Sitting of 16 August 1867

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—Considered as emended — Traffic Regulation (Metropolis)* [97]; Royal Military Canal* [313].
Third Reading—Traffic Regulation (Metropolis)* [97]; Royal Military Canal* [313], and passed.
The House met at Three of the Clock.

METROPOLIS—THE NEW POOR LAW ACT.—QUESTION.
COLONEL HOGGsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether, referring to the probable increase of cost beyond the estimate for the new buildings under the Metropolitan Poor Law Act, he will give an assurance that no contracts should be sanctioned by the Poor Law Board during the Parliamentary recess which will involve the ratepayers of the Metropolis in an expenditure in excess of £400,000, which was the sum mentioned by the President of the Poor Law Board as the probable extreme cost of all buildings necessary for lunatics, fever, and small pox patients, as well as for new district schools?
MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend could hardly expect him to give a specific answer as to what the Poor Law Board might feel it right to do under a hypothetical state of circumstances, not at all likely to occur. The duty of sanctioning the necessary expenditure was laid on the Poor Law Board by an Act of this Session, and the House would doubtless agree that the duty must be discharged upon the responsibility of that department. He might, however, inform his hon. and gallant Friend that it would probably be necessary to provide more accommodation for the imbecile poor of the metropolis than was contemplated at the time when his right hon. Friend (Mr. G. Hardy) made his statement to the House; but, on the other hand, he had reason to believe that the estimate then made of the requirements in the case
1606
of fever and small pox patients would be in excess of the actual amount.

ARMY—SERGEANT INSTRUCTORS OF VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to withhold from the Sergeant Instructors attached to the Volunteer Corps from the Regiments of the Line the additional two pence per diem paid to Sergeants of the Line and Militia?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONpresumed that the Question of the hon. Member had reference to the increase of 2d. a day lately granted. Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers consisted of two classes—one lent from the regular service to the Volunteers, but still borne on the staff of the regiments to which they belonged respectively, with a view of completing the time necessary to obtain their pensions, and the other class those who had left the line and were already in receipt of pensions. To the first class he thought it would be fair and right to extend the 2d. extra; but he had some doubt about the second class. The subject, however, was under consideration, and he would not give a decided answer upon it.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it will be the intention of the Government that the Bill for the prevention of Corrupt Practices at Elections, which has been considered and reported on by a Select Committee, should be brought forward at the earliest period next Session?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not feel myself capable of informing the House as to the mode in which the Parliamentary campaign for next Session will be planned. But I certainly should be very sorry if the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is not passed next Session; and I think the best plan for passing it would be to introduce it as soon as possible.

METROPOLIS—PARK LANE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in order to give greater facilities for the circulation of traffic and relieve the present overcrowded thoroughfare

  1607
  of Park Lane, he will endeavour to obtain Her Majesty's consent for Cabs to cross the corner of Hyde Park from the gate at Hyde Park Corner to Stanhope Gate, in a similar manner as Cabs are now permitted to cross Hyde Park from Victoria Gate to Prince's Gate.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, no complaints whatever had reached him up to the present moment that there was too little traffic between Hyde Park Corner and Stanhope Gate, On the contrary, every statement which reached him went to show that there was too great a traffic for the convenience of the public in that direction. To pour an additional stream of cab traffic upon that already existing would certainly not be the way to facilitate public communication. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty had most graciously placed at the disposal of the metropolitan authorities portions of the Park for the purpose of widening Park Lane, and that the real and proper mode of getting rid of the difficulty which undoubtedly existed was to widen the southernmost end of Park Lane, so as to continue a thoroughfare with facilities as great as would soon belong to nine-tenths of Park Lane. The only reason why Her Majesty's Government had not during the present Session been able to recommend a scheme to put the Metropolitan Board of Works in funds for the purposes of this work was that certain unfortunate dissensions had sprung up between the City on the one hand, and the Metropolitan Board of Works on the other. The influence of the hon. Member with the Corporation of London was so well known and so undoubted, that he would recommend him to exercise his influence with the City during the recess with a view of terminating these unfortunate dissensions, and thereby enabling Parliament next year to place the Metropolitan Board of Works in a position to complete this desirable improvement.
  MR. AYRTON, with reference to the answer just given by the noble Lord, wished to ask whether he had made any communication to the vestry or local Board of the wealthy and under-assessed parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, to induce them to act under the provisions of an Act of George III., for the improvement of the streets of the metropolis, and to undertake the duty naturally devolving upon them, of improving the lower end of Park Lane.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had not brought the subject under the consideration of the authorities of St. George's parish, the recommendation emanating from the Select Committee lately presided over by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) being that the cost should be defrayed out of the continuation of the coal duties.

METROPOLIS—MARLBOROUGH HOUSE GATE.—QUESTION.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in order to give greater facilities for the circulation of traffic, he will endeavour to obtain Her Majesty's consent to the passage of carriages down Constitution Hill to Pall Mall, through the gate by Marlborough House, during the absence of Her Majesty from Buckingham Palace?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that any advice tendered to Her Majesty as to the privilege to be conceded to carriages passing down Constitution Hill in the way suggested ought to be addressed, if at all, by the Home Secretary, and not by the First Commissioner of Works.

TRAFFIC OF THE METROPOLIS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will be prepared to introduce a measure in the next Session of Parliament, having for its object to give greater facilities for the circulation of traffic throughout the Metropolis, by removing all the present bars and barriers in the Whitechapel and Commercial Road Districts; the bars across the streets leading out of Gray's Inn Road; the bars in Doughty Street and throughout the Foundling Hospital Estate; the bars across the streets leading into the Euston Road; the bars on the Southampton Estate; the bars on the Bedford Estate; the bars on the Portland Estate; the bars on the Portman Estate; the bars on the Westminster Estate; the bars on the Lowndes Estate; the bars on the Brompton Estate; and all other bars whatever; and so place the Metropolis in this respect in the same position as Paris and other Cities on the Continent?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was not as "well up" on the different

  1609
  bars of the metropolis as the hon. Member appeared to be, and he was not prepared to promise to bring in a Bill on the subject.

THE CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTION.
MR. READsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Council, If, in conformity with the spirit of his statement that Her Majesty's Government, "having resolved upon the slaughter of all Foreign Cattle at the ports of landing, intended to revoke the Harwich and Southampton Orders," the permission to land Foreign Cattle at Thames Haven for the Metropolitan Market will be continued; and, to state the circumstances of the outbreak of the disease at Barking, the number of Cattle slaughtered, and what other precautions have been taken to prevent the spread of the disease?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, when leave had been given to import cattle from Harwich and Southampton into London, it was necessary to pass special Orders of Council to grant that permission. Those Orders, in consequence of the decision of the House, would be almost immediately revoked. No such Order had been required for Thames Haven as it is in the Port of London; but, as it is between thirty and forty miles from London, it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the wishes of the House of Commons would not be carried out in spirit if foreign cattle were to be moved thence to the metropolis; and as the Bill of this year gave power to the Privy Council to define a part of a port for landing cattle, it was intended to exclude Thames Haven from the port of London. With regard to the outbreak in Essex, information was received on the 9th of August that the disease had made its appearance on the farm of the Sewage Utilization Company at Barking. Nine animals were killed at once. On the following day an inspector went down and ordered 102 more beasts to be slaughtered, four of which were suffering from the disease, and the remaining ninety-eight of which had been in contact with them. [Mr. READ: May I ask if they have been slaughtered?] I believe they have not yet been killed. The local authorities, who had to carry out the orders, have been remiss. They are anxious to wait, I believe, till the first market day.
MAJOR JERVISwished to know whether foreign cattle would still be allowed to be sent all over the metropolis for
1610
slaughter, or confined to the part or parts of the port of London where disembarked, and whether, as no foreign cattle were to be allowed to proceed inland alive, the present stringent regulations with reference to the importation of cattle from South Holland might not be modified with a view of cheapening so necessary an article of food for the working classes?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied that both these subjects had been taken into consideration. It was certainly most advisable, as the hon. and gallant Member observed, to do almost anything, rather than allow foreign cattle to walk through the streets; it would also be their endeavour to relax the restrictions on the foreign trade as far as possible. But he was not in a position to give a definite answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's inquiries as to the measures which would eventually be adopted.

