Sitting of 11 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—On Parliamentary Deposits [No. 432]; on Paris Exhibition [No. 433].
Second Reading — Court of Chancery (Officers) [235]; Canongate Annuity Tax (Edinburgh) * [2]; Turnkike Trusts Arrangements* [233]; County General Assessment (Scotland)* [225]; Galashiels Jurisdiction * [234]; County Courts Acts Amendment* [212]; Game Laws Amendment (Ireland)* [226].
Committee — Trades Union Commission Act (1867) Extension [227]; Courts of Law Officers (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [248]; Poor Law Board, &c. [193] [R.P.]; Barrack Lane Windsor (Right of Way) * [229]; Judges Chambers (Despatch of Business) * [154]; Tramways (Ireland) Acts Amendment* [124] [R.P.]
Report—Corrupt Practices at Elections *[119 &c. 247); Trades Union Commission Act (1867) Extension [227]; Courts of Law Officers (Ireland)* (re-comm.) [178 & 248]; Barrack Lane, Windsor (Right of Way) * [229]; Judges Chambers (Despatch of Business)* [154].
Considered as amended—Naval Stores* [215]; Chatham and Sheerness Stipendiary Magistrate* [211].
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 5) * [206], and passed.
Withdrawn — Bankruptcy (re-comm). [131]; Judgment Debtors* (re-comm.) [132]; Bankruptcy Acts Repeal* (re-comm.) [133]; Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange * [224].

STEAM FERRIES BETWEEN GRANTON AND BURNTISLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. WALDEGRAVE - LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Peebles, Whether instructions will be given to the Crown Agent in Scotland to prosecute in cases of excessive crowding of passengers on board the Steam Ferries beteen Granton and Burntisland; or, whether the Crown Agent in Scotland will take any other steps to prohibit such daily and constant overcrowding of the above boats, to the danger of Her Majesty's faithful subjects?
SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, that no complaints had been made to the Crown Agent in Scotland in regard to the matter. In consequence of the Question asked the other day, the Lord Advocate had asked the police to report any cases of overcrowding which might come under their notice. The Merchant Shipping Act contained provisions against overcrowding, and if the Act were infringed the parties would be liable to prosecution. The authorities in Scotland would direct their attention to the subject.

STAFF OFFICERS OF PENSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the grievance felt by some of the senior Staff Officers of Pensioners, because the Memorandum, dated War Office, 15th March, 1842, promising that their situation should "be considered a full pay appointment," has not been carried out, many of them having been induced to leave other "full pay" situations in order to obtain it; and also, to the fact of the retiring allowance granted to them being considerably less than that given to other paying officers holding likewise home appointments, but whose duties and money responsibilities are not nearly so great as those of the Staff Officers of Pensioners?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that so far as he could ascertain, the senior Staff Officers of Pensioners did hold, and always held, full pay appointments. He was not aware that the Staff Officers had any reason to complain of their retiring allowances. The appointments were in his hands as Secretary of State, and hardly a day passed that he did not receive the most pressing applications from officers to hold their appointments.

ARMY MEDICAL WARRANT OF 1858.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether so much of the Army Medical Warrant of the 1st October 1858, as has not been expressly cancelled by the Warrant of the 1st April 1867, is still in force; and, if so, whether it is to be acted upon; and, whether any order has been issued, and by whom, and when, to carry out the recommendations of the Committee of 1866, in relation to Army Medical Officers, and if same can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had already stated that all parts of the Army Medical Warrant of 1st October 1858, which were not specially repealed, were in force and acted upon. The recommendations of the Committee of 1866 consisted of two parts—one financial, and the other relating to discipline. The former had been carried into effect, and he should lay a copy of the Warrant on the table. The latter had been referred to the Horse Guards to deal with it. They had not

  1391
  yet issued their decision; but they had acquiesced in the recommendation to the extent he had stated on a former occasion.

PRIVATE POSTAL SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Postmaster General, notwithstanding the offer to carry Letters free of charge, declines to allow the insertion in The Postal Official Circular of the names of Steamers sailing from Liverpool at stated periods to Brazil and other places, whereby the public is deprived of the opportunity of more frequent and quicker communication with those places in addition to the Post Office Mails?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the practice of publishing in the Postal Official Circular the names of private ships carrying letter bags had been discontinued some years ago, the information being often calculated to mislead the public, as the vessels did not always sail at the time appointed. It was not accurate to say that the steamers sailing from Liverpool to Brazil carried letters free of charge, because they received certain gratuities for carrying letters to Brazil and other places. The public were not deprived of the opportunity of sending letters by those steamers, because if they were addressed to go by private ship they were sent by the first that sailed.
  MR. BAXTERgave notice that early next Session he should call attention to the whole system of the Packet Service, and would move certain Resolutions thereon.

ARMY—MARCH OF TROOPS TO HOUNSLOW.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT CURZONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is in a position to give further information to the House as to the circumstance of the Troops coming up to Hounslow for the review, not receiving their rations till 4 o'clock in the afternoon of their march from Aldershot?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Since I was asked a Question on this subject on a former evening, I felt it my duty to institute a close inquiry into the circumstances to which the Question referred, which has deeply interested the public mind, and which cannot be considered creditable to the military service. I find that on the 25th of June a requisition which I now hold in my hand, was issued from the
1392
Quartermaster General's Department to the Deputy-Commissary General, intimating that a brigade of cavalry, with a military train, numbering about 1,200 men, would march from Aldershot to Hounslow, on Wednesday the 3rd of July. The requisition goes on to say—
"And it is requested that the necessary arrangements may be made for the issue of rations and forage to the men and horses during their stay at Hounslow Heath."
I can only arrive at the conclusion that the Deputy Commissary-General, to whom this requisition was addressed, was the officer responsible to see that this requisition was carried out. In justice, I am bound to say that it has been occasionally, if not always, the practice that troops on the day of march should take with them provisions for that day. I am also bound to say that the officers connected with this brigade were not altogether free from, something like want of care. The General commanding the brigade decided upon marching at a very unusual hour; and I believe the officers commanding the regiments of which the brigade consisted might have received some portion of the provision which they required if they had taken care to apply for it. But I feel, on the other hand, that some one must be held responsible for the supply of rations to the troops. It would not do, in such a case, to say that one officer might have done this and another officer might have done that. Here was a requisition directed to the Deputy Commissary-General, requesting him on the 25th of June to provide for the accommodation of the troops on the 3rd of July—thereby giving him ample notice; and I hold that it was the duty of that officer to have made whatever inquiry was necessary for the purpose of carrying out those arrangements, and that if anything went wrong the responsibility must rest with him. I am convinced from the character of that officer there was nothing like intentional neglect; but, at the same time, it is absolutely necessary that proper care should be taken of the troops, and it is my intention to remove that officer from the London district.
LORD DUNKELLINasked whether this was the only accident that happened to the troops moved up to the Review, or whether there were other cases?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had not heard of any other cases of neglect of the troops on their march to the Review.

THE 13TH HUSSARS.—QUESTION.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be true that a second Major is to be appointed to the 13th Hussars; and, if so, whether the step will be given in the Regiment without purchase?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the 13th Hussars were now serving in Canada, and that he had no intention of appointing a second Major to that regiment.

MEXICO—FATE OF THE EMPEROR MAXIMILIAN.—QUESTION.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is his intention to take any steps to record the opinion of the House of Commons on the murder of the Emperor Maximilian and his Generals?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask the House to take any steps of the character proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure we all sympathize with his feelings, and every one, I think, will agree in lamenting the violent and untimely death of a gallant and amiable gentleman, whose high spirit and enterprize, under happier circumstances, might have rendered him distinguished either on the battle-field or in the councils of Europe. But if we are asked to record a judgment of this House upon his execution I confess I see very grave objections to a step of that kind. I do not see how we could come to any such Resolution, or how we can even discuss it without entering into a general debate upon the merits and policy of the Mexican expedition — into the position and status of that unfortunate Prince, and the right by which he claimed the possession of supreme power in that country. All these circumstances it would be necessary to consider, and some of them would, I think, have a very material effect on our judgment. I do not think this would be the right moment to choose for a discussion of that kind, especially as it is one on which great difference of opinion might arise. Then, again, comes the question of precedent. We might, I think, if we accepted my hon. Friend's suggestion, set a precedent which might embarrass us very inconveniently on some future occasion. This is not the first case—and, unhappily it is not likely to be the last — when the triumph of one party, after a protracted
1394
civil war, has been followed by an unwise, a lamentable, and a sanguinary act of revenge. Are we in all these cases to take notice of such acts in this House, and pass a Vote of Censure upon them? If we are not to do so in regard to them all, on what principle are we to draw a distinction? That is a question which the House would have to consider. And lastly, Sir, I would say—though I say it with great respect—that, great as are our power and our influence, we are the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and not the Parliament of the world. We are in no sense responsible, directly or indirectly, for the lamentable event which has occurred; and I think it is very doubtful whether a habit of international criticism in Parliamentary debate would be found practically useful or conduce to a good understanding between nations.
MR. OTWAYwished to ask the noble Lord, whether Her Majesty's Minister accredited to the late Emperor of Mexico is not at present in England; and, whether, after the statement recently made by the Prime Minister that the execution of the Emperor Maximilian was "a base, cruel, and unnecessary murder," it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise Her Majesty to accredit, a Minister to the President of the Mexican Republic, or to withdraw her legation from Mexico?
LORD STANLEY: It is true that Her Majesty's Minister accredited to the late Emperor of Mexico is now in England on leave. His duty is discharged during his absence by the Secretary of Legation acting as Charge d'Affaires. But that Gentleman was only accredited to the late Emperor, and with the death of that unfortunate Prince his credentials lapse. No question, therefore, has arisen, or can arise, as to his withdrawal. The gentleman left in charge had received, before this lamentable event occurred, instructions not formally or officially to recognize any new Government which might be formed in the case of the downfall or overthrow of the Mexican Empire, but to confine himself, pending the absence of official instructions, to looking after any matter which might arise affecting British interests. The question whether anybody shall be accredited to the Government of President Juarez is not, I think, one on which we are called to decide in haste or under the influence of temporary feelings. We do not yet know what is the real state of Mexico, how far Juarez is

1395
really de facto master of the country, or what are the chances of his power being permanent. Upon that ground—setting aside altogether what has lately happened—I should object to any precipitate decision with regard to renewing diplomatic relations with Mexico. But as to the permanent suspension of those diplomatic relations, the objection to that course is, I think, a very obvious one. It would do no hurt, or only very little, to the Mexican Government—for I believe the principal business of a British Minister in Mexico is to urge upon that Government various British claims, to which it is not, perhaps, very agreeable to them to listen. It would do no harm to that Government to suspend diplomatic relations with them, but it would be a very serious thing for British interests and for those British subjects who have claims upon it. They are not responsible for the late deplorable proceedings, and I do not think it would be fair to make them suffer for them.

