facts. He (Mr. Roebuck) believed that if the Attorney General for Ireland had an opportunity of inquiring into those allegations, as he had inquired into the detailed charges with respect to the Waterford Gaol, he would find that they were equally unfounded. The hon. Member for Cork used a curious expression when he told them that these prisoners had been proved not to be guilty. ["Mr. MAGUIRE: I beg your pardon. I did not say so.] I beg your pardon, you did. I corrected you at the time. These men have not been proved to be guilty; but they have not been proved to be not guilty. [Mr. MAGUIRE: I did not say they had.] I beg your pardon, you did.
  MR. MAGUIRE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a matter of Parliamentary—shall I say, practice?—I wish to ask you, whether one hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to stand up and declare, without any knowledge on his own part, that a statement, conscientiously made by another hon. Gentleman, will, on inquiry, prove unfounded? I can only say, that if that is our practice, the sooner we have a Reform Bill the better.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear any expression fall from the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that appeared to call for my interposition.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I did not understand the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to say that the hon. Member for Cork had stated anything that he knew to be untrue. He only said that he expected that the statement of the hon. Gentleman would, on inquiry, turn out to be unfounded.

IRELAND—FATAL RIOT AT THE ELECTION FOR MONAGHAN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that he was not averse to proceedings in Courts of Law being criticized by the press; on the contrary, he believed such criticism exerted a very beneficial influence in the country. He had no objection whatever to Judges, counsel, witnesses, and all parties being fairly dealt with by the critic. The particular journal to which he referred—The Times—lately published an article of consummate ability relative to a cause of great importance, but the criticism which he was about to notice referred to a criminal trial which recently took place in Mona-
  448
  ghan, arising out of the last election for that county, and he now asked the permission of the House to make a few remarks upon what was reported to have then occurred. He did not intend to complain of the criticisms of the journal which had yesterday taken up the matter; his object was simply to state the facts. On the 22nd of July, on the Saturday, the electors of the county of Monaghan were invited to record their votes at the very pleasing and formerly happy village of Castle Blayney, and a number of those electors assembled in the domain of a gentleman situate in the immediate neighbourhood of that place. The night previous to the election the Government very properly sent a military and a police force into Castle Blayney. The House should understand that a new theory had been broached in Ireland, which was not very satisfactory to the electors—namely, that the non-electors should attend the electors on the day of election, and dispose of them as might be found most convenient. He believed all parties to be most amicably disposed towards each other. The Government sent to the town a stipendiary magistrate and an additional force of police. On Friday night a large body of electors arrived there, and there was a disturbance, but the police authorities got the better of the rioters, a number of whom were seized, and very properly prosecuted, and prosecuted to conviction by the Government. A large body of non-electors also assembled in the town on the morning on which the polling took place, who were pleased to receive in not a very polite manner those adventurous voters who went to the poll, who in return called them, without the slightest respect, a mob. It also appeared that early on the Saturday morning a number of electors, who entered the town without any guard, were in a very disagreeable manner, legs foremost, removed from the car on which they were conveyed, and carried off by persons employed for that purpose. As soon as the resident magistrate was informed of the fact he proceeded to the place where those men were confined, and released them, and they afterwards voted for one of the candidates. That part of the proceedings passed off, but a party of 200 electors—a number sufficient to turn the election—arrived in the town from a place called Ballybay to vote for the Conservative candidate, accompanied by the old rector of the parish. It was a question of considerable nicety how to get those men to the poll. It had been thought

  449
  better to place them in a special train, to which no one but the electors were admitted, and thus to convey them to Castle Blayney, where they would be received by a guard. They reached that town about eleven o'clock. One of the voters, a most respectable man, having been hustled by a number of persons, the magistrate swore that he took him to the polling-booth, and seeing that he had a pistol, asked him to give it to him. The man, whose name was Gray, did so, the pistol was afterwards restored to him, and there was nothing further remarkable in the circumstance. Gray was a man whose father was described by Mr. Wyse in his history of the Catholic Association as having taken an honourable part in the Catholic question, and there was no reason why he should have any dislike towards the person whom he was accused of having murdered. It appeared, however, that after the 200 electors had voted, it became a matter for consideration what was to be done with them until the starting of the special train, which was not to leave the town till three o'clock. Permission was obtained for them to enter the domain of the gentleman whom he had already mentioned, and there they remained for two hours enjoying the scenery until the magistrate was ready to convey them back to the railway station. Accompanied by a troop of fifty Lancers, consisting of an advanced guard, a rear guard, and flanks, the electors, well-protected in the centre, were escorted by a back way—for the magistrate very properly determined that it was not desirable to take them through the street—but when they reached a passage leading to the cattle-market a shower of stones and brickbats was hurled at them by the mob. One of the Lancers swore that he had his jaw broken, and that he suffered under the injury which he sustained for three or four months. The old rector of the parish was struck twice. No shots were fired for the best of all reasons, because they had, he believed, no firearms. The voters and their escort, however, reached the station about half past two, thus, unfortunately, having half an hour to wait for the starting of the special train. During that time, being obliged to stay where they were, they were attacked on all sides, and wherever they appeared they were pelted with stones. The magistrate read the Riot Act, and a lieutenant of Lancers, it was said without authority, charged the mob at the head of his men. During that interval it was that the event
  450
  occurred to which attention had been called in the article to which he referred. A man named Shevelin was struck twice on the head; the doctor said not dangerously; but then somebody rushed forward suddenly, fired, and shot him dead. The question was whether the prisoner Gray was the man who was guilty of the murder. The Crown contended that he was, and it might be remarked that he belonged to the Conservative, or, as it was more distinctly called in the part of the country in question, the Protestant party. On the trial four witnesses were produced on behalf of the Crown. The first was a Lancer—a man named Heffernan, who said he was present on the occasion when Shevelin was shot; that he saw the ear of the man who fired, but not his face, and that he believed the prisoner, judging from his figure, to be that person. He could not, however, identify him, and added that the whole affair lasted not more than half a minute. Another Lancer gave evidence, who swore that he had a front view of the man who fired the shot, and that that man was not the prisoner. But the Crown produced, and very properly produced, a boy who said that he saw the disturbance, that there was a wall seven feet high between him and the station, but that he managed to raise himself up so that he had a view of what was going on, and he undertook to identify the prisoner as the man who fired the shot, although he had never seen him before. A surveyor, having drawn a plan of the place, stated that it was possible to see the figure of the man from the spot where the boy described himself as having been stationed, but not the lineaments of his face. None of the other witnesses carried the case further, and the trial taking place on Saturday and not being finished, it was adjourned till Monday. Now came the circumstances of which he complained. On the Sunday morning, before they went to church, the persons interested for the defence found the names of two persons, Kearnan and Wilde, on the back of the indictment, who were to come forward as witnesses for the prosecution without having previously made any deposition or statement which would enable Gray's solicitors to know who or what they were, or what it was they were about to prove; illustrating the saying of Curran as to an apparition appearing suddenly in the witness-box to be the supreme arbiter of life and death. Those two persons, it was discovered on Sunday, lived

  451
  in the top room of a not very good house, paying 8d. a week for their lodgings, and it was shown that a person standing up or sitting down in that room could not see the railway station, although by lying down and placing himself in a crouching position he might obtain a view of it. It appeared, moreover, during the progress of the trial that a committee had been formed to procure subscriptions for the purpose of securing the conviction of the accused man, and accordingly these two witnesses appeared and swore that they saw the man who fired the shot through a window through which it was almost impossible that he could be seen without looking askance. He might add that they had been present at the inquest on the body of the man who was killed, which was held quite close to their house, and yet they had never given any information as to what they had seen until afterwards, so that they came before the Court under very suspicious circumstances. Yet the statement which had inadvertently been made the day before in a journal of vast influence was that four witnesses clearly identified the man, which was a complete misapprehension of the case. Under these circumstances the prisoner was properly acquitted; but what he (Mr. Whiteside) complained of was, that the case had been so strained, that these men who were neither examined at the inquest nor before the grand jury, should have been allowed to come forward at the last moment and endeavour to swear an innocent man's life away. It was no objection that the jury was composed of Protestants, because the number of Protestants on the panel was large. As to the statement that the High Sheriff conducted a body of voters to the poll, he had only to say that that gentleman was not High Sheriff at the time, and he acted as he did because he was told by a magistrate that he ought to protect those voters. That was all he did, and he never interfered in the trial, which was conducted in the usual course of law. It had been rightly said that this man was armed, but he was armed in self-defence, and he produced four witnesses to prove that he was not the man who fired the shot. He thought the House had a right to expect that the Attorney General for Ireland would not in future allow unauthorized persons to interfere in prosecutions, bat would leave them to be conducted by the proper functionaries.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, it was not his intention to find fault with the
  452
  verdict of the jury, but he must say that prosecutions in Ireland ought to be conducted on fair principles, and that juries should be so constituted as to induce the people to have perfect confidence in the impartial administration of justice. He protested against the very small proportion of Roman Catholics returned to the sheriff in the list from which the jury was taken, and also that the person who made it out should be the barony constable. He conceived that the system of jury panelling in Ireland was well worthy the attention of the Government. The persons who made the jury-book were the barony constables, and they were elected by the county grand juries, which were so constituted as to have a one-sided character.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside), had erred against the usual practice of not travelling beyond the terms of his Notice in commenting on the proceedings of a legal tribunal. He fancied, from the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman, that his statement would relate to the conduct of the High Sheriff. But what had the right hon. Gentleman done? He had given a graphic and a more or less correct account of the Monaghan election. The right hon. Gentleman produced no authority for his statement, but only said that it was a true account. Now, it so happened that, living in the neighbouring county, he had himself formed as to the facts of the case an opinion totally at variance with the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. [Mr. WHITESIDE: They were all proved.] But the right hon. Gentleman did not say where or when they were proved. Statements with respect to elections in Ireland were not unfrequently made in that House which afterwards turned out to be inaccurate. The statements made by the right hon. Gentleman must have reference to what passed at the trial, and the right hon. Gentleman constituted himself a volunteer reporter, and gave his own summary of the evidence on what was, after all, a collateral issue, because the question as to the manner in which the election was conducted was not before the jury. He thought it most undesirable that counsel engaged in trials, criminal or otherwise, should come to that House and give their own statements of the evidence which had been adduced. With respect to the trial at Monaghan, the simple fact was that a man had been tried for murder and acquitted by

  453
  a jury of his countrymen. Unfortunately, religious differences and animosities greatly interfered with the impartiality of juries in Ireland. It was therefore most desirable that every effort should be made to put the constitution of juries above suspicion. Riots, as they all knew, had taken place at Belfast, in which several murders were committed. There were the most aggravated assaults on both sides, yet not one single conviction had been obtained at the assizes, He did not charge partiality on the juries exclusively on one side. In one part of the country a jury of Roman Catholics would invariably acquit; in another a jury of Protestants would as invariably acquit. It was therefore advisable to act as far as possible on the direction giving by Baron Pigott in a certain case to obtain a jury of half Roman Catholics and half Protestants. The result in that case was that a satisfactory verdict was obtained. The case tried at Monaghan was a very remarkable one. It was a case of murder, which occurred when a party of voters were retiring from a contested election. The greatest possible prejudice existed on both sides, and the verdict necessarily depended on the constitution of the jury. The High Sheriff, it was admitted, had taken a very strong part at the election.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that he had already stated as a matter of fact that the High Sheriff, Mr. Lucas, was not High Sheriff at the time of the election. He acted merely as an ordinary private gentleman.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, that he had no intention of misleading the House. He thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the gentleman who became High Sheriff in 1866 did conduct voters to the poll in 1865. That was the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Mr. WHITESIDE: No!] The High Sheriff who presided at the assizes, and who formed the jury panel, had taken a leading part in the election. The same gentleman, Mr. Lucas, in 1838 had been charged with a want of impartiality in the administration of justice as a magistrate. An inquiry was ordered by the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and Mr. Lucas was dismissed from the commission of the peace. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in saying that it was to be expected that a majority of the jurors in Monaghan should be Protestants. He lived within a mile or two of the county, and he knew that a
  454
  majority of the farmers were Roman Catholics. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Not of the jury panel.] There were fifty-seven Catholics on the list of jurors. At the trial there were five peremptory challenges—three of Catholics and two of Protestants of Liberal opinions, but no one was ordered by the Crown to stand aside. A jury of twelve Protestants were empannelled, who were known to hold strong political opinions, to try a ease in which strong political prejudices might be expected to influence men's minds. The result was a verdict of acquittal. That the trial was influenced by the jury panel was an opinion strongly entertained in Monaghan. It was most undesirable that such a state of things; should exist, and serious blame was attributable to the Law Officers of the Crown, who ought to have taken steps to secure the impartial administration of justice in Ireland. Very lately the Law Officers of the Crown had to conduct a series of political trials, and they had conducted them very well; but it was notorious that they had ordered a considerable number of jurors to stand aside because they believed, and rightly, that their political prejudices would influence their verdict. He blamed them for not even seeking to prevent the appearance of partiality in the constitution of juries in Monaghan. There was such a thing in criminal trials as changing the venue. That had been done in the case of the Rev. Father Peter Conway, where the venue was changed from Mayo to Dublin. The Law Officers of the Crown were perfectly aware of these facts; their attention was drawn to the desirableness for the interests of the administration of justice that the constitution of the panel should be closely watched, and they must have known before the trial took place the actual constitution of the panel, and the singular exclusion from it of Roman Catholics. He could not understand, therefore, why the Government should not have changed the venue of the trial. He should also mention that two men who were holding and beating the murdered man when he was shot in the back, were also tried by a jury consisting exclusively of Protestants, the only Roman Catholic who was called being desired to stand aside, it might be not without good reason. He believed the father of these men had been accused of slaying three men at different times in the same county. He had been convicted for murder, but the verdict was quashed at the time of Mr. O'Connell's appeal on

  455
  technical grounds. [Mr. WHITESIDE said, that the father was convicted only of firing with intent to kill.] He had only alluded to these things to show how the impression in Ireland had originated; that impartiality in such trials was not to be expected. He thought some explanation was required from the Law Officers of Ireland as to this case. The facts he had detailed were sufficient to account for the want of confidence in the administration which prevailed among the Irish people. There was one passage in the article in The Times to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred. It was as follows:—
  "Mr. Whiteside, who conducted Gray's defence with great ability, put the whole matter in a light perfectly intelligible to an Ulster jury when he stated that Shevelin's death, however much to be deplored, might be a salutary lesson to riotous mobs of non-electors."
  He was surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman had made no remark on this passage.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had not adhered to the terms of his notice, which was to draw attention to certain statements in the leading journal—The Times—reflecting on the administration of justice in the county of Monaghan by the High Sheriff of that county. He (Mr. Sullivan) did not expect, after reading that notice, to hear a long account of the circumstances which led to the trial which had been mentioned. The only passage in the article of The Times which reflected on the High Sheriff was this—
  "In this very instance the Orange contingent is alleged to have been led by Mr. Lucas, the present High Sheriff, and if this be true it is certainly an untoward circumstance that a gentleman personally interested in the transaction to be investigated should now fill that responsible position."
  As one of the officers of the Crown he must say it would have been much better if Mr. Lucas had not been High Sheriff at the time of this trial. Not that he thought that gentleman would be influenced by party considerations in the discharge of the onerous duties imposed upon him in that capacity; but the administration of justice ought ever to be above suspicion, and the people could not be expected to rely on the impartial administration of the law unless that principle was strictly observed. He quite allowed, therefore, that the case called for some explanation, and this he would proceed at once to give. High
  456
  Sheriffs in Ireland, as the House were probably aware, were selected by the Executive from three names which were sent in for each county by the Judges, and the invariable usage was to select the first gentleman on the list. [Cries of "No, no!"] He should, perhaps, have said the usual course was to do so, and the first name on the list was not-set aside without some grave reason. In the present instance, the only person really able to determine whether the part taken by Mr. Lucas in the election disqualified him from being High Sheriff this year was his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Lawson), and his right hon. Friend, not being able to address the House a second time, authorized him to state that he took upon himself whatever blame the appointment might be thought to deserve. The fact was that his right hon. Friend fully intended to call the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to the circumstances of the case, not that he thought Mr. Lucas had interfered in the election in any way which would render his position as High Sheriff an embarrassing one, but he conceived that it would be better to avoid any suspicion of partiality. Owing, however, to the enormous pressure of business connected with the proceedings of the Special Commission for the trial of the Fenian prisoners, the appointment of Mr. Lucas, as Sheriff, was made before the Attorney General had an opportunity of conferring with his Excellency. Considering, then, that for the Government to supersede the High Sheriff on the very eve of the trial would have been open to grave imputation, the best course seemed to be not to meddle with the appointment, his right hon. Friend believing that Mr. Lucas would discharge his duty with the utmost fairness, and a close investigation had satisfied the Government that he had done so. With the result of the trial no reasonable person acquainted with the principles of our law could find fault, and the reasons for that opinion could not be better stated than in the very article on which the right hon. Member for Dublin University had commented. Its words were these—
  "The swearing on both sides was so hard, and the undoubted fact of great confusion prevailing at the time was so favourable to the defence, that an acquittal was inevitable."
  The evidence was so conflicting that it could not be said that there was no reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt, and to the benefit of that doubt the prisoner was

  457
  entitled. One other point he must allude to. What was the motive of the right hon. Gentleman in giving the whole history of the transaction he could hardly say. At one moment he thought his intention was to argue that the act was justifiable, and to a certain extent that seemed to be his object. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman in his defence of the prisoner—
  "That some good might arise from what had taken place, because it would deter others from interfering to prevent the right of voting."
  Such language was an unnecessary and an indefensible appeal to the passions of the jury. He (Mr. Sullivan) maintained that the man's death was as clear a murder as was ever committed His life was wantonly taken without provocation, and when the voters were sufficiently protected. Under these circumstances, he put it to his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Whiteside) whether his observations merely were not calculated to rouse party passions, which it was the paramount duty of every Member of that House to endeavour to appease. The hon. Member for Longford was right in saying that the venue might have been changed. No doubt the Law Officers of the Crown were bound to consider this point. They did so, and came to the conclusion that they could not go to the Court of Queen's Bench and say that a fair trial could not be had in the county of Monaghan, which was a condition precedent to the consent of the Court to a change of venue. With respect to the setting aside of jurors, no man was directed to stand aside on the ground of his religious or political opinions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had hinted at some aid having been given by some committee or other to the Crown in the prosecution. There was not a particle of foundation for such a statement. The administration of justice did not, either in England or Ireland, admit of such aid, and nothing was more strictly watched by the Crown prosecutors in Ireland than any interference by collateral or interested parties. He would submit, in conclusion, that the Law Officers of the Crown had done their duty and that no blame attached to them in this matter.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he must express his astonishment that a simple Notice such as that placed upon the Paper by his right hon. and learned Friend should have led to a debate of such a character. His (Mr. Whiteside's) object was to correct an in-
  458
  advertent and mistaken report in the leading journal of the day in reference to the manner in which his hon. and learned Friend, as the counsel engaged, had conducted this case. His object was twofold—first, to state that nothing of corruption or impropriety of conduct had appeared in the acts of the Sheriff or the swearing of the jury, and next to correct an unfair imputation that four credible witnesses had sworn to the identity of the man who was upon his trial. He did not believe that his right hon. and learned Friend had the slightest intention of impugning the conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Hear, hear!] It was, however, an unusual thing that any one should be allowed to interfere with a Crown prosecution, and it was stated on the trial that a committee had been appointed and funds collected to get up evidence in order to patch up the case. His right hon. and learned Friend had shown that there was no ground for impeaching the conduct of the Sheriff.
  MR. SERJEANT ARMSTRONGsaid, that having read the article in The Times the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) was not satisfied with coming from the county of Monaghan with his blushing honours thick upon him, but he must come down to that House determined to have a second verdict in his favour—determined to be not only his own reporter but almost his own trumpeter, and demanding of the House in effect to have the case re-tried. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had called in question the main statement on which the comments of The Times were founded—namely, that four persons had deposed to the fact that the prisoner Gray had inflicted the deadly wound upon the deceased man. Now, he was not himself about to ask the House to re-try the case or to travel again over the evidence; and he must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having earned his fee and come back to this country to spend it, as an Irish gentleman ought, should have rested content, and should not have expected a re-investigation of the case. But, as the right hon. and learned Member had taken upon himself to challenge the accuracy of the statement of The Times, he must, on his own part, state that four persons did depose that the prisoner Gray was the man who discharged the fatal shot. There were some observations, perhaps, in the article of The Times to which the right