IRELAND—THE IRISH CHURCH COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon the table, before the close of the Session, in accordance with the assurances given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 5th of July, the names of the Commissioners to inquire into the Revenue of the Established Church in Ireland, and also the names of the Irish Education Commissioners?
THR CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should be happy to lay on the table the names of the Commissioners it they were fixed upon; but, unfortunately they are not, My noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whose absence we deplore, has informed me that he has beer in communication with a number of individuals whose names would be calculated to give confidence to Parliament and the country; but I regret to say that he has received a great many answers declining the request that the writers should serve on the Commission. The correspondent on the subject is still going on. Our engagement was to place the names on the table provided they had been fixed upon but, as this is not the case, we are no able to do so.

BUENOS AYRES—CASE OF THE "CESTUS."—QUESTION.
MR. NORWOODsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign

1611
Affairs, What progress has been made towards a settlement of the claim of the owners of the Cestus against the Buenos Ayres Government, which was referred to the decision of the President of the Republic of Chili in 1865?
LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot say that any progress has been made in the case. It was referred to the arbitration of the President of Chili two years ago; but he seems to have been so much occupied with other affairs, that we have not received any communication as to what his opinion on the matter may be. I instructed the British Chargé d'Affaires to call the attention of the President to the subject, and to ask him to give a decision as soon as convenient. This letter was written on the 31st of May, and there has not been time for an answer to be received.

SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, as the system of trial by jury has been discontinued in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, and in consequence it is of vital importance to the people of that settlement that a Judge of known efficiency and legal acquirements should be appointed, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to select a member of the English, Irish, or Scotch bar, to fill the present vacancy?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he was not aware of any vacancy in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Carr had resigned, and was returning home, and a gentleman of eminence at the bar had been appointed to succeed him. The Assistant Judge had not yet been appointed; but the Government would choose the candidate for the office on the ground of merit, and not considering whether he belonged to the English, Irish, or Scotch bar.

ARMY—MILITARY STORE CLERKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If, during the recess, he will take into his consideration the position of the Military Store Clerks, with a view to remedy the disadvantage caused to them by the introduction of other officers to perform their duties?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the position of the Military Store clerks would receive consideration during the recess.

NAVY—GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, The decision arrived at by the Board as to appropriating to the use of the authorities of the Dreadnought Hospital ship Queen Anne's quarter, or the infirmary of Greenwich Hospital; and, if a decision be not yet arrived at thereon, when the Committee of the Dreadnought Hospital may expect to receive it?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that the state of the case was this—The Admiralty had appointed an inquiry, consisting of the medical officers named by the Privy Council, to examine into the relative merits of the quarters of Queen Anne or Queen Mary, for the purposes of the Dreadnought Hospital. They reported that neither was suitable, nor could be made so without great expense, but that they were unanimous in the opinion that Queen Mary's quarter was preferable to Queen Anne's for such purposes. The Committee of the Dreadnought were not satisfied with that Report, and the Admiralty appointed a conference, composed of men whose decision was likely to be conclusive on the matter. Sir Peter Richards and Sir Charles Trevelyan were applied to, but they declined to act on the conference in consequence of having other business to attend to. At the request of the Committee of the Dreadnought Dr. Tatum was appointed; and the second Committee also reported that Queen Mary's quarter was preferable to Queen Anne's. Accordingly the Board of Admiralty were not prepared to give Queen Anne's quarter to the Committee of the Dreadnought; but having regard to the great usefulness of the institution presided over by that Committee, they were quite willing to abide by the offer they made some time ago—namely, to give that quarter which both sets of medical men reported to be the better adapted for a hospital.
  Mr. NORWOODIn answer to Mr. NORWOOD,
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that the propriety of appropriating the Infirmary in Greenwich Hospital to the purpose had never been brought before the Admiralty or mooted except in the speech of an hon. Gentleman in that House. The

  1613
  Infirmary is appropriated to the use of the old pensioners now in Greenwich Hospital.

INDIA—THE INDIAN LOAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, it appeared from one portion of Mr. Massey's statement that a sum of £2,000,000 was required to be raised. In another part of the statement Mr. Massey seemed to intimate that £3,000,000 would be required. It would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India could state for what amount the Indian loan was to be taken?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It would appear that in the early part of Mr. Massey's statement he informed the Council of India that he proposed to raise a sum of £700,000 for irrigation works, and certain other sums for local purposes. He mentioned that he had raised £600,000 for special works in Bombay. He stated that the sum he altogether proposed to raise would be about £2,000,000, and I apprehend that Mr. Massey included in the £2,000,000 the £600,000. What he said he has already raised confirmed that opinion. He stated that he had invited loans for £1,500,000, and that he had received £1,400,000; and therefore I suppose that nearly all he intended to raise has been raised. There was besides a sum of £1,000,000, which Mr. Massey proposed to borrow to complete the barracks; but that had been already raised in this country. In the winter, before the statement was received, the Government of India informed the Government here that it would require to raise £1,000,000 for expenditure on barracks. The Government at home said they would reduce the drafts on India from £7,000,000, as originally contemplated, to £6,000,000, and provide by the sale of stock for the additional £1,000,000. Accordingly the Government of India at home sold stock to the amount of £1,000,000 and were in a position to reduce, as they had promised, the drafts by £1,000,000. Mr. Massey took that into consideration when he said that he would transfer £1,000,000 of what he had to raise to the loan accounts; and, in my opinion, no more money will have to be raised.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL (Lords)— [BILL 318.]

  LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, in moving that the Lords' Reasons for disagreeing with certain of the Commons' Amendments in this Bill should be considered that day month, said, that the Bill was not introduced for the purpose of founding new bishoprics out of funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; it had never been discussed or justified upon such a principle, nor had it ever been shown that there were in the hands of the Commissioners any funds which could properly be applied to that purpose; and he regretted to find that in the House of Lords that had been made an obstacle to agreeing to certain of the Commons' Amendments. Another matter upon which there was a difference of opinion was as to whether or not the new Bishops should sit in the House of Lords. In that House there was a general opinion that they ought not; but some Members of the other House had felt themselves unable to agree to their exclusion. The failure of the Bill did not rest with that House, it rested entirely with those in the other House who had apparently felt that public funds, and not private subscriptions, ought to be relied upon for the support of these new bishoprics, and that if they were established they ought to be founded strictly upon the same system as applied to the existing bishoprics.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES ACT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  On Motion, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next,"
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid*: Sir, I have given notice that I intend to direct the attention of the House to certain circumstances connected with the Select Committee recently appointed to consider the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851, and also one of the clauses in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which forbids the assumption by Roman Catholic Bishops of titles, held by the Bishops of the Established Church in Ireland; and in doing so I will not long detain the House. The circumstances connected with the appointment of the Committee,