LAND REVENUES OF INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the statements in a letter from The Times' correspondent at Calcutta, dated 3rd June—namely, that the Secretary has given orders that no part of India is to receive a permanent settlement of the Land Tax which was likely to be affected by canal water within the next twenty years — such orders being a reversal of the policy of Lord Canning and of Lord Halifax, and likely to be injurious to many native landowners, and to the survey and settlement which are going on at a cost of £250,000 sterling, are founded on fact; and, whether he proposes to lay any Papers before the House?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred was certainly founded on fact; but at the same time it was so phrased as to convey an erronous impression of what had been done. The hon. Gentleman put his Question as though the policy of Lord Canning and Lord Halifax was precisely identical in that matter, which was not the case. Lord Canning originally proposed that in cases in which no considerable increase was to be expected in the land revenue, a permanent settlement should be granted. That
  1396
  was the effect of Lord Halifax's despatch in 1862; and all that had been done since then had been to explain the somewhat indefinite terms of that despatch. The first and the principal explanation was given in a despatch from Lord Halifax in 1865, in which the principle was laid down that a permanent settlement was to be granted in the case of land, of which a certain percentage was brought under cultivation; and in that despatch it was stated that it was under consideration what was to be done with regard to the lands which were subsequently to have the advantage of canal irrigation. Last year the question what was to be done in the case of lands receiving canal irrigation after the permanent settlement was brought before Earl de Grey, who, in a despatch of March, 1866, laid down the principle that no permanent settlement should be granted in any case in which lands were likely to receive a canal irrigation according to the scheme at present in contemplation. The language of Earl de Grey's despatch was considered by some people in India not very clear, and the question arose as to the exact meaning of its terms. A despatch came from India in the beginning of this year asking for a clearer definition of a despatch of his own to which the hon. Member referred, and in which he had denned what was taken to be the meaning of Earl de Grey's despatch. He thought it would be inconvenient to raise a discussion in the House on that subject, which was rather intricate, but he would lay on the table all the Papers, including the three despatches to which he had alluded. He would only take the liberty of saying that he had not reversed the policy of his predecessors, but had only given a definition of what he believed to have been their meaning.

THE NAVAL REVIEW.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the forthcoming Review, at Spithead. I understand that accommodation is to be provided for only about 420 Members of this House, whereas we number altogether 658. It is true that we may not all want to go to Spit-head; but I recollect that Lord Halifax, when First Lord of the Admiralty, provided on a similar occasion accommodation not only for every Member of the House of Commons, but for two or three friends of

1397
each Member in addition. I was myself a Member of the Board of Admiralty at the time, and I had several tickets to dispose of. Now, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to inform us that ample provision will be made for every Member of the House who may wish to go to see the Review on Wednesday next, because I am told, Sir, that many of us, in consequence of not having put our names down on your list, may be precluded from the advantages of witnessing that great display?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The right hon. Baronet gave me no notice that he was about to make an inquiry of this complicated and delicate character, I should be very sorry, indeed, to trench in any way upon the privileges of Members of this House, but my impression is that on the former occasion to which the right hon. Baronet has referred, the accommodation provided turned out to be in excess of the demand made upon it. Everything, no doubt, will be done on the present occasion which ought to be done to provide for Members of this House the necessary accommodation. I heard the other day that it was estimated about 450 Members would probably go to see the Review; but I have since heard from the highest authority in the House that only 330 Members applied to have their names put down.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYasked, whether it was true that the Members of the Government were to be conveyed to see the Review in a large ship, equal in size to that which was set apart for the conveyance of the Members of the two Houses of Parliament? He hoped not, because a better arrangement would, in his opinion, be that the Government should go in the same vessel as the Lords and Commons, and that the ship which was said to be intended for them should be set apart for the accommodation of ladies and friends of Members.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty happens to be just now at Portsmouth. We can, however, telegraph to him for information on this subject, and communicate the result to the House should it sit until we receive a reply. I think my hon. Friend will excuse me if I am unable to give him at this moment a more definite answer.

TRADES UNION COMMISSION AOT (1867) EXTENSION BILL— [BILL 227.]
(Mr. Secretary G. Hardy, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
TRADES UNION COMMISSION AOT (1867) EXTENSION BILL— [BILL 227.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in moving that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, said, he proposed briefly to state its objects, he presumed that every one had seen the accounts which had appeared in the public press of the evidence given by the witnesses who had been examined before the Assistant-Commissioners appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the trades outrages at Sheffield; and all were, he had no doubt, animated by feelings of indignation and disgust at the state of things thus revealed. Subsequent to the completion of a considerable portion of their labours the Commissioners had informed him that they were in possession of information which led them to the conclusion that it would be desirable to extend to other places—at least to one other place—the same kind of investigation that had been made at Sheffield. Having heard their statement he confessed he had deemed it expedient that some such inquiry should be instituted, to ascertain whether the outrages brought to light at Sheffield were confined to that town, or, whether a similar system prevailed in other parts of England. Under those circumstances he undertook to bring in the Bill now before the House extending the provisions of the Act relating to Sheffield to such places as the Secretary of State, on the application of the Commissioners, might deem it proper to apply it. The Bill, it would be observed, did not confer an absolute power on the Commissioners to institute an inquiry wherever they might think fit. They must, in the first instance, make application to the Secretary of State, before whom such facts must be produced as to satisfy him that such an investigation was necessary, leaving it entirely to his discretion to determine whether it should be instituted or not. That was the simple object of the Bill. No names of places were specified, inasmuch as he deemed it more advisable to give general powers to the Commissioners to call the attention of the Secretary of State to any information which they might receive, without specifying any particular

  1399
  locality, as in the case of Sheffield, for the mention of which there was, no doubt, ample justification. He had no wish, he might add, to make any statement on the subject which might seem to be too strong; but the Commissioners stated that they had received information which would bring to light matters very discreditable to the districts concerned; and the best means of healing those wounds in our social system which led to the appointment of the Commission originally was, in his opinion, to lay them open, however disgraceful they might be.
  Moved, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of throwing any obstacles in the way of the Bill. In this sad, distressing, and most important matter the responsibility had been assumed by the Government, and it would not become a private Member to interfere. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to give the Commissioners the power in the first instance of extending the inquiry beyond Sheffield, or that inquiries should be instituted in any other places until he—the Secretary of State—was satisfied as to the grounds on which it was proposed that the inquiry should take place. Before, however, the unprecedented powers given in the case of Sheffield were sanctioned in the case of other places, he might be allowed to refer briefly to what had happened in that town. Nobody could allude to the terrible and distressing disclosures there brought to light, without feeling how deep a stigma they were calculated to cast on the honest and manly character of Englishmen. He, as an Englishman and a Yorkshireman, felt deeply the disgrace of having found Yorkshiremen capable of being hired for the purpose of dastardly assassination, and other Yorkshiremen capable of hiring them. He thought, however, that the truth should be arrived at, and that if the disgrace attached to other parts of the country, it should be exposed. If fresh legislation was required it must be to do everything in their power to prevent any oppression by one body of workmen over their fellows, while every facility was given for justifiable and lawful combination. He must, however, ask whether it was necessary to pay the price for the information
  1400
  which we were paying in the case of Sheffield. The case of Sheffield was unprecedented in the annals of England; but it certainly was as unprecedented that murderers of the worst description, who had been committing crimes for years, should be allowed perfect immunity. He never heard of such a case in the annals of this or any other country. All that was required to enable a murderer to be perfectly free was that he should come forward and confess. These men were relieved from the terrible anxiety which must have been upon them lest justice should overtake them, and were set free by the Legislature. He could not help doubting whether it was necessary to give the immunity to all. He cast no blame upon the Commissioners. Mr. Overend had conducted the inquiry with the greatest possible ability; but the result had been that all who were concerned in these murders had been pardoned. When the Bill was brought before the House at the beginning of the Session, he ventured, as a magistrate of Yorkshire, to express some doubt, not being informed that the police had given up all hope of discovering the murderers, whether Parliament ought to take the matter out of the hands of the police and magistrates, and offer free pardon to the offenders. He was met, however, with the convincing statement that the murders in Sheffield had probably been committed at the instigation of some one behind the scenes; that the actual perpetrator was not so bad as the instigator; and that, if the Government was empowered to tempt the actual perpetrator to confess his crime, they would be able to fasten upon the instigator. It was true that there was no precedent for the actual perpetrator of a crime being admitted as Queen's evidence; but he felt this case was so exceptional that he could make no objection to what was proposed. But what had actually been done? Hallam, who was the actual perpetrator of the murder, came forward and gave evidence with respect to it; and, if the police of Sheffield had been worth anything, it would surely have been possible for them, after having received the evidence of Hallam, to fasten the crime upon Crookes and Broadhead. That, he regretted, had not been done; but, on the contrary, the instigators, Broadhead and Crookes had been pardoned, and the Commissioner, in open court, announced that any one who had committed murder in connection with

  1401
  trades outrages had only to come forward and tell the Court all about it, in order to procure a free pardon. He hoped the House would understand that he had no feeling of vengeance against any of these men; but it was important that care should be taken lest by their legislation they sapped the principles of justice in the minds of those for whom they legislated, and their idea of the heinousness of the crime of murder. He could not help thinking that the extraordinary course that had been taken would, to some extent, have that effect. It was stated in the former debate that the object of the punishment of crime was the prevention of its recurrence. But prevention was not the sole object. They all felt the necessity, in order that the law should be asserted, of inculcating the notion that justice must be executed throughout the country, and it would be bad policy, even upon the question of expediency and prevention, that they should allow a different notion to enter into the minds of the masses. He might be told that in these cases public opinion did that which the law failed to do. But when they found what had happened at Sheffield, they had reason to doubt whether they had not gone too far in shaking the principle of justice in the minds of these men. The crime was extraordinary; the utter failure of the police was extraordinary and disgraceful; but as extraordinary as either of these was, the simple fact that the man who had been planning murder for years, and setting persons to destroy certain others, quite reckless as to who else might be killed in the attempt, actually asked for money to pay his expenses in going to make his confession. If public opinion had really been at work in Sheffield, it would have been impossible for Broadhead to have made that claim. That which was the only possible excuse for these crimes was the idea that the perpetrators were not murderers, but were carrying on a social war between classes; and the object of Parliament should have been, if possible, to prevent that idea; but he was afraid that they had done something towards encouraging it by showing their great anxiety to obtain information, while they were careless as to what its effect might be upon the principles of justice in the country. Broadhead, it appeared, was driving a good trade as a publican in consequence of his evidence before the Commissioners, his house being filled with
  1402
  persons who went to hear about the murders, and Crookes being the hero of the bar-room, He believed the working men throughout the country were generally as much shocked at these proceedings as that House was; and in The Beehive, a weekly paper belonging to the trades unionists of London, there was last Saturday a leader describing, in terms of fitting condemnation, a state of things in Sheffield which might well induce Parliament to pause in what they were now doing. The writer stated, upon the information of a person thoroughly acquainted with the leading characters in the abominable outrages which had taken place, and who had come from Sheffield within the last few days, that it was highly probable that, after the inquiry had closed, Broadhead would be re-elected as secretary of the Saw-Grinders' Union. He trusted the statement was not true; but it was evident that the working men of London had reason to suspect that it might happen; and therefore he trusted that the House would consider whether, in their anxiety to get at all the facts with regard to trades unions, they had not gone farther than they ought in making terms with murderers. He had not the slightest idea of taking upon himself the responsibility of interfering with the passing of the Bill; but he hoped the Government would be sensible of the truth of that which he had brought before them.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not but express a hope that the powers given by the Bill would be used with great reserve. Undoubtedly, it was very shocking to the public mind and conscience that parties so deeply stained in guilt should go forth to the world and become objects of that depraved curiosity which was always the passion of a certain portion of society, and which made murderers invariably objects of interest to many who had not the slightest sympathy with the crime. He, like his hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), who was perfectly right in not questioning the decision of the Government, who were the proper judges in a matter of this kind, trusted that the most severe restraint would be exercised in the employment of the power which the Bill conferred, and that no indemnity would be granted except under the gravest and most peculiar circumstances. He did not hesitate to say that, if they were to see the case of Sheffield repeated in half-a-dozen or a dozen towns—that was to say,