  459
  hon. and learned Gentleman—if he did not in his own mind regret the language which he had used at Monaghan—might have objected. Certainly, he had employed a strength of expression which, however it might be pardoned as coming from the counsel for a prisoner, who sometimes took great licence, particularly in Ireland, no man would venture to repeat in this House or in any reasonable society in this country. [Mr. WHITESIDE: I say that not only would I repeat it—"Order, order!"] He was astonished that some feeling of annoyance at The Times having presumed to animadvert upon his conduct should have induced the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bring the matter forward. He himself repudiated the notion of there retrying that case; but when the attention Of the House had been invited to an alleged misstatement of the leading journal, he must take leave to point out that the fact to which he had referred was testified to by four witnesses. With respect to what had been said about the committee at Castle Blayney for getting up subscriptions for the prosecution, he must distinctly state that on that occasion neither he himself as representing the Attorney General for Ireland, nor the eminent and learned Gentlemen who were associated with him in the case, nor the Crown Solicitor, nor any person on the staff connected with the Crown, had to his knowledge or belief any communication with or assistance from that committee or any person acting on its behalf. They knew nothing at all about it, and went to Monaghan perfectly ready to conduct their own case. As to the production of witnesses who had not sworn informations in the ordinary way, no one knew better than the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. George) that it was not a sufficient reason for rejecting the testimony of a witness in Ireland that he had hesitated till a late period, or even till the Assizes, to give his evidence. Sometimes in Ireland it was difficult to get witnesses to come forward at all. If a man and his wife went to the Crown Solicitor and stated that they both saw a certain thing done, and that they were ready to swear to it, what was the Crown Officer to do but to lay instructions to that effect before counsel? That had happened in this instance, and he and his learned colleagues therefore held a consultation, when it struck them all that of course the prisoner's counsel would animadvert upon the fact of
  460
  those witnesses having come forward at the last moment as being a circumstance throwing suspicion on their testimony. But the man and his wife were persons of good character, on which, after they had undergone cross-examination, no blemish was left. He had never seen or known them before himself, and it was not for him to have said that they were unworthy of credit, merely because they had delayed in regard to giving their evidence. The value of their evidence under all the circumstances was a matter to be left for the jury; and in any similar case he would to-morrow repeat the course he had taken. In what a position would counsel conducting prosecutions for the Crown be placed, if they assumed the responsibility of discarding such witnesses as perjurers? He maintained that after what had taken place in that House, the High Sheriff of the county came badly out of that business. He was a fine, bluff, honest, country gentleman, and when he came to read his Times of to-morrow morning, and found it recorded to all time that some twenty-eight years ago, "in the merry days when he was young," he was dismissed from the commission of the peace, he would be apt to exclaim, "This is what Mr. Whiteside has brought upon me; save me from my friends!" With respect to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for Longford, he would only say that a rule had long prevailed that had been recommended by high authority, by which a certain class of persons were set aside at jury trials in Ireland wholly irrespective of creed. It had been a practice to set aside publicans, and probably the person referred to had been set aside under that rule. At all events, he could positively state he was not set aside because he was a Roman Catholic, and that he (Mr. Serjeant Armstrong) would be no party to so monstrous an Act. He might say with regard to the jury, that on a panel of about 300 not thirty were Roman Catholics, and of the 100 who answered to their names only nineteen were Roman Catholics. It followed that the prisoner, who could challenge twenty peremptorily, might have an exclusively Protestant jury, and, in fact, he had it. Still, having regard to the principles upon which the criminal law of the country was administered, by which the jury were always directed to give the prisoner the benefit of the doubt, in the present instance the jury were perfectly justified in giving their verdict of acquittal, as the

  461
  evidence was conflicting, and reasonably suggestive of a doubt.
  MR. S. B. MILLERsaid, he thought that Mr. Lucas had reason to complain of the way in which he had been dealt with in this discussion. He contended that the hon. Member for Longford had unjustly raked up a dismissal of that gentleman from office which took place: twenty-eight years ago. Since then Her Majesty's Government had thought it right to reinstate him as High Sheriff for the county; the Judges recommended Mr. Lucas for the office, and the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General had sanctioned that appointment. He had been struck by an observation that fell from the Solicitor General, that no person was allowed to assist in a ease conducted by the Crown. Now, from his own knowledge, he had found this statement to be incorrect. He knew that solicitors and counsel had been allowed to act with the counsel for the Crown, and he had himself held a brief under such circumstances. The next of kin had repeatedly instructed both solicitors and counsel, and they had taken their turn in the examination of witnesses. With respect to the time which had been occupied in the discussion, he did not think that the paragraph which had been referred to could have been made intelligible without giving a statement of the facts which had led to it.
  MR. COGANsaid, he did not think the time of the House had been at all wasted in discussing the administration of justice in Ireland, and thought a great deal of credit was due to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) for having brought the Monaghan trials under the notice of the House. There was a widespread feeling of astonishment and dissatisfaction at the manner in which the trials had been conducted, and it was a striking fact that the jury panels, consisting of 300 persons, contained the names of only fifty-seven Roman Catholics, and that the first panel contained no more than seven, so that under no circumstance could more than seven have been challenged. It was a matter of surprise, considering what happened years before, that the present Sheriff should be in that office at the time of the trials. He considered it the duty of the Government to deal with the jury laws in Ireland so as to prevent such a miscarriage of justice as had taken place in this instance, where a foul murder had been committed and no person had been made amenable to justice.

  TURNPIKE TRUSTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Turnpike Trusts, 1864, in which they state that—
  "Tolls are unequal in pressure, costly in collection, inconvenient to the public, and injurious as causing a serious impediment to intercourse and traffic, and that the abolition thereof would be beneficial to the community,"
  and to ask what steps the Government intended to take to give effect to the said Report. If ever there was a ease of breach of duty on the part of the Government, it was their not having followed up the recommendations contained in the Report of 1864 There was no subject which had led to so many riots even in Wales, one of the most peaceable localities in Europe. Ireland, with all her alleged wrongs, had not a single toll bar. The system of turnpike trusts operated as a great wrong throughout the country. The effect was, to relieve landowners from their common law liability of keeping the roads in repair, and to keep up a rapacious body of lawyers, surveyors, and officials by an unjust tax on the public. They were originally constituted with the view to the improvement of our roads, and nothing could be more just than that the repayment of the money required for making new or repairing old roads should be raised by moans of a charge on the districts which were liable at common law, though it must, he thought, be admitted that turnpike tolls were the most costly and inconvenient system which could be adopted for the purpose. It appeared that nearly £1,000,000 a year was now raised under these trusts, notwithstanding that the payment of the charge within a period which had expired had been promised by the trustees. They had therefore not kept faith with the public, and he had to complain that the Government should renew the trusts from year to year in a Bill brought in at the end of the Session, and generally speaking at two o'clock in the morning, without giving any good reason for continuing to impose so heavy a tax on the public. The authorities at the Home Office were—doubtless owing to the pressure of local influence—not discharging their duty when they said that they were getting rid of the turnpikes by putting them in the schedules. They ought not to be satisfied with that, but they ought to do something themselves, or else

  463
  encourage any efforts, however humble, made by independent Members. In the Bill introduced by him there was a provision which had received the approval of the late Sir George Lewis, and which would entirely remedy the present state of things. That provision was with respect to trusts which had expired that when application was made to Parliament for a renewal of the trusts it should be a condition that the tolls to be collected should be applied, not to the repair of the roads, but solely to the liquidation of the remainder of the debt. As regarded those cases in which the trust had not expired, he (Mr. Whalley) would recommend that the landowners should have power voluntarily to abolish them, a step which they would act wisely if they took, for the greater part of tolls was derived from local traffic, and it would be infinitely better to raise the money by a rate than by a system which was most inconvenient, most costly, and most injurious. He wished to know what steps the Government intended to take to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of 1864?
  MR. BARINGsaid, he thought that the hon. Member's speech might have been more appropriately delivered on the second reading of his own Bill, to the principle of which the Government could not agree, because they did not think that it could be acted upon to any public advantage. With regard to the statesman who had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and whose name always carried with it the greatest possible respect in that House, he must observe that Sir George Lewis was not at the Home Office subsequently to the Report of the Committee of 1864, and that while at the Home Office he brought forward no such measure as that described by the hon. Gentleman. He was, therefore, unaware of the grounds on which the hon. Member stated that Sir George Lewis would have supported such a measure.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) had mentioned to him that that was the view of Sir George Lewis; and in an interview on the Highways Bill he had himself been given to understand by Sir George Lewis that such was the case.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough that the Committee of which his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford was
  464
  Chairman had made a Report by no means in accordance with his views. One question was, whether turnpike trusts which were free from debt should be at once abolished? That was negatived by the Committee. Another point of still more importance was, supposing turnpike trusts abolished, how the expense of keeping the roads in repair should be borne? [Mr. WHALLEY: Each parish is at common law bound to repair its own roads.] The common law principle was inapplicable, for they were not local parish roads. Every one was aware how exceedingly disagreeable turnpike tolls were; but the expense of maintaining the roads in a proper state of repair must be provided for; and the Committee were utterly unable to recommend any feasible scheme by which turnpike tolls should be abolished. Whenever any tangible scheme was brought forward it was negatived. The proposal to throw the expense of keeping up the roads on the parishes through which they passed was negatived by thirteen to four. The next difficulty was how to fix the district upon which the burden should fall; and the Committee, having negatived a proposal that it should be put upon the highway district, and another that it should be put upon the county, came to no conclusion upon this essential matter. The only practical paragraph in the Report was the last, and on that the Government had acted. It recommended that attention should be directed to the several turnpike trusts whose Acts were continued from year to year by the Annual Continuance Act, and that those which were free from debt should be thrown open. In 1863 92 miles of turnpike roads had been thrown open on the expiration of their Acts; in 1864 63 miles were thrown open; in 1865 219 miles were thrown open, and by the 1st of November, 1867, turnpike tolls would be abolished on no less than 695 miles of road. Real progress had, therefore, been made in this matter. Till some great change was made in the area of taxation, it would be impossible for the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough. If the House should at some future time alter the state of the law with regard to highways, first by making the adoption of the Highway Act compulsory over the whole country, and next by adopting district instead of parochial rating for highways, it would be more easy to deal with turnpike trusts;

  465
  but until these preliminary steps were taken, it seemed to him idle to expect that any general system could be established. He fully appreciated the care and attention which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) bad bestowed on this subject, but he should not be able to support the second reading of his Bill.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, that though not a Member of the Committee he had given evidence before it. Considerable difference of opinion prevailed as to the Report. He most approved the last paragraph but one, in which reference was made to the system adopted in Scotland and South Wales. Tolls were not abolished in South Wales, but the trusts were consolidated, and that system had given the greatest satisfaction. He hoped the Government, notwithstanding the reproaches of the lion. Member (Mr. Whalley), would continue the course it had hitherto pursued. He believed that Sir George Lewis had expressed himself in favour of tolls. After all, this constituted a very fair plan, whereas that of rating was a hap-hazard system, under which one man paid for what another enjoyed. A gross injustice would be caused by resorting to the parochial system, and the plan of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) was exactly that which provoked the Rebekah riots in Wales, the trusts being deeply in debt and the tolls being absorbed in meeting the interest upon it.
  COLONEL DOUGLAS PENNANTsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) spoke as if nothing had been done towards the abolition of turnpikes, but having sat on Committees on the subject for fifteen years, and having most of that time acted as Chairman, he could assure him that they had been acting on a regular system. They could not get rid of tolls all at once, but the aggregate debt had been reduced from £9,000,000 to about £4,000,000, and in no instance had the market value of the mortgage bonds been depreciated, for though the interest had been reduced this had been counterbalanced by the better security that had been given. Not a year elapsed in which the Committee did not reduce the debt and close some trust. Only those, however, acquainted with the circumstances of the different trusts could appreciate the injustice which would be done to parishes in certain districts by suddenly abolishing the tolls, and throwing the roads upon the
  466
  parochial rates. In many of the agricultural districts of the south of England such a measure might not be attended with great hardship, but in the north there were roads connecting large towns and passing through parishes of small agricultural value. The expense of those roads, owing to the heavy traffic, was sometimes as much as £300 or £400 a mile per annum, and the towns, having generally adopted the Local Government Act, could not be made liable, so that the rating system would throw the expense on parishes which derived but little benefit from them. The formation of districts, moreover, was attended with great difficulty, on account of places being able to escape the burden by adopting the Local Government Act. He believed the Scotch system was the only way of rapidly abolishing tolls, but this was permissive—not compulsory as proposed by the hon. Member—meetings being held in each county at which it was agreed to consolidate the trusts or to adopt an assessment system, and then Parliament was applied to to sanction the arrangement. He believed this method might be carried out in England, but the precipitate adoption of parochial or district rating would involve great injustice.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) for his continuous and persevering efforts in bringing so pressing a grievance before them. Nothing could be more monstrous than to have an army of tax collectors posted over the country, the greatest number of whom only raised enough for their own support. A Committee of that House had condemned the system unequivocally, yet they were told that no remedy was possible, a conclusion which was absurd, for, if the grievance was so bad, some remedy must exist. He understood the Under Secretary (Mr. Baring) to suggest that parties interested in expiring trusts should be allowed to come before Parliament to have their position considered, but he hoped he was mistaken, for such an overture would be very ill-advised. Parties would be only too happy to avail themselves of the opportunity of incurring the enormous expense of private Acts, in order to prolong the existence of the trusts, and he knew of one case in which the debt was only £700, and yet the trustees came before Parliament, at a cost of not less than £500, and so increased their debt to £1,200, much to the satisfaction, no doubt, of the clerk and other offi-

  467
  cials. The proper policy seemed to him to be to put all such trusts into the Abolition Bill, and then, if the parties desire it, the question could be investigated by the Committee, and at a trifling expense a satisfactory arrangement could be made. His hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough had been trying to please everybody, and seemed to have ended, as generally happened, by pleasing nobody; the person least pleased being the "Under Secretary, with whom he had taken more pains than with any one else. The House was not now in a position to discuss his hon. Friend's Bill, with which, though his name was on the back of it, he had himself no knowledge. But he would urge him to persevere in his attention to the subject, and the course pointed out by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seemed to offer a solution of the difficulty.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Supply considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £892,865, New Works, & c., Naval Establishments, agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £12,656, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the additional Charge for Half-Pay, Reserved Half-Pay, and Retired Pay consequent upon altering the system of Retirement of Officers of the Royal Navy, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1867."
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that this Vote was intended to secure a better flow of promotion in the Royal Navy by extending the system of compulsory retirement, including the flag list. The scheme had already been laid before the House in detail, and he need not therefore advert to it at any length. The object of the scheme was to retire the flag officers who had hitherto been exempt from the system of compulsory retirement. It would not, however, deprive them either of the pay or of a rise in rank from that of rear to full admiral. Although in certain cases there might be honourable and distinguished officers in the navy who might feel that their position was somewhat damaged, yet he felt satisfied that such was the public and honourable feeling of those officers that they would not stand in the way of a proper flow of promotion which would
  468
  enable young and active officers to rise to high grades in the service. He believed that for the benefit of the naval service those officers would not object to retire when they came to ages which would include them within the scheme of compulsory retirement.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, that this was a scheme to effect acceleration of promotion in the navy, by making room at the top of the list. Although he did not object to it, he was anxious to call attention to another class of measure which might be adopted for the same purpose, but affecting the other end of the list. He thought that the object of quick promotion in the navy might be attained by not admitting so many into the junior ranks of the service. In the army there were no more officers taken on than there were occasion for, but that was not the case with respect to midshipmen in the navy. In a first-class vessel the proper complement, he was told, was sixteen midshipmen, but twenty-four were always taken. He should like, therefore, to hear some official statement from the noble Lord as to what was the rule of limitation as to taking midshipmen.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that several hon. Members wished to make remarks on the Vote for new works which had come on unexpectedly, and had just been carried sub silentio, to the astonishment of himself, his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Samuda), and others. Perhaps his noble Friend would give some explanation in regard to the docks at Malta, a subject in which some hon. Gentlemen opposite took a good deal of interest. With regard to the present Vote it was, he thought, to be regretted that the navy was a close profession. No matter what a boy's taste might be for the navy, unless he obtained the patronage of an admiral, a captain, or some Member of Parliament influencing the Government of the day, he had no chance of entering the navy. There ought to be some method of open competition or otherwise, by which a certain number of young gentlemen could enter the navy every year. At a time when they were opening the Engineers and other branches of the public service to public competition, it was to be regretted that the system adopted in the navy shut the door of the most popular profession of the country against all except those who had naval or Parliamentary interest.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, that on the contrary, he believed there was a

  469
  great improvement as to the chances of promotion in the lower ranks of officers. Such a thing now was almost unknown as an officer remaining a sub-lieutenant move than two or three years, and very few men were found languishing as lieutenants anything like the time they did ten or fifteen years ago.
  MR. SEELYsaid, he wished to call attention to the number of officers in the navy, particularly of admirals on the active and retired list. There were already 190 admirals, vice-admirals, and rear-admirals on the retired list. He had been told that only four of these had served their full time as captains. They cost the country not less than £81,510 a year. He made no objection to the amount of their pay, but when he looked at the number of ships in commission, and contrasted it with the number of admirals on both the lists, active and retired, he found there were 148 ships in commission, 190 admirals on the reserved and retired list, and 103 admirals on the active list. That gave more than two admirals to every ship in commission. He could not but regard this state of things as an unnecessary expense to the country and an injury to the naval profession. The case of the flagship Edgar showed the expense thrown upon the country by having on board of our ships an excess of officers over the full complement. The number of officers on board the Edgar, in one year and a half, over and above the full complement, was upwards of seven upon an average, causing an excess of cost of pay of £721. The total amount of the pay for the officers of the Edgar during the period taken for his illustration was £1,439; whereas, if the complement had not been exceeded, the sum would have been but £718. Thirty pounds a year each for provisions must be reckoned for those extra officers, making £337, so that the country paid no less a sum than £1,058 for overstocking the profession in the flagship Edgar. More midshipmen were admitted than was necessary, as shown by the smaller proportion of ensigns in the army admitted. This was to the detriment of the profession and the injury of the nation.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the Edgar was a flagship, and that the excess over the complement of other ships was usual.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON(having just entered the House) said, he wished to ask when the noble Lord intended to invite the attention of the House to the plan for
  470
  the retirement of flag officers which he had mentioned in moving the Navy Estimates.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the matter was before the House then. His hon. Friend (Mr. Seely), the naval Reformer, ought to discriminate between that which was right and that which required correction. Every flagship had a certain number of naval cadets and disposable officers of every grade available for service as they were required in other ships. It was true they had a much greater number of Admirals and flag officers than was necessary for the navy, but there were many gallant and distinguished officers who had fought and bled for their country whom they could not treat unfairly. The Government were moving gradually in the direction of reducing the upper classes in the navy by filling up only two out of every three vacancies, their object being to bring the establishment down to the proper requirements of the service. The captains' list was being reduced. The lieutenants formed the pivot of the whole, and at the present moment they were short of lieutenants. During the past year the entries of cadets of the first class numbered 176; and if they meant to keep up the list of lieutenants they would have rather to increase than decrease the entries into the navy. His hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) had remarked that while the admissions to most other branches of the public service were open to competition, the entries into the navy were confined entirely to choice, and, in fact, it might be said went by patronage. That was a matter which deserved discussion in that House. It was desirable that there should be the means of throwing open a portion at least of the admissions to the navy to competition. A difficulty presented itself to that in consequence of the tender age at which boys entered the navy. A boy might afterwards grow up to be a person of great character, although when only twelve years old he might not have exhibited any striking degree of intellectual development, and it had been thought that they could not apply the principle of a competitive examination to boys of that early age. That was one of the principal reasons which had, of late, at least, prevented the Government from introducing that principle into the navy, although it had been adopted as regarded the Marines. Under the present system nominations were made

