Sitting of 16 July 1867

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Gloucester County (Western Division), v. Sir John Rolt, knight, one of the Judges of the Court of Appeal in Chancery; for Andover, v. Sir John Burgess Karslake, knight, Attorney General; for Cambridge University, v. Charles Jasper Selwyn, esquire, Solicitor General; for Coventry, v. Morgan Treherne, esquire, deceased; for Birmingham, v. William Scholefield, esquire, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Intestates' Widows and Children (Scotland)*; Sewage.*
Second Reading — Increase of the Episcopate [213].
Committee—Investment of Trust Funds [197].
Report—Hours of Labour Regulation* [63 & 258] (No. 443); Investment of Trust Funds [197 & 259].
Third Reading—Tests Abolition (Oxford and Cambridge) [16], and passed.
Withdrawn—Arrest for Debt Abolition (Ireland)* [110].

TELEGRAPHIC AND POSTAL SYSTEMS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AKROYDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Postmaster General has taken any further steps towards the amalgamation of the Telegraphic and Postal systems of the country since the subject was brought under his notice in February last by the Association of Chambers of Commerce?
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Postmaster General had been unable to take any step, because an Act of Parliament was necessary for the purpose. As his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said yesterday, the subject was still under the consideration of the Government.

COMMODORE WISEMAN AND THE TURKISH NAVY.—QUESTION.
MR. J. STUART MILLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Commodore Sir William Wiseman has been appointed head of the Naval Council to the Turkish Government, for the purpose of re-organizing the Turkish navy; if so, whether that Officer has previously retired from Her Majesty's service; and, if not, whether the lending of British Officers to the Porte for such a purpose, in the very crisis of the Cretan insurrection, is, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, con-
1622
sistent with their declared, principle of non-intervention?
LORD STANLEY: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member I beg to state that when the sanction of Her Majesty's Goverment was given to a British officer being employed to assist in the reorganization of the Turkish navy—foliowing a course for which there me various precedents—it was my belief that long before that appointment could take effect this Cretan business would have been settled one way or the other. As that is not the case, I have since that time agreed with my right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty and the Turkish Government that this appointment should not be cancelled, but suspended for a time.
MR. J. STUART MILL: Am I to understand from the noble Lord's Answer that Sir William Wiseman will not proceed to Turkey and will not take any charge in this business as long as the hostilities continue?
LORD STANLEY: At any rate he will not proceed at present. The appointment has been suspended.

IRELAND—WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with respect to the inspection of weights and measures in that part of the metropolitan district which is outside the limits of the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Whether he has received the Opinion of the Law Officers on the case which he promised to lay before them; and whether he does not consider that legislation will be necessary under the circumstances?
  LORD NAASsaid, it was the opinion of the Law Officers that legislation on this subject was necessary, and therefore a short Bill would be introduced.

THE CATTLE TRADE.—QUESTION.
MR. DODSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether there is any Act of Parliament or Order in Council which prescribes that no sheep, goats, swine, or horses shall be admitted to a Fair or Market without a licence, or removed from it without a pass, where such Fair or Market is one at which Cattle, as defined by the Order in Council of the 24th day of March, 1866, are not exposed for sale; and, whether local authorities have any

1623
power to require the use of such licences or passes for sheep, goats, swine, or horses in the case of Fairs or Markets at which Cattle are not exposed for sale; and, if so, what Act or Order in Council gives that power?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Under section 3 of the Order in Council of November 7th, 1866, no "animal" can be admitted to a market without a store-stock licence, nor taken from it without a market pass; and "animal" is defined by the Order in Council of March 24th, 1864, to be "sheep, lambs, goats, and swine, as well as cattle." Yet sheep, lambs, goats, and swine may be sold in markets not licensed for the sale of cattie, in any county of England except Essex, and may be taken to and from each market without licence or pass.
MR. DODSONasked, Whether there was any power on the part of any local authorities to insist on the use of a store-stock licence or other pass, if animals, other than cattle, were sent to a fair or market not licensed for the sale of cattle?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Not unless the market is licensed for the sale of cattle.

QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY-OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will undertake that any appointments to be made in the Queen Anne's Bounty-Office shall be subject to any Recommendations which may be made to Parliament, and any legislation on the subject during the ensuing Session?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had not been aware that such Recommendations were probable; but as the right hon. Gentleman had directed attention to that subject the Government would give it their consideration.

IRELAND—TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Returns relating to Trinity College, Dublin, ordered on the 27th of June, will be presented to the House?
  LORD NAASsaid, the Returns should be presented as soon as possible.

INDIA OFFICE—STATE ENTERTAINMENT TO THE SULTAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the expenses of the Ball about to be given to the Sultan at the India House are to be charged upon the Revenues of India; and further, to ask why, when an European Monarch visits this country, the only public State entertainment given to him is to be paid for by the people of India?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the Ball which the Secretary of State for India and the Council of India were about to give to the Sultan at the India Office would be paid for out of the Revenues of India. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, he thought he had put his Question under circumstances of misapprehension. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) was reluctant in that House to refer unnecessarily to statements in the newspapers, but he could not help thinking that some misapprehension had arisen in consequence of the manner in which the proposed entertainment to the Sultan was announced in the newspapers. It was said that Her Majesty's Government had determined to give an official entertainment to the Sultan, and had delegated that duty to the Secretary of State for India, and that the charge was to be borne by the revenues of India, or something to that effect. Now, if Her Majesty's Government had done anything of that kind he thought they would have been open to the charge of something not very creditable to the hospitality of England, or perhaps not altogether creditable to the Government; and he could certainly say that if such a proposal had been made to the Council of India, the Council of India would not have acceded to it, but would have deemed it their duty to reject a proposal made in those terms, But that was not at all what had taken place. What had taken place was this—Her Majesty's Government had nothing to do with the origination of that matter in the first instance. Her Majesty's Government had made certain arrangements for the reception of the Sultan, and after those arrangements had been made, and after certain other arrangements had also been made with a view to the Sultan's visit,

  1625
  it occurred to him that it would be right for the Council of India, on the occasion of the visit of the Sultan and on that of the Viceroy of Egypt to this country, to make some manifestations of their obligations to those Sovereigns for the services they had rendered to India, and especially for the facilities they had afforded to our communications by sea and land, and also by way of telegraph, between England and India. Another consideration also weighed with him. The new India Office was almost ready for occupation, and it appeared to him desirable that they should, on an occasion of that sort, which naturally excited some interest in India, endeavour to show that the Government of India in this country was a separate and an existing institution; that it held a certain position here, and that it was treated with respect by those great potentates to whom many of our Mahomedan subjects in India, and also the Mahomedan Princes, Her Majesty's allies, looked with considerable respect. It, therefore, did occur to him that it would be very desirable that they should receive the Sultan mid the Viceroy at their new office. He made that suggestion to the Council of India, and they entirely approved it. They felt, as he did, that there was no part of Her Majesty's dominions where greater sensitiveness would exist as to the mode in which the Sultan was received than among our Mahomedan subjects and Mahomedan allies; and they were anxious that honour should be done to those Sovereigns. With their consent he had requested his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to forward an invitation on their behalf to the Sultan. He had also sent a letter to Lord Derby, asking him whether he saw any objection to the adoption of the course proposed. Beyond Lord Derby's saying he saw no objection to such an invitation being sent, and his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary's undertaking to forward that invitation in the regular manner, this invitation had not proceeded in any way from the Government of this country, but simply from the Government of India; and he was bound to say that he did not think it was at all an improper way of spending a small portion of the revenues of India. He was perfectly aware that the occasion was one which would possess interest for members of the Mahomedan persuasion generally, especially for the Natives of India. The hon. Gentleman would remember the sort of feeling which
  1626
  existed during the late mutiny in that country, and how the Sultan was spoken of as a kind of national head of the Mahomedan religion; it, under those circumstances, appeared to him that it was desirable in the interests of our Indian Empire to treat him with becoming respect on his arrival among us, as he treated the Indian Government with respect by paying them the compliment of accepting their invitation. What had been done in the matter had been done purely on public grounds, and he was desirous that the invitation should be regarded as in no sense the act of the Imperial Government.

RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, What is the present position of the "Railway Companies Bill," which has recently been reported on by a Select Committee; and, whether the Government propose to make any modifications therein at the instance of the parties, who object to the sale of insolvent Railways?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, the Bill had been read a second time in die House of Lords and referred to a Select Committee, who he believed were considering it at the present moment. He could not yet state what modifications they might suggest, but he had very little doubt that the Bill would come down in the course of a few days.

MEETING IN ROYAL PARKS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Home Secretary, Whether this Bill was intended to be proceeded with; and, if so, when it would be taken?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he was not able to give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer; but he had put the Bill down for Thursday next, with a view of then fixing a day for going on with it.

