Sitting of 29 March 1867

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£2,000, Special Rewards to Irish Constabulary Force.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution reported—Canada Railway Loan.*
Ordered—Canada Railway Loan*; Railway Companies (Winding-up) (Ireland).*
First Reading—Hypothec Amendment (Scotland)* [100]; Canada Railway Loan* [99]; Railway Companies (Winding-up) (Ireland)* [101].
Second Reading—Alimony Arrears * [98].
Third Reading—Religious, &c. Buildings (Sites)* [64], and passed.

COUNTY RATES.—QUESTION.
MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Her Majesty's Government, will introduce any measure to enable the Inhabitants of Counties who are rated to the County Rate to be represented at County Financial Boards, and through their representatives to have some control in the making and in the expending of the monies raised by County Rates?
MR. WALPOLEstated, in reply, that he did not intend to introduce any measure to enable the inhabitants of counties who were rated to the county rate to be represented at county financial boards.

ART UNIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill, during the present Session, to place Art Unions under the department of Science and Art, as recommended in the Report of the Select Committee of last Session, of which he was Chairman?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU, in reply, said, he thought his hon. Friend must labour under the pleasing delusion that at the Committee of Council Office they had nothing to do but to sit with their arms folded all day long. If, however, he would bear in mind the various questions connected with the Paris Exhibition, the South Kensington Museum, the Charity Commission, the Cholera, the Cattle Plague, and other subjects with which they had to deal, he would see that they had but little time at their disposal for the preparation of fancy Bills. The first moment
816
he had leisure he should be happy to think about such a measure as that to which his hon. Friend alluded.

RAILWAY DEBENTURES.—QUESTION.
SIR THOMAS LLOYDsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure on the subject of Railway Debentures this Session?
MR. STEPHEN CAVEreplied, that a Select Committee was sitting on the subject of railway debentures, on which the Government was represented, and that it would, perhaps, be premature to say more than that such a measure as the hon. Gentleman referred to was under the consideration of that Committee.

BUST OF THE LATE MR. HUME.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has been able to give effect to the wishes of this House, as expressed last Session in an Address to Her Majesty the Queen, that an appropriate place be found, within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, for the reception of a Bust of the late Joseph Hume, Esq., presented by his widow?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that immediately after Her Majesty's gracious reply to the Address in question had been received, he had made inquiry as to the wishes of those who were naturally most interested about the spot in which the bust should be placed, and he was happy to say, as the result of those inquiries, that it would very shortly be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

STATE OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House, Copies of Despatches from Her Majesty's Consuls in Corfu, Zante, and Cephalonia, containing information on the state of those Islands since the withdrawal of British protection, and their annexation to the Kingdom of Greece?
  LORD STANLEY, in reply, said, he would look into the matter without loss

  817
  of time, and that he had no doubt there would be found to be no objection to the production of those papers.

THE PLANTAGENET STATUES AT FONTEVRAULT.—QUESTION.
MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the statement in the public papers is correct, that Her Majesty the Queen has declined to accept the offer of the Plantagenet Statues from Fontevrault, made by the Emperor of the French, in deference to the expressed feelings of the French people against their removal? He wished further to ask the noble Lord, whether he can, either through Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen or the Ambassador at Paris, convey to the Emperor of the French the earnest wish of many in this country that the effigies of our most illustrious Sovereigns and their consorts should be restored to their proper position in the Abbey of Fontevrault, and no longer be left in their present neglected state in a deserted vault?
LORD STANLEY: When, in answer, Sir, to a Question put to me by the hon. Member, I last gave some information to the House on this subject, I said that the Emperor of the French, with that courtesy which he had invariably shown towards this country, had offered those statues to Her Majesty, and that that offer had been accepted by Her Majesty with gratitude. Since that time the state of the case has altered. Information reached us from various quarters to the effect that the Emperor in his anxiety to meet what he supposed to be the wishes of the people of England—an anxiety for which we owe him a debt of gratitude—had placed himself in a position of some little difficulty. We learnt that legal objections were taken to the removal of those statues, which it was thought could be overcome only by legislative action on the part of the French Chambers. Independent of that consideration, there is no doubt that in the locality where those memorials of antiquity are preserved there arose—however little care might up to the present time have been taken of them—a very strong feeling against their removal. Now, we felt that it could not be the wish of Her Majesty, or the Government, or of this House, or the English public that any misunderstanding should spring up between the Emperor and his own subjects out of a matter in which he acted solely out of a feeling of kindness
818
and courtesy towards this country. We therefore advised Her Majesty—and Her Majesty was graciously pleased to accept the advice—that she should at once release the Emperor from his promise, and that that promise should be looked upon as if it had not been given. A communication to that effect has been conveyed to His Majesty; I have not yet received an answer to that communication; but I assume that the removal of the statues will not now take place, and that the matter may be looked upon as at an end. In reply to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, I may state that in the letter which, by Her Majesty's command, I wrote on the subject, I ventured to express a hope that, as we had waived whatever claim we might be supposed to possess on the French Government as to the removal of those memorials, some means would be taken—seeing that their value seemed now to be known and appreciated in the locality to which they belonged—to preserve them, and that they would not be allowed to remain in the neglected state in which they were now understood to be.