  471
  by the Board of Admiralty with certain exceptions—for instance, flag-officers and captains of ships in commission had a certain number of nominations. The colonies received also a certain number. He could not conclude without expressing the great gratification he felt that it had fallen to his lot to close his official career—for it was not probable that he would again move the Navy Estimates—by proposing a plan for increasing the flow of promotion in the navy, which must redound to the advantage of the profession to which he belonged.
  MR. MOFFATTsaid, it appeared to him that flag officers, according to the proposal of the noble Lord, were to retire after a certain time; but an important exception was made in the case of those officers who had hoisted their flags or been employed in the Admiralty, seeing that by Clause 7 they would not be called upon to retire. There were 112 Admirals altogether interested in this matter, eleven of whom would be compelled to retire, while 100 would remain. He suggested that the noble Lord should postpone the Vote, that the subject might be more fully considered.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, that he concurred in the recommendation just made.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he wished to express his sense of the importance of the proposal made by the noble Lord. He thought it should have occupied a more prominent place in the Estimates. A great change was proposed, and the House ought to have received notice of the time when it would be brought forward. It had taken him by surprise. He did not wish it to be understood that he disagreed with the plan of his noble Friend. On the contrary, when he left the Admiralty six years ago he put into the hands of the Duke of Somerset a plan similar to that of the noble Lord, involving the compulsory retirement of officers at a certain age. He then entreated the noble Duke not to consider the source whence the plan emanated, but to look at it only in connection with its bearing upon the interests of the service. Seven years had elapsed since that time, and the noble Duke had made various changes in the system of promotion. He was not prepared to discuss the details of the plan now before the House, because he had not known when it would come under their consideration. He had, however, been startled by what had been said by his hon. Friend on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Moffatt) as to the extent
  472
  of the exemptions. He believed that the principle of retirement according to age was a very wholesome one; but the exceptions were numerous to an extraordinary extent. His plan would not have pressed so severely as the noble Lord's did on flag officers, for he required retirement of flag officers under seventy years of age while the noble Lord required the retirement of rear admirals at sixty-five, and of vice admirals at sixty-eight. His proposal was, that any flag officer who arrived at seventy years of age should not be deprived of his honours, but only that he should not stop the promotion of others.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the scheme had been before the House for a week. He had been anxious that it should be discussed at an early date, because the navy were desirous that it should come into operation as quickly as possible, for there was a stagnation of promotion in the navy. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Moffatt) had not given a fair view of the position officers would occupy under the system now proposed. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House (Sir John Pakington) met with serious opposition at the time it was proposed, because it included officers who had hoisted their flags and had had an opportunity of distinguishing themselves as flag officers. The scheme now before the House, however, would not affect an officer who had hoisted his flag or had served in the Admiralty. Flag officers on the retired list would rise in pay and rank precisely in the same degree as they would have done had they been on the active list. If his hon. Friend behind him thought that officers who had hoisted their flags, or who had served in the Admiralty, should not be exempted from compulsory retirement, let him make a Motion to that effect. He had no wish to press his proposal now if the Committee were in favour of deferring it.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he thought that little difference would be made by postponing the Vote till the following Friday. Every Member ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the proposal. For his own part, although he approved its principle, he would not pledge himself to the details. He wished, therefore, to have time to consider it, and he trusted the noble Lord would deem it right to make a statement as to its whole scope.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he understood that Vote 14 was to be postponed. He should not oppose Votes not objected to, but it would be his duty to propose the reductions he had given notice of.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £162400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1867, inclusive."
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he had some observations to make on this Vote, but the hour (half past ten o'clock) was rather late to proceed with it. There were many hon. Members not present who were anxious to make some observations upon it.
  MR. NORWOOD MR. NORWOOD moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in the Motion. There was every disposition to meet the demands of hon. Members for delay, but it was, he thought, too early an hour to stay the further discussion of the Estimates. The understanding was that the Army Estimates would be taken if they were brought in before eleven o'clock.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that such was the understanding, but since then Vote 14 had been postponed, and a great many Members were not aware of the change.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought such a Motion should not be made before eleven o'clock.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he was quite certain that there would have been a greater attendance of Members if it had been thought likely that the Vote would have been proposed that night.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that, pursuant to notice which he had given, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the constitution of the Council of Military Education. That Council as at present constituted was, he said, the result of the disasters which had occurred during the Crimean War. A Royal Commission had been appointed in 1856, to take into
  474
  consideration the subject of the military education of our officers, with the view to the introduction of improvements, especially in the Staff Department. That Commission made its Report in 1857, and a Council was shortly afterwards appointed, whose duty it was generally to supervise the education of the army, to control the preliminary examinations which all officers had to pass before obtaining their commissions, and, what was of more importance still, to conduct and control the competitive examinations in the higher branches of the service—the engineers and artillery. It was also its duty to conduct the examinations for appointments on the staff of officers below a certain rank. The duties performed by the Council, especially with regard to examinations, were very analogous to those discharged by the Civil Service Commissioners. They were extremely important, and it was therefore expedient that the Council should be not only composed of officers of great ability, but of considerable determination and firmness. Now, he had heard it rumoured that it was the intention to establish the rule that the staff appointments in future should beheld only for five years. If that change were introduced and were to apply to members of the Council, a fatal blow would be struck at the usefulness and independence of that body. If that rule were adopted it would be impossible to procure the aid of distinguished officers, who would be unwilling to retire from active service to accept the appointment for so short a period as he had mentioned, while those who did so would not be placed in that position of independence—for officers, after all, were only human beings—especially with respect to their superiors at the Horse Guards, which it was desirable they should occupy. He wished to know whether or not there was any truth in the rumour that the Horse Guards meant to apply the five years' rule to the members of the Military Council of Education? The middle classes of the country were deeply interested in this question, and he would regret if anything took place to weaken their confidence in the entire independence of this Council. He hoped the noble Marquess would resist any interference with the duties and integrity of this Council, which stood between the old system of patronage and the new one of competitive examinations. The members of the Council were, in fact, civil servants, and military regulations ought not to be applied to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was not aware that there was any change in. the original intention with respect to applying the five years' rule to the Military Council of Education, or that any assurance had been given to the officers composing the Council that their appointments would be differently circumstanced from ordinary staff appointments. He did not see the grounds why the rule should not apply to those officers, but, on the contrary, it seemed to him that the rule applied with greater propriety and convenience to their appointments than to many staff appointments. One object of the five years' rule was, that positions of this description should be held by a succession of men, who would import new ideas and bring fresh minds to the consideration of many questions, also men who knew something of the feeling of the army and of the progress of public opinion with respect to the great question—education. With respect to many appointments, such as that of the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and other staff appointments, considerable inconvenience must ensue when an officer who had held an office for five years, and had become efficient in the discharge of its duties, suddenly quitted it and was succeeded by one comparatively unacquainted with the duties; but surely, when a Council was composed of five or six members, the appointment of one new member every now and then could lead to no practical inconvenience. He had never heard it argued that the members of the Military Council were to be held incapable of receiving promotion; indeed, only a few weeks ago General Hamilton, President of this Council, had been appointed to a command. If the hon. Member wished to carry out his views, he must abolish these promotions. He was not aware that the Military Council and the Horse Guards came to any serious collisions. Differences of opinion there might be, but they were always referred to the War Office. The Council was the mainstay of the competitive examinations. They were conducted under the superintendence of the Council, but it was not true that the Council themselves conducted those examinations. All the Council did was to recommend the examiners, receive their report, be present at the examinations, and exercise a general supervision. For the selection from the candidates, the examiners, and not the Council, were responsible.
  Mr. NORWOODsaid, that there was an order which compelled every member of the Council to sign its reports, and if a report unpalatable at the Horse Guards was made, the officer who signed it might, after the term of five years, when he gave up his office as member of the Council find that he had lost all chance of promotion. He was strongly of opinion that the fact of the examiners of the Council sending back a friend of the Horse Guards from, the examination might be fatal to the subsequent promotion of the members of the Council, and this could not tend to their independence.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he wished to ask whether the resignation of the officer after the term of five years was to be compulsory? He thought it perfectly right that the Commander-in-Chief should have the power of retaining in office any of the members of the Council longer than five years, if necessary. One or two of the members had been appointed as far back as 1858. The Council was perfectly independent and had shown its independence. It would be seen from the Report of the Committee on Military Organization, that when the Commander-in-Chief suggested that, as there was a scarcity of officers, three young men who had attained superior marks, though they had failed to obtain the compulsory number, should be passed for commissions, the Council was against the Commander-in-Chief, and no one acquiesced more readily in their decision than the Commander-in-Chief himself.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the rule was not peremptory in every case.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he should like to know whether the rule with regard to the five years' appointments was compulsory or not? He could not help thinking the system of the five years' appointments would be most detrimental to the service.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to know what was the precise application of the rule as to these five years' appointments? The noble Marquess stated that it was not peremptory. Were the members of the Council to serve no longer than five years, or would it be competent for the Commander-in-Chief to re-appoint them at the end of five years? He could not agree that because the Council had hitherto been independent, they would always be so. Hitherto they had not been subject to this five years' rule, and, therefore, they

  477
  had been independent. There must be very special qualifications for this service in connection with military education. He rather thought the noble Marquess had underrated the duties of the Council, and he could not agree that the five years' rule was at all applicable to the case. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee—he meant the cost of the military schools. He considered the charge for education at military schools much too large. The cost of maintenance was as high in France as it was in this country, but that of teaching in this country enormously exceeded that of France. In Woolwich the cost of teaching was £60, of superintendence £30, and of living £80, making together £170. Another point was the entire division of the military supervision in these schools from the educational department. He thought it would be more economical, and of great advantage, if the military officers who had the supervision were also employed in teaching, as it would tend to promote more harmony and better feeling between the cadets and their teachers. An enormous amount of teaching power was apparently wanted, as there were at Sandhurst six teachers of mathematics, besides one in the Staff College; seven teachers of military surveying, and one in the Stall' College; and three professors of military history, in addition to one in the Staff College. As compared with any of the great public schools in the metropolis, University College School, or King's College School, the amount of teaching power at Woolwich was greatly in excess. For teaching 180 students in Woolwich there was as much teaching power employed as for teaching 330 students in University College. There would be no difficulty in getting clever officers to act not only as captains of companies in those schools, but also as tutors; and this arrangement would promote a better feeling between the authorities and the students.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was not able at the moment to apply to the rule itself, but he thought he might say with regard to all staff appointments they were to be for a term of five years. There was, however, a discretionary power in the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary for War to extend the term if the exigencies of the service should require it. It only applied to military appointments. It had never been proposed to extend the
  478
  rule. The only chance of collision between the Council and the Horse Guards was with reference to the examination of officers for staff appointments; but there was not much chance of the Council coming into collision with the Horse Guards on that subject. The rule had not yet been strictly applied, for the first officer about to retire under it had held office for eight years. As to what the hon. Member for Longford held to be the extravagant cost of the military educational establishments, in the first place he must remark that supposing any considerable reduction could be made in the expenses of those establishments, it would be of no great service to the Army Estimates, because a very large portion of the expenditure in those schools was met by payments from friends of the cadets, and if the cost could be reduced very considerably it would not be fair to charge the same amounts to students. Some reductions were made some time since, and so far as he could learn the Secretary of State at that time was satisfied that the efficiency of the Academy would be impaired if more extensive reductions were made. With regard to the number of professors, whether the figures of the hon. Member were correct or otherwise, he must remind him that mathematics, and the application of mathematics, required a much larger place in the military instruction at Woolwich than they did in public schools. As to the professors of fortification and of military surveying and drawing, he was informed that, as they had to teach their pupils out of doors, a much larger number of them was required in proportion to the number of students than if the instruction could be given indoors.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he thought that when the subject of the chronic state of rebellion of the cadets at Woolwich was brought forward, the answer referring the House to a Report issued in 1857 was insufficient. This state arose from alleged insufficiency of food and other matters, and the Report of 1857 could have no sort of connection with the present state of things whatever. The whole of the present system pursued at the military colleges had been formed since the Report was issued. And so with regard to the discipline at Sandhurst. If there was one officer more important than another at Sandhurst, it was the Major Superintendent of Studies, who was supposed to understand everything, and to be able

  479
  to examine in the several branches of study, as well as the professors themselves, and yet he had only £300 a year, a sum infinitely less than the professors. That was a matter which required explanation.
  COLONEL FANEsaid, he thought there was no good reason why boys should not go to Woolwich at fourteen or fifteen, and enter the army at an early age, as their fathers did before them. If that course were followed one-half of the professors and other persons employed in disciplining the cadets might be done away with.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the change in the age was a consequence of the recommendations of the Commission to which he had already referred. It was then thought that the defects in the two institutions were owing to the extremely early age at which the cadets entered. The present discussion had resulted in a proposition to increase the pay of the Major Superintendent of Studies. That was the only practical suggestion that had been made, and it was remarkable that it often happened that some proposition for increase of pay was the only fruit of a discussion which turned upon an economical question. He was not able to give an explanation why the pay of the Major Superintendent of Studies was not higher, but he would endeavour to find out, and he had no doubt that next year they would have to propose to raise the cost of these institutions considerably. He should wish to know whether there was any ground for saying that there was an insufficiency of food, or that the quality was not good. He felt quite surprised to hear that there could have been any complaint on the subject.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, it had been the alleged cause of the disturbances which had taken place at different times.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if there were good authority for the statement the matter ought to be inquired into at once.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he hoped that a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject of the education of the army.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £88,300, Surveys of the United Kingdom.
  (4.) £94,800, Miscellaneous Services.
  (5.) £26,100, Rewards for Military Service.
  (6.) £72,600, Pay of General Officers.
  (7.) £457,200, Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers.
  (8.) £161,300, Widows' Pensions and Compassionate Allowances.
  (9.) £26,700, Pensions and Allowances to Wounded Officers.
  (10.) £34,600, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
  (11.) £1,173,900, Chelsea Hospital Out-Pensioners.
  (12.) £27,000, Non-Effective Services, Disembodied Militia, and Yeomanry Cavalry.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 13.]—CONSIDERATION.
  (Sir O. Grey, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Order for Consideration read.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had understood when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department last night undertook to have this Bill reprinted, that he would have given time to hon. Members to read it, as it now appeared, so that if they disagreed with any portion of it they might have an opportunity of placing Notices of Amendment on the table. It appeared to him that the course adopted throughout with regard to this measure was to force it through the House with as little consideration as possible. No one, however, could pretend that this was an insignificant subject, for it related to the repeal of the greater part of the oath relating to the Supremacy of the Crown and of the law, as it had existed since the first of Elizabeth. It was a measure which ought not to have been decided upon at a private meeting of Members; when the question came before the House it was introduced with the least amount of explanation he had ever heard with respect to any Bill of equal importance. He did not wish to move an Amendment at almost twelve o'clock on such a subject as this; but he therefore gave notice that he would on the third reading (as he had intended on the Report) move that the Bill be re-committed with a view to

  481
  inserting the following words at the end of the oath:—
  "And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath by law or ought to have any rightful jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority within this realm."
  In this it would be seen he had added the words "by law," which were suggested by Lord Russell when the subject was before the Upper House, and "rightful." a word suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will only detain the House while I quote a few words from The Tablet (the most influential of the Roman Catholic organs) of Saturday last, which expressed in distinct language the sort of expectations to which the decision of the House on this subject gave rise-—
  "In our opinion it would be a good thing if the provisions in the Emancipation Act were repealed, which convert into criminals, punishable by deportation, such of Her Majesty's native-born English or Irish subjects as choose to bind themselves by monastic or religious vows. It would also be very desirable that, as we Catholics are very poor and commit many crimes, we should have the full benefit of the zealous ministrations of our clergy in the workhouses and prisons into which our poverty and crimes introduce us in such large numbers. It would also—at least we think so—be desirable that Catholics in England should be allowed to claim exemption from the payment of church rates for the support of the English Protestant State Church, and that Catholic landowners in Ireland should be exempted from paying rent-charge for the support of Irish Protestant State Church …… In our opinion also it would be desirable that the State, instead of ignoring the sees and titles of the Catholic bishops of England and Ireland, and instead of proscribing those sees and titles, should repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and recognize the existence and legality of the Catholic Church and of its administration within the realm. Nay, we go so far as to think that it would be a wise and a good thing to give recognized rank and precedence to the highest dignitaries of the Catholic Church within the realm, by making Peers of Parliament of the Catholic Archbishops of England and Ireland …… Moreover, we need scarcely say that, in our opinion, the restoration of regular diplomatic intercourse between the Crown and the Holy See would be most advantageous to all parties; and that it would be a good thing if the relations between the State on the one hand, and the Catholic Church in the British Empire and its dependencies on the other hand, were regulated by a convention between the supreme spiritual authority in the Catholic Church and the supreme temporal authority in the British Empire. In other words, we think that a concordat is advisable. Whether a State endowment for the Catholic Church, its hierarchy, clergy, universities, seminaries, colleges, and schools, would or would not be a desirable feature of the concordat, we do not assume to know, referring ourselves on that point to the wisdom of the Holy See. …. We need not lengthen this list of things thought desirable; we have said enough to indicate the
  482
  leading features of a whole system and of a distinct policy."
  By its indifference to subjects such as these, the House then was raising expectations which by their disappointment would lead to great discontent. When he moved the re-commitment of the Bill on Monday night he hoped to find that hon. Members were not so closely bound by party ties as to be satisfied with the decision arrived at; and that at any rate they would think it necessary to have a distinct answer from Her Majesty's Government how far the expectations—which he had shown were raised by re-opening this matter of the Parliamentary oaths—would be gratified. He wished to observe, with respect to himself, that he had from the first thought the form of oath proposed by the right hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) to be insufficient, and had stated in his place that he would not be included amongst those who approved it. His Opinion that the terms of that form of the oath of supremacy suggested in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were insufficient was confirmed by the opinion of the Attorney General and of other competent persons, and for that reason he felt justified in now giving notice of the Motion he had just read.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to call attention to a provision introduced by the Duke of Wellington into a Bill for regulating our diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and to suggest that the principle of that clause might be introduced into the present Bill. It might remove any uncomfortable feeling in the minds of Roman Catholic Members.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would have been better if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had given notice of what he intended to move on Monday. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside), the House would not have forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman had voted yesterday in favour of the insertion of words which would have the effect of excluding every Roman Catholic from Parliament.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he had stated that Roman Catholics would not accept them so far as related to the spiritual authority of the Pope.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) was of opinion that the clause he had referred to was applicable to the present Bill, he

  483
  might put a Notice of an Amendment on the paper, and the House would then see whether the party which acted under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) were prepared to agree to the addition of such words.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was of opinion that the oath now imposed upon Roman Catholic Members was not the cause of a substantial, but merely of a sentimental grievance. He submitted that this Bill would inflict a further grievance on the Roman Catholic laity, whose interests, it should be remembered, were by no means identical with those of the priesthood. Roman Catholicism, as far as regarded its public position, must be regarded not as a religion at all, but as a political combination fraught with danger to this country. He could see no substantial grievance in Roman Catholics taking the oath which had hitherto been sanctioned by their own dignitaries.
  Amendments made: Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  EAST INDIA MILITARY, &C., FUNDS TRANSFER.
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorize the Directors and Managers of the Bengal, Madras, and Bombay Military Funds, and the Bengal Military Orphan Society, to make over the Assets, Liabilities, and Management thereof to the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the Secretary of State for India in Council to take and assume the Assets, Liabilities, and Management thereof; and also to authorize the Managers or Trustees of the Bengal Medical Retiring Fund, the Madras Medical Fund, and the Bombay Medical Retiring Fund, or either of them, to make over the Assets, Liabilities, and Management thereof to the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the Secretary of State for India in Council to take and assume the Assets, Liabilities, and Management thereof, if at any time hereafter it shall appear, by a vote specially taken for the purpose, that a majority of not less than three-fourths of the Subscribers to those Institutions are desirous of transferring them to the said Secretary of State for India in Council."
  Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. STANSFELD, and Mr. BARING.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 75.]

  EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT DEPARTMENTS
  [SALARIES, &C.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That provision be made for the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of the Salaries and Pensions of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and of the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor, who may be
  484
  appointed under any Act of the present Session relating to the Duties of the Exchequer and Audit Departments, and also for the Payment of Annual Allowances to certain Officers whose offices will be abolished under the said Act.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1853) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHITESIDE, Bill to amend the Practice and Procedure Act of 1853 (Ireland), ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHITESIDE and Mr. GEORGE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 76.]

  DOCKYARD EXTENSIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill "to amend 'The Dockyard Extensions Act, 1865,'" presented, and read the first time. [Bill 77.]

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES BILL.
  Bill "for the better prevention of Contagious Diseases at certain Naval and Military Stations," presented, and read the first time. [Bill 78.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Boston. SELECT COMMITTEE—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, appointed, and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading—Jamaica Government* (29); Marine Mutiny *; National Debt Reduction * (32).

THE CATTLE PLAGUE—THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.—OBSERVATIONS.
The Earl of LICHFIELDsaid, that it was of considerable importance that the Orders in Council relative to the movement of cattle should be issued without delay, because on the 25th of March a great number of tenancies would expire throughout the country, and it was absolutely necessary that the farmers should be able to move their stock from one county to another. The Quarter Sessions, as their Lordships were aware, would meet almost immediately, and it would be necessary for them to make some alterations in their existing arrangements. It was absolutely indispensable, if such alterations were made, that they should be made with a knowledge of the Orders in Council, otherwise they might issue regulations which they might have to change immediately afterwards, in consequence of the Orders in Council. It was also important before their Lordships separated for the Easter holydays that the nature of the Orders in Council should be communicated to Parliament.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not, of course, state what the Orders in Council would be, but as soon as they were framed they would be communicated
358
to Parliament. He could assure their Lordships that the Government were not losing a moment, nor would they lose a moment, in endeavouring to frame the necessary Orders.