  1615
  and some of the circumstances connected with its proceedings, are so very remarkable, that I deem it only fair to those, whose evidence has been practically rejected, or, at all events, was never entertained, that the position of the Committee should be understood. It is evident, Sir, from the records of the proceedings of this House, which I have here, that the House was very unwilling that the question involved in the Ecclesiastical Titles Act should be re-opened. I have in my hand the accounts of the proceedings which took place when the Bill for the repeal of this Act was introduced, and when the Motion for the appointment of the Committee stood upon the Paper. On more than one occasion the House was counted out, and it was only through the perseverance of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy), and one or two other Roman Catholic Members, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), countenanced as it appeared to me by Her Majesty's Government, that the questions involved in these Acts were raised at all, and even then, not until after much delay and much manifest evasion. I protested against these proceedings, because I hold that Her Majesty's Government are the guardians of the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the guardians of the independence of the State, both of which matters are involved; I felt strongly that the Government ought, on their own responsibility, to have taken a decided course on these great questions. Yet I am far from being prepared to assert that what has occurred is fraught with no advantage. After having resisted every attempt to raise these questions, and to refer these statutes to a Select Committee late in this Session, I asked the House to excuse my serving as a member of this Committee. I did so on the grounds I have mentioned, and because I was convinced from the nature of the subject itself, and from the advanced period of the Session at which we had arrived, that it would be quite impossible that the Committee could inquire into the whole of the questions at issue as their importance demands. The result has proved that I judged rightly in forming that opinion. But before going further, I would remark that there is attached to the reference of this Committee a portion which ought not to be misunderstood; this is an extract from the Votes of this House, dated Wednesday the 31st of July, 1867, in these words—
  1616
  "Petition of the Chairman of the Committee of the Protestant Association praying to be allowed the opportunity of tendering evidence on the subject; referred to Select Committee on Ecclesiastical Titles Bill and the Roman Catholic Relief Acts."
  Sir, that Order of the House was defeated. That Petition was referred by order of the House to the Select Committee; but by an irregularity on the part of an officer, or of the officers of this House, that Petition was never delivered to the Committee, nor were they regularly informed by any officer of the Order of the House. I have made further inquiries since last, Sir, I brought this matter under your particular attention in the House; I find that the greater part of the Members of that Committee had no notion or idea that any such Petition had been presented or referred to the Committee. I had also, Sir, to appeal to you with reference to the delay in returning certain evidence given before the Committee, of the excessive time taken for the correction of this evidence in contravention of the rules of the House. I find that Dr. Ullathorne, one of the witnesses examined, has written to the Weekly Register, a Roman Catholic paper, denying the accuracy of the reports of his evidence which appear in the public journals. I should weary the House if I were to attempt to go through any analysis of anything like the whole evidence given before the Committee; it is sufficient to say that it was tendered exclusively by persons who seek to obtain the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and the repeal of the clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 to which I have referred. We know, Sir—for it appears from the tenour of the draft Report which was drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), and rejected by a majority of 1 in the Committee—that he did not propose that the Committee should hear further evidence, because the reference to the Committee—or I might say the Commission of the Committee from this House—was simply to ascertain whether any practical grievance existed under the operation of these Acts, and not otherwise to consider the policy of these Acts. I felt confident, Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman went into the Committee, that he would never be able to limit the evidence to so narrow an issue, but that the evidence tendered would bear directly and chiefly upon the great questions that have existed as matters of

  1617
  difference between the Papacy and this country for the last 300 years in the form of direct antagonism; but these differences between this country and the Papacy were scarcely less distinct at far earlier periods, when the country professed spiritual allegiance to the See of Rome, than now; with regard, I mean, to the nature of the jurisdiction claimed by, and the temporal position of, the Roman Hierarchy. The result of the course pursued by the Select Committee is that a mass of evidence upon these general questions, exclusively on one side, has been received, and I am here now to state on the part of those whose counter-evidence — evidence in support of these statutes, as being consonant with, and declaratory of, the common law of this country; as being essential to the maintenance of the prerogative of the Crown and of the national independence, was not received—to state before the House that the evidence given before the Committee was exclusively one-sided and ex parte. It is very important that this should be distinctly understood; because if any attempt be hereafter made to act upon the Report of this Committee, which, by a majority of 1 only, impugns the present law, it ought to be known that the only evidence received by this Committee was from persons directly interested in, from persons avowedly seeking, the repeal of these laws. Sir, it is not enough in such a case as this to prove that the law inflicts no grievance upon a certain section of the community. When a law is assailed, is questioned, it is necessary to prove that it is advantageous to the community and the State. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, who displayed in his cross-examination of these witnesses great ability, that there is no real grievance suffered by the Roman Catholic Bishops, or by Roman Catholics generally; unless the operation of these laws is to be considered a grievance, because by them the Papacy is not permitted to supersede through the agency of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy the Established Church and the established Constitution of this country; that they are not permitted to enforce a jurisdiction in this country, which they call merely voluntary and merely spiritual; but which out of their own mouths I can show would, if unrestrained, involve questions of the deepest temporal importance—matters concerning the civil and the social and religious freedom no less than
  1618
  political rights of Her Majesty's subjects. But, Sir, this evidence, as I have already asserted, has not been received; and I hold, therefore, that the Report of that Committee is the result of a one-sided inquiry—an inquiry which, as the proceedings prove, was conducted by a majority of partisans, and as to the evidence it is clear it is admitted that only one side was heard. It is not enough, I repeat, to prove by direct evidence that the law inflicts no practical grievance. In order to maintain a law there should be direct evidence of the necessity for that law, and of the advantage which the State and the community derived from it. Such evidence, the evidence of thoroughly competent witnesses, was prepared—was intended to be laid before this Committee. This House ordered that the Committee should consider whether they would or would not receive this evidence. But the order of this House was intercepted, and no such evidence was taken, although it was tendered to the House. I have, therefore, a right to say that the Report which was adopted by the Committee is an ex parte Report. The House will permit me for a few moments to show the extent of the questions which the appointment and proceedings of this Committee have disturbed, but have not settled. I quote from the draft Report proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, which was rejected in the Committee by a majority of 1, but which forms part of the proceedings of the Committee. These are the words—
  "Nor is it altogether unimportant to remark that this claim to a territorial hierarchy, 'as morally necessary to the Roman Catholic Church in England,' could only be recognized according to the opinion of the Roman Catholics themselves, by a negation or denial (practically speaking) of the existing Establishment, and the authority of its bishops."
  When Mr. Hope Scott was asked the question—
  "Then if any bishop was to intrude into the See of another bishop in this country it would be in the eye at least of that portion of the Church, which was in this country a sehismatical act?"
  His answer was—
  "There is no doubt at all about it. The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church would not be justified in placing bishops anywhere in England, or in Ireland, if it did not deny the authority, practically speaking, of the bishops of the Establishment; it is, of course, an issue between the two religions, which it is of no use blinking."
  And when Mr. Hope Scott was further asked—