IRELAND—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.—QUESTION.
MR. ESMONDEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in conformity with the precedent of last year, it is intended by Her Majesty's Government to introduce and lay upon the table the Irish Reform Bill before going into Committee upon the Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales?
MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he also would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will inform the House when he intends to introduce the Bill for the further amendment of the Law relating to the Representation of the People in Ireland?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry, Sir, to have to state that it will not be in my power to lay the Irish Reform Bill on the table before we go into Committee on the English Bill. But we shall bring it forward as soon as we can after the Easter recess.

COMPULSORY EDUCATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

  819
  Home Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce any Compulsory Educational Clauses in the Bill for regulating the hours of labour in workshops? He should also be glad to know whether, if such Clauses are to be proposed, they will be laid upon the table of the House before the Easter recess?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that he meant to introduce educational clauses into the Bill; but he thought that the most convenient opportunity for his stating the nature of those clauses would be on the Motion for their going into Committee on the measure.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—COURSE OF PROCEEDING.
  QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, if he should not find it convenient to answer now, I shall repeat on Monday. I wish to know, first, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any alteration in the arrangements or provisions of the Bill for amending the Representation of the People before inviting the House to discuss its Clauses in Committee; and secondly, whether he is willing to lay upon the table of the House the Reports or other Documents from which he quoted on Tuesday the opinions of the late and present Chairmen of the Board of Inland Revenue, with respect to the proposed taxing Franchise?

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

NEW NATIONAL GALLERY.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished to call attention to the competition for the New National Gallery, and to the Papers on the subject which had been laid upon the table of the House, and to move for a Copy of any further Correspondence between the architects and the First Commissioner of Works. He desired, at the outset, to state that the architects themselves were not aware that he intended to bring
  820
  the subject before the House. The history of the proceedings was shortly this. In the month of February, 1866, twelve architects were invited to send in designs for the building, and eleven of them accepted the invitation. Instructions were issued to these gentlemen in reference to the competition, but no date was assigned to those instructions in the papers which had been laid before the House. Further instructions were forwarded to them on the 25th and 29th of June last, and the time for sending in the designs was enlarged from the end of October in the same year to the 1st of January in the present year. In the course of the latter month the noble Lord the present First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) appointed a Committee of Judges to advise him with respect to the plans, and those judges made their Report on the 28th of February last. They recommended that none of the designs should be carried into effect. But, at the same time, they expressed their belief that the design of Mr. Edward Barry for a new Gallery, and that of Mr. Murray for the adaptation of the existing Gallery, exhibited the greatest amount of architectural merit. The judges then pointed out what they considered to be the requirements for a new Gallery. Now, it would naturally occur to the mind of anyone to inquire why judges appointed to consider the designs sent in should give their opinion to the First Commissioner of Works as to the requirements for a new National Gallery. Consequently it would be probable that any inquirer would look at the instructions which were issued, and to these he begged the House to turn for a moment. The first portion of the instructions issued to the architects in June last year merely stated what form the designs were to assume, and it was not until one had gone half way through the instructions that one arrived at the requisites for the Gallery itself. These instructions, issued by the right hon. Gentleman the late First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper), were, he thought, of a very unusual character, and deserved special notice. The only condition laid down with respect to the largest of the galleries was, that it should have a width of fifty feet, while there was no allusion whatever to the amount of wall space which would be required for the pictures. It was a most extraordinary omission. Subsequently, further instructions were issued to the architects, but they merely