STATE OF IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE.
  EARL GREY, who had given Notice to move that on Tuesday next the House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the state of Ireland, said: My Lords, I fear that in the judgment of many of your Lordships, I shall hardly escape the charge of presumption in taking upon myself to introduce this subject to your Lordships' notice. As an independent Member of your Lordships' House, unconnected with any public Department, and not, therefore, possessing the influence which such connection would give, I may appear to be entitled to call upon your Lordships to express an opinion upon so momentous a subject as that I am about to bring before you. But, on consideration, it may appear that the very fact of my being unconnected with either of the great parties in this House may afford a good reason for my undertaking the duty I have assumed. Many of your Lordships, as well as myself, must have remarked that when the condition of Ireland forms the subject of private conversation, nothing is more common than to hear it said that there are certain measures the adoption of which would be useful to that country, but that it would be madness to propose them, because public opinion in England and Scotland is decidedly opposed to them. I will not stop to inquire whether that state of feeling be correct or not, or whether it be the fault of the people themselves, or of those who ought to be their leaders, that Ireland is in its present condition. Passing by that, I will only remark that, as long as public opinion in England and Scotland is believed to be what I have stated, we cannot indulge any sanguine hope that either the Ministers of the Crown, or those connected with them, on the one side, or the Leaders of the Opposition, who may expect to be Ministers hereafter, on the other side, will incur the risk of recommending measures not in accordance with public opinion. But if the duty is assumed by one who stands entirely unconnected with party, and who has long been withdrawn from the ranks of those who may hereafter be called upon to take part in the councils of the Realm

  359
  —I say that a person in that position is almost the only one likely to bring the subject before the House. Standing in this position I may not obtain the votes of many of your Lordships; yet, on the other hand, it will enable me, in explaining to you the grounds upon which I believe a change of policy towards Ireland is urgently necessary, to speak with an openness and an absence of reserve which, perhaps, could not be expected of one placed in a different position. I believe that by speaking with that plainness I may do something to prepare the way for that change of policy towards Ireland to which, I am perfectly convinced, Parliament will be compelled, sooner or later, to consent, and which will be the less likely to prove successful in proportion as it is longer delayed. In this belief I have thought it my duty to submit to your Lordships the Motion I am about to make.
  Before I proceed further, allow me to say a few words with regard to the terms of my Motion. I do not move that the House shall, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the state of Ireland, with any view of calling witnesses to the Bar of your Lordships' House. It is the old Parliamentary form of calling upon the House to express an opinion on the state of the nation, and to declare that there is something amiss which requires to be remedied. It is not necessary that such a Motion should have reference to the whole kingdom, and, fortunately, it is not necessary now that it should. I propose that it should refer to the state of Ireland only. If the Motion is assented to, when the House goes into Committee I shall be prepared to move Resolutions which I will ask permission to read before I sit down. It would be manifestly improper in mo to ask you to assent to the Resolutions now. All that I ask you to do now by your vote is to declare that the state of Ireland is such as to requite our immediate consideration. I do not wish to commit any noble Lord who votes with me to the opinions I may now express. My task is rendered considerably easier by the circumstance that Ireland has formed the subject of discussion this Session in both Houses of Parliament. Recently a noble Viscount on the Bench below (Viscount Lifford) called attention to it and gave a gloomy description of the state of Ireland, which I do not think any of your Lordships can say is otherwise than correct, During the late Par-
  360
  liament the same subject was several times brought before the House of Commons, and in the course of the long debates that then took place there appears to have been no difference of opinion whatever as to the existence of great evils in Ireland, although there was difference both as to the causes of those evils and their extent. As there is this general concurrence of opinion that Ireland is in an unsatisfactory state, I am spared the necessity of endeavouring to prove the fact by an array of facts and figures. At the same time, it will make my future arguments clearer if I venture to recall a few of what I think are the main facts of the case as seem to be generally agreed upon by persons of various opinions. I think it is agreed that the physical condition of the great body of the Irish people is somewhat better than it was a few years ago. Their numbers no longer press so closely as they did on the means of subsistence, and on the whole they are in a more comfortable condition. Employment, except during a small portion of the year, is uncertain, and what there is is badly paid, the people are somewhat better fed and somewhat better clothed than they used to be; but still they are lodged in a most deplorable manner. Their houses, if houses they can be called, are hardly fit for the habitation of civilized creatures. Agriculture, which is the employment of the great majority of the people, is in general rude and bad. There are a few well-cultivated farms here and there; but it is universally admitted that these are the exceptions rather than the rule. For the most part the soil is unskilfully cultivated, and as a consequence both farmers and labourers are so poor and obtain so little return for their exertions that the recurrence of two or three bad seasons plunges the country, except in a few favoured districts, into distress. Trade is confined to a small number of places, and it is carried on upon a small scale, in proportion to the number of the people, compared with the trade of England and Scotland. The most significant thing of all is, that the population, which in a wholesome state of society ought to be increasing, is undergoing by emigration diminution at a very alarming rate. There are many who do not consider that this is to be deplored—who think that emigration is the natural law for adjusting the supply of and the demand for labour, and who look to it as the means of eventually raising the condition

  361
  of the Irish peasant. I will not deny that in these respects emigration has its advantages. I am aware that it cannot be checked directly, and that it can only be diminished by improving the condition of the Irish people. But, at the same time, I am convinced that Ireland ought to maintain in comfort a far larger population than it at present does. I cannot see without great concern the rapid diminution of the population by emigration, for by it Ireland is losing the services of many of her most industrious sons, and the Empire is losing that which ought to be considered precious. Unfortunately, Ireland has long been distracted by political and religious animosity. Class has been set against class, and there is a general feeling among the people of alienation from the Imperial Government. The recent disclosures relating to the Fenian conspiracy afford striking illustrations of the state of feeling prevalent in the country, We find from those disclosures that so bitter is the animosity felt by a large portion of the Irish people against the Government under which they live that when they seek a new home on the other side of the Atlantic, instead of forgetting their hostile feelings under the influence of the better prospect that there awaits them, they manifest their hostility towards this country even more strongly than here. It appears that on their arrival in America the first use they make of their earnings is to subscribe large sums of money to a fund established with the avowed object of overthrowing the Government which they left at home. We know that very large sums indeed have been subscribed in America, and I believe in Australia also, and I believe that these collections form the main support of this Fenian conspiracy of which we have lately heard so much. My Lords, it is, in my opinion, a very striking circumstance that these Irish-Americans should be found doing so much to create or keep alive in the United States hostile feelings against this country. We have the strongest interest, and so also have the United States, in the two nations being I on the most friendly terms with each other, and, therefore, the existence of any circumstance which tends to prevent the existence of friendly relations between the two countries is deeply to be regretted. But the fact of these large collections having been made is of still more serious import. It shows what is the prevailing feeling among those classes in Ireland of
  362
  which the emigrants are chiefly composed; and, judging from the hostility they show when they are in a position to show it openly, I think it is hardly possible to exaggerate the extent of the hostility of the lower classes in Ireland to the British Government. The same conclusion, unfortunately, is forced upon us by what has happened with regard to the Fenian conspiracy in Ireland Probably there never was a plot more utterly wild and hopeless than the Fenian conspiracy, and yet even this plot has been able to command the active support of a great many of the lower classes in Ireland, and the sympathies of many more. This circumstance shows, I think, the state of mind which exists in that country; because, as has been well remarked, the agents of a foreign conspiracy, however well supplied they might be with money, and however well organized they might be, would have attempted in vain to enlist thousands of followers in England or Scotland for the purpose of overthrowing the Government. In Ireland, however, such efforts have unfortunately met with a certain amount of success. We have been told that none of the respectable classes, or, at all events, only a very few of those who had anything to lose have had anything to do with the conspiracy, or shown any sympathy for it, and the conduct of the jurymen during the recent trials goes far to prove the fact. My Lords, I rejoice to find that it is so; but I observe that it is stated by one who ought to know the feelings of the Irish people that the classes from whom jurymen were taken were alarmed at and opposed to the conspiracy because they believed it to be directed against all property and all existing social institutions, and not because they were in favour of the existing Government. Then there is another fact which seems to be generally admitted with regard to Ireland—namely, that the prevailing disaffection in that country is not produced by distress. Now, we know it very often happens that physical distress is the cause of political discontent. It was the cause of the Swing riots in 1830 and 1831; and the Chartist riots a few years later were, I think, clearly traceable to the pressure on some portions of the population. It has, however, been often pointed out that in Ireland disaffection does not exist in those districts where there is the greatest distress. For instance, there is more disaffection in the. South than in the poorest counties of the West, and it was a remark-

  363
  able fact that during the great suffering in the famine of 1847 political discontent was far less than it was eight or nine years afterwards, when, from the high prices caused by the Russian War, the people were comparatively prosperous. Indeed, this disaffection in Ireland is much more the cause than the effect of distress. The feeling of insecurity which exists in Ireland prevents the influx of capital into the country, and the development of those resources with which, whatever may be said to the contrary, she is very richly endowed by nature. How can you expect that men will embark in agricultural improvements or in great industrial undertakings when every day at public meetings speeches are made which, if they mean anything, mean that those who deliver them contemplate sooner or later the overthrow of the existing institutions of the country? It is, I think, perfectly clear that it is this feeling of insecurity which is the main cause which prevents the industrial improvement of Ireland. I believe that the description which I have now given of the state of things in Ireland—a description founded on the concurrent testimony of men of all parties—is an accurate one, and I think none of your Lordships will venture to deny the reality of the evils which I have mentioned. Now, if disaffection and poverty are the chronic conditions of Ireland, it is impossible to account for such a fact except by attributing it to the misgovernment of that country; and, indeed, I believe it is universally admitted that the evils of Ireland spring from misgovernment; but many of us think it is not the misgovernment of our time. It is often said that since Ireland was brought under the authority of the Imperial Parliament the old abuses have been remedied, and the ancient grievances removed, so that there remain no serious grounds for complaint. Such, if I rightly understood him, was the opinion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government expressed in the short discussion which arose the other night on the Motion of the noble Viscount on the Bench below me (Viscount Lifford). My noble Friend opposite, while condemning the old misgovernment, told us that we ought to look back with great satisfaction at the useful measures which had been passed since the Union, and that we ought to wait the result with patience, because evils like those which prevailed in Ireland were so inveterate that they could not be suddenly removed. Now, I agree with my noble
  364
  Friend that Parliament has passed many useful measures with respect to Ireland, and I agree with him also that the inveterate evils which beset that course cannot easily be cured; but I cannot admit that we ought to wait and see what will result from them unless we are convinced that there is at least a beginning of real progress. I would ask my noble Friend to recollect how much time has elapsed since the measures to which he alluded were adopted. We are now far advanced in the second half century since Ireland was united to England, and brought under the power of the Imperial Parliament; and thirty-seven years have gone by since the last remnants of the Penal Code were abolished by the Catholic Relief Act of 1829. My Lords, in six years after that the system of national education, from which such important results were expected, was established in Ireland; and it is almost thirty years since that fruitful source of bloodshed and violence, the levying of tithes, was put an end to by the Tithes Commutation Act, and since the Poor Laws were introduced into that country. It is nineteen years since the potato famine occurred—that frightful calamity which caused such a terrible amount of suffering to the people, produced such an enormous and sudden diminution in the number of the population, and led also to the establishment of the In cumbered Estates Act and the improvement of the Poor Law. The most sanguine hopes were entertained that a better order of things would have resulted from the various acts of legislation to which I have just referred. My Lords, since the In cumbered Estates Act was passed, I am not aware that any measure of considerable importance regarding Ireland has been adopted by the Imperial Parliament. It is, therefore, not less than seventeen or eighteen years since all the measures for the improvement of Ireland which the Imperial Parliament hitherto has been able to devise have been in complete operation. Surely that is a sufficiently long time to test the effect of these measures. If they had not produced a perfect cure, at least we might have expected to see by this time some undoubted symptoms of improvement and progress. But, I ask, has any man pointed out such symptoms? On the contrary, I find, when I talk about Ireland with those who, I believe, are best acquainted with her present state, they all concur in saying that in some respects the prospects of that country are more gloomy

  365
  than ever. They say that the state of political feeling is worse than it was some years ago. In this respect compare 1836 and 1866, and there can be no doubt that political disaffection and dislike to the British Government and Parliament are more wide-spread and more deeply rooted in the minds of the people at the latter period than they were at the former, My Lords, only very lately we were occupied in suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. Can any man assert, then, that the state of political feeling there is not getting worse?—and remember, the state of political feeling is the root from which all other evils arise in Ireland. If this is a fact, the case does not seem to be one in which we ought to adopt the advice of my noble Friend, and wait with patience. It is not one in which we should look on in listless apathy, waiting to see what may arise, without taking any active measures ourselves. It is a case for presuming that there must still be something greatly amiss in the laws or in the manner in which they are administered in Ireland; and it behaves us to apply the best energies of our mind to discover what the evil really is, and, when we have discovered it, to adopt the best remedies we can devise.
  My Lords, in considering what may be the real cause of this unfortunate state of feeling in Ireland, one naturally looks to the speeches made during the last Parliament by those who are supposed to give the most accurate expression to the feelings of the people of Ireland. The principal points to which they have adverted are these:—They complain of what they call fiscal injustice; of the neglect of the Imperial Government in respect of public works and other measures for the development of the resources of Ireland; and lastly, they speak of what is commonly called "tenant-right." I confess that if we carefully examine what has been said on these subjects, it appears to me that the Irish Members have not succeeded in making out their case on any one of the points to which I have referred. With regard to the fiscal injustice towards Ireland, it appears to me, as the result of a careful inquiry, that England has nothing to accuse herself of upon this head. I think she has been not only just, but generous to Ireland. I believe that Ireland instead of paying more than her share of the burdens of the Empire pays less; and I think we can fairly challenge any Irishman to point out a single tax levied in Ireland which has a
  366
  tendency to either discourage industry or check improvement. In this respect the position of the small occupiers in Ireland will contrast favourably with that of the same class in any other country in Europe—with that of the small occupiers in France or Germany, for instance, as far as the demands of the State are concerned. So that, not only in respect of taxes, but also in respect to money voted in grants from; Parliament, there is no ground of complaint. Then as to the Imperial Government not having done more to develop the natural resources of Ireland by great public works, I cannot help remarking that this complaint is founded on a complete misapprehension of the functions of a Government. Save in very exceptional cases, the Government has nothing to do with public works. It is not by State money, but by private enter prize, and funds raised from local resources that so many magnificent public works have been constructed in England and Scotland. It is in this manner our canals have been made and our harbours and estuaries improved; that our docks have been constructed, and that channels which formerly admitted only small coasting vessels, now receive the largest ships in our commercial navy When the system of leaving these matters to private enterprize has been departed from, and the; money of the State has been expended on public works, it generally turns out that the money has been misspent, and only I evil results have followed—witness, for instance, the case of that costly folly, the Caledonian Canal. With respect to tenant-right the case seems to be much the same. Great fault has been found with the British Parliament for not passing various Bills which have been brought before it. But the more closely we study those Bills, the more, I think, we come to the conclusion that to have passed such measures would have aggravated instead of diminished the evils which they were intended to remedy. Some of those Bills involved such an infringement of the rights of property, that if they had been passed they could not have failed to aggravate the feeling of insecurity which unfortunately now exists, and thus to have discouraged still more the application of capital to the soil of Ireland. The Bills which were not liable to this fundamental objection have been so cumbrous, that if carried into practical operation they would not have removed, but would have increased, the existing difficulties connected with laud in Ireland. My Lords, I am

  367
  persuaded that the only sound policy in this matter is to leave landlord and tenant to settle their relations by mutual agreement between themselves, and with as little legislative interference as possible. I do not mean to say that the law of landlord and tenant is quite satisfactory in Ireland. It is confused, and requires to be simplified and made clear. I believe that law stands in need of material improvement. The alterations should be of such a nature as to increase the desire of the landlord to have solvent tenants instead of tenants who make the highest bids, and would induce him to give leases or agreements which would encourage tenants to employ their capital on the land. But granting that there are those faults, still we must remember that, substantially, the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland is the same as that in England. I am persuaded that the bad working of that law in Ireland arises less from the law itself, than from the extreme competition for land, which competition owes its origin to the stagnation of all other industrial pursuits besides those connected with the land, and enables the landlords to let their farms for more than those farms are worth to good tenants.
  I do not believe, therefore, that it is possible to account for the evils afflicting the country by reference to the state of the law on the subject of land tenure. There must be something more seriously wrong at the root of the matter; and if we search for it honestly and diligently, we shall have no great difficulty in discovering what is the weightier grievance from which all these disasters have sprung. My Lords, it is a grievance which has not been unnoticed by public orators in Ireland, though it has attracted, I think, in this country less attention than it deserves. I allude to the fact that the whole Church property in Ireland is applied to the exclusive maintenance of the Established Church, while the Church of the great majority of the people is left without any State provision, and depends upon the individual contributions spared with difficulty by the poorest classes of the people. This, I am persuaded, is the weightiest grievance which lies at the bottom of the difficulties of Ireland, and I am persuaded that a plain statement of the facts of the case is all that is necessary to convince your Lordships of the extreme injustice of the present arrangements. Let me remind you that the Church property in Ireland formerly belonged to the Roman Catholic Church,
  368
  and that when the people of England shook off their connection with Rome, though the Irish people adhered to the ancient faith, the Church property was transferred to the clergy of the conquering nation, while the Church of the majority was left without any endowment whatever. To make that injustice more galling, at a later period the Presbyterians, who were as much Dissenters as the Roman Catholics and far better able to provide for their own wants, received the assistance of Parliament towards the maintenance and spread of their own religion, while none was given to the Roman Catholics. I venture to submit to your Lordships that it is impossible, on any ordinary principles, to defend the existence of such a state of things. I know it may be said that the tithes are not paid by Roman Catholics. But, surely, those who put forward such arguments as that have a great contempt for our understandings. The Irish proprietors acquired their property subject to the burden of tithes, and the portion of their land represented by that tithe was never, in point of fact, their own. The claim to have these tithes applied exclusively for the benefit of the Protestant Church, because they were paid by Protestant landlords, is just as sensible as if the proprietor of an estate sought to have the amount annually contributed from his estate in payment of mortgages applied for his sole benefit. The national property intended for the national object of teaching religion to the people has been diverted from the mass of the poorer population and applied to the exclusive use of a small minority, composed mainly of the wealthier class. Again, we have heard this state of things defended on the ground that the Church which now exists in Ireland is the real successor of the original Church, and the rightful inheritor of its property. That appears to me to be an argument of the most extraordinary kind; because whatever might have been the case at an earlier period, there can be no doubt that for some centuries before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic religion was in full possession of all the property of the Church and though the heads of that Church may have conformed to Protestantism the population did not. And to say that their property ought to be transferred to the Reformed religion, while the people remained of the old way of thinking, seems to me opposed to all the dictates of common sense and reason. It is said, too, that the maintenance of

  369
  the Protestant Church formed one of the stipulations at the time of the Union. But there really does not seem to me anything valid in such an argument. The Parliament of that day did not represent the people of Ireland, they were merely the representatives of a small minority; and it is idle to say that an arrangement made with that corrupt Parliament ought to be maintained against the interests of the great body of the population. The arguments in favour of the existing system seem to me not only to rest upon sheer sophistry, but to be contrary to the opinion of the whole civilized world out of the United Kingdom. You can read no account of Ireland by an unprejudiced foreigner, no statement of the condition of that country, in which it is not always stated that the Irish people have been grievously wronged by withdrawing the endowments meant for the religious instruction of the great body of the people, and devoting them for the advantage of the small minority of the inhabitants. And the grievance does not consist merely in the injustice of the existing arrangements; it extends to the manner in which for many years these have been maintained and defended. Look at the conduct of the Irish Parliament all through the last century. Could anything be more monstrous? My Lords, we know that up to a very late period every circumstance which could add to the despicable position of the Roman Catholics was retained. Not only did that Parliament, representing the Irish landlords, insist upon the collection of tithes for objects in which the people had no interest, but, in order to prevent a small diminution of income, refused to consent to any equitable arrangement whatever. Within the recollection of most of us this state of things continued. Do your Lordships not remember that not thirty years ago what was then called "the Tithe War" was still active? At that time tithe was collected only by military force. The tithe law in all its cruelty and injustice was maintained under circumstances calculated to make it still more detested, and remained so until a late period. The mode of collection afterwards was even more oppressive than that if possible, and you refused for a long series of years to make any improvement in the method of collection, lest there should be some diminution in the amount collected for the Protestant Church. At length, however, this system of things was abolished, simply because it could not be any longer
  370
  maintained, The tithe holder ceased to obtain any income at all, because the collection was so imperfectly carried out; and it was thought necessary to keep the tithe holder compensated by the payment of large sums from the Imperial Treasury. But the system broke down, and it was then, and then only, that Parliament consented to abolish it But something worse than the tithe system continued to embitter the minds of the Irish against, the Protestant Church. You all know, my Lords, what an atrocious code the old Penal Code was. There is not a man in this day who would say a word in its defence. It is admitted on all hands to have been the most detestable code of tyranny ever created in the civilized world. It was calculated not merely to oppress, but to demoralize and degrade those upon whom it was inflicted; and this monstrous code was passed, and enforced with a view to the security of the Church Establishment. My Lords, every step of relief from that code was taken with difficulty. I believe scarcely a single point of relief was granted, except under the pressure of urgent necessity and fear of the consequences of refusing. This, I need not remind your Lordships, was especially the case with regard to the last step of relief from that code—I mean the grant of Emancipation in 1829. Only four years before, when that measure had been passed by the House of Commons, it was rejected by this House; and when, after a time, it was found that the old system could no longer be maintained without the risk of civil war, the very persons who had been so long the instruments of maintaining it came down to Parliament and asked that this last remnant of the Penal Code should be repealed; and, accordingly, in 1829 we saw the great Act of Catholic Emancipation. And, my Lords, more than this. Even now, my Lords, we can hardly forget the old vicious principle. As lately as last year we were called upon to reject a measure which proposed to relieve the Roman Catholics of Ireland from a piece of oppression which had been originated with a mistaken desire to buttress the position of the Protestant Church Establishment, I need not toll you that I refer to the Oaths Bill, and in rejecting it this House was advised to maintain on the statute-book a law which imposes upon the Roman Catholics for the imagined security of the Protestant Establishment, but which they feel to be degrad-