  1403
  similar outrages brought to light to the same extent, together with the same number of indemnities or pardons, as the price of the information—they would lose, on the whole, a great deal more than they could gain by the powers proposed to be given by this Bill; for what was requisite for legislation they knew already. He would not presume to say that the House should refuse the Government the powers for which they asked; but he hoped they would be exercised with the utmost reservation and caution.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he cordially concurred with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) with regard to the Sheffield outrages. He would remind the House that the appointment of the Commission was originally sought by the masters, but was subsequently supported by the workmen, who were much struck by the fact that, notwithstanding the £100 offered by the Government and the £1,000 by the inhabitants of Sheffield, no clue to the perpetrators of the outrages could be discovered. For his own part, he begged to express his thanks to the Government for sending that Commission to Sheffield, as it had led to the discovery of the perpetrators of these outrages. A public meeting, attended by 15,000 working men of Sheffield, had unanimously expressed its horror and shame at the facts which had been brought to light by the Commission. He deeply regretted that the perpetrators of these terrible outrages had escaped the punishment due to their crimes.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that while he regretted that punishment had not overtaken the perpetrators of these crimes, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in condemning the course that had been taken in reference to this subject. The first step to be taken, when they found that such a hideous disease, as that disclosed by these inquiries, infected any portion of the people, was to endeavour to ascertain its extent and depth, and, so far as he could see, no course could have been adopted for that purpose more efficacious than that which had been followed in the present instance. The hon. Member for Bradford talked about sapping the sense of justice among the population of Sheffield by the course which had been taken by the Commission; but he thought that their sense of justice must have been already sapped before such deeds could have taken place.
  1404
  The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had observed that the inhabitants of that town had shown their horror of these outrages by offering £1,000 for the discovery of their perpetrators, and had expressed their indignation and shame that the perpetrators could not be discovered. But it must not be forgotten that the very miscreant himself who had plotted and planned them all—Broadhead—had not only expressed his indignation at these acts of violence, but had actually offered a reward on behalf of the community to which he belonged for the discovery of the perpetrators. When it was proved that a reign of terror of this kind existed, it behoved Parliament to take steps to bring the whole system upon which it was founded to light, and the first step to be taken in the matter was to ascertain, by means of inquiry, the extent and depth of this horrible wound. If it was supposed that practices of a similar kind to those brought to light in Sheffield existed in other parts of the country, and the means hitherto adopted had failed to discover the perpetrators, it was the duty of the House to give the Government its support by passing this Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he admitted the importance of discovering the perpetrators of these crimes, and the system under which they had been committed, and, in the case of Sheffield, he thought there was good reason for the course which had been adopted for that purpose. No doubt in Sheffield outrages of the gravest description had been committed, the perpetrators of which the police had been unable to trace; but when the powers which were granted in that case were proposed to be extended to other places he agreed with the suggestion that great care and reserve should be exercised in the employment of those powers. He thought that the utmost care should be taken to hold out no offers of immunity except where there was no chance of the perpetrators being discovered and brought to justice. He was sure the Home Secretary would feel the importance of the suggestion, and he hoped that before the discussion closed the right hon. Gentleman, would be able to give the House some information as to the principle on which he proposed to proceed. He did not know what cases the Commissioners had in view; but supposing that some gross outrage had been recently committed, and the police were endeavouring to discover the offenders, he hoped that care

  1405
  would be taken that any prospect of discovering and punishing the perpetrators might not be baffled by persons being invited to come forward and obtain an indemnity for their crimes, instead of being made to answer for them in a Court of Justice. This was a very exceptional case, and nothing but an exceptional case would justify the course they were pursuing. Any person who had read the evidence given before the Commission would recollect that those who had been proved to be guilty of these outrages had added to their other crimes by denying upon oath in the first place any knowledge of the crimes to which they had afterwards confessed. It was in every sense most desirable that these indemnities should be limited as far as possible; for it was most humiliating to the sense of justice in this country that those who had confessed to having perpetrated these outrages should not only escape punishment but should quietly resume their daily avocations without being driven from the town by the indignation of their fellow-citizens. So far from such indignation being expressed, he was sorry to see, from what appeared in the newspapers, that Broadhead was driving a good trade as a publican in consequence of the notoriety he had attained. He trusted that he would not be permitted to continue that business one single hour after the magistrates could legally interfere, by refusing to renew his licence. He was also greatly surprised to find that a clergyman, doubtless actuated by a benevolent motive, had interceded with the employers of Crookes, the actual murderer, in order to induce them to receive him back into their service, from which they had properly dismissed him, on the ground that his wife and children would be reduced to distress, and that he would be thrown into temptation to commit fresh crimes, should they not do so. He was, indeed, surprised that any of his fellow-workmen would consent to associate with him for a single day. He hoped some better feeling would arise in Sheffield, and that it would free itself from the odium which attached to it in consequence of the perpetration of these crimes by showing in a marked manner that it did not sympathize with them. If the Government obtained the power which this Bill was intended to confer, he hoped it would not be exercised in cases where the guilty parties might be made amenable to punishment.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He thought that the information which had been obtained through the means of this Commission was of the utmost value. When he had brought this question forward last year, the House received his statements, as to the proceedings adopted by the trades unions, almost incredulously. Since that time he had had papers put into his possession which proved that these inquiries ought to be extended a great deal further. They frequently read in the papers accounts of accidents arising from men falling from scaffolds, or of scaffolds falling and injuring workmen. He was informed that in many cases these so-called accidents were really premeditated crimes, the scaffolds having been purposely rendered insecure by the orders of the trades unions. The House would admit that this was a terrible state of things, especially when it was recollected that out of the 800,000 working men in this county 530,000 belonged to these unions. This system of tyranny involved a much wider question than the mere discovery of the perpetrators of the outrages at Sheffield, as by it the means of supporting themselves was taken from the workmen, and their wives and families were forced to starve. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had suggested that these inquiries might be carried too far. Now, he (Mr. Cochrane) wished that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would carry the inquiry further, and could devise some means for getting at the secret papers and secret rules of these societies, which he was afraid would show a terrible state of moral degradation on the part of those by whom these societies were administered and governed.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, that if the hon. Member (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had been engaged, as he had been during the last few months, in an inquiry into the operation of these unions, he would not have spoken so broadly and sweepingly of them. With regard to the special subject of this Bill, the matter rested entirely with the Government, and if they took the responsibility of extending the inquiry, he should be the last to say one word against it. He quite agreed, however, with his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that there was no necessity for extending the indemnity clause. He was convinced from the

  1407
  experience he had had in Sheffield that, without that clause, there would have been very little difficulty in ascertaining the perpetrators of the outrages in that town; and that if three such competent lawyers as those who were sent there had gone down with a Commission, but without any power of indemnity, there were dozens and dozens of men in Sheffield who would have come for ward and given evidence sufficient in skilled hands to enable them to ascertain and pick out the miscreants who had committed these outrages and bring them to justice. ["No, no!"] The outrages, it must be remembered, affected one or two small trades, which could be ear-marked, not only at Sheffield, but at other places. He really thought that it the Government did give these extreme powers they should re-consider the indemnity clause, and take particular care that the perpetrators of these outrages were not indemnified in the wholesale way in which it had been done at Sheffield. This wholesale indemnity must have a very evil effect upon the population generally.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he trusted that the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that dozens and dozens of men at Sheffield could have given evidence, without the indemnity, sufficient to bring the outrages to light and lead to the conviction of the offenders, was not accurate. The Courts of Justice had been open all along, there had been magistrates and police anxious for information, and if there had been numbers of persons in a position to bring this revolting plot to light, and who had yet refrained from doing so till the indemnity was offered, the disgrace resting on Sheffield was deeper even than had been supposed. When the inquiry was first proposed it seemed to him that the outrages were so remarkable as to require exceptional powers of investigation; and the result had justified that opinion, and had revealed a condition of society probably unparalleled in any town in the civilized world. The secrets of this horrible tribunal had been revealed — for trades unions were in fact a tribunal like the Inquisition, conducting their deliberations in secret, and enforcing their edicts by penalties equalling in severity any criminal code. He hoped greater care would be shown by the Commissioners as to the examination of witnesses in future inquiries; for though, when the proceedings of these unions were completely unknown, it might
  1408
  have been proper to welcome evidence from any quarter, the Commissioners were now better aware of the state of the case, and he thought it might now be sufficient to call a few witnesses, in order to elicit sufficient evidence to lead to the conviction and punishment of those whom they might implicate. As to the perjury committed by witnesses at Sheffield, he believed that this offence was distinctly excepted from the indemnity, and men who had at first denied their complicity in these outrages, and had afterwards admitted it, were therefore amenable to prosecution. He hoped the power to give indemnities would be exorcised with great discretion.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he thought the Home Secretary ought to exercise great discretion in sanctioning inquiries to be held under the powers of this Bill. He (Mr. Neate) did not believe the working classes generally were implicated in these outrages. He was not aware that atrocities like those at Sheffield had been committed elsewhere, though no doubt in different parts of the country there had been many trades' outrages of a lesser kind, and men had been assaulted and beaten for not complying with the rules of the unions. These cases might be ascertained by making inquiries of the police, and he hoped the Home Secretary would show great caution in exercising the powers with which he was invested by this Bill. He observed that Mr. Overend, the Assistant - Commissioner, had said that these outrages showed the necessity of greater legal protection for the unions, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman concurred in that inference.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power to extend Act to other Places).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he desired to offer a few remarks on what had passed in reference to this Bill. He quite agreed that this legislation was exceptional, and that exceptional legislation of this kind should not be resorted to unless the circumstances were themselves exceptional. He admitted, too, that such inquiries were to be set on foot for the purpose of bringing to light—not crimes which it was within the proper province of the police to ascertain, but crimes which had been concealed by a combination of persons who ought to have revealed them,