  821
  stated that a large number of rooms would be required, such as packing rooms, lumber rooms, and the like; but still, there was not a single word about the wall space or the number of rooms required as galleries. This omission, taken in connection with the difficulties of the site—for the Nelson Column would cut the building to be constructed into two halves—increased tenfold the trouble which the architects must have had in preparing their designs. Here, then, was the explanation of the fact that the judges in their Report had given a list of requirements for the new Gallery. They did so, because the late First Commissioner (Mr. Cowper) had not given them. And it was owing to this fact that the designs were not as satisfactory as they would otherwise have been. The next point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was the conditions under which the architects were to engage in that competition. It was stated in the instructions that each architect was to be paid £200 for his drawings, which were to become the property of Her Majesty's Commissioner of Works. The First Commissioner did not engage himself to adopt any of the designs that might be sent in; but if one of the designs should be adopted the author of it would be employed to carry it into effect, and would be paid the usual commission of 5 per cent on the outlay. That was the only statement of the conditions of the competition contained in the papers presented to the House. But it appeared that there had been, not only written conditions but spoken conditions addressed to the architects. A distinct reference was, as he understood, made to the latter communications in the letter of the competing architects to the noble Lord the present First Commissioner of Works. Those gentlemen there stated that they—
  "Had entered the competition on the distinct understanding with his Lordship's predecessor that one of the competing architects would be selected for employment, and they most respectfully represented to his Lordship that a contrary course would be a breach of faith with them, and would confer a lasting injury upon every one of the competitors."
  The right hon. Gentleman the late First Commissioner of Works seemed to share the opinion of the architects; because on the 15th of February he had forwarded a letter to Mr. Austin, the Secretary to the Commissioner of Works, in which he stated that—
  822
  "A rumour had reached him that the judges who had been appointed were not disposed to perform the duty expected of them by deciding which of the competing designs was the best; and he believed such a course would be considered unfair towards the competitors, and would establish a precedent injurious to the success of future competitions for public buildings."
  The right hon. Gentleman proceeded further to state that—
  "The expectation held out to the architects to induce them to compete had always been that an impartial decision would be made and published between the competing designs, and that the successful competitor would be engaged as the architect of the building, even though the identical design was not adopted."
  The very nature of the competition naturally led to the same conclusion. It was a limited competition; and that circumstance of itself afforded a primâ facie presumption that the author of the best design was to be selected as the architect of the building. As there were two sets of conditions, one printed and published, and the other spoken, it was utterly impossible for the noble Lord the present First Commissioner of Works to know, when he entered office, what the conditions really were, and therefore the noble Lord and the architects were placed in an awkward position. He had pointed out why the judges had stated in their Report what they considered would be the true requirements of the National Gallery. Now, had the late First Commissioner only proceeded on the plan he himself had adopted in the competition for the new Law Courts, these difficulties would never have occurred. There, both instructions and conditions were precise and accurate; here they were very much the reverse. It was owing to this that the want of success of the architects in the present instance must be attributed, and not to any real difference in their professional capacity. That being the case, the course the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) ought to pursue was plain and simple. He ought to consult the Trustees of the National Gallery and its director, Mr. Boxall—an artist of the highest reputation—as to the requirements. He should thereupon draw up a clear, definite, and accurate code of instructions, and request Mr. Barry, or Mr. Barry and Mr. Murray, to prepare from these instructions fresh plans and designs, which should then be submitted to the judges for their approval. There would thus be still a fair probability of obtaining a suitable building—one which might be a cre-