  1619
  "But the Roman Catholic Church assume that the English Episcopate has no existence?"
  His answer was—
  "Most undoubtedly. The appointment of any ecclesiastical officer whatever of the Roman Catholic religion, and the appointment of any priest exercising cure of souls, is a negation of the Established Church, and that is, of course, a part of the religion which is supposed to be freed by the Act of 1829."
  The draft Report then goes on to say—
  "Your Committee are surprised at this last observation, since they had always understood that the Act of 1829 had expressly declared, with reference to the assumption of territorial titles by Catholic Prelates, as a reason for their not being assumed, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are by the respective Acts of Union of England and Scotland, and of England and Ireland, established permanently and inviolably. Bishop Ullathorne concurs in the observations made by Mr. Hope Scott on this part of the subject."
  Now, nothing can be more clearly in direct conflict with the claims put forward by the Papacy than the position of the Established Church; but, as I before mentioned, it is pretended that the jurisdiction, which is claimed by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, is merely voluntary, merely spiritual. This is, however, in the eyes of those who understand the subject, a very flimsy pretext indeed. It is nothing more or less than the old Papal quibble with regard to the objects, covered by the words "spiritual and temporal," respectively. Then Dr. Moriarty was examined before the Committee, and said—
  "I need not tell the Committee that this enactment—the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851—has been totally inoperative; we hold it to be unlawful and void. We never derived our jurisdiction from Parliament or from the Crown, and we believe that no power in the State can render the exercise of it either invalid or unlawful."
  Again, the witness says elsewhere—
  "Now this we do not do (claim rank from the State), nor do I envy the distinction which the Protestant Bishop has in holding his title from the Crown, and being thereby constituted a Baron, or whatever he may be, of this Empire, for I prefer to hold direct from the Lord, and to let Dr. Graves, who is Bishop of my place, hold from, the Lord Lieutenant."
  This Question was then put to him—
  "You spoke of exceptional legislation, and you talked of this as a step backwards; with reference to exceptional legislation, what exceptional legislation, which is still in force, do you refer to?"
  The answer was—
  "There is the existence of the Established Church and all its consequences."
  1620
  He was then asked—
  "Is there anything else?"
  His reply was—
  "I think that that is quite enough."
  Dr. Moriarty went on to say—
  "I say more, that it is absurd that the Bishop of 7,000 persons or less should be competent to sit in your Legislature, while the Bishop of 223,600 is deprived even of the name and semblance of social rank. I am not ambitious of a seat in the Legislature; but I insist that we should be both either admitted or excluded together, and if only one is admitted, I have the best right to be there. Now while this inequality lasts, there will be strife and hatred and national antipathy, and England and Ireland can never become one united Empire."
  I ask the House, then, is not this a temporal matter? Dr. Moriarty goes on to say—
  "The repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act would be a very small instalment of justice, but it would be a step in the right direction; it would be a graceful and prudent beginning, and it would convince many, of what I am myself firmly persuaded, that the English people sincerely, and earnestly, and honestly desire to see Ireland governed with justice and kindness, and without distinction of class or creed. In order to be better understood, I will say that I do not want or wish for any positive legal recognition of our titles, for we do not derive them, or any spiritual power, from the Legislature or the Government. The Government can neither give them nor take them away. I wish merely that the prohibition should be removed, and that we should be let alone; and I wish this for the sake of the highest moral interests of society, which depend upon the establishment and maintenance of right relations between the people and those whom God has placed over them."
  This witness had before said—
  "There is only one body in the country, and that is the Catholic Hierarchy and clergy, who could bridge over the deep and sharp chasm which divides the upper and lower classes in Ireland."
  Well, is not that a temporal matter? Again, Dr. Moriarty continues—
  "My proper title is Bishop of Ardfert. It is by usage that I have been called Bishop of Kerry. I consider that I no more assume a title when I call myself Bishop of Kerry than I do when I call myself parish priest of Killarney, which I also am; and I consider that the county treasurer, or the county surveyor of Kerry, has a title in the very same sense in which I have. If things were understood in that way, I should think that it never could be imagined that there was any interference with the prerogative of the Crown in assuming titles. These are the observations which I have to make."
  Thus, Sir, Dr. Moriarty places the title, which he claims to have derived from the Pope, on exactly the same footing as a designation conferred by the law of this country. Dr. Moriarty subsequently said, in reply to the following Question:—

  1621
  "As to the purely spiritual title and jurisdiction, exercised by a Roman Catholic bishop, say, in a Roman Catholic country, by the law of his Church is he supposed to possess any power of temporal punishment over the members of his Church?—Yes, he has power by the canon law to punish certain crimes, and to hold a court which implies compulsory jurisdiction; but it is quite obvious that such a power never can be exercised without the aid of the secular arm, and that if the secular arm refuses its aid, there is de facto an end of his compulsory jurisdiction."
  Therefore it is only by the negation of such jurisdiction, as the Ecclesiastical Titles Act repels, that the power of the Papal Church has not become compulsory and coercive by means of the law of England. He is next asked this Question—
  "If the Ecclesiastical Titles Act had not been passed, and if the Roman Catholic prelates had been allowed without any interference to assume the position of Bishops in ordinary, would they under the canon law have been allowed to possess that authority?"
  He answers—
  "Certainly not, for the State would not lend its aid."
  The next Question asked was—
  "How are they prevented from possessing it under the canon law?"
  And the answer stands thus—
  "Simply because you will not send your policeman to execute the power."
  Yes, Sir; and that is what we, who desire to retain the Ecclesiastical Titles Act as declaratory of the common law, desire should continue. We do not wish to lend the police for any such purposes. The next Question asked was—
  "Is it (temporal and coercive jurisdiction) possessed in other countries?—Yes. There are appointed officers of the Bishop's court, such as his beadle and his citator, and other officers, who are bound to execute his summons, and to bring persons before his court, because the civil law of the country permits them to do so."
  Mr. Chichester Fortescue asked—
  "You mean in countries where the Roman Catholic Church is the State Church?—I do."
  I think, then, I have shown, from the evidence of this learned person, that the statement that this jurisdiction is merely spiritual is a mere quibble, since the object sought by this witness clearly is to release the Papal jurisdiction from the restraint of the law, which prevents its becoming here what it is elsewhere, coercive and temporal in its operation; and the statutes, which prevent this, a Committee of this House, I am sorry to say, has recommended us to abrogate. Nothing can, Sir, be more perfectly clear than that the position of this
  1622
  House is at this moment exactly analagous to that of the House of Commons some centuries ago: this appears from an extract I will read to the House, from a record of its own proceedings in former days, which is very much to the point. It is an extract from the Remonstrance of the Commons addressed to James I., in 1621, against his countenancing Popery—
  "And from these causes, as bitter roots, we humbly offer to your Majesty, that we foresee and fear there will necessarily follow very dangerous effects both to Church and State, for—1. The Popish religion is incompatible with ours in respect of their positions. 2. It draweth with it an inviolaable dependency on foreign Princes. 3. It openeth too wide a gap for popularity to any who shall draw too great a party. 4. It hath a restless spirit, and will strive by these gradations—if it once gets but a connivance it will press for a toleration; if that should be obtained they must have an equality, from thence they will aspire to superiority, and will never rest until they get a subversion of the true religion."
  Could evidence be more directly in support of such a Remonstrance than that which I have quoted, as given before this Committee, which sat, comparatively speaking, but yesterday? Might not the House, with as good reason, adopt the substance of that Remonstrance now, as in the year 1621? I most deeply lament that these questions should be forced upon us. When I am forced by a sense of duty to resist the continual encroachments that are attempted by the advocates of the Papacy, I sometimes feel bitterly that some people are taught to regard me as an aggressor. It is now two years since I have originated any Motion in this House, touching or concerning Roman Catholic institutions, the Roman clergy, or the Roman Catholic laity. Two years ago I moved for an inquiry into monasteries and convents. Since then I have been too often compelled to intrude upon the attention of the House. I feel, therefore, that I owe my sincere thanks to the House for the indulgence that has been shown me. But why have I been contending thus? Because month after month, week after week, night after night, there has been carried on in, this House a constant system of aggression, continual attacks have been made upon the institutions of this country. I thank the House for having allowed me thus to disavow any desire to attack my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. But with regard to this question of jurisdiction, there is another circumstance to which I would call the attention of the House and the Government. The evidence given before the