  1409
  but who had not done so. If the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes) was correct in stating that there were numbers of people in Sheffield who would have given the information without an indemnity, he could not but ask him how it was that these outrages had been so long undetected? He remembered that when he first went to the bar, Sheffield was pointed out by his friends on the Northern Circuit as a place where outrages were going on and where no evidence could be obtained. The fact was that society at Sheffield—speaking not of the towns-people generally, but of these particular combinations—had been rotten at the core. These crimes had been going on for so long a time that there had arisen an utter recklessness as to the acts which were resorted to, and the disclosures at which the public had been so much shocked had only brought to light what had been long going on. He could assure his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) that he was sensible of the responsibility which the Bill imposed upon him in reference to these inquiries; but he was glad to think that at the head of the Commission was one of the most eminent Judges who had ever sat on the English Bench (Sir William Erle); and he was sure that these exceptional powers would only be applied for in cases where the truth could not be arrived at without them. With regard to the indemnity, it was painful to reflect that the perpetrators of such crimes should go unpunished; but the fact was this—they got a certain amount of evidence from one witness, which perhaps implicated another person; the examination was pressed, and then the witness asked whether, if he stated such and such things of another man, that man would be allowed to come forward and obtain the indemnity; then when these persons were called forward they confessed not only to the crime in which they had been thus implicated, but to other crimes, as to which the Commissioners had no information, and which were thus brought to light. The result was that the inquiry had shown that these were not isolated transactions, but that there existed a system which could be only exposed by promising an indemnity. It appeared that although the police constantly suspected that these outrages sprang from certain members of trades unions, and that they were done by them for offences against their rules, yet so secretly were they carried on that in hardly any
  1410
  instance had they been able to sift these cases to the bottom or bring the perpetrators to justice. In one of the worst cases many years ago the parties were brought to justice because they threw on the fire a barrel of gunpowder which exploded before they could get away, and they were so injured that they were taken on the spot. But in similar cases it happened over and over again that the police could obtain no information, and the parties were never brought to justice. If it were true, as the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes) believed, that there were people ready to reveal those transactions fully without these extraordinary powers being granted, he was sure that Sir William Erle would never have called upon the Home Office to assist him with exceptional legislation, because he had the power of calling these witnesses before the Commission without such exceptional legislation and getting these facts proved. It was because the Commissioners stated that it was impossible to do so without exceptional powers that he had brought this Bill before the House, and asked them to agree to it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERconsidered it was most desirable that those scandals should be exposed, and no persons were more desirous that they should be exposed than the great majority of the working men and of the members of the trades unions. On looking to the evidence it would be found that the evidence of Hallam was not given on the condition that an indemnity should be given to Crookes and Broadhead. The power should not be so used as to make if impossible to punish any of the criminals. With the knowledge of what had passed he could not help thinking, if they had to do the thing over again, Hallam'a evidence would certainly be made use of as Queen's evidence for the conviction of Crookes and Broadhead. The effect produced would have been far better if there had been a trial before the Judges. The heinousness of the crime of murder might be diminished in the minds not only of the Sheffield people, but of all men in the same condition of life, when they read the account of what was done, owing to the fact that the Legislature had made terms with murderers. He could not help thinking that the law must run the risk of being less powerful from the acknowledgment thus made of its utter uselessness to have justice done.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESbegged to observe in reply to a remark of the Home Secretary, that when that right hon. Gentleman went the circuit in Yorkshire the feeling in respect to these matters was very different from what it has become within the last three or four years. When he (Mr. Thomas Hughes) was there three years ago the feeling of the great majority of persons belonging to the trades unions had been softened by remonstrances from London and other parts of the kingdom in respect to those outrages, and there were persons amongst them who would only have been too glad to make a clean breast of it. He (Mr. Thomas Hughes) adhered to what he had said. Public opinion on this subject had undergone an immense alteration, and now the working classes in question were entirely in favour of this inquiry, and were ready to give all the information in their power. Under these circumstances, he could not help thinking that the indemnity was needless, or, if not, that it should be exercised most scrupulously and carefully. The working men at a great public meeting had resolved that, notwithstanding the disgrace that had fallen on the town, they were heartily glad that the Commission had been sent down.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that no place in Yorkshire in proportion to its population sent so few cases of crime to the assizes as Sheffield. He begged to know whether means would be taken to indemnify the persons who had given evidence in a Court of Law, in consequence of the statements made by them? The question was, were the Commissioners themselves free from all responsibility?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he would not answer the question off-hand. He would, however, ask the Commissioners whether such a clause was necessary for their own security, and for that of the persons who had given evidence before them; and, if so, to send him a clause to that effect? If it were necessary to insert such a clause he would take care that it should be printed before the Report was brought up.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he felt very strongly that there was only one compensation for the extensive disclosure of crimes of this description, accompanied by a promise of impunity, and that was the discovery of the means of prevention for the future. He had acted under this persuasion, when he gave his assent to the
  1412
  original Bill. It was impossible to shut their eyes to the extreme gravity of a proposal, not only to give, in one particular place, under particular local circumstances, indemnity for crimes of this description, but to extend the indemnity to all the towns of the kingdom. It had never before happened, to his knowledge, that Parliament had been called upon to take such a course, and it should only be taken for reasons of great public advantage. The mere disclosure was not of public advantage if the crimes disclosed were to pass with impunity. The disclosure could not be considered of public advantage unless it was anticipated that means would thus be discovered for the prevention of such crimes in future. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had spoken of something like a promise or undertaking given in the course of the examination that some of the witnesses should not only be indemnified themselves, but that any other person who might be implicated by them should not be proceeded against. He (Sir Roundell Palmer) doubted whether his right hon. Friend could have been correctly informed in this matter. He was aware that some such statements had been made, but he did not see how, under the Act, the Commissioners could give such, an undertaking. The only indemnity they were authorized to give was upon a certificate that the witness had made a full and true disclosure touching all the matters upon which he had been examined. They could not give an undertaking to indemnify directly or indirectly any other person who might not satisfy this condition. If it should turn out that such a thing had been done, he must enter his humble protest against it.
  MR. AYRTONasked whether inquiry had been made into the conduct of the magistrates and the police of Sheffield in regard to these outrages. The magistrates all along had the legal power of summoning before them the members of the trades unions, and compelling them to give the information to a large extent which had been given to the Commission—that was to say, to produce all their proceedings, and examine them on oath touching them. No step, however, had been taken to vindicate the law during all that period, although the magistrates must have known pretty well what was going on around them. If the law had been firmly administered by the justices, a good deal of the facts would have come on which

  1413
  were now disclosed to the Commission; and if the present investigation was carried further, it ought to be part of the duty of the Commissioners to inquire into the conduct of the justices of the pence or the stipendiary magistrates, as the case might be, with reference to the illegal practices of the trades unions. It was clear there had been a dereliction of duty on the part of the magistrates of Sheffield, as well as on the part of the people.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he thought the question a very proper one. An hon. Gentleman who was a sort of confessor in ordinary to the trades unions of the country in general, and to those of Sheffield in particular, had told them that there were people who, a long time ago, were ready to give evidence without any indemnity being granted them. He should like to know why on earth the magistrates or the police were not at hand to take the evidence which those people were, ready to give, and why the perpetrators of these crimes were not at once fixed upon and punished as they richly deserved to be?
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was not aware that any charge of dereliction of duty could be brought against the Sheffield magistrates. One of the chief grounds for appointing that Commission was that all the efforts of the magistrates and the police had been set at naught by these parties, and nothing could be clearer than that all those efforts had been so set at naught. If the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets impugned the conduct of the magistrates, his best course would be to make a Motion in that House for an inquiry into that conduct. But as far as the evidence had gone, the fact appeared to be that the designs of these parties had been so covert, and had been carried out with so much secrecy that the ordinary course of justice was defeated.
  MR. POWELLthought another reason for the inaction of the magistrates, and other authorities, might be the reign of terror which had existed in Sheffield with such intensity that even persons who suffered dared to take no action in the way of prosecution, for fear of dangerous results to themselves, from the combinations that existed in the town. Some few years ago, there was a meeting of the Social Science Congress at Sheffield, and it appeared that a murder had been determined upon in that town before that meeting took place. During the presence of the philosophers, in order to throw
  1414
  dust in their eyes, that murder was postponed till the visit of the philosophers and philanthropists was over. As soon, however, as they were gone, the victim was followed day after day, week after week, and ultimately that fearful crime was committed.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

COURT OF CHANCERY (OFFICERS) BILL (Lords.)— [BILL 235.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the necessity for the Bill arose mainly from the enormous increase of business, in consequence of the winding-up of joint stock companies having been placed under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. The business thus thrown upon the Court was of a very important character. These companies often consisted of many hundreds of partners, with conflicting interests, and many points of difficulty arose in connection with them. To show how great and how regular had been the increase of administrative business in the Court, he might mention that the number of orders made in chambers in 1862, was 4,900; in 1863, 5,400; in 1864, 6,200; in 1865, 6,800; and in 1866, 7,800. It was quite impossible to keep pace with the increasing business with the existing establishment; and the main object of the Bill was to confirm certain temporary appointments which it had been found absolutely necessary to make, and to give powers for appointing additional officers.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERexpressed his entire concurrence in the statement of his hon. and learned Friend. The state of things in the Court of Chancery was such as imperatively to require the additional assistance which the Bill provided. He also hoped that some means would be found for relieving the extreme pressure of business recently experienced in the Court of Appeal in Chancery. He need not state to the House the sense which all who were connected with that Court entertained of the very great and serious loss which the public had sustained by the unexpected and premature death of one whom no one acquainted with the administration of justice

  1415
  in that Court for some years past could ever remember without the highest admiration and respect for his public services, his eminent judicial ability, and his great integrity of mind. No one who knew Lord Justice Turner personally could think or speak of him without the strongest feelings of personal affection. If any judicial abilities could have met the great demand occasioned for some time past by the business of that Court, it would have been those of that learned and lamented person, and the able Colleague with whom he had been associated. It was of the utmost importance that steps should be taken to facilitate the despatch of business in that branch of the Court of Chancery, and he hoped that the present Bill, with such Amendments as might be deemed expedient, would be put into a law before the close of the Session, and might have some effect, even before the vacation, in lessening the arrears of business before the Court.
  MR. REMINGTON MILLScomplained that while the business in the Accountant General's office had largely increased, the Bill made no additional provision for its satisfactory despatch. The office, he added, did not open for the receipt and payment of money till eleven o'clock, and he could see no good reason why that should be the case, since the banks opened at nine.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHATTERTON)replied that there were, he understood, certain circumstances connected with the Accountant General's office which placed it in a different position from ordinary banks with respect to the transaction of its business. His hon. and learned Friend had, however, authorized him to state that he would give the necessary explanations on the point when the Bill was committed.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read the second time, and committed for To-morrow.

BANKRUPTCY (on re-committal) BILL.