  823
  dit to the Government and an ornament to the metropolis. And, at the same time, public faith would be kept with the architect—
  "The public faith which ev'ry one
  Is bound to observe, yet kept by none,"
  as Hudibras says—the public faith which could not be broken without casting a slur on the House of Commons. He begged to move for any further Correspondence on the subject that could be produced.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, a Copy of any further Correspondence between the Architects and the First Commissioner of Works relative to the competition for the New National Gallery,"—(Mr. Goldsmid,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that his grief, though not less profound, was much wider in its scope than that of his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He was grieved for the architects, for the judges, for the trustees of the National Gallery, and, above all, for the public, who were the real sufferers on the occasion. The public had been scandalized and astonished at the awkwardness, weakness, vacillation, and unbusiness-like manner with which this question of the National Gallery had been treated. He gave the fullest credit to the right hon. Gentleman the late Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper) for what he did whilst in office as regards the parks; but he was, at the same time, prepared to criticize in no light manner the way in which that right hon. Gentleman had dealt with this unfortunate Gallery. His right hon. Friend was entirely responsible for the patchwork, the incertitude, the useless and mischievous procrastinations which attended the efforts of the late Government to build a gallery to hold the national paintings. The lame, unbusinesslike mode of proceeding had caused the dissatisfaction of the architects, of which his hon. Friend complained with so much justice. The origin and foundation of the whole misfortune dated from the time when the right hon. Gentleman asked Parliament for £16,000 to patch up the existing National Gallery. His right hon. Friend was perfectly inexcusable on that
  824
  occasion. He must have known perfectly well that even after the old building was thoroughly patched up, it could not contain the half of the pictures which were down at Kensington, and which Parliament had decided should not remain there. He must have known that a Committee of the House of Commons had reported that the drawings of the Old Masters which were in the British Museum should be placed alongside of the pictures of the Great Masters in the National Gallery; and that even after the patching had been finished, a vast number of fine pictures would still have to be hung so high as to be invisible. He must have known that, apart from these things, the rate at which pictures were annually increasing would soon make it a hopeless task to accommodate them in the present building. Forgetful, however, of all such considerations, his right hon. Friend came down to the House and proposed that £16,000 should be spent—or rather thrown into the fire. He blamed his right hon. Friend for this procedure, inasmuch as it was fraught with mischief and opposed by every non-official person who took an interest in these subjects. The mischief done was not merely the loss of the money. When the House of Commons agreed to the expenditure of large sums, and when it saw nothing but miserable and inadequate fruits of that expenditure, it naturally became suspicious, and unwilling for the future to spend the public money upon such undertakings. He must acknowledge as a rule the House was not unwilling to spend money either in the purchase of works of art and science, or for the proper housing of such collections; but it required that the plans submitted to it should be complete and explicit. He came now to the second stage of the subject. The House, after careful and minute deliberation, expressed its deliberate opinion that the National Gallery should be in Trafalgar Square; and ten different architects were requested to prepare plans. But what did his right hon. Friend the late Commissioner do? Did he give these architects any regular instructions as to the accommodation that would be wanted in the new building, or the requirements which were absolutely necessary? Nothing of the kind. He merely gave them some general hints with respect to the proper hanging of the pictures, and other self-evident propositions. Where he was really careful in his instructions was