  1623
  Committee is very astutely guarded. I shall not attempt to unravel the evidence of Dr. Manning or that of Dr. Ullathorne. Time and state of the House forbid my attempting this. But, Sir, these Roman Catholic prelates have their organs, and there is one especially, which was established, I understand, by Cardinal Wiseman, and which is certainly held to represent the views of the Ultramontane section of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland—I mean the Dublin Review. What is the character of the writing in that Review? In previous numbers there have been articles, and in that for the month of July there is an article in defence of the Papacy with respect to the Inquisition, from which I will read a few extracts in order to show the temper of the writing. The article is entitled The Holy See and the Spanish Inquisition; and is in continuance of other articles on the same subject. This is an example of the substance of the article—
  "The Popes of Rome claimed the right, founded in the infallible certainty of their being the exclusive repository of truth on earth, of despotically rebuking error, whatsoever form it might assume; and they discharged their divinely-imposed duty by erecting a tribunal to eradicate the odious heresy. … The successors of St. Peter merit the gratitude of mankind for the establishment of an institution whose wise and merciful administration of the powers delegated to it adverted the most desolating calamities from Christendom… The Spanish Inquisition has often been represented, by very ignorant or dishonest writers, as a despotism of the Church of Rome; but the despotism of the Inquisition from the time of its foundation, until its existence ended, aimed, on the contrary, at crushing the influence of Rome in Spain."
  This apology is little better than a mere quibble. It is based upon certain differences between the Papacy and the Dominician Order, and the Court of Spain; but the Inquisition had the sanction of the Papacy, nevertheless, and this—the fact that questions as to jurisdiction and power arose and were contested by the local Inquisitors and Sovereigns with Rome—cannot be disproved. The Review continues—
  "The only cheek upon its cruelty was the determined perseverance with which the Sovereign Pontiffs interfered in behalf of mercy, and by remonstrances, mandates of grace, and even excommunication, moderated its excessive rigour."
  I am sorry to say, Sir, that there is a very different story to be told on the other side, if the history of the Inquisition were inquired into. I do not deny that some Popes have restrained Inquisitors; but I cannot compare the conduct of the Papacy
  1624
  generally, with respect to the Inquisition, otherwise than to that of a man who, having regularly hired an assassin, complains that he is difficult to manage, and claims credit to himself for interfering to save the lives of one or two of his intended victims. The Review proceeds—
  "The activity of the Inquisition was mainly employed, during the 16th century, in excluding the curse of Protestantism from the Spanish peninsula. Superficial, heretical, and infidel writers have made the so-called fanaticism of Philip II., in maintaining Catholicity as the exclusive religion of Spain, a favourite theme of obloquy; but his piety and statesmanship in using the Inquisition to save his country from the bloody brood of sectaries that were desolating the rest of Europe, merit for him the name of a wise, well-intentioned, and good Christian Prince. … The claims made by the Church are of infallible certainty that all its teachings are true; that all other teachings are false, and that it is endowed with the right to exclude pernicious doctrine and punish heresy. … The first of these elements, guided by the sublimely merciful spirit of the Founder of Christianity, prevailed through the first epoch of the Inquisition. It checked the savage barbarity of State instincts, interposed a barrier between millions of souls and temporal and eternal destruction, and is the glory and pride of the Catholic Church. It was planned by the wisest of Popes, sanctioned by the most devout and merciful of saints, ruled over by the holiest and most disinterested of religious corporations, and accomplished ends, which Pagan Emperors and Christian Kings had, during long centuries, vainly sought to attain."
  This shows that, whilst the Roman Catholic Church professes to aim at spiritual jurisdiction only, it will assign no limit to the temporal means and power it considers necessary to the extension of its quasi-ecclesiastical authority. There is a spirit in these writings which it would be unsafe to unloose. The present state of the Roman Catholic Church, the relations of the Papacy with Italy, and the laws of Italy prove this. The laws of France prove this. The able despatch of Prince Gortschakoff, which now lies upon the table of the House, giving a history of the relations of the Court of Russia with the Holy See for more than thirty years, proves this. I sincerely thank the House for the attention it has given me in the endeavour to show the House and my fellow-countrymen that no conclusion against these Acts of Parliament—the Ecclesiastical Titles Act and the analogous section of the Relief Act of 1829—can be safely drawn from the Report of a Committee which has heard direct evidence only on one side, and whose Report is, therefore, founded solely on ex parte evidence.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, the course which had been pursued with reference to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was unwarrantable, unjustifiable, and discreditable to the Government. That measure passed under remarkable circumstances in 1851, but was never enforced. It remained until the present day, when a Bill was brought in to repeal it. The Government never expressed any opinion upon that Bill, but referred it to a Select Committee, endeavouring to absolve itself from its fair responsibility. Now, what had been the course of that Committee? He brought before one of the members of that Committee—the hon. and learned Attorney General—the expediency of examining a gentleman named M'Gee, who had written a great deal upon the subject, which he thoroughly understood, showing the dangers impending over us by the assumption of authority, and by the proceedings of the Roman Catholic Church. The hon. and learned Gentleman fully acquiesced in the propriety of examining the Rev. Mr. M'Gee, and arrangements were made for that gentleman to give evidence; but he was never called before the Committee, and the Attorney General had told him (Mr. Whalley), a few days ago, that the reason why he had not considered it necessary to examine him was that it was only necessary for the parties promoting the repeal of the Act to establish their own case; and that as he did not think they had established their case it was not necessary to reply to it. Not only had the Government endeavoured to absolve themselves from responsibility in the matter by referring the question to a Committee, but their representative on the Committee, the Attorney General, thought fit to be absent when the Committee divided upon their Report, and the consequence was that a Report in favour of the Act was rejected, and a Report for repealing it affirmed by the casting vote of the Chairman. Altogether this was a state of things which he thought was without precedent. He protested against no evidence having been taken except on behalf of the promoters of the repeal of the Act, and against the course which had been taken by the Government in dealing with the matter.
  MR. WALPOLE: In replying to the remarks of my hon. Friend who has called the attention of the House to this matter, and the remarks of the hon. Member opposite, I think I shall best discharge my duty by not adverting to the general topics of theological and ecclesiastical controversy
  1626
  raised by my hon. Friend. At the same time, I feel it my duty to put the House in possession of the facts with reference to the proceedings taken before the Committee. With regard to the original appointment of that Committee I had very little to do. I was absent from London at the time it was appointed, and it was from no desire of my own that I was made a Member of it, because I knew that that kind of conversation would go on in Committee which it would be anything but pleasant to listen to. That Committee was not appointed for the purpose either of avoiding or coming to any foregone conclusion respecting any question which might be brought under their notice. The object of the Committee was, a Bill having been brought into the House on the subject, to consider the propriety of repealing the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and whether there was anything in the operation of the law which practically weighed upon Roman Catholics, and which made it expedient that the law should be repealed or amended. That was the object of the appointment, and to my mind that was the only justifiable object for which the Committee could have been appointed. If the Committee had gone into questions of theological controversy, and had taken evidence on historical matters, they would have been instituting an inquiry which could have led to no practical result, because evidence could not be taken upon such matters which are open to the knowledge of every Member of this House, without any particular evidence respecting them being taken. And now, with regard to the proceedings of the Committee, I must confess there was one occurrence which I regret, as I think the House will do. I shall advert to this presently but with reference to the general proceedings of the Committee, I may mention that evidence was taken on the part of those who moved for the Committee to establish their case by showing that the law was oppressive to the Roman Catholics. The Attorney General for Ireland, and three or four other Members of the Committee, including myself, arrived at the conclusion, after hearing the evidence, that no case of practical grievance had been made out, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for us to have any general evidence on questions of historical or theological controversy. That is the plain, simple truth of the case, and I believe that if we had prolonged the proceedings of the Committee, we should have had a most unpleasant, disagreeable, and unprofitable