  [BILL 74.] COMMITTEE.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Walpole, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  Order for going into Committee read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that when a Question was put to him a week ago as to whether the Government intended to proceed with the Bill in the present Session, he had some hope, though not a very sanguine one, that something
  1416
  might be done in the direction proposed even before the Recess, Looking, however, at the position in which the public business now stood, and the advanced period of the Session, he frankly admitted that it would be, in his opinion, impossible to go on with a Bill which contained 479 clauses, and to pass it, even if he were to ask the House to sit de die in diem. He therefore thought it his duty to move that the Order of the Day be discharged. He, however, believed that the care and labour bestowed on the measure had not been thrown away. The leading provisions of the Bill had been received with very general assent throughout the country, and he believed it would not be found expedient to introduce into it any very great alterations. The measure, at the same time ought, no doubt, to receive full and fair discussion, and he did not think that he should be justified in pressing it forward under present circumstances. The criticisms upon, it which had reached him from all quarters, especially from the Chambers of Commerce, were, upon the whole, extremely favourable; the only adverse criticism, upon it as a whole, being contained in the statement that it was impossible to tell whether it was a debtor's or a creditor's Bill. That was, however, he thought, the highest compliment which could be paid it; for it was a Bill which had been framed in the interest of the whole community, and not of any particular class. In conclusion, he had only to say that he hoped to be able at the earliest possible moment next Session to introduce another Bill of substantially the same character, which would lead to the satisfactory settlement of a long vexed question. He begged to move that the Order for going into Committee on the Bill be discharged.
  MR. LEEMANthanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for taking the course which he had adopted, inasmuch as the House was thereby secured from much inconvenience. He would suggest that before the measure was re-introduced, it should, as far as possible, be divested of the cumbrous machinery with which, as it now stood, the arrangements with creditors were surrounded.
  MR. NORWOODalso thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for the great attention which he had paid to the subject, and the courtesy which he had manifested in dealing with it. The withdrawal of so important a Bill might occasion some disappointment in the country; but at the

  1417
  present advanced period of the Session, it could not, he thought, with advantage be proceeded with.
  Order for Committee discharged; Bill withdrawn.

BANKRUPTCY ACTS REPEAL BILL.
Orders for Committee read and discharged; Bills withdrawn.
POOR LAW BOARD, &c., BILL— [BILL 193.]
(Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)
POOR LAW BOARD, &c., BILL— [BILL 193.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, said, he hoped the House would consent to go into Committee, and pass the unopposed clauses. He had no desire to proceed with those clauses on which Amendments were to be moved, and which might therefore give rise to discussion.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he hoped the Poor Law Board had considered whether it was desirable to proceed with those clauses which were so strongly objected to. The object of those clauses was to vest more power in the central authority, and to diminish that of the local authorities. The effect would be, if carried, to cause gentlemen in the country to retire from the discharge of what had hitherto been considered important local duties. He deprecated the idea of the Central Board interfering in the election of nurses, cooks, and other menial officers of county unions. The Board also wished to claim the right of appointment of auditors. That was also objected to by boards of guardians, because they believed auditors should be gentlemen residing in the locality. By the Bill before the House it was proposed to vest the appointment of chaplain and all the officers of the union workhouse in the central Board instead of in the guardians. He thought that part of the Bill most objectionable. He had no objection to the Board in London being made permanent, provided they were compelled to place on the table of the House all the general orders they issued, so that hon. Members might call attention to them, if necessary.
  MR. NEATEhoped the Government would not ask the House to go into Committee
  1418
  until they had had an opportunity of fully discussing the principle of the Bill, as was promised when the second reading was taken at a very late hour on a former occasion.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHobjected to the appoinment of the auditors being vested in the Central Board. One of the auditors for Derbyshire resided in Wales, and recently he audited the accounts of three of the Derbyshire unions. They took him but a few hours altogether, but he charged each of the unions his travelling expenses from Wales. He thought that the sooner the auditor's accounts were audited by others the better. The auditors ought to be selected from persons residing in the district.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that if this Bill were passed every executive function would be centred in the Poor Law Board, and would most effectually destroy some of the most important duties of the local administration. Such a system would tend to deteriorate the character of boards of guardians, seeing that persons of respectable and independent character would decline to submit to be controlled at every turn they took in the administration of local affairs.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEhoped the Bill would be postponed, in order that it might be more fully discussed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not think much good was to be done by a general discussion, since the clauses required much separate consideration, and he suggested that the House should go into Committee and pass the unopposed clauses, on the understanding that Progress should immediately be reported. He did not look upon this as an opportune time for making the Poor Law Board perpetual. The Union Assessment Act had only been in operation two years, so that we had as yet had but a very short experience of union, administration — for until there was an equality of charge over the whole area there was no common interest, and each guardian perpetrated his own petty job. The Central Board had taken advantage of the weakness of that system to engross a great deal of power, and this had tended not to improve the administration of the Poor Law, but to deteriorate it and make it permanently inefficient. The rates were still made and collected by the parochial authorities, although they were now administered by the union; and while any portion of the old parochial system remained

  1419
  the administration must necessarily he defective. When we reaped the full benefit of union administration he believed the powers of the local Boards would have to be enlarged rather than diminished, and the object of Parliament should be so to improve the law as to render unnecessary the interference of the Central Board, with its largely-increasing staff and emoluments. He should wish to take the sense of the House on renewing it for five years only, during which time local administration might be made so efficient as to enable the country to dispense with it, or at least to contract its powers.
  MR. COWENalso protested against the tendency which the Poor Law Board had all along shown to deprive the local guardians of all proper power. The Board ought to relax its powers, instead of attempting to increase them at the expense of thy guardians, which rendered it almost impossible to get men of respectability to undertake the office. He remembered when he was Chairman of a board of guardians that difficulty was felt, and the interference of the Board had rather increased than diminished since then.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was not able again to address the House, was anxious at this period of the Session to get the Bill into Committee, but would not proceed with the clauses if it was the general wish that he should not do so.
  MR. WHALLEYconcurred in the objections which had been made by hon. Members to the permanency of the Poor Law Board; but there was another evil to be guarded against. There was a danger that the Poor Law Board would use its powers in conformity with the new power that was rising in the country—that of the Romish priesthood. Let hon. Members look at the extraordinary clauses in this Bill, which related to the keeping of a creed register. Clauses 33 to 39 were very objectionable. The 34th provided that if a child had been baptized in a religion other than that of the father or mother the entry on the register should be made according to the baptism unless the father or mother otherwise required. It was constantly the practice for the Roman Catholic priests to get hold of children during the absence of the fathers at work, and without the knowledge of the mothers, and to baptize them by the dozen. These children were afterwards followed into the
  1420
  workhouses and the industrial schools, and they were brought up in the religion into which they had been thus surreptitiously baptized, and not in the religion of their parents. He was sorry that the Government had acted in collusion with the Roman Catholic priests in adopting these clauses.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYtrusted that the Gilbert Unions would not be included in the Bill. They were carried on to the satisfaction of the ratepayers, and, as there were only a few of them, he hoped they would not be abolished.
  MR. J. B. SMITHregarded the Bill as an infringement of the great principle of self-government. He could not assent to the Motion to make the Poor Law Board perpetual, instead of renewing its powers from time to time. Who were the Poor Law Board? Every two or three years the President was removed by a change of parties, and Mr. Lumley and two or three other gentlemen ruled the whole of the kingdom.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no wish, under the circumstances, to proceed with the first clause of the Bill, to which, however, he had no reason to suppose any opposition would be made. Some centralization was inherent in the very idea of a Poor Law Board, and, considering the powers given to the Board under recent Acts of Parliament, it was hardly consistent to limit the duration of the Board to five years. During the last few days deputations had been received from the guardians at Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and other large towns, and none of them were otherwise than satisfied that the central authority should be placed upon a permanent basis. The apprehensions expressed in regard to the increase of the powers of the Board were much exaggerated; for, if in one part of the Bill they assumed a power which they did not now possess, in another they gave up powers which they now enjoyed. The clauses objected to both by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and his noble Friend (Viscount Galway) obtained the deliberate recommendation of the Committee upstairs.
  MR. J. B. SMITHdoubted whether the deputations to the Poor Law Board were empowered to discuss the principle of the permanency of the Board.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was glad to know that the Government undertook the responsibility of adopting the clauses to which he had referred.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 2.) BILL— [BILL 167.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
Lords' Amendments considered.
On Question, "That this House do agree with the Lords to these Amendments,"
MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIEbegged leave to call the attention of the House to the fact, that the Amendments bore no reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to the subject-matter of the Bill, or to any of the places named in the Bill as it left this House; and that the said Amendments attempt to set aside the provisions of a previous Act of Parliament which is not even referred to in the Bill. He must say that, in all his Parliamentary experience, these Amendments were some of the most extraordinary kind that he had ever known or heard of. The Local Government (No. 2.) Bill was drawn up in the Home Office, for the purpose of confirming by Act of Parliament the provisional orders relating to Sheffield, Derby, and five other towns named in the Bill. The town of Hastings, which he had the honour to represent, was not one of the towns, and was not in any way named or referred to in the Bill. Well, the Bill, as introduced by the Home Secretary, passed through each stage in the Commons without amendment. It then went in usual course to the Upper House, there it was read a first and a second time. It was not referred to a Select Committee; but in Committee of the Whole House, certain Amendments, totally irrelevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, were introduced. Those Amendments referred only to the town of Hastings. But the town of Hastings was not named in them—neither was any notice given to the Mayor of Hastings, nor to the Local Board of Health of that town, nor to himself as Member for that borough. When the Amendments had come back to this House for approval, the Home Secretary personally knew nothing about them, nor their nature; and it was due only to the accidental discovery that he (Mr. Waldegrave-Leslie) had made in looking
1422
at them that any attention was called to them. If this species of legislation was to be carried on, and this case be formed into a precedent, there would be an end of all trust and all faith in Parliamentary practice. He called on the House to enter its protest against such legislation. He was sure that the Upper House could scarcely have been aware of the nature of the Amendments. He begged, therefore, to move that this House do disagree to the said Amendments; and that a Select Committee be appointed "to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed."
MR. HUNT, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, said, the Bill sought to deal with a place which was not named in it at all; and as all the parties interested had not been served with proper notice, it would be most irregular to accede to these Amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed, "to draw up reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE, Mr. DODSON, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, Mr. JOHN ABEL SMITH, Lord HOTHAM, and Mr. BONHAM CARTER.
House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Railways (Guards' and Passengers' Communication) nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business) * (215); Banns of Matrimony * (216).
Second Reading—Vaccination (189).
Referred to Select Committee—Vaccination (189).
Committee—Offices and Oaths (100 & 218); Transubstantiation, &c. Declaration Abolition (101); Merchant Shipping* (180); Real Estate Charges Act Amendment* (191).
Report — Transubstantiation, &c. Declaration Abolition (101); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * (187); Merchant Shipping * (180 & 219); Real Estate Charges Act Amendment* (191).
Third Reading—Adjutants of Volunteers (192), put off for three months; Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt)* (176); Blackwater Bridge* (178); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4)* (207); Linen and other Manufactures (Ireland)* (186); Edinburgh Provisional Order Confirmation * (198); War Department Stores* (209).