  825
  in the matter of dust-bins, closets for brooms, retiring rooms, and lavatories—into these topics he threw himself with great strength and animation. Had the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the Trustees of the National Gallery, they would have informed him of the real requisites for such a building; and he in his turn would have been able to have communicated to the architects specific details of what was wanted. The Trustees would have told him that a hall was required for the Cartoons of Raphael, which they hoped would come there eventually; that rooms for the exhibition of the drawings in the British Museum would be wanted; that small rooms for cabinet pictures, and a gallery for works on loan would be required. Besides this, the national portraits, and an art library would have a claim; and yet not one of these things was mentioned to the architects, who were consequently left entirely in the dark. The consequence might be imagined. When people worked in the dark, their work was necessarily incomplete, and did not do them that credit which under happier auspices their talents must command. Everybody had remarked the superiority of the plans of the new Courts of Justice over those of the new National Gallery; and this merely arose from the architects having proper instructions and details as to the requirements of the building placed before them. Had that been done in the case of the National Gallery, they would not have had wild schemes for taking in the antiquities of the British Museum, and other such nonsense laid before them. This was not the only just complaint which the architects might put forward. They were told by the right hon. Gentleman in words that one of them should be chosen to build the new Gallery, whereas the only document in the Office of Works went precisely to the contrary effect—namely, that there was no engagement to employ either them or their designs. He trusted that the present noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works would not lose an hour in getting the matter satisfactorily settled. The whole matter was now in his own hands; and he should propose a definite scheme which the House should abide by. He would recommend to the noble Lord to commence de novo, and to have a completely new building. It was impossible to do anything with the present structure. Above all, let them lose no more time;
  826
  but let them look forward to some reasonable and definite period when they would have a National Gallery worthy of the nation. At the present moment it was a discredit to the country. There was no difficulty in the House of Commons; the difficulty lay elsewhere. He was perfectly convinced that if the noble Lord would take the matter resolutely in hand he would succeed, and would deserve the thanks of every one for having at last settled this vexed question.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend who had just sat down, that a lamentable amount of vacillation and change of purpose had been shown in connection with the question of the National Gallery; but he entirely dissented from the view that this had been occasioned by any act of the Executive Covernment. Any one who remembered the various proceedings in this matter would agree that the vacillation and delay had, on the contrary, arisen from the question having been taken out of the hands of the Government. Committees of the House had made contradictory recommendations, and Members interested in the subject had combined against each successive proposal, and the Executive Government had not been allowed to dispose of the question. His hon. Friend among others had assisted in this result by his Motions with reference to the removal of our works of art to the West End of London. [Mr. GREGORY: I never made a Motion in my life upon the matter.] If his hon. Friend had not himself made Motions he had at least made effective speeches upon the Motions of other people. His hon. Friend had traced the commencement of the present misfortunes to the sum of £16,000 which some seven years ago he (Mr. Cowper) had proposed to expend upon the National Gallery. He must remind his hon. Friend that the expenditure of that sum in the formation of a central gallery, which at the present day remained the only really good portion of the building, had probably saved to the country the bequest of Mr. Turner. According to the terms of that bequest, the Courts of Law held that the pictures were given to the Crown on condition that they should be collected together in one gallery, and if this room had not been added, the exhibition of the Turner pictures could only have been obtained by the removal of other works which ought to be shown to the public. His hon. Friend said, that the time at which

  827
  that vote was granted was the time when the Government should have come forward with a Motion for the settlement of this question. But if an attempt had been made to solve the question, then it would not have been solved as now. The feeling of the House was not then ripe for arriving at a decision. Government proposed what certainly would have been an excellent arrangement—that a picture gallery should be erected on the site of Burlington House—but this was not agreed to. The proposal the Government then made was free from the grand difficulty that had spoilt the recent designs, that of designing a building of great beauty and dignity, fit to adorn Trafalgar Square, and worthy of the architectural taste and skill of the present generation, and also specially adapted for the exhibition of pictures. It would be difficult to design a building of sufficient elevation to prevent its being crushed by the Nelson monument and the spire of St. Martin's Church, and yet without any rooms over the galleries, which must be lit through the roof. These opposite conditions could not be combined without difficulty. If the architects were to consider only what was suitable for the exhibition of pictures, they would conclude that a low building would be the best. Picture galleries were properly lighted through the roof, and not by side windows, the light through the ceiling being diffused more equally, and falling upon the pictures without producing glitter or reflection. Lighting from the roof was, moreover, advantageous in allowing the whole of the walls to be utilized for hanging the pictures, which could not be done where there were side windows. A low building, then, would be best for the purposes of the pictures; but it would lack that dignity and impressiveness which proceeded from lofty architectural proportions. Another problem requiring solution was so to arrange the interior that it would be well adapted for the reception of the crowds of holyday makers who flocked there at particular periods of the year, and who should be allowed to circulate freely through the building, and also for producing the repose and concentration of mind required for the study of art. Another problem was which was the best form of gallery, and this had not yet been decided. Still another was the best mode of appropriating a very irregular piece of ground. It was necessary to purchase the ground immediately behind the Na-
  828
  tional Gallery from the parochial authorities. But this space was of a most irregular character, one of the sides being 230 feet in length and another only 170. The ground acquired by purchase was one-and-a-half acres which, taken in conjunction with one acre covered by the present building, would be amply sufficient for any building at present required to be erected, but the collection might so increase that it might be hereafter necessary to enlarge the building. Should such be the case they could acquire one-and-a-half acres more from the barrack-yard at the back, provided they found another and a suitable site for the one taken. The late Government thought the best way of solving the problem was to invite a limited number of architects carefully to consider the best way of overcoming all these difficulties and of obtaining the best building. Some gentlemen thought it would be better to throw the competition open to all the world, and that those competing should not receive remuneration. But from that view he entirely dissented. He thought the best men and the most experienced and skilled would not be likely to give their time and study to this question had they not been provided with the means to cover the expenses of their design. That view was fortified by the fact that out of the twelve architects who accepted the invitation, two had not sent in designs. This probably arose from pressure of business and unwillingness to undertake labour without remuneration. There had been no want of definiteness in the instructions, so far as the necessary conditions were concerned. With regard to the Courts of Justice, the number of courts and the number of rooms that would be required had been previously determined. But in the case of the National Gallery the number of rooms was not settled, and the size of the rooms and the mode of lighting the galleries were left to the discretion of the competing architects, except that the galleries were not to be less than fifty feet in width. They were told that the space on the map given to them was to be covered, and they were to make their arrangements accordingly. He thought that if the architects had been limited to a definite number of rooms, and the size of them, they would have had cause of complaint on the ground of being unnecessarily restricted. The collection of drawings at the British Museum, and the cartoons at Hampton Court, might some day