  371
  ing and oppressive. My Lords, I say then that under these circumstances, if we suppose that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have the feelings of other men, it is impossible that they should not be deeply impressed with the injustice to which they are subject of devoting all the national revenues which originally belonged to the Roman Catholic Church to the exclusive support of the rich minority, while the poor majority are left to their own resources. And I say further that if they have the feelings common to mankind it is impossible that they should not resent this injustice. I have frequently been told that this is a complete mistake. I have been referred to the tone adopted at public meetings in Ireland. The Protestant Establishment, I am told, is not the grievance which forms the staple of their discussions and animadversions; and I have been asked whether the Fenians, who are equally opposed to the Catholic and Protestant clergy, have any interest in this matter. This is the language of shallow observation. It is not always the grievances most felt which are most talked of. It is not surprising the Catholics have not agitated so much upon this topic. Since the passing of the Tithes Commutation Act it is quite true the Irish Church has not pressed so much upon the great mass of the people, and therefore those who wish to excite opposition to the Imperial Government naturally dwell upon topics that make more impression in the mass of the people. But, my Lords, there is unmistakable evidence to show how acutely the upper classes feel the injustice done them, and how deeply they resent it; and do you suppose that you can have the superiors against you and not have the middle and labouring classes against you? Although the lower class may not feel so directly the grievances which press upon their superiors they take their tone from them. My Lords, the Government of Ireland has always had extreme difficulty in conducting its affairs. How is this to be explained except by the existence of a revolutionary feeling on the part of the higher orders of the Roman Catholics of Ireland? While they stand aloof and will do nothing to aid you, how can you expect that the mass of the people will be obedient? It is this I am persuaded, which is at the bottom of the disaffection of the Irish people, and in this direction we must look if we would cure the evil. Thus the questions that appear at first sight least connected with this great grievance of the Irish Church
  372
  all practically turn upon it; in short, my Lords, while this great grievance of the Irish Catholics exists, all the benevolent measures which you adopt for their country simply feed that feeling of envy of the Imperial Government which is at the bottom of the whole of the disaffection of the people of Ireland. I might pursue this topic further and point out how the Irish Church Establishment poisons the whole state of Society in Ireland, and prevents the people of that country from accepting measures which are intended for their benefit but I feel that I have already trespassed upon your Lordships' patience. I have said enough to show that there is a feeling of injustice rankling in the minds of a large portion of the people of Ireland, and this feeling must be removed before the people of that country will look with satisfaction upon any measures designed for their welfare. It is absolutely necessary therefore, if you wish to improve the condition of Ireland, to convince the people that you wish to deal by them justly in this great matter. If you do this my persuasion is that they will accept your good intentions in a corresponding spirit, and that you may succeed in restoring satisfaction to the people; but without it I am persuaded that you can expect nothing but failure. Much time has unfortunately been lost, and what might have been accepted willingly thirty or thirty-five years ago would not be so eagerly received now, but I believe that if you will fairly look the predicament in the face a settlement, and one that will be satisfactory, may still be arrived at.
  My Lords, after the arguments I have adduced, it may be said that I ought to propose some practical remedy. It may argue presumption in me to recommend to your Lordships any mode by which such a settlement may be arrived at; but, though by such a course I may incur some censure, I feel it necessary in support of my arguments to name some propositions on the subject and to point out to your Lordships how, in my opinion, justice may be done to Ireland, and the people of that country reconciled to the Imperial Government. I think that in all changes that may be made the two great objects to be aimed at are, first, to establish religious equality; and next, to avoid, as far as possible, the disturbance of existing interests. I would be the last to deprive any individual of rights to which by law he is entitled, but I cannot admit that the principles by which we re-

  373
  gulate our conduct towards individuals are always applicable to corporate bodies. I maintain, therefore, that in order to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of this question you must be prepared to make a largo diminution in the funds allowed to the Irish Church Establishment, The arrangement which I think may be made is this;—the whole of the property of the Established Church in Ireland ought to be invested in the bands of Commissioners, and these Commissioners should be empowered to divide the total income of the establishment among the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Presbyterians, in such proportions as each might be entitled to. In saying this I think that substantial justice does not require that the Roman Catholic Church should receive a share of those funds proportionate to their numbers. The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church are not permitted to marry, and as they have no families to maintain a smaller income would suffice for their requirements than would be necessary for the support of the clergy of the Established Church, and the grants to the members of the latter Church might be more considerable than the incomes assigned to the Roman Catholic clergy. These Commissioners, after the payment of all necessary expenses, should appropriate the remaining funds for the benefit of the several Churches in such proportions as may be determined upon. The money intended for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church should, I think, be paid over to trustees appointed on behalf of that Church, consisting partly of Roman Catholic prelates and partly of laymen, and these trustees should have full power to apply the amounts placed at their disposal in the purchase of glebe-houses and other matters, and also in cases of necessity in paying the stipends of some of the Roman Catholic clergy. The distribution of these funds should be unfettered by any conditions, save those to be prescribed by Parliament and the necessity of laying before both Houses an annual statement. In the same manner, the funds intended for the benefit of the Irish Church Establishment should be placed in the bands of a body of prelates and laymen as trustees for that Church. It will be absolutely necessary that Parliament should grant to the Commissioners an annuity, to be charged upon the Consolidated Fund, sufficiently large when combined with the share which will accrue from the Church property to pay the present dignitaries and clergy of
  374
  the Established Church in Ireland the incomes which they at present enjoy; but as the payments to the existing holders of Church preferments cease, the proportion of the annuity thereby set free can be carried to the general account of the Commissioners and divided between the three Churches in the proportion prescribed by Parliament, The share assigned to the Presbyterians should also be placed in the hands of trustees, partly clerical and partly lay, which should pay the clergy of that denomination who are now provided for by the Parliamentary grant commonly called the Regium Donum. The result of this arrangement would be that the clergy of the three Churches—the Protestant Episcopal, the Roman Catholic, and the Presbyterian—would all be paid out of one fund by Commissioners to be appointed by Parliament, such fund consisting partly of existing Church property, and partly of a payment to be annually granted by Parliament, the whole to be divided in such proportion as should be fixed by Parliament. By this arrangement the Protestant Episcopal Church would in the first instance receive a larger share than it would eventually obtain. I think by some such arrangement as that I have proposed great advantages would be obtained. In the first place, the Roman Catholics have for many years past objected to any arrangement which reduced their clergy to the position of stipend diaries dependent upon the State; but by the arrangement I have suggested the difficulty arising out of that objection would be avoided, as the money would be paid to special trustees, who should be appointed in such a manner as would give the best security for their independence, and who should be subject to no control but that of Parliament, to whom alone they should be compelled to give a full account of their administration of the fund committed to their charge. So also with regard to the Protestant Episcopal Church, In the first instance, the income from the fund would be applied to pay the existing clergy; but as existing claims fell in, and the total amount available for that purpose increased, I think the trustees on behalf of that Church, consisting of prelates and laymen of that religious denomination, should be enabled to alter the proportion of the payments according to the wants of the Church, and so to pay the whole sum in the manner in which they may think would be best calculated to promote the real interests of the Church they represent.

  375
  It appears to me that this arrangement would give such an amount of freedom to the Protestant Episcopal Church as would be no small compensation for the sum which they might lose by its being carried into effect. But I venture to remark that this Church would obtain a far larger and more valuable compensation by being relieved from the stigma it now labours under of being maintained by injustice. Why is it that this Church has failed to make itself acceptable to the people of Ireland? I believe that it teaches Christianity in its purest form, and it has for many years had the services of a body of clergy deserving of the highest praise for their sincere devotion to the interests of their Church. Although I do not approve the Established Church of Ireland in its present form, I am anxious to pay the individual clergy the tribute that is their due, and to express the high respect I feel for them. The only way to account for the failure of the Established Church is to attribute it to the false position in which it stands. The Irish people feel that the Church is a standing injustice to them, and that it is maintained only by the superior power of England. I believe that to relieve it from this odium would do much to promote the real welfare of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and I do not hesitate to say that I am anxious to promote by all fair means its success. The mere possession of wealth by a Church will not enable it to influence men's minds; on the contrary, when the taint of injustice rests upon an arrangement which is sought to be carried out by money, it works far more harm than good to the interests you seek to advance. I am persuaded that the right rev. Prelates opposite will agree with me that true religion is a thing which cannot be purchased by money. My Lords, I have now given you the broad outlines of the arrangement I propose for your consideration; but, at the same time, to establish religious equality some additional measures of importance will be required, of which the most material one would be a repeal of the enactments prohibiting Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops from assuming the titles of their sees, which restriction is felt, and naturally felt, to be a great injustice. I therefore propose that this restriction should be removed, and that they should be allowed to assume, with the prefix of "Roman Catholic," their proper titles. My Lords, the Resolutions I have to propose are as follow:—
  376

  "1. That in legislating for Ireland it is the duty of the Imperial Parliament to adopt such measures as might be expected to gain the approval of an Irish Parliament, fairly representing the people, and expressing the opinion of the majority of men of education and intelligence in Ireland,

  "2. That the application of the whole income derived from Church property in Ireland to the support of a Church Establishment, for the exclusive benefit of a small minority of the people of that country, is unjust, and ought not to be continued.

  "3. That, with a view to the correction of this injustice, it would be expedient to vest the whole property of the Church in Ireland in the hands of Commissioners empowered to manage it, and to divide the net income derived from it, in such proportions as Parliament may prescribe, between the Protestant Episcopal, the Roman Catholic, and the Presbyterian Churches.

  "4. That it would further be expedient to grant to the said Commissioners such a permanent annuity on the Consolidated Fund as would be sufficient, together with the share of the income from Church property in Ireland assigned to the Protestant Episcopal Church, to provide for paying to the present bishops and clergy of that Church the full incomes they now receive. As these payments to the existing holders of ecclesiastical preferment cease to be required, the proportion of the annuity thereby set free, to be carried to the general account of the Commissioners, and divided between the three Churches in the proportion prescribed by Parliament.

  "5. That the proportion of the net income at the disposal of the Commissioners assigned to each of the three Churches ought to be paid to Boards of Trustees appointed to receive the same, and apply the amount for the benefit of the said Churches.

  "6. That the Board of Trustees for the Protestant Episcopal Church, should consist of five prelates and five laymen of that Church, and that, subject to the claims of existing holders of benefices and dignities, the said Commissioners should be empowered, with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, to make such changes in the application of the income of the Church as might be considered expedient with a view to the more effective performance of its duties.

  "7. That the Board of Trustees for the Roman Catholic Church should in like manner consist of five prelates and five laymen of that Church, and that the income placed at their disposal should be applied, at their discretion, to the building and maintaining of places of worship and glebe-houses, and to the payment of stipends to the clergy.

  "8. That the Board of Trustees for the Presbyterian Church should consist of five clergymen and five laymen of that Church, and that the income assigned to them should be applied, in the first place, to the payment of the stipends to clergymen now provided for from the Parliamentary grant known as the Regium Donum; and, secondly, to the general purposes of their Church.

  "9. That the said Commissioners and Boards of Trustees should be required to lay annually before both Houses of Parliament full accounts of their receipts and expenditure.

  377

  "10. That the enactments whereby the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church are restrained from assuming the titles of their sees ought to be repealed, and that they ought to be allowed to assume the style of Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of the said sees.

  "11. That with a view to the improvement of agriculture in Ireland, it is desirable that the occupiers of land should have greater facility for the secure expenditure of money on permanent improvements, but that the difficulties now complained of would be aggravated instead of being diminished by any enactment infringing upon the rights of property; nor could the object in view be attained by any change in the law, which, with out infringing upon these rights, would empower tenants to compel their landlords to pay for improvements, since the creation of such a power would probably induce landlords to exercise their right of resuming land held by tenants proposing to use it when not protected by leases, and would also tend to increase the reluctance of landowners to grant long leases to their tenants.

  "12. That it is the true interest of both owners and occupiers of land that they should be left free to settle the terms on which it is to be held by mutual agreement, with as little legislative interference as possible, but that it deserves to be considered whether the Irish law of landlord and tenant might not be made more clear and simple, and whether some changes in its provisions, especially the repeal of the enactments which give to landlords the right of distress, and a preference over other creditors, might not tend to make the owners of land more desirous than they now are to let it to solvent tenants, on conditions and for terms of years which would encourage permanent improvements."

  Such, my Lords, are the Resolutions which, in the event of your adopting my proposal for a Committee of the Whole House, it is my intention to move. They are far from including all the measures which I believe to be required for the benefit of Ireland I will mention one. For many years I have been of opinion that the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland ought to be abolished. My noble Friend who now holds the office (Lord Wodehouse) deserves great credit for the energy he has displayed in very trying and difficult circumstances. But that fact has not changed the opinion I have long entertained that the system of government of Ireland through a Lord Lieutenant ought to be done away. But, though there are many measures which might be adopted with advantage to Ireland, I have thought it right to confine the Resolutions which I propose submitting to you if you should consent to go into Committee to those subjects which I consider most urgent. I have concluded with the land question, because I think it of great importance, and if your Lordships should concur with me you will go far to show the Irish people that, while you are ready to act
  378
  with justice, you are not disposed to encourage that vague hope of alterations which would lead to mischief instead of good. The other Resolutions are principally confined to the Church question, and they lay down two great principles—principles by which, as was so well said in the other House of Parliament, in our legislation for Ireland we ought to be guided. The first is, that we should legislate, as far as possible, according to the wishes of the Irish people; and the second is, that in this important question of the Irish Church we ought to do full and impartial justice to the Irish people in the same spirit as, if the circumstances of the two countries were reversed, we should desire the Irish people should do unto us. My Lords, I am persuaded you are bound to adopt those principles, because they are founded on justice and good sense. Justice requires that we ought not, even if we had the power, to impose upon Ireland a system which we know if applied to ourselves would meet with the most determined opposition; and which was attempted to be applied to Scot land, and which fortunately evoked from the Scotch not only determined but successful resistance. On grounds of policy the case of Ireland seems still more clear. My Lords, it seems to me that Ireland as she is is a source not of strength, but of weakness. She constantly calls for deep anxiety from every reflecting statesman, and she would, in the event of our being involved in a dangerous foreign war, if her present state of feeling remains unaltered, be a source of serious danger. My Lords, I am persuaded that you ought to make an attempt to conciliate the Irish people. But I anticipate being told in answer to the arguments I have used that the policy I have recommended would not succeed in gaining the affections of the great body of the Irish people, while it would offend our only true friends—the Protestants of the North. It is not my wish, and still less is it my duty, in discussing this great subject, to avoid any difficulty that may be raised. I therefore do at once confess that I do not look for an immediate settlement of the affairs of Ireland from the adoption of the course which I recommend. I know that political evils of long standing admit only of gradual cure. But that is no reason why we should not begin. We ought not to allow that we have but little confidence in the power of justice. I am persuaded if you can only convince the Irish people that you mean to deal justly and fairly by

  379
  them, and to abate nothing of what is their due—if you do that in a kindly spirit I am convinced that by degrees their animosity will subside. When I say I recommend you to do full justice in a kindly spirit to Ireland I am far from meaning that that should be a spirit of great indulgence. I am persuaded that the mistakes in our past Government were occasioned by the circumstance that we had to a great extent to make up by indulgence from our shrinking to do full justice, and, therefore, we exhibited weakness in the administration of the law. At all events, we felt that there was something wrong and rotten in the whole system, and, therefore, we shrank from carrying the law fully and impartially into effect. Let us only do all that justice and reason require, and then we can put down party processions, whether of Green or Orange, with a firm hand, and maintain the majesty of the law against all who may attempt to call it in question, whether they belong to one party or the other. That is the policy which I am convinced you ought to adopt if you are disposed to restore peace and prosperity to Ireland. And though I am quite aware that in the first instance a change in our policy may make the Protestants of the North for a while discontented, yet I am convinced that feeling would soon subside. What creates those religious animosities which have been the cause of so much violence and bloodshed in Ireland is, that both parties feel that the existing state of things cannot be permanent. It is felt by one party that they must do all they can to maintain and by the other that they must endeavour by every means to overthrow the existing arrangement. But let an arrangement be once effected on just principles, and I firmly believe that before many years angry feeling on both sides will subside, and that the same spirit will prevail in Ireland which obtains in countries where no unjust domination and no religious ascendancy of one party over another exist.
  My Lords, there are, I believe, two objections which will be advanced against the policy which I recommend. In the first place, it will be said that it would be unjust to the people of the United Kingdom to apply any portion of the public revenues to the purposes which I have indicated. Well, my Lords, if I did not feel that the Irish people had so much to complain of the injustice of the system by which they have been governed, I would have hesitated
  380
  to recommend the application of any part of the general revenues of the Empire to Irish purposes. I feel appalled when I consider the history of our government of Ireland, and how far we are from having redressed all the grievances of that country. I fully expect to hear the arguments that were used some time ago in the House of Commons with reference to Maynooth. It is said that it is a sin to give any support to the idolatry of the Church of Rome, and that we are not justified in contributing any money whatever to the revenues of the Roman Catholic Church. I meet that argument by saying that, according to the arrangement which I venture to propose, not a single shilling of English money would be applied to the support of that Church. The endowments of the Roman Catholic Church would be exclusively derived from Church property in Ireland; and the Parliamentary grant would go to the maintenance of the Protestant Church. I do not, however, rest my argument on so low a ground. I object to the present system as unsound in principle, and as directly contrary to the principles of the religion we all profess. Who gives us the right to say that the Roman Catholic religion is false? Who are we that pretend to judge the religion of a large proportion of the inhabitants of this realm? The fundamental principles of Christianity are held in common with ourselves by the Roman Catholic Church. We say that they have corrupted the pure truth by the addition of human inventions. They say that we have without warrant despised the authority which belongs to the Church. Who is to decide between us? If numbers are to be the test of truth as between the two religions, it is clear we cannot claim to be right. If, on the other hand, the soundness of doctrine is to be tested by the character and conduct of those who profess it, the Roman Catholics need not shrink from the test. True it is that the Roman Catholic religion has been disgraced by men who, under the pretence of spreading the truth, have resorted to cruelty and oppression, and have advanced their own worldly interests. But is our own Church, or is any Christian Church, free from the reproach of having been so disgraced? I am afraid it is not so. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church can produce a long list of the names of men distinguished for their learning and virtue, and who have shown the sincerity of their faith by the purity of their lives and their devotion to