THE NAVAL REVIEW.—QUESTION.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  COLONEL GILPINasked, Whether it had been finally determined that the proposed Naval Review was to take place tomorrow or not?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted to say that, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the First

  1627
  Lord of the Admiralty, he could give the House no positive information on the subject. The Review, he believed, depended upon circumstances, over which the Government had no control. He begged to move, in anticipation of its coming off, that the House at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday.
  Motion agreed to.
  Moved, "That, on Thursday and Friday next, this House will meet at Twelve o'clock, subject to the Standing Orders relating to sittings of the House on Wednesday."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it would appear that the House was about to adjourn over to-morrow for the purpose of being able to attend the Naval Review, without knowing whether that event would really take place or not. They were resolved, in other words, to have a day's holiday, without knowing whether the promised amusement would or would not be provided. Now he, for one, doubted the wisdom and propriety of the House of Commons, as a body, deciding to take a holiday with the object of having a day's enjoyment when there was a pressure of public business. That was altogether a new thing, and there was but one precedent for it in its history. He hoped the present occasion would be the last on which such a course would be taken, for it seemed to him to be one which was not consistent with the dignity of the House. The House of Commons was not part of the pageant of the country. It was the Sovereign whose duty it really was to display the State of this great nation. The House of Commons was no part and parcel of that State. They had their own proper duties to discharge, and it was no business of theirs to vote themselves a holiday under such circumstances. In speaking thus, he was, he feared, laying down an unpopular doctrine; but, be that as it might, it was at all events quite clear that the House were entitled to be informed whether there was to be a Review or not.
  LORD STANLEYreplied that the understanding on which the House was to adjourn till Thursday was that the Review should take place to-morrow. Of course the Government were not responsible for the state of the weather, and it was possible that such a state of the weather might arise as would make it undesirable to hold the Review.
  MR. SAMUDAintimated that it would
  1628
  be for the convenience of hon. Members that they should receive some definite information on the subject before the House broke up.
  Motion agreed to.

LANDED ESTATES (IRELAND).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. O'BEIRNE, in rising to move an Address to Her Majesty, on the subject of a loan for the purchase and re-sale of landed estates in Ireland brought into the Landed Estates Court of Ireland, with the view to encourage and assist an independent proprietary of small freehold estates in that country, said, that he did not conceal from himself in the least the extreme importance of the task which he had undertaken, nor could he avoid an expression of regret that the question had not fallen into abler and more experienced hands. The social and political condition of Ireland had for many years occupied the attention, not alone of that House, but of the whole kingdom. It was a subject which had engaged the energies of their most profound thinkers, of their ablest writers, and it had presented to many Administrations a problem which he regretted to say still remained unsolved. Yet he believed that if that problem were only fairly and temperately taken in hand it would be found there was no real difficulty in its solution. For the last sixty-seven years Ireland had been in close union with England, and yet he found that no permanant, no wholesome result, had followed that union. Hon. Gentlemen might suppose that in arguing this question he was taking an extreme view. He wished to heaven that it was so. He wished that he could believe that that union had brought with it the advantages which he freely and cordially admitted it might have brought, but be maintained that its results amply proved that it had been a failure; and in saying this he wished to guard against its being understood that he desired any alteration whatever in the Act of Union. What he did desire was simply that the spirit, the letter and the principle of that union, should be closely adhered to, and that the feelings which governed the men who proposed it should be carried out in their integrity. But if those principles had been disregarded, and if, in consequence, the results of the union had, as he hoped to be able to show, been disastrous, not only

  1629
  to Ireland but to the United Kingdom, he did say that it was time for the Legislature of England to interfere to bring about a change in so unjust a state of things. The land question—that weary land question—had been for many years the leading thought of the Irish mind, and he did not think the House could feel much surprise that it should be so. One of the earliest acts of this country in connection with Ireland was an act of despoilment, by which a great bulk of the land was made to change hands; it was what was afterwards known as the Act of Settlement. From the date of that Act to the present day there could be no doubt that the people had felt that they had been robbed of their property. But there was an interval when the nation might seem to have been weaned from the ordinary nutriment of its discontent—he meant the brilliant period between 1782 and 1800. That was the period when Ireland enjoyed an unfettered legislation. The change that took place in these eighteen years was a striking one. In the years before 1712 the records of our country's history show that a course of legislation had been pursued towards Ireland which was highly discreditable. That great statesman, Mr. Pitt, in speaking of the relations which had prevailed between the two countries, said—
  "The object aimed at is to make Ireland completely subservient to the interests of England, and to draw all the profit and advantage that could be made out of the connection without taking a single step to develop the resources of the country."
  In another year he used this language—
  "Ireland has long felt the narrow policy of Great Britain, which, founded on views of trade and commercial advantages, and inspired by selfish motives, has treated her with partiality and neglect, and never looked on her prosperity as that of the nation at large."
  Similar language was adopted by Lord Grenville, Arthur Young, and many others. But what followed? As soon as the Irish people, had achieved their independence through the manly efforts of the Volunteers of 1782, a time of prosperity ensued, which was described by Lord Plunket, than whom no man never lived who was better competent to estimate its full extent and effect, as one in which the trade and manufactures of Ireland flourished beyond those of any other country, and Lord Clare, in 1799, thus expressed himself—
  "No nation in the civilized world has advanced in cultivation, in trade, in agriculture and manu-
  1630
  factures, with the same extraordinary and unexampled rapidity."
  In the midst of this prosperity came the Union He did not desire to dwell on the circumstances which led to that Union. He had no disposition to touch, except very lightly, on that dark page of our national history, which contained the facts connected with the annihilation by themselves of the Irish Parliament, unparalleled as that proceeding was in any history; but had the Union, such as it was, been carried out in a fair spirit, and measures passed that were calculated to cherish feelings of conciliation and harmony, he believed that large benefits might have been realized by both countries. That was not the case; it was a union of the strong with the weak; a union in name and not in reality—a union which deprived Ireland of her trade, and her people of employment, which threw her back on the land, and thus produced agrarian outrages, absenteeism, increased taxation, and disorganization of the people. More than that, it uprooted her nationality and paralyzed her industry, leaving her, after sixty-seven years, in a state which was a blot upon the escutcheon of the United Kingdom, and which cried aloud not only to that House, but to the Empire and to Europe generally, shame upon the legislation which permitted a large portion of our territories to be so go-veined, or rather to be occupied, I have no desire to dwell upon these painful passages, but it is absolutely necessary to advert to them in order to lead the House to think with me, as I hope it will be disposed to think, that land is really the cause of the serious disturbances which have been witnessed in Ireland at all times within the last century. With the exception of the interval between 1782 and 1800, the legislators of that period possessed a thorough understanding of the nature of the laws that were adapted to the country, as the result demonstrated, for they had produced an enormous and unparalleled increase in the social welfare and prosperity of the nation. From the period of 1800 to the present time many results of a different and less wise system, tending to the destruction of all our trade, were to be found sys a natural consequence. The population, being without any occupation or employment, were forced to fall upon the soil for their food. What but outrages and violence could be the result of a struggle for the possession of land, which was, in fact, nothing but a struggle for existence?

  1631
  Are we not called upon to deal with this particular question? If it be a fact that a large portion of the difficulties of the country do arise from the state of the land tenure, am I not justified in asking the House to consider that subject as at least one of the obstacles that stand in the way of the welfare of the country? If I am wrong in attributing the whole disorganization into which we are thrown to the state of the landlord and tenant question, no hon. Member, I am sure, will stand up in his place and contend that a large amount of misery and wrong is directly traceable to that particular source. If, then, the House agree with me that the land question is at the bottom of the evils with which we have to cope, it becomes us to look out for a remedy, and I ask Government to propose one? [The hon. Member here referred to the opinions of the late Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Daly, Mr. Goulburn, Sir George Lewis, Earl Kimberley, and other, in reference to the necessity for improved legislation upon the land question.] The next question to look at was the question of the capability and means of purchase. The average value of the landed estates which passed through the Incumbered Estates Court in each of the six years ending 1860 was £1,500,000. The deposits in the Irish banks were the best evidence of means to purchase, and he found that in 1859 they were £16,000,000, and were now about £14,000,000. The number of accounts at the banks not exceeding £500 each was 12,500; that of accounts not exceeding £1,000 was 3,600; and that of accounts not exceeding £1,500 was 2,000. It was unnecessary to debate the advantages of the small proprietary system; there was a host of authorities, and he need not quote more than one or two. The hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) in his able work, says—
  "Nothing can be done for Ireland without transforming her cottier tenantry into something else. Those who know neither Ireland nor any other country propose to transform them into hired labourers. I contend that the object should be to transform them, as far as possible, into landed proprietors, which would elevate them from a miserable and degraded condition into one of ease and comfort."
  The example of Prussia, and the great change which at the beginning of this century transformed a people of poor downtrodden serfs into one of wealthy cultivators and formidable soldiers, was well known. That result was obtained by what we should
  1632
  consider a complete revolution, and a total sacrifice of rights of individuals, for the proprietors were required to abandon three-fourths of their property. But the consequence was, that the remaining fourth became so enormously increased in value as to be more than equal to the former value of the whole. To the opinion he had quoted he might add that of Sir M. Kaye, who declares that no country has yet exchanged her tenants-at-will for small proprietors without becoming suddenly and marvellously benefited by the change. He had now stated to the House the views with which he submitted the present Resolution. He regretted that the consideration of it came so late; but he felt so strongly its importance, and the greatness of the change it would work, that he hoped it would be seriously entertained, not only by the House, but by Her Majesty's Ministers. He felt deeply that the condition of Ireland was a disgrace to this country, and he asked how long this state of things was to continue? Let them not blind the subject. Ireland was full of discontent, of distrust, of dissatisfaction, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a few days ago, and there was but a very short step from dissatisfaction to disaffection. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary had a great power in his hands; he could apply a remedy to the poison that had so long acted upon the Irish nation, as to be almost historic; he could, by a bold, a broad, and an honourable policy, turn back wide-spreading disaffection; he could restore peace, prosperity, and happiness to that country; he could arrest the ever-increasing outflow of emigration, and be the means of establishing a state of things which would induce the capitalist to seek the Irish labour market, as a rich and tempting field for the increase of his wealth. Then, indeed, might they hope to see the people emerge from the depression—the serfdom—in which they had been so long plunged. That, Sir, would be a task worthy the abilities of the noble Lord. Its successful accomplishment would reach in its effects the full measure of his largest political ambition, and he would confer a lasting benefit upon the Empire at large, as well as upon that particular part of it which the special legislation he suggested would be intended to more directly apply. But to effect such a great and good end — to turn the wretched home of the Irish peasant into a comfortable and prosperous and a contented home—to instil into his