  829
  be added to the National Gallery. It was not known whether all the pictures vested in the trustees would be exhibited in the National Gallery. He thought that those pictures of the modern masters which were of acknowledged merit, and were of historical interest as illustrating the progress of art, should be selected and placed apart to represent the British school. But modern pictures of inferior merit ought not to be exhibited with the ancient masters. The competing architects could not have been informed what number of pictures would be exhibited in the Gallery. He could not agree in the opinion which had been expressed that this competition had not been of great use. He thought that materials had been collected which would pave the way to an ultimate decision, and he hoped the time had arrived when this delay and vacillation would come to a close. He felt confident that the solution of the question had been greatly assisted, and not retarded, by the course adopted last year, and he thought it would be competent to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works to propose a measure which would meet with the general approbation of the House.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the architects had come forward as feeling themselves ill-used by the judges and by the Office of Works, because not one of them had been selected by the judges for the performance of the work. As himself one of the Committee of Advice named by the First Commissioner, commonly called the judges, he traversed the assertion. The architects, indeed, contended that some pledge had been given them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford, at that time First Commissioner of Works, without which they would not have engaged in the competition. But the noble Lord the present First Commissioner of Works had not only found no such pledge among the records of his office, but he had found documentary proof that the contrary was the fact. The judges at the outset determined not to proceed without further instructions given to themselves in writing. They had before them the instructions given to the architects, which they certainly found to be very vague. In the first place, the architects were told that they would have to combine the "requirements of a picture gallery with proper architectural effects," a very proper condition, but one which architects worthy of the name would have forseen for
  830
  themselves. Then, the paper was filled with a variety of details about closets, the keeper's lodging, until the galleries themselves were summed up in a few meaningless generalities. Moreover, all the competitors were misled with the virtual promise of obtaining the site of the barracks, which as now appeared was highly improbable. Finally, they were told that the First Commissioner "would not engage himself to adopt any of the designs sent in," "but if any of the designs be adopted," the instructions ran, the designer of the selected plan would be employed "to carry it into effect." The House would clearly see that the whole matter turned on an "if" and on an "it." Having considered the instructions framed for the architects, the Committee were, as he said, at a loss what to do, and consulted the First Commissioner of Works, who concluded his reply as follows:—
  "Adverting to the last paragraph of the instructions to architects, the judges will be at liberty, should they think fit, to refrain from recommending any one of the competing designs for adoption by the Government."
  The Committee proceeded to act upon this, and, although they found in the designs, as they specifically stated in their Report, much merit, it was apparent that those difficulties and the incompleteness of the instructions were too much for the competitors, and that they had, accordingly, broken down. The Committee reporting accordingly, said—
  "While we readily acknowledge the architectural skill shown by the competitors, and the meritorious manner in which many of the difficulties of these requirements have been met, we are bound to say, after full and mature deliberation, that we are not prepared to recommend any one individual design for adoption by your Lordship."
  The only blame conveyed by that sentence was that the architects had not shown themselves superior to an impossibility; they had not succeeded in making their bricks without straw. The Committee concluded their Report on the designs by naming two gentlemen, one of whom, Mr. Edward Barry, had produced the best design for a new gallery, and the other, Mr. Murray, the best adaptation of the existing gallery. That, he contended, was all that could be expected of the Committee, since they were not an incorporated body of judges, armed with the powers conferred by an Act of Parliament, as were the five gentlemen appointed to report on the designs for the Law Courts. The