  1627
  inquiry. As, however, I have already remarked, there is one circumstance which I regret as a misfortune, and which the other members of the Committee and the House generally will, I believe, also regret. I refer to the Petition which has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). That Petition was not brought before the Committee from an unintentional mistake on the part of one or two of the officers of the House. Until we had reported, I, as a member of the Committee, was totally unaware that that Petition had been presented to the House and referred to the Committee, requesting that evidence might be taken in answer to the testimony which had been given against the Act. I believe that the Attorney General for Ireland was also ignorant of the fact that such a Petition had been presented. Owing to a mistake in some department of the House, it was not brought under the notice of the Committee, though whether it was submitted to the notice of the Chairman I am not quite certain. If we had known of that Petition we should, in my opinion, have been bound to have taken the evidence of persons who desired to urge reasons in favour of the Act. I think it was a great misfortune that the Petition was not brought under our notice, and also that such evidence was not tendered before the Committee, as it was not desirable to exclude testimony which any gentleman might desire to give. The evidence taken, I admit, is tendered only on one side, but is sufficient to enable the Committee to judge of the particular question referred to them, as to whether there is anything in the operation of the law bearing oppressively on Roman Catholics which requires either repeal or alteration? All the facts were presented in the evidence which was taken, and as that evidence is open to everybody, the case can be dealt with whenever it shall be again brought before the attention of the House in a much more full and complete manner than would have been the case if the question had not been referred to a Committee. You have now before you all the allegations made by able lawyers and ecclesiastics on the subject, and when you have a statement from such a, gentleman as Mr. Hope Scott, who is perfectly conversant with all the facts of the case, and when you have also the answers given to those facts by the counterevidence elicited from himself and others, I think the House could not have been in
  1628
  a better position to judge of the question. As regards the great question whether the Act should be repealed or not, and with regard to the historical and theological arguments to which my hon. Friend has so strikingly adverted, these are matters for discussion in this House, and when they are raised I shall be prepared to give my opinion upon them, though I always regret such subjects as these being brought forward. The Committee arrived at a conclusion in regard to which I was unfortunately in a minority; but the views of the minority are fully represented in the draft Report which I submitted to the Committee. On the whole, I think there is no reason to complain of the proceedings taken by the Committee, which I believe painfully and honestly discharged its duty, although I regret that the knowledge of the Petition having been presented was not brought under our notice.
  MR. WHALLEYwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If the Committee were precluded from inquiring into any other matters except the practical inconveniences sustained by Roman Catholics? ["Order!"]

CASE OF MARTIN CUNCANON.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR ANSONrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a, Question with regard to the sentence passed on a man named Cuncanon at the last Stafford Assizes. The hon. and gallant Member said, that a man named Martin Cuncanon was arrested at Lichfield a short time ago on the charge of having murdered his brother-in-law. It appeared that the two men had been out drinking, and had come home late at night in a state of intoxication. Cuncanon knocked down his brother-in-law, and left the house; the brother-in-law followed him, and shortly afterwards came back stabbed in the belly. Cuncanon was committed to the assizes on a charge of wilful murder, and the Grand Jury found a true bill against him for manslaughter. After a short trial, at which there was apparently no evidence to show that the death of the brother-in-law was an accident, Mr. Justice Shee, the presiding Judge, summed up in a very few words, and was reported to have directed the jury to the effect that it was quite clear that in a moment of excitement and slight anger the prisoner had stabbed his brother-in-law. The Judge, in sentencing the prisoner,

  1629
  said that if in a moment of anger the prisoner had struck his brother-in-law a blow, and death had resulted from it, he would have inflicted but a slight punishment; and considering the good character the prisoner had received, he felt justified in not pronouncing any very severe sentence; but still the prisoner had used a knife, and should be made an example of, and then, "to the astonishment of a crowded court," the learned Judge sentenced the prisoner to four months' imprisonment. That sentence had created a great deal of excitement in the district, and he (Major Anson) had been requested to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, Whether the case had been brought under his notice, or whether he was aware of any facts which justified the Judge in passing so lenient a sentence?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the case to which the hon. and gallant Member referred had not been in any way brought before him officially. Criminal cases only came under the notice of the Secretary of State upon an application for a remission or mitigation of sentence through the interposition of the mercy of the Crown, and were never submitted to his consideration on the ground that the sentence was too lenient. There might be complaints addressed to him with respect to the conduct of magistrates, but the action of the Judges did not come within his jurisdiction, and could only be reviewed by Parliament. The present case had not been brought before him, and he could not have formed any opinion upon it without having examined the Judge's notes of the trial. He had not, however, seen those notes, and he had no right to interfere in any way in the matter.
  MR. NEATEasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether there was not a Royal Commission of gaol delivery for every assize, and whether the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, might not omit from that Commission the name of any Judge who had forfeited its confidence?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he assumed that Her Majesty would only make out Her Commission to such persons as she might think would properly discharge the duties imposed upon them.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Six o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Willoughby d'Eresby, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading — Consolidated Fund Appropriation*; Courts of Referees* (340); Hours of Labour Regulation (341); Church Temporalities Orders (Ireland) Validation, &c.*(322); Fortifications (Provisions for Expenses) (No. 2)* (330); Railway Companies (Ireland) Advances* (323); Quinagh and Parsonstown Drainage* (295).
Committee—Expiring Laws Continuance* (321); Companies Act (1862) Amendment* (333); Investment of Trust Funds* (246).
Report — Expiring Laws Continuance* (321); Companies Act (1862) Amendment* (333); Investment of Trust Funds* (246).
Third Reading—Master and Servant (342), and passed.

HOURS OF LABOUR REGULATION BILL.
(The Earl of Devon.)
HOURS OF LABOUR REGULATION BILL.

  (No. 341.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that its provisions were founded on the Report of a Commission, which reported that there were various employments, not included within the operation of the Factory Acts or any separate Act, with regard to

  1595
  which legislative interference was imperatively demanded in reference to the length of time during which women, children, and young persons were kept at work, in reference to education, in reference to the want of proper ventilation, and other matters. The Commission also came to the conclusion that no distinction could be drawn between the case of hired labour and the labour of children who were employed by their own parents, and that the labour of the latter class of children equally needed regulation. Their Lordships had only the other day passed the Factory Acts Extension Act, dealing with the larger establishments; but there were a considerable Dumber of minor employments in which women, children, and young persons were engaged, perhaps, in smaller numbers, either in workshops or in their own homes, and with respect to which the Commissioners came to the conclusion, from the evidence adduced before them, that legislative regulation was necessary. It was to meet the case of these minor employments that the present Bill had been framed, and it took up the points which the Commission spoke of as requiring regulation, among which were the hours of labour, education, and ventilation. The measure also gave power to the local authorities for the purpose of securing, under certain penalties, an adherence to the provisions of the Bill. The measure had undergone careful investigation in the other House of Parliament, and considerable Amendments had been made in it. He trusted that their Lordships would give it their assent in order that it might pass as a supplementary measure to the Factory Acts Extension Act, which had already received the sanction of both Houses this Session.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Devon.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the Bill had undergone very serious alteration, but though far from perfect it contained some very excellent provisions. It affirmed, above all, the great principle on which previous measures had been adopted, and which had conferred the greatest benefits on large masses of our industrial population. There could be no doubt that if they compared the machinery of this Bill with that of the other Bill which was the other day passed by their Lordships they might find it was defective. It did not provide the same system of inspection
  1596
  as was provided by the Factory Acts Extension Act, but left it necessary to have recourse to the local authorities. The measure might not produce all the good effects which they might all desire; but he felt sure that with patience and care it would enable them to work out great results; and they ought to be thankful to have such a Bill as that, when they considered the interests with which they had to contend, and the mighty influence which those interests exercised in the House of Commons and out of it. He thought they must express their very sincere and hearty thanks to all the employers of labour—both those connected with the great establishments and those connected with the smaller establishments—who had come forward in so manly and generous a way to put themselves under restrictions which they would have strenuously resisted some years ago—restrictions to which they were now ready to submit for the sake of the physical, the moral, and the social benefit of the great mass of the working people. He thought such conduct was highly creditable to those employers, and he hoped it would not be presumption in him to say that he felt deeply indebted to them for the course which they had pursued. But the Amendment which had been introduced only a few nights ago into this Bill in the House of Commons was not just towards those employers of labour. Before the Select Committee there took place a great deal of argumentation as to the hours at which all these industrial occupations should cease, and it was pressed very urgently indeed by all those employers and witnesses that, although there were two Bills dealing with this subject, the hour of concluding labour ought to be identical in each, and that unless this was so it would be utterly impossible to resist the infringement of the law. In the Workshops' Bill it was originally proposed that the hours of labour should terminate at nine o'clock; but after much discussion in the Committee it was determined by common consent that the hours of labour should terminate by the latest at eight o'clock. Suddenly, and without notice, a large proportion of those who had given their assent altered their views, and an Amendment was proposed and carried that the hours of labour should be from six to nine o'clock. This would almost render nugatory the provisions of the Bill. He thought that the Bill ought to be amended so as to be restored to the state in which it came down