OFFICES AND OATHS BILL—(No. 100.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
OFFICES AND OATHS BILL—(No. 100.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (All the Queen's Subjects, without reference to their Religious Belief, shall be eligible to hold the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland).
  LORD LYVEDENmoved the insertion of the words "Lord Lieutenant, Lord Deputy, Lord Justice, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland," the effect of which would be that a Roman Catholic might hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The noble Lord said that the Bill, as originally introduced into the House of Commons, contained the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland among those that were to be affected by the Bill; but the words were struck out by the narrow majority of three votes—the numbers being 143 to 140, and be hoped they would be restored by their Lordships, in order that the Commons might have an opportunity of re-considering their decision. He might further observe that in the minority there were included the votes of forty-seven Irish Members, while in the majority there were only twenty-nine Irish Members. The omission was therefore carried entirely by the votes of English and Scotch Members, What he wished was to remove the notion
  1368
  from the minds of Irishmen that legislation for Ireland was conducted only for the interest of Great Britain, and in this it was impossible not to believe that an Irish Parliament would have arrived at a different conclusion. What was the answer in larger questions to those who called for measures exclusively in Irish interests? The Established Church in Ireland was regarded as a standing insult by the Irish people, and as a symbol of their subjection. He could, however, easily understand that Parliament and the Government were not at present prepared to deal with that question, and he should be the last man to blame any Ministry for shrinking from encountering the difficulties by which it was surrounded. He could not help thinking, too, that they would be more likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject by postponing its consideration until another Session, when most probably a so-called Conservative Ministry would deal with it as they had with the question of Reform. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was another source of incessant annoyance to the Irish people. When that subject was lately mentioned in this House, all their Lordships who spoke put themselves, so to speak, on the stool of repentance, and said how much they regretted having helped to pass such a Bill. Again, however, the repeal of this Act might excite very much the Protestants of England and Scotland. He could, however, see no reason why they should not at once resolve on rendering Roman Catholics eligible to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In fact, his difficulty was in understanding why the Lord Lieutenant should be included in the list of offices which might not be filled by Roman Catholics. The only objections he had ever heard urged to his proposal were, first, that the Lord Lieutenant was invested with Church patronage, and that such patronage ought not to be placed at the disposal of a Roman Catholic; and secondly, that the Lord Lieutenant was the representative of the Sovereign, and ought, therefore, to be a Protestant. But the first of those objections was met by a provision in the Bill itself, as it had been originally framed, which declared that whenever a Roman Catholic should be appointed Lord Lieutenant, the Church patronage attached to the office should be vested in trustees; and with respect to the second argument against the proposal—the Lord Lieutenant was the representative of the Sovereign—

  1369
  he certainly was the representative of the Sovereign at levees, balls, and receptions; and he represented the Sovereign also in conferring knighthood, and in receiving young ladies who were entering the world. But a Roman Catholic could perform these duties as well as a Protestant, The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, in fact, the subordinate of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and was often inferior to his own Chief Secretary, who was sometimes a Cabinet Minister when he was not. The Governor of Canada and the Governor General of India might be Roman Catholics; and the exclusion of a Roman Catholic from the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was owing solely to the lingering prejudice against that religion, and a dislike to allow Roman Catholics to fill offices which might be filled by persons of other religions. He hoped that their Lordships would give the House of Commons an opportunity of re-considering their decision upon this point. The question should be treated as one of political expediency alone, and should not be looked at from a religious point of view at all. As enlightened Protestants their Lordships were bound to do all they could to show that the Roman Catholics were not treated differently from members of other religions, and were admitted to their fair share of patronage, in spite of their religious opinions. This was one of the minor concessions by which their Lordships would soothe, to a certain extent, the irritation existing among the Irish people, though Parliament might not be prepared to make those greater concessions for want of which Ireland was a constant source of weakness instead of strength to this country.
  An Amendment moved, p. 1, 1. 17, after the first "of" to insert "Lord Lieutenant, Lord Deputy, Lord Justice, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, or"—(The Lord Lyveden.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that in moving the second reading of the Bill, he had expressed his regret at the omission of the words which would have opened to the Roman Catholics the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but at the same time he said that he did not think it advisable to endanger the passing of the measure by the re-introduction of that provision. He entirely approved, however, of the present proposal, and he should give his best support to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he was not only opposed to the present proposal, but to the whole Bill, which he still trusted their Lordships would reject altogether. The noble Lord who had moved the Amendment (Lord Lyveden) in instituting an analogy between India and Ireland, seemed to forget that Ireland, unlike India, was an integral portion of the United Kingdom. Sir Robert Peel, when he introduced the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, specially exempted the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and the present Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, in 1859, told the House of Commons that the ground upon which the question had never been brought forward since 1829, was that lawyers recognized the principle that the Lord Lieutenant was exempt because he was the direct representative of Royalty in Ireland. It was said that we ought to deal with Ireland as the Irish people wished to deal with it; and an essential part of the Union between England and Ireland was that they were to be one united country. Lord Castlereagh, in proposing the Union to the Irish House of Commons, said—
  "I now proceed to that part of the question which concerns religion, and the Church Establishment of the country—one State, one Legislature, one Church. These are the leading features of the system, and without identity with Great Britain in those 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 the 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."
  From personal experience in Ireland he could say that if we did not treat Ireland as an integral part of the Empire we should create ill feeling in every parish of the country. He believed the Irish people did not care anything about his measure, and that it mould only create discord among the different classes in the country.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he desired to express his thanks to the noble Lord who had proposed the Amendment. He could not conceive any grounds why, in reason or policy, we should keep alive a

  1371
  continual suspicion against Roman Catholics. We were not bound now to consider the words and actions of Sir Robert Peel at a time when the Roman Catholics were held in great suspicion. Catholics had since shown that they were capable of being as good citizens as their Protestant fellow-countrymen, and we ought, therefore, to treat them without being unduly influenced by party feeling, political or religious. We might depend upon it that one of the great causes of discontent in Ireland was not so much the law of land tenure, or the position of the railways as, it was the feeling that the Roman Catholics were subject to Protestant ascendancy, and until that feeling was removed the Roman Catholics would never be content. The Roman Catholics of Ireland did not wish for ascendancy, but simply for religious equality. Whatever the private religious views of an individual might be, or however erroneous he might think the doctrines of the Roman Catholics to be, he had no right to make them the measure of his action in his legislative capacity; we had to legislate for a mixed people, and we ought to do that which was best for the community. He could not conceive any valid reason why the Lord Lieutenant should not be of the same religion as the people; he had talked it over with Friends and with noble Lords, and he could get no better reason than this—"I cannot give you any reason, but I don't like it," an answer which, however pardonable it may be from a pretty pair of lips of one of the other sex, is yet utterly unworthy of a man and a legislator. Good reasons ought to be adduced for rejecting a measure which would do justice to the religion of a whole people. To those who might urge that it would endanger the Protestant Constitution to appoint a Roman Catholic as the representative of the Sovereign in Ireland, he would reply that, without entering upon the question as to whether even theoretically such a consequence might be reasonably assumed, at least practically it was not likely to arise, as he was not aware of any Catholic Peer of the present day who would accept the office even if it were offered him, as the office required an union of qualifications not easily obtained. He did not, therefore, think there was any danger to be apprehended from the Bill. We were not required to deal with the Irish people as they would deal with themselves, but we ought to deal with Ireland as we should
  1372
  wish Ireland to deal with us if we were in the same position as the people of that country.
  THE BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNORrose to make an earnest appeal to the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment not to press it. He objected to it not on grounds of principle, but on practical grounds. If the Amendment were carried, the machinery of the Bill would have to be recast. Again, the beneficial effects which the Bill was intended to produce in Ireland would not be realized if the Amendment were adopted. It ought not to be forgotten that, although Her Majesty's Government did not initiate this measure, they had adopted it in a kind and generous spirit. One good effect that would follow the adoption of the measure would be that the Irish people would conclude that at all fitting opportunities the Government would be prepared to remove religious disabilities, which, it must be confessed, were not now many nor grievous. No good would result from pressing the Amendment, while the provisions of the measure were in themselves wise, just, and generous.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNopposed the Amendment. Sir Robert Peel, in moving the second reading of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, said—
  "It will, nevertheless, be quite consistent with this principle to exclude Roman Catholic from a certain limited number of offices, which have special and peculiar duties attached to them, connected with the patronage of the Church, or with education, or the administration of the Ecclesiastical Law. The Roman Catholic is jealous of our interference with the appointments and discipline of his Church, and we have, at least, as good a right to take security for the maintenance of the integrity of our own. This Bill will, therefore, exclude the Roman Catholic from the office of Regent, and from exercising under any circumstances the delegated authority of the Crown, from the office of Lord Chancellor in England and Ireland respectively, and from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."—[2 Hansard, xx. 762.]
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have to express my regret that I cannot agree to the proposed Amendment. I am extremely unwilling to say anything which could hurt the feelings of any Roman Catholic Member, or which could convey the slightest doubt as to the perfect loyalty of the great body of the Roman Catholics of this country. But this is not a question either of loyalty or of disloyalty; it is a question respecting the power and authority to be intrusted to persons of a certain religious persuasion who are distinctly specified in the Emancipation Act of 1829. I

  1373
  do not at all object to the alteration under which Roman Catholics will be made admissible to the high office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland; for I think that a Roman Catholic lawyer, whose talents have raised him to eminence and position, should have opened to him all the advantages of his profession; and more especially as in the present Bill provision is made against his exercising that portion of the functions of the Lord Chancellor which could hardly be properly discharged by a Roman Catholic. I therefore give my entire support to this measure as it passed the House of Commons. But you raise another, and a very serious question, when it is proposed to extend the provisions of the Act to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It is all very well to say that the office is one of mere pageantry; but this is by no means the case, he is the head of the Privy Council, which possesses very extensive executive powers. And when my noble Friend at the table (the Earl of Denbigh) says that there will be no satisfaction among Roman Catholics until they are admissible to all offices it should be borne in mind that such an argument would extend not only to the Lord Lieutenant, as the representative of the Sovereign, but to the Crown itself. He who holds as a delegate the office of Viceroy is thereby placed in the position of the Crown, and if it be right that the Vice-royalty of Ireland should be held by Roman Catholics, it is equally right that the Constitution of this country should be set aside so as to enable the Crown itself to be held by a Roman Catholic. I allow that it is unlikely that a Roman Catholic would be appointed to the high office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but still this is a question not of theory, but of principle. The principle is that the Constitution of this country is a Protestant Constitution, presided over by a Protestant Sovereign, and that when the Viceregal authority is delegated it should be delegated to a person who is of the same religious persuasion, and bound to maintain the same religious principles, as the occupant of the Throne itself. For the reasons which I have just stated, I think it is extremely inexpedient that this question should be opened by the noble Lord. The House of Commons has decided that the office of Lord Chancellor in Ireland should be thrown open to Roman Catholics, I entirely concur in the prudence, the wisdom, and the justice of that measure; but when it is proposed to go a step further, and to delegate the practical
  1374
  authority of the Crown, the head of the Executive, to a Roman Catholic, I must say, I think that is encroaching very closely upon what is a vital portion of the Constitution of this country, and I, for one, should deeply regret to see such a course taken.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I cannot allow the remarks which have been just made by the noble Earl to pass without any answer. I am astonished to hear the noble Earl place the question of admitting Roman Catholics to the office of Viceroy on the same level as the admission of Roman Catholics to the Crown. I have no desire whatever to disparage the office of Viceroy; for certainly no one who has ever filled it would be likely to do so. But what are the duties of the Lord Lieutenant? They may be divided into two parts. In one sense he may be said to be the representative of the Crown. He holds certain Court ceremonials which, no doubt, it is very desirable should be held, though I see no reason why they should not be held by a Roman Catholic. But the Lord Lieutenant does exercise one great function. He has the power of granting pardons. Still, though that authority is directly delegated to him by the Crown, and is therefore exercised in a different manner from the power exercised by the Home Secretary, yet it only differs in this—that the Lord Lieutenant acts as a Minister directly himself, and directs that a sentence be commuted or remitted, while the Home Secretary recommends the Crown to grant the commutation or remission of a sentence. As regards the duty of the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the general government of the country, he is directly subordinate to the Cabinet and to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs; and, indeed, the very terms of his commission direct that he shall correspond with and receive instructions from the Home Secretary. Now, as the Secretary of State and every member of the Cabinet with the sole exception of the Lord Chancellor of England may be Roman Catholics, I can see no reason why a Roman Catholic should not be appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I was not at all anxious that this question should be brought before your Lordships, inasmuch as it has been already settled in the House of Commons; but at the same time I must express my opinion that the arguments are most forcible in favour of admitting Roman Catholics to the office of

  1375
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and therefore I shall vote with my noble Friend.
  On Question? their Lordships divided; —Contents 55; Not-Contents 69: Majority 14:—Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Cleveland, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Clermont, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Cranworth, L.