  1633
  mind the conviction that Imperial legislation meant Imperial justice, not British coercion—to lead him to estimate the advantages which the British Constitution was stated to extend to those who live within its influence, they must do more than fill the air with vague promises. Earnest, honest steps must be taken to grapple, and at once, with existing and admitted evils. The people must begin to feel that their wants, their comforts, their interests have found a place—that place to which they are entitled, in the legislative thought of the Empire; that impression, that conviction once firmly fixed in the minds of the people, you will find that when they feel their social emancipation is at hand, their hearts will vibrate with the best feelings of good subjects—itinerant preachers of sedition will find no home, no encouragement in the country; and they would have a living, widespread, eloquent example of the great political truth—
  "That although rebellion may be restrained by military power, or crushed by armed force, it is to justice, and justice alone, you must look for that only real safety of an Empire, the true and lasting loyalty of its people."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the expediency of recommending to the House to grant a sum by way of loan, not exceeding one million sterling, to be employed in the purchase of estates which may be offered for sale in the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, such estates to be re-sold, in subdivided farms, of not less than ten or more than one hundred acres each to the occupying tenants of such estates; or in the event of the tenants declining to purchase, then to such other persons as may be willing to purchase the same in subdivided farms, the purpose being to assert and encourage an independent proprietary of small freehold estates in Ireland."—(Mr. O'Beirne.)
  LORD NAASsaid, the Motion had been on the Paper since the earlier portion of the Session, and, being preceded by one of considerable importance, he had not expected that it would be brought on that evening; he was not, therefore, without the statistics he should otherwise have produced, prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman at length into the subject to which he had referred. He should not think at any time of following the hon. Gentleman through his dissertation on the events which had taken place in Ireland since 1672. The hon. Member had enunciated many opinions which might be refuted and con-
  1634
  tradicted. He should not think of admitting that the Union of Ireland with this country had inflicted any misfortune upon the Irish. It would be easy to prove that the contrary was the case. The progress and prosperity of Ireland had—though not so rapid as in some other parts of the United Kingdom—been very great. There had been no decay consequent upon that Union; but such facts were rather for the historian than the House of Commons. Their duty was rather to examine into matters as they at present stood than to discuss the wisdom of the policy which had dictated the Union between the two countries. No sensible man would think of reversing that, great settlement. He was not disposed to admit that, even of late years, there had been any falling off in the prosperity of Ireland. Though it was true that the progress made had not been so great us that which had been made in some portions of England and Scotland, it should be borne in mind that Ireland was purely and entirely an agricultural country. Hitherto she had been unable to establish manufactories like those which were to be seen through the breadth and length of England. They should therefore only compare the condition of Ireland with that of the districts of England to which mining find manufacturing operations had not extended. It would be found that, for the last thirty years, there had been a decided mid continuous advance in the agricultural affairs of Ireland; and, if he had anticipated that this discussion would take place, he would have been able to bring down statistics to establish the truth of what he stated. From the nature of her soil and climate, industry was found more profitably employed in the breeding and rearing of cattle than in the cultivation of the land and the raising of cereal crops. Although there was still much to be done, nevertheless there were certain districts in Ireland which had improved as rapidly as any other agricultural districts in the United Kingdom. With reference to the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman, he wished to say a few words. That proposal was that the State should interfere and purchase large portions of land in Ireland for the purpose of re-selling it again to persons who might be inclined to buy it in small lots; but there was nothing in the present state of things in Ireland which would prevent that being done. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that the operation of the Landed Estates Court was

  1635
  to prevent small lots from coming into the market. Out of the 1,600 lots sold in the last two years, 460, or more than one quarter, were sold in lots of under 100 acres each. The total annual value of those 460 allotments might be put at something like £17,000 a year. Taking those lots at twenty-five years' purchase, a sum not far from £500,000 had been spent within the List two years in those small purchases. That fact proved that, if there were a real desire on the part of persons possessed of small capital to invest money in small lots of land, there was ample opportunity for them, at that moment, to do so. The duty of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court was to sell the land in the mode which would be most remunerative to the occupier. When there was a general desire on the part of capitalists to purchase small lots, the land sold in a most remunerative manner, so that, if an estate were set up for sale, and if it were shown to the Judges of the Encumbered Estates Court that, by dividing it into small lots, they would get a higher price, it would be their duty so to divide it. If, therefore, the process which the hon. Gentleman desired did not take place to a greater extent, it was not the fault of the law, or of the system; but because of the absence of a demand for that particular description of estates. It would be both impolitic and unwise to take so very serious a step as to interfere with the ordinary course of the land market in Ireland. The reason why small lots of land were not in more general demand was that there was an indisposition on the part of small capitalists to become small proprietors, He had himself put the question to people who held reasonably-sized farms of 150; acres, and who had a little money. He had been told by them that, if they bought lands, they would not get more than 4 or 4½ per cent for their money, while by employing their capital as tenant-fanners they would make 10 per cent. These persons were the best judges how they could most profitably employ a small capital. The reason why they did not buy small estates was that they could employ their money in a more profitable way. The question of the general advantage of a small proprietary had been discussed most ably—among others, by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill). Put statements and arguments of equal force and ability had been made in opposition to his theories; and it was very doubtful whether small farms were or were not best
  1636
  for the general interests of the country. This, however, might be said, that whatever led to such a minute subdivision of land as prevailed in Ireland in the early part of the century would inflict one of the greatest curses that could befall that country. The only thing that could reconcile a Statesman to the dreadful occurrences of 1845, 1846, and 1847 was that they had to so large an extent put an end to the system of letting land through middlemen, and to the practice of subdivision which had been such a curse to the country. If they looked back to the state of things that existed in the early part of the century, and afterwards during the famine, they would find that the small proprietors were in just as miserable a state as the persons who had land on lease. He could point to several cases where persons had squatted upon commons, and had obtained proprietary rights over farms of five and ten acres; just that class of proprietors whom the hon. Member would like to see multiplied in Ireland, who were described in books as of so much benefit to the country. From his own experience he could say that it was in the very district to which he referred that the horrors and miseries of the famine fell with the greatest force. Long before the effects of the famine fell upon those who had leases these unfortunate creatures were swept away. Their lands were bought up by small capitalists, were re-let in farms of twenty-five and thirty acres, and were now the most thriving portion of the district. He entreated the House to observe the danger of advocating any measure which would tend to the recurrence of such a system. Whether the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view were brought about by a loan from the Government, or by the exertions of private companies or associations, it would be difficult to obviate the results to which he had referred. In the neighbourhood of some towns, there was a tendency—although the Encumbered Estates Act had been so short a time in existence—to that extreme subdivision of land, which was so much to be deprecated. If the Irish gentlemen thought the plan advocated by the hon. Member was wise and good, there was nothing to prevent their trying the experiment. A small sum of money of about £2,000 would enable gentlemen who attached so much importance to small holdings to purchase land and re-sell it in small lots. The loss at first could not be large; even a gain might be made. Until