  1597
  from the Select Committee of the other House, and if so there would not be much to complain of. The Act did not come into operation until January, and it would be possible in February at the meeting of Parliament to pass a Bill to amend the present measure, so as to make it agree with the Bill as it came down from the Commons' Committee. He feared that the Bill, as it stood, would cause great dissatisfaction among the class it was intended to benefit.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDsaid, he regretted that the Bill had not been brought forward first in their Lordships' House, so that they might have had time to give it due consideration.
  THE EARL OF DEVONconcurred in the remarks of his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and said, that if his noble Friend brought in a Bill next Session to amend the present measure, he should be happy to give him all the aid in his power.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

  OBSERVATIONS,
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELDrose to call attention to the Return of the Number of Friendly Societies in each County of England and Wales enrolled and certified since June, 1793 (33 Geo. III. c. 54), to the 31st of May, 1867; and also of the Number of such Societies which have been dissolved or broken up (laid before the House on the 11th of July last). The Return to which he desired to direct their Lordships' attention stated that in 1793 the number of those Friendly Societies was 38,315. Of these, 13,935 had been dissolved, and 24,380 remained. It should be remembered in considering these Returns that during the last ten or twelve years from 10,000 to 11,000 societies had been established, and that of these a very small proportion had proved themselves sound, and a very great amount of misery had been entailed on the working classes throughout the country through their failure. It was undesirable to point out the evils connected with these societies unless their Lordships were prepared to go somewhat deeply in to the cause and ascertain whether some remedy could be provided. The first class of society was that which it was undoubtedly the intention of the Legislature to encourage when they
  1598
  passed the first Friendly Societies Act in 1793—those by which a certain number of persons clubbed together to provide relief for each other in case of sickness, and in some cases to provide a superannuation after a certain time of life. This class included not only the ordinary village club, but large affiliated bodies, like the Odd Fellows and Foresters. He was happy to say that latterly a great deal of the suspicion which had existed in the minds of the upper and educated classes as to these societies had been almost, if not entirely, removed; and, on the other hand, there was a growing disposition on the part of those societies to place confidence in any attempt which might be made to legislate with regard to them. There could be no doubt that though some of the lodges or branches of these societies might not be managed as well as could be wished, yet on the whole they had done a marvellous amount of good—especially the Odd Fellows and Foresters. Among the difficulties which in many cases existed to the satisfactory working of these societies was that of obtaining speedy redress in case of disputes. Under the rule providing for arbitration the matter had generally to be first referred to a district committee, and from them to the central body; so that the matter was decided upon at last probably at a great distance from the place where the claimant lived. This objection referred more particularly to the large affiliated bodies; and he could not help thinking that the anxiety shown by the managers to improve the position of those societies would lead them to see the necessity of some improvement in this respect. Another objection applied to almost all societies of this description—namely, that under the Friendly Societies Act now in operation—the 18 & 19 Vict.—any person bringing a complaint against one of these societies must do so on behalf of the society. It was very desirable to remedy this, and to provide that any member on his own account, or the Registrar, should be allowed to bring the complaint and to take proceedings in his own name in case of misappropriation of funds. Great complaint was also made of the manner in which the returns of the financial statements of these societies were made to the Registrar. During the last year, out of 22,834 returns asked for by the Registrar under this Act, only 10,345 were received. A great difficulty in the working of the Friendly Societies Act arose, also, from

  1599
  the time at which returns were required to be made to the Registrar. At present this time was fixed at the 1st of June; but they should be sent by March instead of June. No action could possibly be taken upon any matter which appeared to the Registrar to be contrary to the provisions of the Act of Parliament if the returns were not sent to him before the 1st of, June, because after six months had elapsed it would be too late to take any action in the matter; and it followed that, as the returns related to what had taken place in the previous year, six months must in all cases have elapsed between the time of the irregularity and the return being laid before the Registrar. Of these large societies, the Odd Fellows numbered 400,000, with £2,000,000 of money put by; the Foresters 300,000, with £1,000,000. It was impossible to deny how much credit the managers deserved for their efforts to improve their respective societies; it did happen, however, that a large number of their lodges were not in the position they ought to hold, and some provision was necessary which would give the governing body a greater control over the lodges, and compel them to conform in all respects to the rules laid down by the governing body. Knowing how frequently these societies found themselves in difficulties, he would quote one case to show what a sound and well-managed society could do. The society he alluded to was established in 1828; it began with thirty-five members, and in 1867 it had 285 members, with an income of £850, and an available balance of £12,404, the expenses of management during that time not having exceeded 3 per cent. This showed what could be done by a society if it were properly managed; and any measure that would put such societies on a more secure footing than they at present occupied would be worthy of the most serious consideration. He wished to call special attention to a description of society which had sprung up of late years in London, Liverpool, and Manchester. These societies contemplated the provision of a sum at death for those who insured in them, and their ramifications extended to almost every village in the country, the premiums being obtained through the agency of collectors, who were paid a very large commission upon the sums they received for the societies. The business was in the hands of a committee at Liverpool, London, or Manchester; the members took no part in the management; they had no
  1600
  one but the collector to look to; and the annual meeting was a farce. It was quite clear that these societies in no way corresponded with the societies which the Legislature contemplated when they passed the first Friendly Societies Act. Notwithstanding the enormous funds of these societies and the lavishness with which they were squandered, they received all the benefits and privileges of friendly societies in being exempt from income and other taxes, and to a certain extent from probate duty—exemptions which were very considerable in amount. It was astonishing what an enormous proportion of their income some of these societies spent in management. He obtained his figures from their published reports, and he did not think there could be any objection to mentioning the names of the societies to which he referred, because, being under the Friendly Societies Act, they were bound annually to send in their accounts, which thus became public property. He would first of all call attention to the Royal Liver Society of Liverpool, which had been in existence seventeen years, and the number of members of which it would be very difficult to ascertain; the number was supposed to be from 130,000 to 150,000, and the premium income £125,000 a year. This money was obtained from the poorest classes of the people of this country; and yet during 1866 no less a sum than £45,864 was spent upon management. From every £100 received £36 12 s. 9d. was spent on management, or 15 s. for every 20 s. spent for relief, sickness, and burials. Although the accumulated assets were said to amount to £103,000, the interest was only £2,795. Could it be conceived for a moment that a society established upon a basis of payments certified to be sufficient for certain benefits could be sound if 50 per cent were taken for the expenses of management? A number of members of this society wrote to Mr. Spens, who had certified its tables, asking him if he had done so with the knowledge that by the thirteenth rule 30 per cent was deducted for management expenses, and 25 per cent for collectors' commission. The reply was as follows:—
  "The table No. 2, to which you refer, was certified by me as an abstract table without reference to the rules of the Liver Society or anything beyond the table. At the time the table was submitted to me I thought it was my duty to examine it and give the opinion I did. The table which I certified bore simply the title, 'Table of weekly payments required for persons of the age undernoted