  De Tabley, L. [Teller.]

  Camden, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Airlie, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Harris, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  De Grey, E.

  Denbigh, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Lyveden, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Monson, L.

  Morley, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Petre, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Eversley, V.

  Exmouth, V.

  Portman, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Romilly, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Chester, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Stratheden, L.

  Stuart de Decies, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Camoys, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Teynham, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Manvers, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Romney, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Tankerville, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Wilton, E.

  Westmeath, M.

  Zetland, E.

  Amherst, E.

  De Vesci, V.

  Bandon, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Bantry, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Brownlow, E.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Cardigan, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ossory, &c., Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Devon, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Boston, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Home, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  1376

  Churston, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Delamere, L.

  Denman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Sondes, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Southampton, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Hylton, L. [Teller.]

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Overstone, L.

  Wynford, L. [Teller.]

  Penrhyn, L.

  On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, he should oppose the clause to the utmost.
  LORD ATHLUMNEYsaid, the rejection of the clause would be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. It was objected to the appointment of a Roman Catholic Lord Chancellor that such an officer might have it in his power to do great mischief. But surely the same could be said against other high functionaries; and yet he was happy to say that the Bench of Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic, was above all suspicion. Nor would the stream of justice become less pure if a Roman Catholic by his character, his abilities, and efficiency in the performance of public duties were able to attain this high position. Religious equality he believed to be the only ulterior views entertained by the Catholics in this matter: and until that religious equality was granted they would never have—he would not say peace, because he believed that the Irish people would endeavour to gain the redress of their grievances by constitutional means—but they might depend upon it that they would never have the people satisfied or contented. The late Mr. Shiel had denounced the present state of the law as a signal wrong to the whole Catholic Bar, and had characterized it as a mark which the manacle had left behind. For his own part he could only express a hope that their Lordships would be just and fear not—pass the measure if it were a just one, but not refuse their assent for any unfounded dread of the consequences.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Every Judicial or Corporate Officer may attend his place of Worship in his Robes without incurring any Penalty).
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that he did not apologize for rising to move the

  1377
  rejection of the clause, for it applied, not to Ireland only, but to England also, and Scotland and Wales. Its object was to render it legal for civic and judicial officers to do that which had been prohibited by law as long ago as the 5th year of Geo. I. (1718), and had been again prohibited in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 10th Geo. IV. (1829). By both those Acts it was expressly provided that no such officers should frequent any other than the Established Churches of the land in their robes of office. By this clause the prohibition was removed. Now, he did not object to judicial and civic officers resorting in their private capacity to their places of worship, as Mr. Justice Shee had recently done in his diocese; but he did object to the gowns, the chains, the maces of civil or judicial Royalty being carried to any place rather than to those hitherto permitted. For now it would be possible not only for a Roman Catholic Lord Mayor to bow down in all the pomp and circumstance of his civic Royalty before the host, but also for a Jewish Lord Mayor, with similar parade and state to frequent the Jewish synagogue. Now to this he objected on three distinct grounds. First, this clause was inconsistent with the principle of an Establishment; but not only so, it was actually inconsistent with Christianity itself. Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, as was set forth in a recent judgment of Lord Chief Baron Kelly. Now how could their Lordships pass a clause which would permit the representative of the Sovereign—for the Sovereign was the fountain of all honour—to attend a place of worship, acting and appearing as her representative, in which Christianity might be denied, and even the existence of God himself called in question? How could they do so in loyalty to the Saviour of Mankind, or in justice to their fellow-subjects? In justice, he said to their fellow-subjects, for such public actings would teach them lessons not of nonconformity to the Establishment only but of nonconformity to Christianity also. Vain would be all theorizing to the contrary—
  "Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,
  Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus."
  Secondly, it was impossible to conceal the fact that this, and like measures, are supported by many with similar objects in view to those of the famous Edicts of Toleration of James II. The supremacy of Rome in these lands was their ultimate goal. He respected greatly the consistency and the pertinacity with which his
  1378
  Roman Catholic fellow-subjects pursued that aim. No consideration of persons or party were permitted for a moment to interfere with this paramount object of restoring to England what they conscientiously believed to be a great blessing; but as he read that Holy Book which once was, and perhaps still was, carried in solemn procession at the coronation of the Sovereign, and as he read history as it chronicled the fluctuations of our national fortunes, he came to the conclusion that such reinstatement of Rome amongst us, was neither for the glory of God nor the good of the people. He, therefore, felt it right to resist every step, and this amongst them, which led in the direction indicated. His third and last reason was the wanton offence given by this clause to the Protestant feelings of England and Scotland. Sir Robert Peel, in introducing the Bill for Roman Catholic Relief in 1829, said—
  "There are, however, some points—in no respect trespassing on any legitimate privileges or discipline, that the religion of the Roman Catholics requires to be preserved inviolable—which may be so arranged and regulated as to afford great satisfaction, and a sense of security to the Protestant mind. With this view I think it fit to provide that when Roman Catholics are admitted to the enjoyment of corporate offices, and other offices of a similar nature, under no circumstances whatever shall the robes and other insignia of office be taken to, or exhibited in, any other place of religious public worship than one belonging to the Protestant Established Church of England."—[2 Hansard, xx. 775.]
  And subsequently in Committee, speaking on this clause, Sir Robert Peel said—
  "This was a clause calculated to give great satisfaction to Protestants, and no dissatisfaction to Catholics."—[Ibid, 1438.]
  Mr. Brougham speaking, in the adjourned debate, of the whole measure as proposed by Sir Robert Peel, said—
  "It went the full and entire length that any reasonable man ever did or ever could demand. It did equal justice to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. It put an end to all religious distinctions; it exterminated all civil disqualifications on account of religion. In its means of operation it was at once simple and efficacious; it clogged no exercise of civil or religious rights, and required no securities but such as the most zealous Catholic must readily admit to be, of necessity, part and parcel of such a comprehensive measure."—[Ibid, 834.]
  And Lord Lansdowne, on presenting a Petition from Ireland, said—
  "To the conditions attached to the measure—conditions which he would not then argue—he could not entertain any objection. He meant those conditions which regarded the Catholic

  1379
  religion. He had never for a moment contemplated that any measure on this subject would be allowed to pass, without such reasonable securities as should satisfy the doubts and calm the consciences of the Protestants while they inflicted no wound on the feelings of the Catholic population; and he saw nothing of a contrary character in these conditions."—[2 Hansard, xx. 1015.]
  The Protestant feeling of the country was far from being allayed. On the contrary, the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) must permit him to say that recent events and legislation all in a Romeward direction excited afresh the suspicions of the people, and rendered the maintenance of such restrictions even more necessary than ever. For these reasons he moved the rejection of the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsupported the clause, and begged to remind the right rev. Prelate whose remarks had been directed chiefly against the Roman Catholics, that the clause applied not to Roman Catholics only, but to Nonconformists as well. There was no security whatever to the Established Church in retaining the distinction which now prevailed. In Ireland especially, it would be extremely desirable that the Judges and mayors of the Roman Catholic religion should be seen by the population attending their places of worship with the insignia of their offices.
  On Question, Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 218).

TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL—(No. 101.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, &c., DECLARATION ABOLITION BILL—(No. 101.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he rose to move that their Lordships should go into Committee on that day six months. He desired in the first place to call attention to that portion of the Bill which declared that—
  "It shall not be obligatory for any person hereafter to take, make, or subscribe the said declaration as a qualification for the exercise or enjoyment of any civil office, franchise, or right within the realm;"
  and would ask the Lord Chancellor whether, having respect to the provisions of
  1380
  the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, which regulate the succession to the Crown in the Protestant line, and render it imperative on every King and Queen to make that declaration, its abolition can be enacted without injury to the throne and constitution in the cases of those—
  "Who hold or exercise the office of guardians and justices of the United Kingdom, or of Regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted?"—(10th Geo. IV. cap. 7.)
  And whether in the event of the abolition of the declaration in this latter case, the country might not be governed under a Regency on principles irrespective of, or antagonistic to, those which the fundamental laws of the realm require the Sovereign, by most solemn sworn obligations, personally to maintain. The change proposed to be made by this Bill was a revolution? It was nothing but a revolution. [Laughter.] The question whether this country was to continue to be a Protestant country was not one to be treated with levity. The real authors of the Bill were the Jesuits, who, as was well known, were in this country contrary to law. Had the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) devised any plan whereby our illustrious Sovereign wan to be absolved from the declaration she took at the commencement of her reign, or was Her Majesty to be bound by a declaration which would not necessarily bind any one of her subjects? He had recently learnt by the visit of a missionary something he heard taught in the metropolitan Roman Catholic chapel in Dublin, which might astonish their Lordships. The object of the preacher was to get his auditory to pray to the Virgin Mary, and he added the reason—
  "For you know that she stood by her Son during his sufferings upon the cross, while his Father deserted him, which you must know is true, because the Bible says it."
  This was the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church only a fortnight since; monstrous and blasphemous sis it was it is true. He knew he was using strong language. He was there for the purpose. It was said that such statements were offensive. Well, and, of course, so was the Reformation itself to the Roman Catholic Church; and so also was the very name of Protestant. It was purposely to counteract this idolatrous teaching of the Church of Rome, that the oath against Transubstantiation was framed and enacted. It is the great Protestant landmark, which that party, of which the noble