  1637
  some such experiment had been tried, and until hon. Gentlemen could point to its success, it was impossible to ask the House to entertain the question for a moment, or to interfere with the ordinary sale of land in Ireland. If the Government went into the market and bid against private proprietors for the purchase of land, it would throw everything into confusion. It was because he sincerely believed that the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view would not increase the prosperity of the country, but would rather discourage than promote it, that he was forced to say, on the part of the Government, that they Could not accede to the Motion.
  MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, be regretted that so important a Motion should be brought forward in so thin a House, and in the third week in July, when it was impossible to secure proper attention to the subject. At present it was a matter of indifference to the tenant-farmers of Ireland whether their country was ruled by the Queen of England, the Emperor of the French, the United States, or "the Irish Republic." They felt sure that they could not be in a worse position than now whoever ruled them. But if some means were provided so that the farmers could become possessed of the soil and work it as their own, instead of on an uncertain tenure, they would want nothing. The most vital question for Ireland would be to form a larger occupying proprietary. The tenants ought to have the same facilities for purchasing land as they had in France. The noble Lord had spoken of the misery occasioned by too great a subdivision of land; doubtless this misery was felt among tenants holding small occupations at will, but it would not exist among small occupying proprietors. He hoped the question would on a future occasion be brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, when it would have a chance of being more fully considered that at the present moment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL.— [Lords.]— [BILL 213.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill. The Bill had been introduced into the other House by Lord Lyttelton, and had received
  1638
  much consideration from their Lordships. The Preamble of the measure recited that in 1847 a Royal Commission issued directing inquiry into the state of several bishoprics. In conformity with the Report of that Commission the bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor had been united, and the see of Manchester had been established. The Commissioners also recommended the establishment of three additional sees. It was proposed by this Bill to carry that recommendation into effect by subdividing some of the larger dioceses and authorizing the creation of the three new sees, if the necessary endowments were provided by voluntary contributions. The scheme for the establishment of each see was to be settled by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It was proposed that one of the sees should be created out of the county of Cornwall which should in that case be separated from the diocese of Exeter. That the second, Southwell, in Nottinghamshire, should be taken partly out of Lincoln, and partly out of Lichfield. That the third should be taken from Rochester and called the See of St. Albans. The consent of the existing Bishops of those dioceses would be necessary. It was also proposed by the Bill, as it had been sent down from the House of Lords, that the sees should be within the patronage of the Crown; that they should be so endowed that the new Bishops would, in point of income, be on an equality with the existing prelates; and that they should take their seats in the House of Peers according to seniority. In order that no increase might be made in the number of Bishops in the Upper House, there would under this arrangement be four junior Bishops instead of one as at present. In this the Bill followed the precedent made on the creation of the see of Manchester. None of the schemes for the creation of a new see authorized by this measure would be carried into effect until they had been laid before Parliament for six weeks and had not been objected to by either House. An Address to the Crown from either branch of the Legislature in opposition to any scheme for erecting a see under this Bill would be fatal to it. Exception had been taken to the last clause of the Bill, which, as it now stood, provided that it should not be lawful to apply for any of the purposes of the Bill any part of the common fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners until half the amount necessary for the endowment should be otherwise provided. That would

  1639
  seem to imply that if half the amount were voluntarily subscribed, the funds in the Lands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be resorted to for that purpose. That was no part of the original design, The point had raised much discussion in the House of Lords, and Lord Lyttelton, who had charge of the Bill, had opposed the addition to the clause of the words on which such an implication might be framed, and was not at all desirous of retaining it, as it at present stood. He did not propose to ask the House to pass the clause, and he should in Committee be prepared to consent to its omission from the Bill. After a careful examination of the existing Acts of Parliament he had come to the conclusion that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not, unless some measure were specially passed on the subject, have any power to contribute money out of the common fund for any such purpose. He did not think the law ought to be altered in this respect, unless a general review of the state of that fund were first made by Parliament. What prospect there might be of obtaining large voluntary subscriptions was of course best known to the benevolent and zealous Churchmen who had promoted this measure. If no subscriptions were forthcoming, the Bill could not possibly do any harm. If, on the other hand, the liberality and zeal of Churchmen should take such a direction, the present measure would enable that liberality and zeal to be exercised for the benefit of the Church. He might express his belief that no hon. Members who were Nonconformists would, as long as their own rights were not interfered with, offer any objection to an extension of the Church of England which might be for the benefit of the members of that Church. The dioceses in this country were far too large, and many persons of high authority had been of opinion that if the means were forthcoming their number ought to be considerably increased. So far back as the reign of Henry VIII., it had been proposed to make a large increase in the number of sees; but the proposal was then only carried out to a limited extent. Since that time the population of the country, and the number of members of the Established Church, had enormously increased, and yet during that time the episcopate had only been increased by the addition of one Bishop — that of Manchester: the creation of the new See of Ripon being balanced by the union of the old See of
  1640
  Bristol with Gloucester. As to the particular dioceses out of which the new sees were proposed to be taken, the diocese of Exeter, out of which it was proposed to take Cornwall, was of vast extent, and contained a population of nearly 1,000,000 souls. It contained 2,225,728 acres. It was 150 miles in length. The nearest part of the county was forty miles from Exeter, and the farthest part 150 miles. The office of the episcopate could not be adequately performed in such a diocese. With regard to Lincoln, out of which it was proposed to take part of Southwell, the right rev. Prelate who now presided over that diocese had some years ago expressed his opinion that its subdivision was much to be desired. It contained 822 parishes or ecclesiastical districts, 612 of which were situate in Lincolnshire, and 210 in Nottinghamshire. In such an immense diocese it was impossible for the Bishop to exercise his functions in a satisfactory manner, and one result had been that in the diocese of Lincoln confirmations were much less frequent than they ought to be. The Bishop had stated that, if he were to attempt to preach on a single Sunday in each church of his diocese, it would take him no less than fifteen years to do so. The diocese of St. Albans was proposed to be taken from those of Rochester and London, the two latter having grown to a very large extent in consequence of the great increase of population. The diocese of Rochester had become one of the most populous in the country in consequence of the great increase of population that had taken place in those parts now added to it, which were situate in the metropolis. Experience had shown that wherever a new see had been founded pious and charitable donations had greatly augmented. This had been the result in Ripon and Manchester. Within sixteen years from the foundation of the first of those sees £500,000 sterling had been raised by voluntary subscription, and expended in the erection and endowment of churches, parsonages, and schools. In the see of Manchester similar results had followed its establishment. Many men of eminence had advocated an increase of the episcopate. Dr. Arnold wrote in 1833 that, in order to any efficient and comprehensive Church system, the first thing necessary was to divide the actual dioceses. In 1850, a debate arose respecting a Bill which related to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and his right hon.

  1641
  Friend the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) made a Motion with the object of enabling new bishoprics to be founded and endowed partly by voluntary subscriptions and partly out of the funds of the Commission. According to the proposal then made by his right had friend, the holders of such bishoprics were to have smaller stipends than the other Bishops, and were not to sit in the House of Lords. Lord John Russell then expressed himself adverse to the establishment of an inferior class of Bishops, as being likely to lead, in the result, to the reduction of the incomes of the existing Bishops, and to their exclusion also from the House of Lords, which he thought would go far to sever the connection between Church and State. The present Bill, in the shape in which it had come down from the other House, was in accordance with the views then expressed by Lord John Russell. In the year 1852 the Government of Lord Derby appointed a Commission to pursue the inquiry, left incomplete by the former Commissioners, into the state of the cathedrals. They made two Reports. The first strongly recommended the formation of a bishopric in Cornwall. An offer had, at that time, been made by Dr. Walker to endow the see, if established immediately, with an income of £1,600 a year: and the consequence of the neglect, at that time, of the recommendation of the Commissioners was, that the benefit of this munificent benefaction was lost to the Church. In their final Report the Commissioners recommended the formation of four new bishoprics, three of which coincided with the three new sees of the present Bill. The scheme had been supported by a great weight of argument, and that not from any special party in the Church. Bishop Villiers, and Bishop Sumner, Dr. Arnold, Lord John Russell, all supported this extension of the episcopate, as well as many others who entertained different views of Church matters. Seeing, then, that the measure proposed to deal with no public fund, and that nothing could be done if either House of Parliament objected, he trusted that the Bill might be allowed to pass. The clause relating to assistance from funds under the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which was objected to by a large and influential minority in the Lords, he gave up. Another clause, moved by Earl Grey, for appointing coadjutor bishops in large dioceses, or where the bishops were incapacitated by age
  1642
  or infirmity, he did not propose to reintroduce, The measure was one so entirely permissive in its provisions that the House, he thought, could not deem it in any degree dangerous, or object to its adoption. In the House of Lords it had received in its main provisions, a very general concurrence and support from men of all opinions and all parties. The Bill simply asked the House to enable the liberality of private Churchmen in England, if so disposed, to accomplish that object of creating three new dioceses in those populous parts of the kingdom where they were earnestly asked for and most urgently needed. To the particular provisions of the Bill, as they now stood, on points as to which differences of opinion might fairly arise, he was not in any manner wedded; and, if any Amendments should be proposed, he should be perfectly prepared to give them the most candid consideration, and to accept them, if they recommended themselves to the general sense of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Roundell Palmer.)
  MR. GILPINsaid, he was anxious to learn from Her Majesty's Government how far, if that Bill were read a second time, they would consent to the withdrawal of the 12th clause, to which he had a decided objection? In considering the measure the question naturally arose, had they not Bishops enough already? He was willing that the Church should judge for herself whether she had Bishops enough so long as, in the first place, no fund in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or any other national fund was drawn upon for their support; and, in the second, that there was no re-affirming of the principle which assuredly in a new Parliament would be brought forward for settlement—namely, as to the right and the desirableness of Bishops having seats in the House of Lords. But had they not Bishops enough already? On that point he would give a few statistics. In Ireland they had twelve Bishops, in our colonies and dependencies forty-three, and in England and Wales twenty-seven. How, according to the last Census, was the population divided between the different religious denominations? In England and Wales in round numbers there belonged to the Established Church 10,000,000; to the various Protestant, Nonconformist, and Presbyterian bodies 9,000,000; and