  381
  the good of their fellow creatures. What right have we to maintain that the religion held by such men was a false religion? And what right have we to presume that it is so clearly so that it is our duty to legislate for Ireland on that assumption? My own opinion on the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is very decided; but does that give me a right to impose my opinions on others? Have not the Roman Catholics the same right to their opinion that I have to mine? In a country like this, inhabited by men of various religious opinions, unless we are prepared to respect each other's opinions, and not hold that we ourselves are necessarily right and that those who differ from us are necessarily wrong, we must give up all hope of civil peace, and of the advancement of that true religion which consists, not in the profession of faith, but in the practice of Christian charity and virtue.
  I do not ask your Lordships to assent to or dissent from the views I have expressed. I simply ask your Lordships to declare by your vote that the state of Ireland requires consideration, that she cannot be loft as she is, and that you are bound to make some vigorous effort to improve her condition, which has so long been a reproach to the British Crown. We have heard it stated in strong language hi this House, and perhaps it has been stated in stronger language in the other House, that the deep feeling of animosity against Russia, which prevails in Poland is conclusive proof of Russia's misgovernment of that unhappy country. May not, similar conclusion be drawn against us from the state of Ireland while she continues as she is? I have shown you that disaffection in Ireland has not diminished, but has kept increasing, during the last thirty years. While this state of things exists, every advance which Ireland may make in other respects only increases our peril. If she increases in wealth and population and still remains disaffected, our position will become far more perilous than it is now. We are therefore in this condition—that, until we succeed in gaining the affections of the Irish people, every measure we pass for the benefit of Ireland only increases the evils of which we complain. The necessity for applying to Parliament for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus was clear evidence as to the stale of Ireland; but I think it is the duty of the Government not merely to re-
  382
  press the outward symptoms of disaffection in that country, but to ascertain the true source of the danger, so that the danger itself might be removed. I cannot think that it is any excuse for them to say that they have been unable to devise measures for improving the condition of Ireland, and, removing the disaffection of the people, for such an excuse is the same as saying that they are unequal to the duties with which they are intrusted. Still less is it an excuse to say that these are measures which they cannot venture to propose, because they think public opinion in this country is not prepared for them. There are, no doubt, many cases in which Ministers of the Crown have properly abstained from proposing measures which they themselves were in favour of, but which, in their opinion, public opinion was not prepared for Such precedents, however, do not apply to cases where the highest interests are at stake. It is a degrading thing to suppose that the Government can properly deal with an important question like this by floating wherever the popular feeling may carry them. In cases like this it is their duty to act as guides; and they are bound, whatever may be the consequence, to propose such measures as they believe to be right, and to recommend to Parliament the course which they deem the best for securing the safety of the State. If they fail they are, at all events, preparing the way for the ultimate accomplishment of that which is right, and avoiding the possibility of allowing the nation, without warning and without check, to proceed on a course which must eventually lead to ruin. I say, therefore, that in a case of such importance as this the Government ought to have proposed a measure which was in their judgment calculated to avert danger from Ireland. After all that has occurred I the Government ought to have come forward and laid down some clear and distinct line of policy. They have not done so, however, and therefore the duty devolves upon us of declaring in the proper Parliamentary manner our opinion that the condition of Ireland is one which ought not to be allowed to continue without serious efforts being made for its improvement, and I now conclude my remarks with the Motion of which I have given notice.
  Moved, That the House will on Tuesday next resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider the State of Ireland.—(Earl Grey.)
  LORD DUFFERIN: My Lords, I think that I ought, perhaps, to make some apology for addressing your Lordships at this period of the evening, when be many other noble Lords are anxious to offer some remarks on the important topics which have been brought under the notice of your Lordships by the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Grey). I thought, however, that it might not be displeasing to this House, and not inconvenient for the purpose of the impending discussion, that some one who, like myself, is not identified with any political party or religious sect in Ireland, but whose material interests are connected with the prosperity of that country, should submit to your Lordships such facts and considerations in connection with the present condition of Ireland as his own personal experience and observation will enable him to do. And in endeavouring to discharge that task I can assure your Lordships that my sole aim and anxiety will be to put the House in possession of what I believe to be the actual and simple truth, without any endeavour to exaggerate or distort it. In the first place, I beg leave, both as a Peer of Ireland and as a Member of your Lordships' House, to tender my most hearty thanks to the noble Earl for having given us this opportunity of discussing the state of Ireland. When it has become necessary to apply such a severe measure of repression to that country as the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, it is right and fitting that we should as soon as may be enter upon an examination of the relations subsisting between the two countries, and that we should, however disheartening the task may be, take down the volume of Irish wrongs, which it was hoped had been closed for ever by the remedies which past Parliaments have provided, and go again, item by item, line by line, through the whole of that sorrowful account. But though approving the course adopted by the noble Earl as far as it enables your Lordships to consider the condition of Ireland, it will, nevertheless, be my duty to ask your Lordships to negative the Motion upon two grounds. The first objection to the Motion is on the ground of form. I believe it would be most inconvenient if the House were called upon, whether it went into Committee or not, to pronounce an opinion upon Resolutions with which it has not had an opportunity of making itself acquainted. It appears to me that in the course which the noble Earl has pursued in making his speech and reading his Reso-
  384
  lutions, he has adopted the practice of the American duellist, who, first concealing a 12-barrelled pistol about his person, engages his antagonist in conversation, and then discharges the weapon at him through his pocket. But I also object to the Motion because I believe it is founded altogether on the erroneous assumption that the evils, the discontent, and the disaffection which it cannot be denied exist to a certain extent in Ireland are the result of legislation. In reality, however, they do not result from legislation, nor can they be removed to any considerable degree by any abnormal or exceptional legislation at the present moment. I do not for one moment mean to say that there are no remedial measures which can be applied to Ireland. Indeed, I should be sorry to make such an observation in regard to England or any other prosperous country; but what I do say is, that the subjects which are put forward as grounds of complaint by the promoters of the Fenian movement, and by the promoters of that wider sphere of discontent which also exists, though I believe it to be extremely attenuated, are not the result of any legislation or want of legislation, but are to be traced, in the first place, to a traditional hostility to this country, engendered by evils long since abolished; secondly, to certain peculiarities in the national character; and thirdly, to the operation of certain natural laws which neither the ingenuity of statesmen nor the legislative omnipotence of Parliament can pretend to control. Now, in order to ascertain how far this view of the case is correct, I would ask your Lordships to consider what are the things of which complaint is made by those who represent themselves as champions either of the Fenian movement or of the national party in Ireland. As far as I have studied the manifestoes issued by the leaders of the Fenian movement or their followers, I have only discovered three subjects of complaint within the competency of Parliament. The first of these is that which enlists the sympathy of the noble Earl—namely, the Established Church; the second is the right of the tenant to compensation for improvements; and the third, the extensive emigration. I ask your Lordships to examine the three counts of the indictment preferred against the Imperial Government. The first inquiry is as to whether the disaffection now existing in Ireland can be referred to any one of them; and the next is whether any change

  385
  which we could make would hare the effect of extinguishing that disaffection. Now, with regard to the Established Church in Ireland, the noble Earl has made a very rigorous and a very formidable attack upon that Church; and I do not appear here as the advocate or apologist of the Established Church system in Ireland. In a great deal which has fallen from the noble Earl I am disposed to agree; but what I say is this—that the presence of the Established Church in Ireland has not the slightest to do with the present disaffection, If the £480,000 a year which constitute the revenues of that Establishment were transferred by a prospective measure to take effect at the death of the present incumbents, I do not believe that would keep a single man from crossing the Atlantic or prevent the casting of a single Fenian bullet. The designs of the Fenians are directed as much against the moral supremacy of the Catholic priesthood as against the material emoluments of the Established Church. Persons connected with the Fenian movement have been heard to express regret at the passing of the Emancipation Act, on the ground that it kept men from their ranks who otherwise would have joined them. I am ready to acknowledge the anomalies of the Established Church in Ireland, and I am ready to argue the matter in the abstract—on general grounds of policy; but considering the humble position which I occupy in the Government. I think it will be more becoming of me not to follow the noble Earl through the details, or to trouble the House with any lengthened statement of my private opinion on the subject. I think it will be more convenient that I should proceed to the other subject, which other persons have considered to be a more essential element of Irish discontent—namely, tenant-right. My Lords, I admit at once that the inquiry how far the uneasiness which undoubtedly exists in the minds of the occupants of land is to be identified with the Fenian movement is a more difficult investigation than that connected with the Church: but, nevertheless, I am convinced I shall be able to show your Lordships that the agrarian revolution which the Fenians have in view in connection with the land is a thing entirely distinct from those extravagant pretensions advanced by persons who put themselves forward as the advocates of the tenants in Ireland; because while the small farmers are generally loyal and are interested in the security of land, their farmsteads and
  386
  their cattle would be the first sacrifices to a successful Fenian insurrection. I do not propose this evening to enter into a minute investigation of the nature of the transactions between landlord and tenant in Ireland. I may, however, observe that as estates in Ireland are so subdivided it is very difficult for a landlord dealing with a number of tenants who do not occupy more than thirty acres, and some whose holdings are as small as five acres, to find the necessary buildings and farm accommodation for all his tenants. Moreover, it has become evident of late years that these small patches of ground cannot be cultivated with advantage, and consequently the landlord is reluctant to build four or five farmhouses, where, if the farms were of proper size, one would suffice. The result is, that it has become the practice for the tenant to make the improvements himself; but I think it right to say that this rule is not without an exception. Since 1847 no less a sum than £1,800,000 has been expended by the Irish landlords in the improvement of their properties, and of that amount no less than £75,000 has been expended on farm buildings, and £4,500 on the erection of cottages. But, notwithstanding this, it must be admitted that improvement by the tenant is the rule; and I must say that the Irish tenant without a lease is in a much more unfavourable position than a Scotch or an English tenant. But in consequence of circumstances to which I have referred, the Irish farmer is placed at a disadvantage in another respect—namely, the unwillingness of some landlords to grant leases. I think they are wrong. On the other hand, the Irish peasant has such a desire for the possession of land, that the small farmer cannot be induced to pass from the condition of an impoverished tenant to that of an independent labourer. He will make any promise and endure any privations to acquire the possession of land. I can understand that in countries where side by side with the small holdings of the peasants there are other means of absorbing the extra labour of the peasantry, and where thus there are means of preventing the perennial division of those small holdings, small farms may be found to answer; but I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my conviction that this system has been the curse of Ireland. In illustration of some of its evil effects I may observe that the small farmers, not being in a position to pay for labourers, are forced to take away

  387
  their children from school at the very time when they ought to be receiving such an education as would enable them to earn their own livelihood. As long as their father is alive these children live in a worse position than that of any labourer, and when he dies their sole ambition is to divide his farm in small patches among them. From this state of things has sprung up that unfortunate competition for land from which we have the unprotected position of the tenant. As long as the old management of estates prevailed the evils of the system did not display themselves so strikingly; but when under the operations of the In-cumbered Estates Act the old tenants were brought into contact with men of more businesslike habits who had bought the property to make money of it, those tenants became more sensible of their position; and hence the cry of tenant-right. But there could not be a greater mistake than to confound this appeal for what the tenants suppose to be their rights with the proposal of the Fenians for a re-distribution of land in Ireland; and it must be recollected that, no matter what law might be made to improve the relations of landlord and tenant in that country, such a law would not reach the people who are participators in this conspiracy. Such a law as this could be only prospective in its operation, and the question arises, how many people would it affect? The whole population of Ireland is 5,700,000; and the number of persons who hold farms is 438,000, and 164,000 of these hold on an average about ten acres; and these tenants, though they might benefit to a certain degree, could only derive the small benefit in proportion to their holding; and if you deduct the whole of the tenantry of Ulster, who are likely to lose more than they gain by any Tenant Right Bill that has the slightest chance of passing through the Houses of Parliament, your Lordships will see how infinitesimal must be the amount of discontent to be traced to this source. In fact, my Lords, it stands to reason that those very persons who are anxious for Parliamentary interference on the ground that they are about to lay out considerable sums of money on their farms would be the very last to jeopardize those important interests by embarking in so dangerous an enterprize as the Fenian insurrection. If it were necessary, I could prove that, were we to adopt some of the amendments in the law suggested by the more enthusiastic friends
  388
  of the farmer, though ultimately these might prove beneficial, in all probability in their immediate effect they would be more likely to stimulate discontent than to extinguish it. Take, for instance, a very favourite improvement suggested in the North, and which I admit might be beneficial—I mean the taking away from the landlord of the right of distraint. Suppose that such a law was seen to be impending in either House of Parliament, what would be the immediate consequence? On every estate in Ireland where a heavy weight of arrears exists, no matter how indulgent the landlord may be, to protect his own interests he would at once call in those arrears; and however satisfactory to the philosopher and philanthropist such a clearing up of old scores would be, it is very doubtful whether you could persuade the unfortunate tenant, who suddenly finds himself overtaken by an unexpected demand for payment to the landlord of all that is due to him, that the legislation productive of such a demand is of the beneficent character which it is represented to be. In fact, the misfortune of the state of Ireland is this, that for a series of years the fabric of society has grown on a wrong foundation. In consequence of what I shall call a dispensation of Providence, the re-construction of that fabric has in some degree become necessary; but a state of transition in any community is always a state of suffering to a great number of individuals affected by it. Even by producing improvements which are likely to place the machinery of society on a better footing hereafter, by stimulating the progress of transition, you are very apt at the same time to increase the actual amount of discontent. Of one thing I am perfectly certain—that not any portion of the present disaffection in Ireland can be traced to neglect on the part of the Government in introducing laws for the improvement of the relations of landlord and tenant; although I may take this opportunity of stating that I think it would be very possible to improve that law and to render it, what it is not, as liberal as the law of landlord and tenant in either of the sister kingdoms. Now, my Lords, it only remains for me to notice the third ground of complaint cast in the teeth of the Imperial Government, and insisted on with considerable force by the noble Earl—namely, the excessive emigration which has taken place from Ireland during the last twenty years. It has been said by a very eminent per-

  389
  son in another place that deep-seated indeed must be the evils of any country from whose shores so vast a proportion of the population is compelled to flee. With that observation I entirely and cordially agree. But the question is, are these evils the result of legislation, or are they due to causes entirely beyond the power of any Act of Parliament to deal with? Let us consider calmly and dispassionately the nature of this emigration. In the first place, I must be permitted to correct three misconceptions—namely, that emigration only commenced after the potato failure; that it was principally confined to the Celtic portion of the population; and that it was mainly stimulated by evictions carried out by the landowners. The fact is, that in the ten years previous to 1841 more than half a million of persons had already quitted the shores of Ireland; and on a comparison founded upon the denominational Census of 1834 and 1861, it will be found that, although over the whole of Ireland the decrease among the Celtic portion of the population might have been in a more rapid ratio, yet that in the purely agricultural districts the Protestant and the Roman Catholic emigration was nearly identical. How very little influence upon the emigration from Ireland is to be attributed to evictions by the landlords will be seen when I mention to your Lordships that on an average the number of evictions during the past few years has been from 600 to 700 annually, while the emigration has been from 80,000 to 110,000. And that some such change was necessary is amply proved from the following simple fact, which is one of the most significant that ever came under my notice, and which is vouched for on the conjoint authority of Archbishop Whately, Archbishop Murray, and Mr. More O'Ferrall:—In 1841 it appears that five persons were engaged in the cultivation of the soil in Ireland, where only two persons were engaged in similar operations in England; though at the same time the total agricultural produce of England was exactly four times the total of the agricultural produce of Ireland. The fact is, that the whole fabric of the State at that time was based on one of the most unsubstantial and insecure foundations on which any country ever existed. From the landlord in his mansion down to the peasant in his cabin, everyone was more or less dependent on the potato. Undoubtedly every man in those days was happy enough, and I believe they are looked back to as "the
  390
  good old days before the potato famine." It is quite true that the poorest peasant could always find a patch of mountain where he could grow his favourite vegetable there were always stones and mud at hand out of which to construct a cabin; there was always a bog near at hand to cut turf from; there was always a handsome girl to make him the father of twelve children in about a dozen years; and there was always the domestic pig to pay the rent. Potatoes, pigs, and children were, propagated in a highly agreeable and freehearted manner. But, my Lords, will anybody tell me that this species of existence is one to be regretted, or re-established, if that were possible? Will anyone say that the thousands and thousands of energetic, industrious men who are now pushing their way in the world on the other side of the Atlantic have been nothing benefited by the change imposed upon them, not through any interference on the part of Parliament, but by a most merciful interposition of Divine Providence. It is quite true that to the people themselves the crisis of transition was a period of great discomfort and great physical suffering. Naturally they resented the change; they felt aggrieved at being compelled to leave the fields and glens endeared to them by so many happy memories. But, once having made the change, that they neither regretted it nor failed to benefit by it is proved by one of the most touching facts which has probably ever occurred in the history of any nation. Within sixteen years from the commencement of this emigration the people who had quitted their native shores, almost in the guise of paupers, had actually remitted no less a sum than £12,000,000 for the purpose of enabling their friends and relations to share the happier prospects which were being opened up to them in their new country, whose wonderful fertility and scanty population at once stimulated their industry and rewarded their labour. These remittances of money, it is needless to add, were long anterior to any suggestions of Fenianism. There cannot be a greater mistake than to imagine that emigration is anything but a benefit to those that go and those that stay. If we compare the density of its population with that of other nations, we find that Ireland is still more densely populated than any European nation. In every square mile in Ireland there are 181 persons, in France 177, in Prussia 171, in Austria 148, in Scotland 101, and in Spain

  391
  90. Unhappily, the resources of Ireland, mineral, manufacturing, or natural, are in an inverse ratio to its population. At this moment there are in that country no more than 815,000 persons engaged in the pursuits of commerce or manufacture, while in England 5,500,000 are absorbed by these industries. On the other hand, there are in Ireland twice the number of persons engaged in cultivating an equal area of land to the numbers that are so engaged in England—in fact, there are probably 300,000 families, or 1,000,000 of persons, dependent on the land in Ireland, more than are needed for its proper cultivation. Although some exception may be taken to these figures, which I have taken from the Census tables of 1861, yet, nevertheless, the great fact still remains unqualified that a large proportion of the people of Ireland remain hanging on, as it were, to the skirts of society, and standing aloof from the disciplined ranks of labour. But, my Lords, perhaps it may be objected, that if we were only to develop the resources of Ireland, we shall find occupation for all these millions. That is an observation to the force of which I at once bow. I believe Ireland is capable of sustaining a far larger population than it has yet borne—I believe there are a hundred fountains of wealth still to be unsealed in Ireland; but what I say, my Lords, is this—for Heaven's sake do hot keep thousands and thousands of industrious, able-bodied men in a degraded state of idleness until we shall have discovered the secret for unlocking those fountains of wealth and for attracting the necessary capital to work them. Of those who speak of developing the resources of Ireland, I would ask, how can you expect that the resources of any country can be developed as long as a state of insecurity prevails in the country? Thousands of years ago Aristophanes observed that Plutus was a most timorous person; and depend upon it Plutus is much too wise a person to trust himself in a Fenian agitation. Now, my Lords, in connection with this part of the subject it so happens that certain facts have come to my personal knowledge, and I think it desirable not only that your Lordships but also the public at large should be made acquainted with them. To those who have been carefully watching the progress of Ireland during the last three years I do not know that any symptom is so encouraging and hopeful as the evident desire which had begun to operate a short
  392
  time ago among English capitalists to invest their money in Ireland. I observed in the summer of last year that an English company which had been formed for the purpose of spending a million and a half of money in building speculations in Ireland had commenced operations within three miles of where I live by purchasing land. But the Fenian agitation declared itself, and rather than continue their enterprize the promoters of the speculation sacrificed the capital which they had already invested, and disappeared out of the country. Another case is that of a gentleman who, having made his fortune in Manchester, left England for Drogheda, the birth place of his ancestors, and from a feeling of benevolence towards his fellow-countrymen he established a large cotton manufactory. In consequence of the cheapness of labour and the advantages offered by the waters of the Boyne for the manufacture of cotton he was able to prosecute the industry with success, and last summer half-a-dozen of his friends in Manchester went over to Ireland, from no motive of benevolence, but simply from a desire to share in the profits of what they hoped would be similarly successful ventures. Then the tourists who visit Ireland during the summer were a very large source of revenue to many of the towns and villages in the south of Ireland. The number of visitors to Killarney alone amounted to 500, representing an expenditure of several thousands, a week; but immediately the Fenian agitation occurred the whole of them left. I myself met them returning from Dublin in a panic, and after September not a dozen visitors showed themselves in the place. I could multiply instances such as these, my Lords, to show the way capital was turned aside as it was in the very act of flowing into the country. And the worst of it is, my Lords, that at that time, I have no hesitation in saying, notwithstanding the statement made by the noble Earl, Ireland was in a very prosperous position. And at this moment I declare Ireland to be in a very prosperous condition. The noble Earl unfortunately took it for granted that we should be ready to accede to his statement when he spoke to us of what he called "the admitted decline of Irish prosperity." I will not trouble your Lordships with too many statistics, but I will mention a few facts which I have culled from authentic Returns, and these will show the kernel of the case. In 1865 the cattle of Ireland was valued at two millions of money more than the valuation of the pre-

  393
  vious year; and the value of live stock at this moment is £26,000,000 in excess of what it was in 1841. Then if we turn to other agricultural statistics we find that during the last year 125,000 acres of lay were brought under pasturage more than were cultivated in the previous year; and since 1841 200,000 acres of waste land have been reclaimed. Then we had 233,000 acres under flax last year, which is an advance of as much as 63 per cent on the cultivation of flax in 1861. Then, with regard to wages. The noble Earl stated that the Irish labourer was underpaid; but in my own county an Irish labourer can always earn 1s. 2d. to 1s. 4d. per day; in harvest time he gets not less than 2s. a day; a railway labourer earns from 10 s. to 12 s. a week, while the carpenter, mason, and skilled workmen generally make from £1 to £2 a week. And Judge Longfield, who, I believe, will be accepted as an authority capable of forming a correct judgment upon these matters, states that the actual rise of wages in Ireland has amounted to 80 per cent I within the last twenty years. Well, then, my Lords, if we again refer to the Poor Law, which is another test of the condition of the country, we shall find that in 1865 no less than 34,224 fewer persons were in receipt of relief than in 1863. If we turn to the police Return, we find the diminution of crime has been absolutely marvellous. The cases have been reduced from 10,000 in 1841 to 4,600 cases in 1850. Then, if we go to the deposit banks, we find that there has been an increase from £4,000,000 in 1863 to £11,000,000 in 1865, and at this moment they stand £1,000,000 in excess of the largest sum deposited at any sime during the last twenty years. If we look to our manufactories, we find that the power-looms in the North of Ireland have been actually doubled within the last five years; the exports of Belfast have doubled within one year, and although I quote from memory, I think I am justified in saying that the actual wealth of Ireland at the present time is £52,000,000 in excess of what it was in 1841. These facts, I think, show plainly enough that Ireland is far from retrograding; but I have something even more surprising still to relate. It is that Ireland has outstripped England in its progress in agricultural wealth. England's position in 1815 was stated at £41,000,000, and in 1856 it amounted only to £38,000,000; and whereas in 1815 the farmers' profits were put down at £21,700,000, in 1856
  394
  they were estimated at £24,224,000. It may, perhaps, be asked to what is the present disaffection of Ireland to be attributed if it is not to be accounted for by the existence of the Established Church or by the alleged unsatisfactory condition of the land question I believe that that question can be easily answered. Let us see for a moment what have been the invariable characteristics which have signalized the periods of disaffection in Ireland. In every case demonstrations of a rebellious character in Ireland have been propagated from without. In 1798 the rising in Ireland followed upon the French Revolution. In 1848, too, the events of Ireland were the consequence of European disturbances; and the abortive attempts of 1866 may be traced even more clearly to foreign influence. It may with great justice be demanded why the Irish people are always so willing to lend themselves to the wiles of these alien sedition-mongers? but that question is very easily answered. I must, however, first of all deny that the Irish people generally are disaffected. I believe that, as a whole, the Irish nation is essentially loyal and contented; but there does undoubtedly exist among the lowest class of the Irish people a traditional hostility to this country—a feeling engendered, no doubt, by the evil treatment that Ireland has met with at the hands of England during past centuries—a feeling which it is, of course, absurd to expect will disappear at once. Nothing, however, is more remarkable than the loyal and enthusiastic devotion which pervades the minds of the Irish people towards what they regard as a national cause. I would only remind your Lordships, as an instance of the attachment of the Irish peasant to what he considers his faction or party, of the feud which existed between two villages—I do not for the moment remember their names—in which the respective parties were dignified by the appellations of the "two-year olds" and the "three-year olds." Those factions availed themselves of every opportunity they could find to break their adversaries' heads, and to commit upon one another every kind of cruelty, and all on account of a dissension which had been completely forgotten in the lapse of time. When therefore a large number of adventurers spread themselves over the country, opening the beerhouses and scattering handfuls of silver in all directions, telling a poor and excitable population that an American fleet was on its way to Bantry