  1381
  Earl has become the willing mouth-piece in this House, want to obtain the repeal of. He thought that dynastic considerations formed a sufficient reason why their Lordships should reject this attempt to interfere with the Protestant institutions of the country. He begged to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the abolition of the declaration in question could be enacted without injury to the Throne and Constitution in the cases of those who hold or exercise that office of Guardian and Justice of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such officer may be constituted; and, whether in the event of the abolition of the declaration in the latter case, the country might not be governed under a Regency on principles irrespective of or antagonistic to, those by which the fundamental laws of the realm require the Sovereign by the most solemn sworn obligations personally to maintain?
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it might be convenient before the House went into Committee that he should answer the question of the noble Marquess, who seemed to be under an erroneous impression with regard to the extent to which the declaration was required. The question of the noble Marquess was pregnant with inferences, but he thought that he could answer it satisfactorily. As to the particular officers referred to he could tell the noble Marquess that there was no danger in repealing the declaration, inasmuch as these persons were not required to make it. The declaration against Transubstantiation was first established by the statute of Charles II., and was required to be taken by Peers, Members of Parliament, and servants of the Crown; and after the Revolution that declaration was, by the Act of William III., required to be taken by the persons to whom it referred, and under the Bill of Rights by the Sovereign. He believed that the noble Marquess would find that there was no danger of the Crown being isolated by this Bill; because, in fact, isolation had already taken place to a considerable extent, for there were now very few persons who were required to make the declaration. It was a very extraordinary thing that neither the learned and able Commission whose Report was before them, nor the House of
  1382
  Commons had adverted in the slightest degree to the fact that Roman Catholics were relieved altogether from making the declaration by the Roman Catholic Relief Act. The preamble of the Act said—
  "Whereas by various Acts certain oaths and certain Declarations, commonly called the Declation against Transubstantiation, and the Declaration against Transubstantiation and the Invocation of Saints, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as practised in the Church of Rome, are, or may be required to be taken, made, and subscribed by the subjects of His Majesty, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Parliament, and for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights."
  It then enacted—
  "From and after the commencement of this Act all such parts of the said Acts as require the said Declarations, or either of them, to be made or subscribed by any of His Majesty's subjects, as a qualification for sitting and voting in Parliament, or for the exercise or enjoyment of any office, franchise, or civil right, be and the same are (save as hereinafter provided and excepted) hereby repealed,"
  What were the exceptions? From the 12th section it appeared that the exception did not apply to the Regent of the United Kingdom, and it might be said, although it appeared doubtful, that it did not apply to the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The words of the sections were these—
  "Nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to enable any person or persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, to hold or exercise the office of guardians and justices of the United Kingdom, or of Regent of the United Kingdom, under whatever name, style, or title such office may be constituted."
  These words only prohibited Roman Catholics holding the offices. The clause said nothing more with regard to the necessity of making the declaration. But it went on—
  "Nor to enable any person, otherwise than as he is now by law enabled, to hold or enjoy the office of Lord High Chancellor, Lord Keeper or Lord Commissioner of the Great Seal of Great Britain or Ireland, or the office of Lord Lieutenant, or Lord Deputy, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland."
  Inasmuch as no person could hold the office of Lord Chancellor or Lord Lieutenant without making this declaration under the former Acts, the declaration was retained with regard to these particular offices; but the words did not apply to the Regent of the Kingdom. Therefore, the liability and obligation to make this declaration having been repealed by the preamble and the first section of the Act, it was quite clear it was not re-enacted with regard to this particular office. As

  1383
  far as concerned these offices there was no danger in the Bill, which merely provided for that which was by law established. The question was a very different one from that which was before the House on a previous occasion. This question did not affect Roman Catholics at all. As far as he understood the argument they said they were offended by Protestant Privy Councillors having to make this declaration against Transubstantiation in the presence of Roman Catholics. He had very great doubt whether a Privy Councillor was bound to make the declaration; indeed, he believed that under 10 Geo. IV. a Privy Councillor was not bound to make it. It might be customary to require them to make it; but he saw nothing in the Act which brought Privy Councillors within the 12th section. However, if a Privy Councillor was bound to make this declaration, and if offence was given to Roman Catholics, there was an easy way of avoiding offence and preserving the declaration. He saw no reason why private subscription to the declaration should not be sufficient; and, if the slightest encouragement were given to him, he should be disposed to move an Amendment that subscription alone should be required.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas surprised that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack should have said anything in support of the declaration. He was under the impression that the measure had the complete assent of the Government in the other House; and he was, therefore, the more surprised that the noble and learned Lord should have endeavoured to induce their Lordships to retain this offensive declaration. The Commission recommended its abolition. There was no obligation on Privy Councillors to make it, and they did not make it. The only persons who did make it were the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. The Roman Catholics of Ireland regarded it as an insult to them that the chief representative of the Government in Ireland, whom it had been determined should not be a Roman Catholic, but a Protestant, should commence his tenure of office by making a declaration which was needlessly offensive to Roman Catholics. That declaration was conceived in the spirit of the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Westmeath). The declaration, whether made by word of mouth or by subscription,
  1384
  would be grievously offensive to the great body of the Irish people, and he thought their Lordships could not follow worse advice than that which had been given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  LORD LYVEDENwas of opinion that a subscription to the declaration would be as offensive as to make it verbally.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought this Bill would place the Sovereign in an isolated and anomalous position; and it would behove Parliament at some future time to consider whether the Sovereign should not be also relieved from the necessity of this declaration.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthought the compromise proposed by the noble and learned Lord was a satisfactory one, and he would therefore withdraw his Motion.
  Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? put, and agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORremarked that the Commission had reported in favour of the abolition of the declaration, on the ground that it was publicly made and was couched in terms which gave great offence to the Roman Catholics who were present. It appeared to him, however, that by adopting the course which he had already indicated, the declaration might be retained by Protestants without giving offence to the religious feelings of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwished to know whether the Government shared the views of the noble and learned Lord?
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHdenied that the sacrifice of the Mass, as practised in the Church of Rome, was, as the declaration asserted, either superstitious or idolatrous; and he might remark that many Protestants were also of opinion that there was no superstition or idolatry in the Mass.
  LORD LYVEDENinquired whether the noble and learned Lord intended to move any Amendment?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had been expressing only his private opinion. He felt very strongly that the declaration might be retained without any offence being given to Roman Catholics. He had no desire, however, to press this opinion upon the House. He had said that if he met with any encouragement he should move an Amendment, but as he

  1385
  had not found any encouragement he should not move one.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be now reported.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill reported accordingly, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

ADJUTANTS OF VOLUNTEERS BILL.
(No. 192.)—(The Lord Campbell)
ADJUTANTS OF VOLUNTEERS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in moving the third reading of this Bill, said, that as the House had sanctioned it in all its former stages, he should not deem it necessary to depart from the silence he had scarcely broken on it, if it were not that a noble Duke upon the other side (the Duke of Buckingham) had declared himself as likely to oppose it. The opposition of the noble Duke, however, he had reason to suppose, was not the opposition of the Government. What doubts or difficulties had occurred to the noble Duke as to the Bill, he (Lord Campbell) felt unable to conjecture. It might, however, be imagined that it was not called for by existing inconveniences. He would, therefore, assure the House that existing inconveniences alone had induced him to bring it forward. In the 46th Middlesex, with which he was connected, for the last three years the Adjutant had been exposed to the necessity of serving upon juries. At one time the late Sir John Shelley, the commander of the corps, questioning the right of the authorities to summon him, ordered him not to attend at Westminster but to perform his regimental duties. By disobeying such an order he would have become liable to a court martial; and by fulfilling it he incurred the risk of a considerable fine. In the present year the Adjutant had been repeatedly compelled to go to Westminster and to remain there. A few weeks ago he was detained during the whole of the day, on which the regiment paraded in the evening, and was only enabled by a good deal of activity to reach his house and join the battalion in uniform. The same circumstances might
  1386
  arise in any corps of the metropolis or elsewhere if the Adjutant was an householder. The noble Duke might think perhaps that the law, as it stood, would guard against the evil. He (Lord Campbell) had received professional assistance on that question, and felt no doubt that in order to meet the case the law required to be amended. The magistrates in petty sessions had maintained the liability of Adjutants in Volunteer corps. The only exemption by which they could be sheltered was that of officers on full pay in the Royal army; they were on full pay, but they had left the Royal army, and it was clear, at least from the facts he had adduced, that the authorities of Middlesex were guided by that doctrine. As regards the policy of the exemption he proposed, it hardly stood in need of vindication. Adjutants in Volunteer corps received the pay of captains—a sum he believed of £300 a year. It was absurd to suppose that the public intended to defraud itself, and to grant a considerable salary with one hand, while it obstructed the performance of the duties for which that salary was given with the other. In the series of exemptions which existed and which were founded upon two Acts of Parliament, many would be found which the public had not by any means so clear an interest in granting. Exemptions were given to apothecaries, sergeants-at-law, and others whose occupation was indirectly useful to society, but who were not among the paid and thus acknowledged servants of the country. Even the exemption of regimental officers in the Royal army on full pay, which came nearest in its character to that which the Bill demanded, would hardly stand on a foundation of necessity so valid. If an Adjutant of Infantry in the Line or in the Guards was withdrawn from his duty that he might serve upon a jury several lieutenants would be qualified if not ambitious to replace him. In a Volunteer corps from its nature the remaining officers were all engaged in civil occupations, and if the Adjutant was forcibly withdrawn the loss was utterly irreparable; drill could not go on, and all the operations of the regiment were suspended. Nor would the evil be restricted to some fixed portion of the year as it would in the case of the militia or yeomanry. When the exemptions were created there was no such office in the country as that of Adjutants in Volunteer corps holding their commissions from the Crown, and receiving salaries in order that

  1387
  their whole time might be devoted to the regiment which they served in. The case was new and wanted legislation to provide for it. Their Lordships, he trusted therefore would see no reason to depart from that favourable judgment of the Bill, which, on all the previous stages, they had intimated.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Campbell.)
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMopposed the Bill, which had passed through its previous stages without discussion or explanation, because he thought it unwise to extend to Adjutants of Volunteers the exemption from serving on juries. Adjutants of yeomanry and militia regiments were liable to serve, although from being on active duty at the training, which occupied twenty or thirty days in the year, they would occasionally be exposed to far greater inconvenience than Adjutants of Volunteers. There was no analogy between the case of these Adjutants and officers on full pay in the army and navy, because the latter might at any moment be summoned to leave the country; while Adjutants of Volunteers were always resident in the town or county to which their corps belonged. He, therefore, moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")—(The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.)
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the reasons urged by the noble Duke were insufficient to warrant their Lordships in rejecting a Bill which would enable officers who were paid by the country to render more efficient service. Adjutants in the yeomanry and militia had no duties to perform in connection with their regiments except during the time of training, while with the Adjutants of Volunteers a constant attention was requisite.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsupported the Bill.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it was evident the noble Duke had no objection to the Bill upon its merits, but only thought it a disparagement to the militia and the yeomanry that no exemption should be given to their Adjutants, if the exemption was created for Adjutants of Volunteer corps. As far as he (Lord Campbell) was concerned, he would not hesitate to say that
  1388
  clauses, to meet the wishes of the noble Duke, might be inserted in the other House of Parliament. As there was not a shadow of argument against the Bill, he hoped, that after this assurance, the noble Duke would not insist upon dividing.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 6; Not-Contents 18: Majority 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Denbigh, E. [Teller.]

  Monson, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Stratheden, L. [Teller.]

  Denman, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Romney, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D. [Teller.]

  Bagot, L.

  Colonsay, L.

  Marlborough, D.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cranworth, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Redesdale, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Belmore, E.

  Derby, E.

  Southampton, L. [Teller.]

  Devon, E.

  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 3a on this Day Three Months.

VACCINATION BILL—(No. 189.)

  SECOND READING.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on July 12, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. President

  L. Hatherton

  E. Devon

  L. Portman

  L. Boyle

  L. Churston.

  L. Lyttelton

  COURT OF APPEAL, CHANCERY (DESPATCH OF BUSINESS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further Provision for the Despatch of Business in the Court of Appeal in Chancery—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 215.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.