  1643
  1,000,000 of Roman Catholics. But, including Scotland and Ireland, they had a gross total for the United Kingdom of 10,738,000 persons belonging to the Established Episcopal Church; 12,345,000 Protestant Nonconformists and Presbyterians; and 5,740,000 Roman Catholics. The question of the Irish Church must be brought before the House at a very early day. If there were not Bishops enough, why give Bishops political duties to withdraw them from the religious duties for which they were originally appointed? He understood that it was proposed to raise something like £500,000 for the establishment of those three bishoprics. Heartrending appeals were frequently made to Dissenters as well as Churchmen on behalf of poor hardworked clergymen of the Established Church. He held in his hand a Circular issued by the friends of the Clergy Corporation, in which the cases of some of these poor clergymen was thus described—
  "A curate twenty-four years in holy orders; total income £90 per annum. He writes, 'Upon this nine of us (myself, wife, and seven children) have to live. For the last fifteen months sickness (requiring medical aid) has not been out of my house.' …. 'For the last six weeks we have scarcely tasted animal food, our chief support being bread, and as for clothes my children will very soon not be able to enter the House of God for want of them.—A curate, with wife and six children; income £80 per annum, applies at a time of much sickness.—A curate, wife and three sick children; stipend £80 per annum.—A curate, married, with large family; income £70 per annum.—A clergyman, income £80 per annum, wife and eight children, five dependent. 'I am in great distress from the inadequacy of my income to support myself and family.'—A curate, wife and five children, all dependent; income £95 per annum. 'For weeks together we have not been able to procure more than bread for our little ones, and some days not even that; and had it not been for occasional little presents of meat, &c., hunger itself would have been frequently felt in our home.'—A curate, eighteen years in holy orders. 'I have a wife, and eight children to maintain and educate out of a salary of £90 a year, my stipend being far too small to procure us the commonest necessaries of life.'"
  These harrowing accounts might be multiplied a hundredfold. He would not say that these clergymen of the Church were asking for bread and that the Bill proposed to give them a stone; still, here was an appeal for charity; and could they reply, "We admit all this distress; take half a million and spend it in Bishops?" But the £500,000 spoken of was for Bishops pure and simple. But if they had Bishops there must be palaces, and cathedrals, and registrars, and other officers. His hon. and
  1644
  learned Friend said he was willing to withdraw the 12th clause empowering the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to give the second half of the cost of a bishopric when the first half had been supplied by voluntary contributions. It was well, for the House would never have agreed to such a clause. As to the question of reaffirming the propriety of the Bishops sitting in the other House of Parliament, it was proposed by this Bill not that the number of Bishops having seats there should be increased, but that the newly-created Bishops should enjoy the privilege in turn. The words of a Dissenter on the subject would probably be considered entitled to small weight, but in a pamphlet which had been published in 1836, Lord Henley, the father of his noble Colleague, who was a really earnest and conscientious Churchman, had laid it down as his opinion that the real influence of the Church in the councils of the nation and the security of her endowments did not depend on the votes or the speeches of a small number of representatives in the Upper House, but upon the affections of the people and her faithfulness in the discharge of her great trust; and that, so far from being rendered weaker, she would be strengthened by the severance of the unnatural alliance which a Parliamentary peerage implied in the case of her Bishops between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of this world. His Lordship said—
  "The removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords would do more to advance the interests of true religion, than any measure which had been adopted since the period of the Reformation."
  And this was no new question. In February, 1837, a direct Motion was made in the House of Commons that the sitting of Bishops in Parliament was unfavourable to the Christian religion of this country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the Established Church. That Motion was moved by a Churchman, seconded by a Churchman, and supported to a large extent by Churchmen. In a House of 190 Members 90 voted for it, and in the minority he found recorded the names of C. Lushington, H. A. Aglionby, E. Baines, J. Brotherton, Charles Buller, William Clay, William Ewart, Daniel O'Connell, Benjamin Hall, Joseph Hume, Sir William Molesworth, Mark Phillips, J. Scholefield, Colonel Thompson, and C. P. Villiers. There was

  1645
  a great mass of ignorance and impiety and wickedness which it should be the object of all religious men to lessen, and if possible to put an end to; in such a work he should be ready to help his hon. and learned Friend. But he must respectfully submit to the House that the £500,000 which it was proposed to expend in the creation of new bishoprics might be more usefully employed in relieving the distress which so largely prevailed among the hard-working clergy, and promoting in that way the interests of Christianity. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Gilpin.)
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the salaries of the new bishops were not to exceed the minimum salary of the existing Bench. But the House had not been informed what that minimum was. The Bishop of Sodor and Man was badly off at £2,000. Other bishops received £4,000, while the majority received £5,000 or more per annum as income. How was the proposed income to be raised, and what was the amount they were to give the new bishops? Was it to be £5,000, or £10,000, or £15,000 a year? One most reverend Prelate, on a salary of £15,000 a year, had thought fit to vote that the great proportion of the proposed income should arise from properties that belonged to the working clergy of the country. It was said that curates were hard to be found now-a-days; and who could wonder that it should be so? How were they to suppose that men of piety, and learning, and high character would enter the Church when such miserable stipends were offered them? A noble Lord had said that it ought to make the cheeks of the higher clergy blush when they remembered that some of the best men in the land—men of eminent talent, piety, education, and everything that could give dignity to the human character—were receiving, as curates of the Church of England, salaries smaller than what the grandees were in the habit of paying to their butlers and hired servants. And now they were asked to increase the number of bishops. Why did they not call the Irish Bishops into their service? In that country they had two Archbishops and ten Bishops to minister to the wants of 678,661 persons in that country—less
  1646
  than one-eighth of the whole population. What was the characteristic of the English Bishops? It was this—that they completely ignored every denomination except their own. There was another established Church — that of Scotland. But what communication was there between the Church of England and that of Scotland? If they worshipped different deities they could not be more widely cut off from each other. On a late occasion he met the chaplain of Her Majesty when she was in Scotland — Dr. M'Leod—a divine of the first character. What was his position in England? He was an alien, and was not admitted into any of the pulpits of the Established Church. Dr. M'Leod expressed his displeasure at this in his hearing; and declared that if he could not go into the pulpits of the Established Church he would go into those of other denominations that were open to him. He accepted the offers of the pulpits of Nonconformists, which were opened to him willingly, When the Bishop of London crossed the Tweed he had to leave his mitre behind him, for he never dared to enter the pulpit of a Presbyterian church. These were anomalies which a Reformed Parliament would put an end to. He also objected to the Bill that it proposed to perpetuate the system of allowing prelates to sit in the House of Lords, a system which the people, he believed, would unite before long to put an end to, and would compel the most reverend and right reverend Gentlemen to leave the Upper House. He therefore should second the Amendment.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that as the hon. Member for Northampton had called on the Government to state what course they intended to take with regard to the present Bill, he had no hesitation in replying that he could not understand how it was possible for the Government to oppose the proposal to allow people to subscribe their money for purposes connected with the Church to which they belonged. He could not imagine why the hon. Member should think that the voluntary principle so entirely belonged to the Nonconformists that the Church of England must not be indulged with the exercise of the least portion of it. The hon. Member for Sheffield had given one of the most extraordinary lectures ever uttered on religious liberty, and had intimated that the next Parliament would force a clergyman of one denomination into the pulpit of a clergy-