  395
  Bay for the purpose of bestowing upon each of the enraptured listeners a smart house and property, it is not to be wondered at that they have been to some extent successful, although it is satisfactory to notice that the victims of these delusions are confined to the most ignorant of the masses. Your Lordships now will observe that each successive attempt at revolution in Ireland has been weaker than its predecessors. In 1798 many members of the higher ranks of society in Ireland were involved in the rising; in 1848 the attempt was weaker, for it only reached the level of the middle classes; and now, in 1866, the movement is confined to the lowest and the most ignorant portion of the people. The disaffection which at present exists in Ireland cannot, I believe, be removed by any exceptional legislation which you may attempt. That disaffection is entirely unconnected with the Irish Established Church, and has nothing to do with the landlord or tenant question. It is, moreover, entirely unshared by those who have anything to lose, or by any religious community who recognize the first principles of morality. It has been propagated by filibustering hordes among the ignorant and uneducated class of the people, whose material comfort and social status have unfortunately been compromised by the changes which have taken place in Ireland since 1846. Although I have endeavoured to prove that the present disaffection in Ireland is not attributable to any want of proper legislation, and that it is not to be removed by special enactments, I am anxious to guard myself from the imputation of believing that no legislation is required for Ireland. On the contrary, I believe that much remains to be done; and when the suitable time arrives your Lordships will, I doubt not, give your best attention to any remedial measures which may be proposed. Still less am I disposed to think that nothing has been done by the moral influence of those who are connected with Ireland by ties of property. It is to them, indeed, that we have to look for assistance in our attempts to effect the regeneration of that country; and it appears to me that those who derive a large portion of their revenue from Ireland incur a very grave responsibility if they confine their interest in their fellow-countrymen and their tenants to ascertaining the colour of their money. It is not, however, only the benevolence or the generosity of the landed proprietors of Ireland that can effect a change in the
  396
  feelings of the people. What they demand is your sympathy, the actual presence of yourselves, your wives, and your daughters, moving among them in the villages, active in the promotion of works of charity, thus convincing the people that you regard them as your fellow-countrymen, and Ireland as your country. I do not, however, wish to exaggerate these influences. I believe it would be as wrong to place our hopes for the future prosperity of Ireland upon the exertions and influence of individual landlords as it would be to expect Ireland to be regenerated by exceptional Parliamentary legislation. It is on higher, wider, and more powerful agencies that we must fix our hopes; and those agencies have already commenced their operations in the more equal distribution of the population in the fields of labour and employment. In the meantime no other course is open to us but to pursue that policy so happily inaugurated by the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and with a temperate, firm, and irresistible hand to protect the industry, the property, and the education of the country against the evil designs of the unprincipled adventurers by whom they are assailed, and to save, as far as possible, the dupes of these adventurers from the consequences of their folly.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH: My Lords, if your Lordships are pleased to grant to the noble Earl the Committee for which he has asked, it will then, I think, be the proper time for me to meet his statements respecting the Established Church in Ireland. I will, therefore, for the present, confine myself to a few observations. It appears to me that the noble Earl wishes to disestablish us because the members of the United Church in Ireland form the minority of the population. But this calculation will only hold good if you sever the Irish from the English branch of the Established Church, and this severance would be contrary to the history of the last 700 years as well as to the Act of Union. In the year 1172, at the Council of Cashel, the usages, customs, and the doctrines of the Irish Church were conformed to those of the Church of England; and, to accomplish this object, in the reign of Henry II. tithes were for the first time established in Ireland. We have many instances recorded of the intercommunion of the Churches of England and Ireland in that time. In the Council of Constance, in 1414, the Ambassadors of the English King claimed a separate vote as represent-

  397
  ing the Churches of England and Ireland. The question was entertained by the Council, and, after discussion, was allowed. At the Reformation, in the oath of supremacy to be taken in Ireland, under the Irish Statute, 28 Henry VIII. c. 13, s. 6, the King was to be acknowledged as the supreme head of "the Church of England and Ireland;" and in the oath of supremacy to be taken in England, under the Statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 1, s. 11, the King was to be acknowledged as the supreme head of "the Church of England and Ireland." At the time of the Union the two Churches were consolidated into one. Lord Castlereagh, in proposing that Union, addressed the following words to the Irish Parliament:—
  "One State, one Legislature, one Church—these are the leading features of the system, and without identity with Great Britain in these three great points of connection we never can hope for any real or permanent security. The Church in particular, while we remain a separate country, will ever be liable to be impeached on local grounds. When once incorporated with the Church of England it will be placed upon such a strong and natural foundation as to be above every apprehension and fear from adverse interest, and from all fretting and irritating circumstances connected with our colonial situation. As soon as the Church Establishments of the two kingdoms shall be incorporated into one Church, the Protestant will feel himself at once identified with the population and property of the Empire, and the Establishment will be placed on its natural basis. In accordance with these principles the 5th Article of the Treaty of Union enacted 'That the Churches of England and Ireland be united into one Episcopal Church, and that the continuance and preservation of the said United Church, as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the Union.'"
  Now, my Lords, the Act of Union was a national compact, and as long as that Act remains in force there is "one State, one Legislature, one Church," and that Church is the Church of the Empire, and consequently the members of the Irish Church do not constitute a small separate minority, but form a part of the Church of the great majority of the Empire. The noble Earl, in referring to the Act of Union, said that it was the Act of a Parliament which only represented a part of the people; but the noble Earl forgets that the Act of Union was approved by the Roman Catholic prelates acting on behalf of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, and that the then Ro man Catholic Archbishop of Dublin was one of the principal agents who aided in bringing about the Union. It must, there fore, be admitted that the Act of Union was
  398
  not the Act of a minority, but was a national Act, approved at the time by the great majority of the Irish people. Neither must it be forgotten that the Established Church of Ireland comprises within it at least eight-ninths of the landed proprietors of the country, and that it is they who support the Church. The noble Earl says that the money comes eventually from the land. That may be perfectly true; but the tenant makes the best bargain he can with his landlord; he then pays his rent, and it can make no difference to him whether his landlord does or does not pay a portion of his income to the Church. By this means the Roman Catholic tenant never comes into collision with the Protestant clergy. It is true that one-ninth of the Irish Church revenue derived from the land is paid by Roman Catholics; but I have never heard that any one of them ever objected to pay their porportion—on the contrary, the payments are in every case made willingly and with regularity. I do not see any possible advantage that can accrue from adopting the proposal of the noble Earl to throw the whole property of the Church into one common fund, to be assisted by a grant from the Consolidated Fund, and then apportioned to the requirements of the three religious denominations in Ireland. In the first place, I think I can show by a few statistics that the property of the Irish Established Church is barely sufficient to meet its wants. There are altogether 1,510 benefices in Ireland. Dividing the whole net income of the clergy by these 1,510 benefices would give an average income of £245 to each benefice, which is £55 less than Mr. Justice Shee stated in 1854 was the smallest sum that should be given to clergymen. Again, the congregations are much larger than, perhaps, your Lordships imagine, the total number of Church people in Ireland being 700,000, or 459 persons to each of the 1,510 benefices, which is a larger average congregation than that of the country districts of England, if towns containing upwards of 10,000 persons are excluded from the calculation. Each of these benefices contains on the average 13,800 acres; so that the income of £245 on an average can scarcely be regarded as too high a remuneration for the services required from the clergy. Of the fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, about £30,000 is applicable to building, enlarging, and repairing churches, and this sum is not at all adequate for those purposes. The

  399
  Irish congregations, however, are extremely liberal, and within a very few years they have contributed upwards of £100,000 in aid of that fund. The noble Earl was also in error when he stated the property of the Roman Catholic Church was handed over to the Protestant Church at the time of the Reformation. In the first place, tithes were given to the Church of Ireland for conforming to the Church of England by Henry II.; that was the condition of the grant, and when the majority of prelates and clergy of the Church of Ireland adopted the reformation the property of the Church followed the change. No doubt at that time a great part of the abbey lands were given to the landed proprietors; but that was not transferring them to the rival Church. No less than 114,218 acres of glebe lands, which never belonged in any way to the Roman Catholic Church, have been given since that time to the Established Church. Again, the funds of the Established Church have been increased at different times by the liberality of private persons; so that much of the property of the Church as it stands at present may be said to be a new creation. Again, the value of the glebe lands was but small when they came into the possession of the Established Church, and above 700 glebe-houses have been built upon them, since the beginning of this century, whereby their value has been largely increased. Another very important argument in favour of the maintenance of the Established Church is, that it is the occasion of 2,000 educated gentlemen residing in the various country districts exercising a vast influence for good over the population, and that thus the great evil of absenteeism is in some degree mitigated. The plan sketched by the noble Earl would reduce the remuneration of the clergy to such a degree that no educated gentleman would accept it. The proposition, then, of the noble Earl would lead to no good; while, on the contrary, it would shake the foundation of property, would give contentment to no party, and would most probably be rejected by all. I therefore ask your Lordships, in your wisdom, to decline to accept such a proposition.
  LORD HOUGHTON: My Lords, while agreeing in much that has fallen from my noble Friend who introduced this subject (Earl Grey), I do not think that any great advantage is obtained from that argument which he intended to lay down—namely, that every other process of conciliating Ireland had been tried, and therefore it was
  400
  absolutely necessary to dis-endow the Irish Church, because there was nothing else left of which the Irish nation could justly complain, or which was in any degree remediable by law. I cannot entirely go with my noble Friend on that point. I believe there are many subjects connected with Ireland of a material character to the revision of which we may address ourselves with great advantage to that country. I quite agree with my noble Friend that the matter cannot be argued purely upon economical grounds. It is quite clear in all Irish questions—even including that of tenant-right, which would seem at first sight as much as possible nothing more than a matter of pounds., shillings, and pence—that there is a great deal beyond that, and that it touches the whole subject of the relations between landlord and tenant as produced in Ireland by the course of events. If that relation was the same in Ireland as it is in England, the question of tenant-right would never have arisen; or, if it had, it would have received immediate solution. We are not strangers to the name in England—it forms part of the customs of the country in a portion of England, and yet it never leads to any social disturbance or any political ill-feeling. And why? Because with us the relations between landlord and tenant are, on the whole, really satisfactory. Tour Lordships know that on your large estates your tenants-at-will have a perfect sense of security, not only in what may be called the customs of the country, but also in what may be called an honourable engagement. A tenant-at-will knows that as long as he pays his rent he is as safe as if he held under a lease; he makes his improvements and he enjoys them, and if he goes out of the farm the incoming tenant pays for them, and the tenant-at-will does not suffer. Now, unfortunately, you have not that relation subsisting between the landlord and tenant in Ireland. On the contrary, you have a continued and abiding distrust, which runs through the whole of that relation, and is the unhappy moral foundation, upon which all the evil rests. I do not pretend to say that this is the fault of the Irish landlord, for it originally rested on violent confiscation—confiscation still remembered, still rankling in the minds of the Irish people. And, this being so, I think the landlords of Ireland would do well to see whether they could not make some surrender of that absolute right of property which we in this country enjoy, and by

  401
  so doing derive considerable material advantage by conciliating their tenants. When I saw such a deputation as went up the other day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject—some of the gentlemen who composed it may be said to hold extreme opinions, but there were some leading landlords of Ireland among them—when I saw their recommendation tending to induce the landlords of Ireland as far as possible to grant leases to their tenants, I could not help thinking that there was something in that deputation far beyond a mere demonstration of popular feeling. I do not mean to say that the landlords of Ireland could come into the same relations with their tenants which prevail with us in England; but it is impossible to read the blue book which has been laid before this House and not to feel that there is, from whatever cause, an abiding distrust between a large portion of the landlords and tenants in Ireland, to which I do think it will be necessary in some degree to apply a remedy. Whether that remedy shall be applied by some alteration in the law of contract, by determining that, when a tenant improves, the improvements which he makes shall be submitted to arbitration—which I think was the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin) who lately addressed you with so much ability—or in some other way, it is not for me as an Englishman to say; but this I will say—it is impossible for any man who wishes for the permanent prosperity of the people of Ireland not to see that something must be done to alter the relations between landlord and tenant in that country. There is no doubt, if it were possible to determine what those improvements are, and to see that they are legitimate improvements, and not fictitious or collusive arrangements, in that case the landlord himself would be a considerable gainer, even though he placed himself for a short time in a less favourable position. There is another point, my Lords, to which I think the attention of Parliament must be directed, and that is the question of the education of the middle classes in Ireland. There was no man who hailed with more delight than I did the establishment of the Queen's Colleges, but it is impossible not to feel that these Colleges have not realized all the hopes with which they were initiated by Sir Robert Peel. At the present moment the number of Roman Catholics attending the Queen's Colleges is only about the same as that of the members of the Church of England—
  402
  thus showing that these establishments have by no means supplied the want of middle-class education to a large mass of the people. There is reason to believe that some arrangements are now in progress to remedy that defect, but as that question will probably come before us in a distinct form I will not detain your Lordships with the consideration of it now. I will merely say that when it comes before us I hope we shall not allow ourselves to be guided by our pre-possessions, or by considerations of what in the abstract we think best. Devoted as I have always been to the cause of mixed education in Ireland, and though I should give up any part of that system with regret, at the same time I think it might be well that we should do so. But, my Lords, the question to which my noble Friend mainly directed our attention was of a much more difficult kind. I cannot shut my eyes to the conviction that upon our settlement of that question much of the future of Ireland depends, and I say, with the greatest respect to the most rev. Prelate who has last addressed you (the Archbishop of Armagh), that the time is past when many of his arguments would have power even in your Lordships' House. In the present current of public opinion I do not think that the Irish Church can stand either on the basis of the Act of Union, or upon what is a much stronger basis, that it is admitted to be the religion of the land of Ireland. There is no doubt that according to historic analogy the Church has ever gone with the land, and therefore, although we are always told by foreigners that the Church in Ireland is something monstrous, there is really no reason why we should think so. It has gone hitherto with the land, and according to the prevalent notions of the relations between Church and State. It is not for me to tell your Lordships that the relations which have hitherto prevailed are considerably altered, and the arguments which at one time seemed absolutely omnipotent will now have little effect upon your Lordships' mind, I cannot go further without laying down what I consider a sound principle—namely, that in all our future discussions with respect to the Church in Ireland we must consider solely and simply the advantage of that Church to Ireland. We cannot take it in its relation to the Church of England or to the State of England—upon its own merits, upon its own utility, upon its own advan-

  403
  tages it must stand or fall. But there is another question intimately connected with that of the Church of England in Ireland, to which I think we might apply ourselves, and to which I should be glad that the attention of Her Majesty's Government were directed. It is more than thirty years since I called the attention of the other House of Parliament to the question of the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. I believe that if the measure proposed by Mr. Pitt, and assented to even by George III., and continually kept present to the minds of its authors, had been carried out, we should now have a different state of things in Ireland. The abandonment of that proposition has been one of the main causes of the little progress which has been made in drawing closer the relations between England and that country. Why are the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland so different from their brethren all over the world? Why is it that in every other country the Catholic clergy have always supported civil order and have been the great conservators of society in the State, while in Ireland they have been the promoters of treason and the engines of sedition? There was little else for them to do. There was no position in which your Lordships could imagine a priest, however honourable and right-minded, feeling himself sincerely loyal to England and devoted to the interests of the United Kingdom. I hope the able speech delivered a few nights ago and this debate will cause the subject to receive the attention of the Government. I do not believe what is said of the difficulty of dealing with this question. Let it not be approached in a spirit of domination—let it be approached in such a spirit that it cannot be implied we wish to gain anything from the Roman Catholic clergy—and means may be found to conciliate the heads of the Roman Catholic Church. The real question is the independence of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. Surely there is no degradation to the Catholics of Ireland in their clergy being placed in such a position that they shall not be dependent solely on the dole of the people. If they were not so dependent, how differently they would look on the question of emigration! If they were properly provided for, so that they were unaffected by the diminution of their congregations, they would not regard emigration as involving a pecuniary loss to themselves. They would feel themselves more on an equality with the clergy of the
  404
  Anglican Church in Ireland, to whom they would no longer present such a contrast as they do now. If you can begin by remedying to some extent the present anomalous position of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, you may come—as I believe you must some day come—to the ulterior question of the present condition of the Protestant Church in Ireland. I believe all these questions may come within the grasp of the statesmanship of the next few years. How it must shock, affront, and pain the Irish spirit, not in the lower class only, but in all classes, to feel that the priest is in a position of degradation, while the clergy of the Anglican Church are in a position of power, wealth, and honour. When a Catholic gentleman leaves his house for a barn, crowded with worshippers to the exclusion of numbers who remain outside, and on the way sees the pleasant Protestant church where service is decorously conducted, however loyal he may be, he must feel a sense of degradation, and a sense of injustice must rankle in his heart and prevent him feeling as one united with Englishmen. These are questions for the next few years, to be dealt with in a generous spirit, in a spirit of conciliation, and in the feeling that both Irishmen and Englishmen are subjects of an Imperial Government. Upon all questions of importance to Ireland let Irishmen show the united front Scotchmen do upon Scotch questions; and they will then be settled with less difficulty. I trust we may live to see the time when Irish difficulties will have disappeared, and when Irishmen and Englishmen may be a thoroughly united people.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, the noble Earl who initiated this debate (Earl Grey) stated that he only wished us to declare that Ireland was in an unsatisfactory state; and had he confined his speech to the support of that proposition it would have been unanswerable, for it cannot be denied that the state of the country is eminently unsatisfactory, when three-fourths of it is disaffected; but the Resolutions which the noble Earl read to the House are so precise and definite in their character that his Motion of to-night must be construed by the light of them. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for War (Lord Dufferin) has described Fenianism as the last expiring wave of former antagonism; but it seems to me to be the greatest wave of all. Previous movements against this country were led by the higher and the

  405
  richer classes, and were backed up by an immense amount of patriotic sentiment; but Fenianism has the support of the lowest and least respectable class: it has descended to mere Jacobinism. It is more even than agrarian: it is an attack upon life, property, and everything that constitutes civilized society. Taking into consideration what is notoriously the present condition of Ireland, no reasonable man can deny that the state of Ireland is unsatisfactory; and, if so, it deserves the attention of Parliament, and justifies this Motion. The Under Secretary for War drew a pleasing picture of the state of Ireland, and described it as making pro gress in almost every department of civilized life—in the reclamation of land, in commerce, in the diminution of pauperism, in the reduction of crime. Indeed, he represented it as almost marching abreast of England. I do not dispute his knowledge of Ireland, but if this he so why is it that Ireland is in the state we know it to be? The noble Earl (Earl Grey), however, went beyond the condition of Ireland, and one-half or two-thirds of his speech was an attack upon the Irish Church. That is a question upon which I do not desire to enter at this time. The noble Earl has announced twelve distinct Resolutions. Of the twelve, two relate to land tenure, one is general, and the other nine go to the very existence of the Established Church in Ireland, proposing alterations so extensive as to amount almost to abolition. Of course, it is quite open to any Member of your Lordships' House to bring forward the question of the Irish Church; but when it is to be brought forward it is desirable we should have notice, in order that we may be prepared for the discussion. I do not think we ought to go into Committee, ostensibly to consider the unsatisfactory state of Ireland, which results from a combination of causes, and in reality to discuss Resolutions which involve the existence of the Established Church in Ireland. For these reasons, while agreeing with much that fell from the noble Earl, I shall feel it my duty to vote against his Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that the Established Church of Ireland ought to be retained. He was in favour of the existence of Established Churches in all countries. Ireland furnished an extreme instance of an Established Church, and he did not wish to do away with it. He did not wish to see the voluntary system adopted in any
  406
  country; and he considered that it would be undesirable to mix up the funds of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches. He would make provision for the Roman Catholic clergy, but not out of the revenues of the Established Church. The two things ought to be kept entirely distinct. He had been informed that the Regium Donum was insufficient and if such were the case it ought, in his judgment, to be reasonably augmented. With regard to the difficult subject of tenant right, he thought legislation ought to be mainly directed to facilitating voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants. He confessed that the speech of his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War (Lord Dufferin) appeared to him of rather too roseate a hue, when he spoke of Fenianism as the last wave of Irish discontent. Everything in the present state of the country was pleasing to his noble Friend. The people were loyal, wages were high; but still, everybody who could go was leaving the country. The emigration from Ireland was a very serious matter, and would deprive us of great facilities for recruiting our army. They must not suppose in dealing with Ireland when the last Fenian left our troubles were over; for unless something were done to improve the condition of the Irish people, we should have people like the Fenians (though they might not be called by that name) periodically making their appearance, because they would have good grounds for thinking it was the weakest part of the British Empire. Until Ireland was allowed to share in a larger degree than she had done hitherto in the prosperity of England, there would not be peace and quiet in the country.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that he had listened with considerable surprise to the remarks which the noble Lord who spoke last but two (Lord Houghton) had made at the beginning of his speech. He lived a good deal in Ireland, and knew something about that country, and he could assure the noble Lord that, as a general rule, landlords did not seek to appropriate the property of their improving tenants. In Ulster, where tenant-right prevailed, tenants, unless evicted for non-payment of rent, on quitting their farms usually got as much, and often more, than their improvements were worth, or had cost them. Cases of hardship, sometimes, no doubt did occur, and these were often in cases where persons who had made their money purchased land,