  1601
  for burial money in the years of entry undernoted.' The rates are quite inadequate if subjected to a deduction of 55 per cent."
  He wished also to refer to the Victoria Legal Provident Assurance Society of Birmingham. It had 8,637 members, and its available funds were £232. During 1866 it received in premiums from the working classes £1,764, and the expenses of management were £1,125. He was present at the Court of Quarter Sessions in Staffordshire on the occasion of the trial of a collector charged with defrauding the society of a sum of money. It came out in the course of the trial that the trustee, secretary, and treasurer were one and the same person, and that he, in fact, managed the society and controlled the collector. After the trial there was put into his hands a letter written by the wife of the trustee, secretary, and treasurer, and addressed to the collector who was tried; and this letter showed pretty clearly how the affairs of the society were conducted. It was in these terms—
  "Dear Sir,—Yours to hand this morning. Was sorry to hear that Mr. Rhodes had been showing your letter about. I am sure it was not Mr. Davies's wish, and I shall name it to him when he comes in the morning. As Mr. Davies is in London, I shall undertake to say that whatever he promised you when you were here yesterday you may take it for granted, as I can assure you he is a man to his word. If he promised you not to press the charge he will not do so. Bear in mind Mr. Davies is the prosecutor, not Mr. Rhodes; so I hope you will not trouble yourself any further about it, and in like manner we shall expect you to fulfil your promise in showing up the members to Our agent.—Yours respectfully, M. A. DAVIES, pro William Davies."
  In the case of this society, for every 20 s. spent in relief £3 was spent on management. The next society he would name was the St. Patrick's. Its income was £33,270, and its management cost £16,552; or for every 20 s. given in relief 16 s. 3d. was spent on management. It was not known whether the number of members was 150,000 or 300,000; and, although it was established in 1832, the funds in hand did not amount to more than half one year's income. The society had often been before the Courts, and it was managed by one person. Another society he would name was the Liverpool United Legal, which had been established many years. It had as patron a noble Earl, who was very much surprised when certain figures were put before him. There were 57,350 members; the accumulated assets were £10,000; its premium income
  1602
  was £14,838; and its management cost £7,141 per year. There were some cases in which from friendly societies they had become joint-stock companies—a change which ought to be carefully guarded against; and under no circumstances whatever ought the privileges of a friendly society to be given to a society carrying on its operations by means of collectors. It was no slight undertaking to bring forward a subject of this magnitude at a period of the Session so far advanced, and with the knowledge that their Lordships must be already tired, but he was anxious that during the recess attention might be directed to the subject. Some suggestions which had occurred to himself he had embodied in the shape of a Bill; but for any substantial advance upon this question they could only trust to improved education of the working classes.
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, there could be but one opinion as to the importance of the subject which the noble Earl had brought under consideration. There were few, indeed, having a wider or more extensive bearing on the position of the working classes, and the abuses which had been pointed out were of the most serious kind. He was quite sure their Lordships would be disposed to co-operate next Session in the endeavour of the noble Earl to remedy these defects.

COURTS OF LAW OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 204.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
COURTS OF LAW OFFICERS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 204.)

  COMMONS' REASONS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to One of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order).
  LORD CRANWORTHrose to move that their Lordships should insist on the alteration which, at his instigation, the House had made in the Bill—an alteration which, would have had the effect of assimilating the Irish to the English practice, and would have been in conformity with the opinions of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Campbell, and with the recommendations of the English and Irish Law Commission. His attention was called to the fact that no provision was made in the Bill for putting the chief Judges in Ireland in the same position as those in England with respect to the appointment of Officers in the Courts. He accordingly moved a clause vesting the appointment in the chief Judge of each Court. That clause passed

  1603
  their Lordships' House without objection, but the Commons rejected it; and one of the Reasons they assigned for the rejection was that the clause was an interference with an ancient prerogative of the Crown in Ireland, no allegation having been made by anyone that the said prerogative had been exercised improperly. A similar reason might be assigned for the preservation of any piece of patronage enjoyed by the Government. There were other Reasons — though it was only by a stretch of courtesy they could be called "Reasons" at all—assigned, but he thought that none of them were better founded than the one to which he had just alluded. At this period of the Session legislation practically depended on the Government, and it was useless for an independent Member of either House to attempt to carry anything which the Government opposed.
  Moved, to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(The Lord Cranwortk.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas anxious to express to the House how strongly he agreed in the view presented by his noble and learned Friend, and how deeply he regretted that the Commons had thought proper to reject the clause which seemed to him founded on reasonable and just grounds. The support of that clause was not confined to the lawyers in that House. It was supported, indeed, by his noble and learned Friends Lord Cairns, Lord Westbury, Lord Romilly; but it also received the support of those who were formerly connected with the government of Ireland—of the Earl of Clarendon and the Earl of Kimberley—as well as of the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Marquess of Clanricarde. He was the more anxious that this should be known, because he knew it would be said that the lawyers would be sure to support a clause that gave them patronage; and he wished it to be understood that this clause of his noble and learned Friend was supported by those deservedly great authorities as well as by the lawyers. He must express his surprise as well as regret, that the House of Commons had rejected this clause; and if it were not for the late period of the Session, he would follow the course adopted by his distinguished predecessor, the late Lord Lyndhurst, and endeavour to induce the House to insist on the clause. But he knew what the consequence of that would be at the present period of the Session, that it would be
  1604
  decisive of the fate of the Bill, and as it was one of great importance he did not think he ought to interfere to prevent it from passing. He was anxious to explain to their Lordships and to the public that this was the reason, and the only reason, why he could not agree to the Motion of his noble and learned Friend.
  On Question, whether to insist? their Lordships divided:—Contents 7; Not-Contents 11: Majority 4

  CONTENTS.

  Lichfield, E.

  Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Sidmouth, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Bagot, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Clinton, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Devon, E.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.

PROTEST.
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because the Right of filling the subordinate Offices in the Superior Courts of Justice ought to belong to the Heads of those Courts, as being the Persons best qualified to select fit and proper Officers for the Discharge of the Duties they are to fulfil:
"2. Because from Time immemorial this has been the Practice in England, and has always been regarded as essential to the well-conducting of the Business of the Courts:
"3. Because, in the Year 1862, a Royal Commission was issued to many of the most distinguished Judges and Lawyers both in England and Ireland, directing them to inquire, amongst other things, as to the Constitution and Establishment of the Superior Courts of Common Law in Ireland, and that Commission recommended the Adoption in Ireland of the Principle which has always prevailed in England as to the Appointment of Officers in the Courts, and no Reason, has been given why that Recommendation has not been attended to:
"4. Because the withholding from the Irish. Judges of the Rights and Privileges enjoyed by their Brethren in England places them in an invidious and humiliating Position, inasmuch as the Reason for the Distinction will be generally believed to be that it is not thought safe to trust the Judges in Ireland with the Exercise of Patronage which is without Hesitation confided to the Judges in England. "CRANWORTH."
A consequential Amendment made, and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.