  1647
  man belonging to another denomination. No doubt Dr. M'Leod was a most learned and pious man; but it would be better to leave each denomination its own clergymen, and Dr. M'Leod would never fail to have many pulpits to discourse from, and large congregations to listen to him. He was sure that the denomination to which Dr. M'Leod belonged would be greatly surprised if the hon. Member for Sheffield, by any sort of process, were to force a prelate of any other church into the pulpit occupied by Dr. M'Leod. It had been said by the hon. Gentleman that in a future Parliament the question of the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords would have to be debated. It was not his intention to enter into that question now, but there was no evidence of the fulfilment of the predictions which were uttered when the subject was under discussion thirty years ago, when it was said that the consequence of such a system must be the decay of the Church and the destruction of her influence. On the contrary, it had been clearly shown, by the documents read by his hon. and learned Friend opposite, that in the dioceses of Ripon, Manchester, London, and elsewhere, the Church had been making wide and rapid progress. The documents which had been read showed that voluntary efforts on the part of the Church had enabled her to strengthen her position, and to spread the truth abroad more widely. When the hon. Member for Northampton read those accounts of the distress of clergymen, he must observe that such statements were not confined to the Established Church. They were true of many ministers among Nonconformists themselves. But, because some persons were in destitute circumstances, was that to prevent those who thought fit from applying their money in this direction, especially when they believed that, by this very process—by establishing these bishoprics and forming new centres, around which the clergy might gather themselves, they might diminish the poverty of those very curates who were represented as so distressed? A movement had been going on, which had already met with large success, for increasing the stipends of curates by voluntary efforts. But because destitution and distress existed in parts of the metropolis, were hon. Members and other gentlemen not to subscribe their money for any other purpose than for its relief? His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield gave largely of his means on many occasions;
  1648
  but, because he had subscribed for the erection of a great building for the benefit of the community in which he was interested, was that a reason why anyone should turn round and say because he had contributed largely for that purpose he would be induced to contribute to no other object? This Bill did not trench on the rights of any one. It did no wrong to Nonconformists. It only showed the way that Churchmen might contribute their money for a particular purpose. So far, therefore, as he was concerned, and he also spoke for the Government, he should give it his most hearty support.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he had not answered the question which had been asked by the hon. Member for Northampton, whether the Government would assent to the omission of the particular clause referred to?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he was prepared to assent to the exclusion of that clause.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was a warm supporter of the Church of England, so far as rendering its ministrations as efficient as possible among the great mass of the people. But he was afraid a great mistake was often made on this subject by confounding the interests of the parson with those of religion. The former excited eager interest; the latter too often were treated with lukewarmness, if not with coolness and indifference. When there was so much and such severe spiritual destitution throughout the country, it was a great misfortune that large subscriptions should be raised for the endowment of Bishops and dignified clergy. He objected to this Bill because it was premature and unnecessary. The Bill had been drawn with consummate art. It must have proceeded from the hands, not of a layman, but of an astute ecclesiastic. Had it proceeded from the bauds of a layman who seriously and heartily intended that the Bill should take effect on the voluntary system it would have said, "When and so soon as a certain sum should have been collected for the endowment of three bishoprics"—stating, probably, the amount necessary—"then, and not till then, should the authority invoked set them up." Instead of that, the Bill proceeded at once and absolutely to invest the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with power to erect these bishoprics. The real intention was to establish the bishoprics in the first instance, and then

  1649
  see how they were to be dealt with after. The power to erect the bishoprics was absolute. When they had the Bishops then would come the endowment; and with the Bishop would come his accessories. There was no provision for endowing the accessories of a bishopric. The Bishop was only the beginning of the expense. He must have his dean and chapter, his dignified clergy, and the expenses attendant on the cathedral services. Undoubtedly, in the result, the funds for these expenses would be provided by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—not, perhaps, directly, but by that system of ecclesiastical circumvention which attains the end as effectually. In this way a large portion of the funds of the Church would be perverted from other pressing demands. The Bishop of London, the very best Bishop on the Bench, was only able to defend these arrangements by saying that such situations were necessary to attract men of learning to the Church, who would otherwise engage in secular professions. But was the Church to enter the lists in this manner with the other professions, and compete with the law and with physic for the favour of mercenary men? What security could they have that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not misappropriate, as he should call it, the funds for the purposes contemplated by the Bill? At least it should be provided that no bishopric should be established until enough had been subscribed, not only to endow it, but also to meet the expenses of all the dignities with which the Bishops loved to surround themselves at the cost of their religious position. For he contended that whatever came in the train of that temporal dignity with which the Bishops of the Church of England surrounded themselves was at the expense of their religious position. Before any action was taken to establish these bishoprics, the full endowment for Bishops, deans, chapters, and the whole administration of the cathedrals should be subscribed. It had been said that Bishops should not sit in the House of Lords. He thought it a great misfortune that so many of them should sit there—so many more than were necessary for the purpose of instructing the other House in the doctrines of religion and morality. A fair allowance ought, undoubtedly, to be made to the other House for this object; but he was satisfied that the great majority of the Episcopal Bench would be far better occupied in their dioceses than in attending the deliberations
  1650
  of the other House. It was a misfortune for the Church, and a misfortune to the cause of religion, that the Bishops should be temporal peers. The result of the pomp and dignities that surrounded them was expressed in the proverbial saying, that a man or a woman full of pride was as proud as a Bishop, or as proud as a Bishop's wife. If they had more confidence in their religions position and influence, and depended less upon the temporal dignities of their office, the people of England would be more ready to submit to their authority and attend to their instruction. In other countries Bishops were remarkable for their humility and unostentation, and exercised an enormous influence. He recollected that when the Roman Catholic Bishop of Bombay was asked by the Government what allowance he required, he replied that he could live on 2s. or 4s. a day, and that he did not ask for more. He protested against the notion expressed in this Bill that it was indispensable for an English Bishop, no matter what the purity of his life or the holiness of his teaching, that he should be a temporal peer and should live in a palace on £4,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that episcopacy was bound up with the British Constitution, because when that Constitution was subverted Bishops fell with it. But the fact was that Bishops sat in the House of Lords not qua Bishops, but by tenure of the lands with which they were endowed by the Sovereign. It would be infringing the Constitution, therefore, for Bishops endowed by public subscription to sit in Parliament. Having no tenure they had no right to sit in the Upper House. The object of legislation should be to make the Church of England useful and efficient—the Church of the people, and to provide for those who could not otherwise obtain religious instruction. It was to be regretted that it was so largely the Church of the upper classes, who used it for their own profit. He objected to this Bill as a flagrant attempt to encourage the expenditure of money in a wrong direction.
  MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he had no doubt that there was a great want of spiritual supervision in some of the dioceses, but there were certain matters connected with the Bill to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. He acknowledged the value of the voluntary principle recommended by the Bill, but thought some allusion ought to have been made on the present occasion to that very

  1651
  remarkable case in regard to voluntary contributions which last year attracted so much attention. A lady devoted a very large sum of money to the establishment of three Colonial bishoprics in connection with the Church of England. The officers of the Crown who drew up the Letters Patent, when sitting as Judges of Appeal, condemned the course they themselves had taken, and declared that the Government had not the power to carry out the proposal. The money would consequently be expended for a totally different object. Such a misapplication of funds would certainly make people hesitate to subscribe for the three proposed bishoprics unless they were assured that a like miserable failure was guarded against. As to the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, he differed from the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), for he thought it very important that there should be some means of getting at the authorities of the Church when there was any subject of complaint. He thought that their presence there formed a very useful safeguard against abuses by the clergy, because their presence afforded an easy means of bringing to their notice any cases of misconduct on the part of the inferior clergy. He was of opinion that the indiscriminate appointment of suffragan Bishops would be a great evil, because it might tend to render the episcopal order so large as to be exceedingly inconvenient. He supported the second reading of the Bill because it provided a more efficient system of ecclesiastical superintendence, which was absolutely necessary. He approved particularly the division of the diocese of Exeter, which was absolutely indispensable for the religious interests of that district.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that although two hon. Members who had spoken against the Bill were Nonconformists, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was mistaken in saying that all parties in the Church were in favour of it. He belonged to the Church of England, and there was a large party in it who doubted the desirability of extending the episcopate. The Episcopal Bench was on its trial. At a time when the equanimity of the Church was disturbed people naturally looked to the Bishops to exercise some power and restore peace. But they had been entirely wanting in this respect, so that this was not a happy moment at which to propose additional Bishops. Moreover, facilities of
  1652
  locomotion now enabled Prelates to visit every part of their dioceses. If, instead of attending the Upper House, they resided more in them, the difficulties as to confirmations to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted would be materially lessened.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to withdraw the 12th clause, which, if retained, would have made the Bill extremely objectionable. The Bill was very queerly drawn, and the Title and Preamble seemed to express more than its enacting clauses. He did not see what objection any one could have to the creation of the Bishops specified, who were to be provided for by subscription. With regard to that part of the Bill which had been omitted in its passage through the other House, and which related to suffragan Bishops, it was a matter of grave consideration whether they ought not to restore it. Hon. Members would recollect a curious Act of Parliament, which he confessed was the only thing which made him have any doubts with respect to Bills of this sort. The Act to which he referred, called the Episcopal Functions Act, provided that under certain circumstances one Bishop might do the work of two dioceses. He did what he could to make Parliament draw the teeth of the Bill on that subject, and the noble Lord below him and himself succeeded in drawing one of the teeth applying to cases of mental incapacity. In all the researches which he had made he did not find that a single word was said on the subject in "another place." If it was true that one Bishop could do the work of two dioceses, it was very difficult to understand what was said in the other direction. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman, when they went into Committee, would see how far the old statute of Henry VIII., providing for the creation of suffragan Bishops, might not be brought into play, so as to save people from coming to Parliament for such Bills as this. He did not see why a Bishop might not have a suffragan to assist him just as one clergyman might avail himself of the aid of another.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he objected to any measure which increased the power of the Church of England. As a Protestant Dissenter, and one of a body who maintained their own ministry by their voluntary contributions, he saw no reason why when the Church wanted anything it should come to Parliament for an Act. He

  1653
  objected to anything which increased the predominance of the Church. He had no objection to Churchmen applying their funds to the support of the Church, but contended that they ought to do so without seeking the aid of Parliament to increase its power, especially when they found that the Bishops were powerless to compel the clergymen to abandon practices which many of them, in common with a large portion of the laity, condemned. He trusted that the Bill would be withdrawn.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. J. A. Smith), of a misappropriation of funds contributed, arising from a defect in the law, was a very grave discouragement. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill in the hope that the larger questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and ecclesiastical law generally might be revised, and that the regulations of the Church of England might be so improved as to prevent the possibility of any misappropriation of funds.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 34: Majority 11.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS BILL.
(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan, Mr. Ayrton.)
INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS BILL.