  407
  and were anxious to make as much profit as possible. But, as a rule, tenants had confidence in their landlords where landlords were actuated by principles of justice and influenced by the feelings of gentlemen. With regard to the question of compensation, he fully admitted that a tenant who had laid out money on improvements had a right, if he quitted the farm, to receive the value of his improvements; but the great practical difficulty would be to obtain competent and trustworthy valuators; and, on the other hand, landlords ought to be able to set off deteriorations. Some tenants were very fond, for instance, of making a number of useless ditches, which cost a great deal to level when a farm was given up, and which, if made across the face of a hill (and hills in Ireland were very apt to be wet), did irremediable harm. Then as to the Irish Church, one of the main reasons why the Reformation had not the same success in Ireland as had attended it in England was well stated by Dr. Todd in his Life of St. Patrick. The rev. doctor remarked—
  "It is highly probable that had the Reformation been presented to the Irish people in a Gaelic dress, and in the Gaelic language, it would have been accepted without difficulty. But, unfortunately, the reverse was the case. The Reformation was almost studiously brought into Ireland in ostentatious connection with the Church of the Pale and the English colonists; it was planted on the basis of Puritanism and iconoclastic outrage; and to this day the influence of that unhappy mistake continues to destroy the usefulness and paralyze the energies of the Irish clergy. The Reformed doctrines were regarded by the oppressed and degraded natives of Ireland as essentially English; and accordingly they were rejected without examination, and spurned with the detestation and abhorrence with which the English and everything coming from England were, as a matter of course, received; and, as if effectually to prevent the Reformed faith spreading among the lower orders of the people, no part of the Bible was printed in the vernacular during the whole of the 16th century, and no edition of the Prayer Book appeared in Irish till 1608, more than seventy years after the commencement of the Irish Reformation!"
  At the Reformation, one-half the tithes were held by the monasteries, and passed into the hands of laymen; 680 parishes became impropriate, and 1,480 glebes passed into lay hands. Then the poverty of the clergy and the consequent union of parishes was another reason. Dean Swift observed—
  "The clergy having been stripped of the greatest part of their revenues, the glebes being generally lost, the tithes in the hands of laymen, the churches demolished, and the country depopulated, it was necessary to unite small vicarages."
  408
  And Sir John Davies, who was Attorney General and Speaker of the House of Commons in 1609, says that, in Cavan, many vicars had no more than 40s. a year, a sum which, even allowing for the difference in the value of money, was quite insufficient to support persons in that position. Then there was the tithe of agistment—that is, the title of dry and barren pasturage—concerning which, in 1735, the Irish House of Commons passed a Resolution that it ought no longer to be paid. The landlords, and probably their tenants, acting on this Resolution (although there was no statute passed), declined to pay this tithe, and it had never since been paid to this day. Some noble Lord had spoken of the wealth of the clergy, but their average incomes, excluding stipendiary curates, was only £245 a year, and there were 276 out of 1,570 benefices below £100 a year. So that the Irish Church should be considered as a poor rather than a rich Church; and if, as the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) suggested, the income were to be divided equally between the three Churches—the noble Earl shakes his head; well rateably—and why the noble Earl omitted the very important body of Wesleyan Methodists he did not understand—the provision each clergyman would receive would be manifestly inadequate. Why did he not propose to take the Regium Donum, and the Maynooth grant also, because if you were to take the endowments of one body for public purposes, it would logically follow that you must take the endowments of all. A noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had talked of the very unsatisfactory state of things in Ireland, but he (the Earl of Belmore) rather took the view and approved of the figures of his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War. He thought that those who took their opinions not from newspapers and from speeches emanating from people whose object was to get up a case against the English Government, but from experience, would (putting the question of Fenianism, and the, he hoped, temporary discontent connected with it out of the question) agree that the country was steadily advancing in prosperity. Then, as to the question of railways, spoken to by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde). No doubt, some of them were in a very bad condition, but he attributed this not to legislation, nor so much to local circumstances as to the manner in which they had been got up. If you pay

  409
  a contractor £3,000 in shares for £2,000 of work (and he was told that was a very moderate statement of what had been done in some instances), you could not expect prosperity. The noble Marquess compared them unfavourably with English lines, but he could not admit that the case was exceptional. Whilst the Irish system as a whole paid 1½ per cent on the average, the English Great Eastern line, which had about the same capital (or approaching to it), not only paid nothing to its ordinary shareholders, but had great difficulty in paying its preference shareholders. Some people said it was the duty of the Government to advance a large sum of money to subsidize, as he must call it, the Irish railway companies. One well-known gentleman (Mr. Dargan) laid it down that it was the duty of Government to advance, or, as was clearly pointed out by Lord Overstone with regard to another matter the other night, to lend the credit of Government to withdraw from investments in England in which it would otherwise be employed a sum of money—to do what? Why to set free a corresponding amount of Irish capital now invested in railway loans for investment in other ways. Now he (the Earl of Belmore) was of opinion that to subsidize trade in any way was very bad policy, and what was bad political economy in England could not be good political economy in Ireland. In conclusion, he was of opinion that the future prosperity of the country must be looked for, not from the results of legislation, but from the energy and self-reliance of the people.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that if his noble Friend pressed his Motion to a division he should fell bound to vote against him, though he agreed in many of his propositions. The time at which the Motion was brought forward was injudiciously chosen, and the manner in which his noble Friend's propositions were submitted to the House was inconvenient. A moment when insurrection was smouldering in Ireland would be an extraordinary one at which to deal with the questions now introduced for their Lordships' consideration. If their Lordships went into Committee of the whole House, they must discuss all the evils which were said to exist in Ireland; and as they could not remedy all those evils they would only aggravate them by discussion. Then the manner of the Motion was inconvenient, because he had never heard of a proposition to go into Committee without a Motion stating more definitely than did his noble
  410
  Friend's the object for which they were to do so. His noble Friend had read the Resolutions which he meant to propose in Committee; but no man could make up his mind on such Resolutions from merely hearing them read. The noble Earl ought to have laid those Resolutions on the table before he asked the House to go into Committee. In many of the proposals he agreed. Indeed, for a number of years such proposals had been with him a sort of programme of what the Liberal party ought to do in Ireland. It had long been his opinion that they ought to deal with the Irish Church and with the Catholic clergy. Their Lordships had heard that Ireland was discontented, and they had heard also that she was prosperous. Strange this indeed—disaffection and prosperity existing in a country at the same time! He did not think the discontent in Ireland arose from any present misconduct of the Imperial Government, or from the fact that certain measures might be useful for that country. There was always something to be done for England herself and for the colonies; and one might as well allege this as a reason why there should be discontent in the mother country and in our distant possessions, as say that the present discontent in Ireland was owing to the want of those useful measures. He believed the feeling arose from a long rooted hostility towards the conqueror arising from past misgovernment and from an intense feeling of nationality on the part the Irish. The object we should have in view was to remove every mark of domination in Ireland; and in doing this we should have to deal with the Irish Church. The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Armagh) had said that the Church in England and the Church in Ireland were one and the same. Technically, that was so; but it was not so in any man's idea of things as they really were, hardly anyone could bring himself to regard the Irish as a part of the English Church; it was thought of merely as the Church of a minority. It was hard to say what actual hardship was inflicted by its existence, but there was little doubt that its existence did foster a spirit of anti-nationality which in itself was a fruitful source of evil. His opinion, therefore, was in favour of dealing with that Church; but, at the same time, such enormous difficulties stood in the way of approaching the question at the present moment that he did not wonder that his noble Friend hesitated to grapple

  411
  with these obstacles, knowing them to be insurmountable. With regard to tenant-right, he left it to his noble Friend beside him to lecture Irish landlords on the subject of tenant-right, and he had not been at all surprised that the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Belmore) felt indignant at the tone that was taken towards them. He was not an Irish landlord himself, but was closely connected with many who were, and felt sure that, as a body, they lived upon as good terms with their tenantry as any of their Lordships in England. The question of payment to the Roman Catholic priesthood was one highly deserving of consideration when the proper time came; but, at the present moment, when all the Dissenters in England and a great body of the Churchmen would be arrayed against such a proposition, he was not surprised that his noble Friend felt unprepared to put it forward. He heartily deplored, however, that the subject had not been dealt with earlier, either at the time of the Union, or when Lord Ellesmere brought forward his Motion. A stipend offered to the Catholic clergy of Ireland would not only place them on a like Social footing with the Protestant, but would have the effect of attaching them to the State, though he was bound to say that in the recent instance they had shown themselves well affected and done all they could, he believed, to suppress insurrectionary tendencies. There were rumours now, as there always had been, that the Catholic clergymen would not accept payment at the hands of the State; but Mr. Sheil, speaking on the same subject, once said, "Give us a fund here in Dublin, and try if that won't effect the object." For his own part, he believed that a moderate payment to the Catholic clergy would act as a very great tie between the two countries. With many of the objects contemplated by the noble Earl in his Motion he fully sympathized, and gave him every credit for the ability with which it had been introduced. At the same time, he felt obliged to dissent from the course which had been suggested, and if the question were pressed to a division he must vote against it.
  THE BISHOP OF DERRYsaid, he felt reluctance in trespassing upon the time of their Lordships after the remarks already made by the Lord Primate. Having, however, come over expressly from Ireland to be present at this debate, he should be wanting to the position which he occupied
  412
  in the Church if he did not put forward briefly the view which he entertained. It was not difficult to account for the disaffection towards the Church in Ireland. Bearing in mind the unnatural and unholy combination which had taken place between the Liberation Society and the Catholic Association in Ireland, it was not surprising that there should be a ferment in the minds of the people, or that they should be filled with disaffection towards the Established Church. He had hoped that the ameliorating process of national education would be allowed to go on undisturbed; but, alas for Ireland! there were persons of extreme opinions who would not suffer education to have that weight upon the minds of persons' in that country which otherwise it would naturally exercise. Their Lordships should never lose sight of the fact that the same combination by which it was now attempted to unsettle the Church of Ireland, properly applied, would unsettle the Church of England also. Upon this question his feelings probably were stronger than those of many others, for he was himself an Englishman, and looking back with affection to his native land, and to his mother Church, he perceived but too plainly that the same appliances which were to work mischief in Ireland would undoubtedly work mischief in England as well. If their Lordships valued their own property, if they valued the Established Church in this country, they must take care how they swept from the face of the earth the Established Church of Ireland. For himself and for his brother Prelates he admitted that there were anomalies and inequalities in the Church of Ireland which they would be glad to see rectified. But it was one thing to rectify anomalies, it was another to endorse the sweeping observations made by the noble Earl on the cross-benches. Upon a matter of such serious importance he hoped that calm and collected feelings would come over the minds of their Lordships, and that by every means in their power they would encourage and enable the clergy of Ireland to fulfil their sacred duty, to be wholesome patterns and examples of peace and quietness among all Christian people. His own object and that of the clergy under him was to promote the peace and welfare of the country; and surely it would be a bad return for all their efforts if from time to time they were to be filled with anxiety as to the position which they were to occupy. Under the

  413
  Act of Union the Church of England and the Church of Ireland were one and un-divisible, and, if the compact was to be respected, they must stand or fall together. One in doctrine, one in head, one in hope and expectation, they had all the same object in view. Whatever, therefore, the measures which might be adopted with regard to the Church of Ireland, whether in that House or elsewhere, he trusted that they would only be sanctioned with the object of promoting the peace, welfare, and happiness of the country at large.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is one of the inconveniences attaching to the time at which this Motion is brought forward, that the temporary question of Fenianism has been connected throughout this discussion with the permanent questions affecting the welfare of Ireland. With regard to Fenianism, I believe my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State said what was perfectly correct when he contended that it was another of those movements coming from foreign countries; that as the movement of 1798 had been connected with the French Republic, and as the movement of 1848 was connected with the revolutionary ideas which were rife at that time on the Continent, so this Fenian movement of our own day has been connected with the American Civil War. There is, however, this great difference—that with the insurrection of 1798 were connected men of the highest aspirations and the noblest characters—such men as Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Wolfe Tone, and Emmet, who, though they were following a mere ignis fatuus, certainly did aspire, and I believe honestly, to give their country a better position. Those connected with the disturbance of 1848 were inferior men, though they—at least some of them—may have honestly sought the good of their country; but with those connected with the Fenianism of the present day, their bond of unanimity seems to have been a common desire for the robbery of the property of their neighbours. That spirit, I trust, will not be one of long duration, and it certainly is not one which ought to be connected with the general condition of Ireland. I think my noble Friend who brought forward this Motion (Earl Grey) had he gone over in his own mind the various changes that have taken place in Ireland, would have found that the changes for a long series of years have been favourable to the prosperity of Ireland. We all know that more than a century ago—about
  414
  1760—there were many circumstances consequent upon which there was such an increase in the population, and such an exceeding demand for the occupation of land, that wages became extremely low. In that valuable and interesting book by Sir George Cornewall Lewis with respect to the Establishment in Ireland, I read that the wages in 1836 were from 6d. to 8d. a day, and we have heard from my noble Friend that they are now from 1s. 2d. to 1s. Ad. There is, therefore, a great improvement in the wages of the present day. My noble Friend has mentioned, as among the evils that had afflicted Ireland, the collection of tithes. No doubt it was a very severe scourge, and none can read the speeches of Mr. Grattan without seeing how much the peasantry of Ireland suffered from the levying and collection of those tithes in small and minute portions. Well, that evil has disappeared altogether. The collection of tithe is made by an arrangement with the landlord and then transferred to those to whom the property is due, and there is no execution to be levied in default of paying them. My noble Friend who spoke early in the debate (Lord Dufferin) showed that the wealth of Ireland had increased, that the value of the stock at present was much greater than it was in former times, and, generally, he produced facts which showed that the dissatisfaction which prevails to-day arises from an entirely different cause from that which brought about former dissatisfaction; and he showed us clearly, I think, that the course of events in Ireland tends to progress and improvement. That, indeed, is the moral which I learn from the debate I of to-night. My noble Friend, however, I lays chief stress, in supporting his Motion, on the subject of the Church of Ireland. Now, my Lords, I can very well believe that the majority of the people of Ireland, seeing that the Church Establishment remains for the benefit of a minority, may feel that an evil and a grievance. But, when the question is as to what should be done by the Government and by Parliament in regard to the subject, I must say that; any such violent measure as my noble Friend proposes would, in my opinion, instead of remedying the evil, increase it to a very great extent. I am afraid that if my noble Friend were permitted to carry his proposed Act of Parliament into effect and divide the Church property of Ireland between the Established Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and Presbyterian Church,

  415
  he would create more religions discord, more heartburning, and more division than we have ever yet seen in Ireland. It is a simple thing to say—and my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) spoke in the same sense the other night—that we ought to establish the Roman Catholic clergy, and give them their half of the funds of the present Established Church, or place them upon the Consolidated Fund of the country. I believe the latter proposition is the wish of my noble Friend. He is quite willing that the House of Commons should vote a considerable sum out of the Consolidated Fund for the Roman Catholics of Ireland; but I very much doubt whether the House of Commons would vote any such sum, and if they did they would raise the ire of some of those who inhabit the northern part of this country, for Scotchmen have a peculiar dislike to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church. They think it contrary to their religious duty and injurious to the political framework of our Constitution to endow the Roman Catholic Church. Well, without discussing that question, I think it is quite easy to see that you could not possibly obtain from Parliament an endowment of that kind without producing the gravest religious animosities, and very great discontent, not only in the enactment of such a law, but afterwards in putting it in force. Even in countries that are almost entirely Catholic, such as Italy and Belgium, religious feuds are constantly arising on account of the relations between the Roman Catholic clergy and the State. While, therefore, I admit the evil of the present state of things, I am not ready to embark on a sea over which I can see passing nothing but a future of tempest. If, then, the course proposed is not to be adopted, it would certainly be unwise to go with my noble Friend into a Committee of the whole House. And really it seems to me that the whole purport of the proposition of my noble Friend is in order to upset the present Established Church, and to establish a sort of hybrid Church of Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and Protestants. To that proposal I cannot consent. My noble Friend says I had not signified that the present Government had any intention of introducing in the present Session of Parliament any great measure with regard to Ireland. I quite admit that; and my opinion is that we should rather attempt from time to time to improve the law by well-considered measures than by introducing any vast changes
  416
  into the country. The noble Lord opposite expressed a hope that the Government would compensate those evicted from their holdings. That is a question of extreme difficulty, and should be dealt with very carefully. I quite agree with my noble Friend that some means should be established for ascertaining the fair and equitable compensation which should be paid to tenants so evicted. But it seems to me that Government and Parliament would be better employed in making sound alterations of a quiet character with a view to effect any improvement that may be made by such action; and I would agree with my noble Friend who suggested that for the rest we should rather trust to the energy and activity of individuals than be always looking to the Government to be constantly proposing grants for public works for Ireland, with a view of producing a fictitious prosperity which does not arise from the genius and industry of the people. With these few remarks, I may say that I must oppose the Motion of my noble Friend.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he should support the Motion, but remarked that he would not interfere with the Established Church, nor touch one shilling in its possession. It was, in his opinion, an underpaid rather than an overpaid institution. But still he agreed with the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) when he said that peace could never be established in Ireland until payment of some sort was made to the Roman Catholic clergy officiating there. But the noble Earl had stated that the whole of the revenues of the Church were in the hands of the Establishment. The fact was, however, that the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland possessed but a small portion of the tithes of the soil, the remainder being in the pockets of the landed gentry. The landed gentry, therefore, might reasonably be called upon to con-tribute towards the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy, who at present owed their support to the exertions of the poorer classes of the community. Such a measure would, he believed, do much to restore the peace and the tranquillity of Ireland, and the landed proprietors would thus be more than compensated for their pecuniary loss in the improved state of the country.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I wish to say a few words before the conclusion of this debate. It has been objected to this Motion that it is not brought forward at the

  417
  right time; but it appears to me that this is precisely the time when such a Motion should be introduced, because a severe measure having been recently passed against the Fenian conspirators, the action of Parliament in the direction I have indicated cannot be attributed to motives of fear. The manner in which the Irish people generally have supported the cause of law and order warrants them in expecting us to legislate upon the grievances of which they can reasonably complain. After all that I have heard in the course of this debate, I remain of the opinion I originally entertained, that the question of the Irish Church Establishment lies at the root of all these difficulties. We uphold the English Church because we feel that it is of the greatest possible advantage to this country; we believe that the welfare of the people ought not to be left entirely to voluntary efforts, because it so happens that those most in need of instruction are least aware of their want, and least inclined, too, to make any sacrifice for the purpose of supplying their deficiency. But the feeling of the Irish people is against the Established Church in Ireland. The most enlightened advocates of the English Church have founded their arguments upon the success and benefits which have attended her efforts; but the Irish Church is incapable of effecting the same results because the people of Ireland are determined not to avail themselves of her agencies. You may argue this matter as long as you please, but the feeling, not only of the Irish people, but of the whole civilized world, is against you. Out of the United Kingdom I doubt if you will find a single man prepared to maintain that the existing Church system in Ireland is consistent with right and justice. I am persuaded that some change is necessary, and, if necessary, I do not believe that it can be effected upon any other principle than the one I have named. It has been said that the Roman Catholic clergy would refuse to receive a grant from the Consolidated Fund; and that is, no doubt, to a certain extent true—they feel that their independence would be injured by such a grant; but they have, at the same time, never ceased to assert their claims to what was formerly the national endowment of their Church. If, therefore, the Roman Catholic clergy were supported in the way I have proposed, I feel certain that they would regard it as no infringement of their independence. I believe also that it is for the interest of the
  418
  Protestant Church itself to submit to some diminution of its means, provided existing interests are taken care of, in order that this question may be settled. Sooner or later, the time must come when the present anomaly and unjust state of things in Ireland with reference to Church property must be remedied, and I can only wonder that the friends of the Irish Church do not themselves endeavour to make some arrangements while a compromise is still practicable.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.

  OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  Select Committee on, appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at half past Two o'clock:

  Ld. Chancellor

  Ld. Chamberlain

  Ld President

  V. Eversley

  D Richmond

  L. Steward

  M. Lansdowne

  L. Colville of Culross

  M Salisbury

  L. Foley

  M. Bath

  L. Redesdale

  E. Devon

  L. Colchester

  E. Carnarvon

  L. Wynford

  E. Malmesbury

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  E. Chichester

  L. Chelmsford

  The Fee Fund Account (laid upon the Table on the 23rd of February last), referred to the Committee.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.