  [BILL 197.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 negatived.
  MR. KARSLAKEmoved the insertion of a new clause empowering Trustees to invest Trust Funds in any Securities guaranteed by Parliament.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the clause would enable trust investments to be made, not only upon securities now guaranteed, but hereafter to be guaranteed by Parliament, and some of these might possibly not be fit subjects for such investments.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that the guarantee of Parliament really made
  1654
  any security a Parliamentary security. Of course it was the home Parliament which was referred to in the clause, not any colonial legislature. He could not conceive how such a security would be inferior to any of the public stocks or funds. He believed it would be quite safe to agree to the clause. It was not likely that the Imperial guarantee would be given to any loan bearing a high rate of interest. He did not see either that the interests of the remainderman would be injured, or those of the tenant for life unduly promoted.
  Clause agreed to and added to the Bill.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he moved a clause to enable Trustees to invest any Trust fund on the Mortgage of County, City, or Borough Rotes, assessed pursuant to Act of Parliament, in any case where such an investment was not forbidden by the instruments creating the trust. County, City, or Borough Rates levied pursuant to Act of Parliament formed a safe and ample security for the advancement of money, and the purposes for which such rates were raised being of a beneficial character, he thought that every assistance and facility should be afforded to communities to raise money in that way.
  MR. SHERIDANsaid, the Bill, as he had introduced it, was intended to be simply declaratory, and not enacting, and the clause just proposed would travel beyond that intention.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that such securities as these were liable to deterioration. Some corporations had become insolvent, others had assumed a power to raise money on charges or rates, winch power had been held by Courts of Equity to be invalid. It would not therefore, be safe to allow these investments.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he cordially approved of the proposed clause, which would have the effect of lessening the great difficulty frequently felt by trustees in finding good security at good interest for the funds which they wished to invest.
  Clause negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]

TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE) BILL— [BILL 16.]
(Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Grant Duff.)
TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE) BILL— [BILL 16.]

  THIRD READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. Since the second reading the Bill had been considerably altered. Not only had its provisions been extended to Cambridge; but the fact that the Amendments proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had been rejected in Committee left no other course open than to make the Motion he proposed. The present arrangements could not be regarded as inflicting any hardships upon Churchmen, because if they could not subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, or objected to any portion of the Prayer-book, it would be better for them to leave the Church than remain in her communion under false colours. Therefore, he considered the question only so far as it related to Dissenters. When the Bill was first brought in by the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) that hon. Gentleman advocated it as a measure of very limited scope, professing his readiness to consider in Committee the omission even of that important part of it which conferred the Parliamentary vote on Dissenters; but, the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Coleridge) had boldly stated that the principle of his measure was to separate the University from the Colleges, to throw the University open to the nation, and to get rid of the connection between the University, considered apart from the Colleges and the Church of England. It was distinctly avowed that what was wished was to abolish the connection between the University and the Church, and to make the University what was called a national University. The question was not one of education, for Dissenters had the same privilege in that respect as any other Englishmen. It was who was to have the control of those who were receiving their education at the Universities. If every one in England could be educated at the Universities, he did not see how a national character could be given
  1656
  to their government, as they were not maintained by the taxation of the country, and could not, therefore, be under the immediate control of Parliament. Therefore there was no ground for saying that they ought to be national in the sense of being governed by the nation. The Universities were composed almost entirely of Colleges, which were almost universally private foundations. It was only at the Reformation, and since then by the Act of Parliament which followed the Report of the Commissioners, that they were considered in any way as national properly. But whatever the religious teaching of the Colleges had been, the religious teaching of the Universities had been the same. If they abolished these tests they made the University, as a body, declare an indifference to any particular system of religious teaching — destroyed, in fact, the only conditions on which religious teaching could be carried on. The result of this might be that a small minority of Nonconformists might become members of Convocation, and might contend that every other system of religious teaching had as fair a right to be tried in the University as the religious teaching of the Church of England. In America, where dissension had been introduced through somewhat similar means, religious teaching of any kind had in the end been given up altogether. The answer which some hon. Members might perhaps make was that Convocation was not the governing body of the University. But the ecclesiastical patronage was in the hands of Convocation, and Convocation, moreover, had the power of altering the studies of the Universities and appointing the examiners. If Nonconformists became numerous in the Universities they would imperil the Church of England character of the governing body of the University. If they were still to continue very few, it was hardly worth while, for the sake of a few, to make a change which appeared dangerous to so many. The vast majority of the undergraduates would always be members of the Church of England; surely it was worth while to consider the danger to these undergraduates of being led to under-estimate the value of any particular form of religion, and even the alarm that might be produced in many English families, if Church of England teaching were interfered with at the Universities. One important point was the way in which such an alteration would affect the character and

  1657
  standing of the clergy of the Church of England. It was expedient not to diminish the influence of the Church of England by any alteration of the present University system. Whatever hon. Members opposite said of the Church of England as an Establishment, they always testified to the usefulness of her clergy, and would do any thing to extend their usefulness. He believed that as a rule the governing bodies of the Nonconformist Colleges were members of the denomination to which the College belonged. ["No, no!"] If there was an instance to the contrary he was sorry to hear of it; for it was essential that the governing body of an institution which educated the ministers of any denomination should profess the religious principles that were taught there. The society in which he mixed at the Universities was not without its value to the clergyman, who was appreciated by the poor in proportion as be was recognized as a gentleman. None could detect more quickly than the poor whether a clergyman was a gentleman. Interference with the religious character of the governing bodies of the Universities would necessarily lessen their attraction for the clergy. Bishops and rectors complained that they could net find University men for curates. In 1865 only half the deacons ordained in the province of York were Oxford or Cambridge men. The passing of this Bill would make the evil complained of still greater, and would lead to the establishment of Colleges independent of the University as places of instruction for the clergy. It was most desirable that they should feel themselves part and parcel of the Church, on the same footing as the laity. But this separate instruction would lead them to think that, like the Roman Catholic clergy, they were a distinct and separate order. He had so far considered the Universities as places of education, and he did not wish to consider them anything else; he did not believe the country wished to see them like the German Universities turned into arenas of disputation upon every possible subject. Those engaged in teaching ought to devote themselves to it, and ought not to be distracted by speculative inquiries. Philosophical research and practical instruction would not harmonize. There was danger in young and unformed minds grasping at the latest discoveries before they had solved minor mysteries for themselves; and there could be no greater hindrance to the real philosopher than that his mind should be continually brought down
  1658
  from the highest regions of science to the common-place drudgery of instructing ordinary undergraduates. On the grounds that the Bill would tend to make the Universities places for philosophical inquiry rather than places of education, that their educational utility for both laity and clergy would be thereby diminished, that the measure would weaken the connection between the University and the Church, which time had made sacred, which had conferred great benefits on the Universities, and which had endeared them to the country, he opposed the Motion for the third rending.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to draw attention to a statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) that the petitions from Cambridge in reference to the Bill, if not "got up," had been greatly exaggerated in importance. His hon. Friend had since admitted his error to some extent. Though it was at the time when most of the graduates were away from Cambridge, yet it had been signed by the great majority of the resident members. It had been signed by thirteen out of seventeen heads of houses, by between forty and fifty tutors and assistant tutors, by between thirty and forty professors and other office bearers, and by between seventy and eighty resident members. He thought it right to put the House in possession of these facts to show that the hon. Member for Brighton was under an erroneous impression in the statements he had made. As to the objections to the present measure, after what had been so well said by his hon. Friend he would not take up the time of the House. Though, like him, he would say "No" to the third reading, in the present state of the House, he did not think it desirable to go to a division.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  INTESTATES WIDOWS AND CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Bill for the Relief of Widows and issue of Intestates in Scotland where the succession is of small value, ordered to be brought in by Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY and Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY.
  SEWAGE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, Bill for facilitating the distribution of Sewage Matter over land, and otherwise amending the Law relating to Sewer authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
LIBEL BILL— [BILL 215.]
(Sir Colman O'Loghlen, Mr. Baines.)
LIBEL BILL— [BILL 215.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member would not proceed with the Bill, considering how few Members were present.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he saw no reason for postponing the measure. It had been well considered by a Select Committee, and he believed it was approved by the press itself.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he believed the measure would be most injurious to the press, and also to all classes of the community. It had never been properly considered by the House, and the present was not the time to discuss it. He had always exerted himself to develop the press of the country. None had worked harder than he to remove the Paper Duty and other burdens weighing on the press, so that his opposition to the Bill was in no wise owing to an objection to newspapers. He opposed the measure on the ground that it was of the nature of exceptional legislation. Much had been said about the press being the guarantee of the liberty of the country, but as a matter of fact the press was not a guarantee of liberty. It was the servant of the people and not the master, and accordingly, where liberty was found, there the press flourished, and where liberty was not the press was strangled. He believed the great safety of the press lay in its being subjected to the ordinary operation of the law of the land. They might depend upon it that if special legislation were resorted to in favour of the press that would soon be followed by special restrictions laid upon the press.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Nino o'clock, till Thursday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Prorogation of Parliament* (228); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (229); Representation of the People (227).
Committee—Merchant Shipping* (219); Patriotic Fund* (201).
Report—Offices and Oaths* (218); Inclosure (No. 2)* (65).
Third Reading—Transubstantiation, &c. Declaration Abolition (101); Trusts (Scotland)* (195), and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—(No. 227.)—(The Earl of Derby.)

  FIRST READING.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed. (No. 227).
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I propose to fix the second reading for Monday next, and if the debate should terminate and the Bill be read a second time on that day, I should wish to appoint Friday for the Committee. Tour Lordships, I am sure, would desire at this period of the Session that the Bill should be pro-
  1616
  ceeded with without unnecessary delay. If the debate does not terminate on Monday, and if your Lordships are desirous that further time should be given, I shall be prepared to fix the Committee for the following Monday.
  EARL GREY: I think it would be much more convenient if the Committee were fixed at once for Monday week; for I have reason to believe that the debate on the second reading will be by no means so short as the noble Earl seems to suppose. I do not intend to oppose the second reading, nor have I heard that any Member of your Lordships' House intends to do so; but it is my intention before the Bill is read a second time to move a Resolution, the purport of which will be to express the opinion of the House to show that the Bill requires considerable amendment. I cannot now give the precise words of this Resolution, but I have reason to believe that it will meet with considerable support. At all events, I am persuaded that the whole principle of a Bill of such importance ought to be discussed on the second reading, in order that we may be properly prepared to consider its details in Committee. It is necessary, moreover, that there should be some interval between the second reading and the Committee, because, until the opinion of the House has been indicated to a certain extent by the proceedings on the second reading, it is impossible for those who object to some of the provisions of the Bill to decide upon what Amendments they will propose. It is desirable that the House should not be in any uncertainty as to the date of the Committee, and I therefore trust the noble Earl will acquiesce in the propriety of at once fixing Monday week.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I can assure the noble Earl that I have not the slightest desire unduly to hasten the progress of the Bill, and I have already said that if the debate on the second reading should not terminate on Monday, I shall be ready, if it is thought more convenient, to defer the Committee till the following Monday. At present it would not be regular to do more than fix the second reading, but I can assure the noble Earl that I shall be glad to meet the general wish of your Lordships as to the time for taking the next stage.
  Bill ordered to be read 2a on Monday next.

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

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that he had something more to say than "Not-Content" to the third reading. From a sense of duty, he felt bound to call attention to the way in which the reports were given by those who were engaged to do so. Their Lordships would remember several points to which he alluded the last time this Bill was under consideration, not one of which was given in the newspaper reports. There was one point in particular, which referred to the isolated position in which the Sovereign would be placed by the operation of the Bill, which it was material should appear, but which had been altogether omitted. He begged to observe in the outset, that many of their Lordships might believe that the reports of what passed in the House were generally pretty faithfully given by those who were appointed to record them. Nothing could be more fallacious than such an opinion. He had often read and heard, without saying a word to contradict it, that it was very extraordinary that the debates in Parliament were generally so accurately reported. It was said that there was such a diversity of speakers, and the difficulty of unravelling points upon which the speakers themselves were not clear was so great, that the manner in which the task of the reporter was executed was deserving of praise. He was well aware that many of the gentlemen filling the office of editor of newspapers were men of the highest attainments in literature, and admirably discharged the duties of their sphere. But there was a Jesuitical treachery in action in the reporters' gallery, with a view to the falsification of the reports. He had a voice which could be heard in every part of the House; he knew what he said was plain enough, and that he did say that the effect of the Bill would be to create a most invidious and insulting isolation as regarded the Sovereign. Not one single syllable which he said upon that point was given in any newspaper which he read. He would take, by way of example, The Times news-
  1618
  paper, which was supposed to give a faithful report of their proceedings. He know it was a most admirably conducted journal in many respects, but not a syllable of what he had said on the point to which he alluded had been given in The Times. There was another subject also to which he referred—namely, a sermon which had been preached in one of the Roman Catholic chapels in Dublin, in which the audience were desired by the preacher to pray especially to the Virgin Mary, and to no one else, for this reason, that the Virgin Mary had been staunch to her Son in His sufferings upon the cross when His Father deserted Him, as was proved, said the preacher, by His having complained of the desertion. Now that opprobrious blasphemy had been enunciated in Dublin, and he adduced it as a proof of the soundness of the declaration which the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) was anxious to do away with. Not a single word of that was given in The Times newspaper or any other newspaper he had seen. To show how base and how cowardly the proceeding was, he would state that every iota of the legal argument which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the execution of his duty delivered was given seriatim. So the reporters heard every word of that argument, and gave all the points, but not a word of any of the points to which he himself had called attention. Indeed, the reporter wound up with this observation—"The noble Marquess asked what was to become of his Motion?" And then was added, "Laughter," Now there was in "another place" a squad of persons told off to do the laughter, which was to carry weight with the public as an argument, and to put honest men, acting in the discharge of their duty, in a contemptible position. Such was the political animus which was shown in the reports of their Lordships' proceedings. It was almost a reproach to their Lordships that one of their number should have to adduce instances of this foul play, and that their Lordships should not devise some other method of having their debates reported. He had frequently, in former Sessions, mentioned to the Chairman of Committees instances of foul play on the part of those reporters, and his noble Friend's answer was that the reports were, all things considered, wonderfully well given. Well, he (the Marquess of Westmeath) admitted that; but he maintained, nevertheless, that there was a system carried or, by the

  1619
  Jesuits, and by the Ultramontane party, with the view of gaining people over to their faith, the object of which was to give false impressions of facts, incidents, and individuals to the public; and he thought that a person, feeling as he did, was justified in calling attention to the matter. He knew the machinery of Jesuitism; he knew the Ultramontane party, and what they were about; he had always denounced them, and would continue to denounce them. He cared not for their enmity, he despised their praise, and he would continue to do so. He had now proved his charge, and it was for their Lordships to consider whether something should not be done to put an end to the detestable and infernal system which he had brought under their notice.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 5.) BILL—(No. 166.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 5.) BILL—(No. 166.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that this Bill repealed in the Malvern Local Improvement Act of 1858 certain clauses inserted for his protection, without any notice given to himself. Now, he thought that persons whose rights were so affected should have full notice of the manner in which it was proposed to deal with their property. He should probably be told that there was a saving clause at the end of the Provisional Order, but he doubted whether that would be effectual; and he should move the postponement of the Bill for a fortnight, in order that an opportunity might be afforded to owners of the property affected to consider what stops they ought to take.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that this measure passed through the House of Commons as an unopposed Bill; but of course if the noble Earl thought that his rights were injuriously affected, he had a right to present a Petition and be heard by counsel against the Bill.
  LORD REDESDALEsuggested that as the Bill in that case must go before a Select Committee, the best course would be to discharge the Order and leave no day fixed for the consideration of the Bill.
  Order discharged.

CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)—CASE OF SUB-CONSTABLE JENNINGS.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM moved—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid on the Table of this House:

  1. Copy of the Informations taken by the Justices of the Peace for the County of Leitrim against Sub-Constable Richard Jennings, stationed at Garvagh in the Barony of Mohill, for Perjury and for endeavouring to dissuade Hugh M'Castin from giving Evidence on the Trial of one Francis Cannon charged with an indictable Misdemeanor, and by soliciting him to leave the Country until his Trial would be over: Also,

  2. Copy of the Report made to Her Majesty's Government; together with the Minutes of the Evidence given at the Trial of the above-mentioned Francis Cannon at the late Spring Assizes for the County of Leitrim; And also,

  3. Copy of the Opinion of Her Majesty's Law Officers in Ireland upon the above Documents; together with such other Papers as Her Majesty's Government may think proper to lay upon the Table of this House, exhibiting the Reason why Her Majesty's Government do not take further Proceedings against the said Sub-Constable Jennings for the Crimes imputed to him.—(The Lord Clements.)

  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he knew nothing of the facts of the case, but he would have inquiry made into it, and if the Papers could be properly produced, he should be ready to lay them on the table. It was, however, contrary to all practice to produce an Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. He would, if possible, produce all the information without such Opinion.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to simplify the Forms of Prorogation during the Recess of Parliament—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 228.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock to Thursday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.