  831
  responsibility of a final decision rested on the shoulders of the First Commissioner of Works, whom the Special Committee had been simply appointed to advise. No one it was clear could blame him if he called in one of those two gentlemen. Upon the possible decision of the Commissioners somehow oozing out, dissatisfaction was expressed by the architects, who met together and communicated with the late Commissioner of Works (Mr. Cowper), thereupon he wrote to Mr. Austin, the Secretary of the Board of Works, saying—
  "A rumour has reached me that the judges appointed are not disposed to perform the duty expected of them by deciding which of the competing designs is the best."
  That was evidently written under a misapprehension as to what the duty of the Commissioners was. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded in his letter to say—
  "The expectation held out to architects to induce them to compete has always been that an impartial decision would be made and published between the competing designs, and that the successful competitor would be engaged as the architect of the building, even though the identical design was not adopted."
  The instructions to the architects, however, made no such announcement. On the contrary, the House would observe the peculiar inconsistency which exists between these statements, and the instructions on which they profess to be based. These instructions saved the First Commissioner from the obligation of adopting any of the "designs;" but if he did so, the author was to be employed to carry "it"—namely, that design—not some other one by the same architect—into effect. Now, the right hon. Gentleman repudiated the adoption of the "identical design," and only urged the employment of its author. This was the wiser idea; but it was distinctly not the idea of 1866. The right hon. Gentleman concluded as follows:—
  "But, whatever the First Commissioner may ultimately determine as to the selection of the architect of the National Gallery, I think he ought at once to explain to the judges, if he should not have already done so, that it is their duty to declare the winner of the race even though they may form a low opinion of the running; and that they would inflict a heavy and undeserved professional stigma upon these architects, if they were to declare themselves unable to make an award."
  Now, he did not pretend to be as horsey as his right hon. Friend, still he could not
  832
  subscribe to this declaration, inasmuch as the adoption of the course he recommended would have led to passing on the competitors a most undeserved professional stigma. The Committee had dealt more generously with the architects. The right hon. Gentleman wanted the judges to declare that the running had been excessively bad, but that they were yet bound to declare the winner; the judges, however, declared that the running had been altogether creditable, but that, as the Jockey Club, represented by the late Commissioner of Works, had drawn up such an impossible set of conditions, the judges were bound to decide that the race was null and void. He noticed that the architects who memorialized the First Commissioner of Works on the subject had made use of one adjective which was a little too strong. They said in their final letter—
  "We agreed to enter the competition on the distinct understanding with your Lordship's predecessor, the right hon. W. Cowper, that one of the competing architects would be selected for employment; and we most respectfully represent to your Lordship that a contrary course would be a breach of faith with us, and would confer a lasting injury upon every one of the competitors."
  While not at all demurring to the general tone of this remonstrance from the architects' point of view, he must say that, from all the facts of the case, he was bound to conclude that there was nothing "distinct" about the arrangement at all; everything was left in an hypothetical condition; everything was in haze and confusion; but he hoped that the architects would not be damaged by this slight over-statement. The fact was the judges found entanglement, contradictions, and delusive expectations from the beginning to the end of the case, and they made the best Report in their power, leaving the ultimate decision to the First Commissioner, as their duty required of them. He hoped that the Minister would profit by the experience of the past in regard to that matter; that the instructions issued with reference to it to the fortunate man should be clear and precise; and that the bargain made with the architect, both financially and artistically, should be definite and intelligible. Finally, there must be no tinkering; no patching up of the present building. Not only was it bad as a whole, not only since the ill-starred destruction of the central hall was it totally wanting in internal dignity; but the general arrangement, which created a false

  833
  ground floor up steps upon the real second story was singularly inconvenient. It must come down, and a new gallery rise, and then they might hope to have a, building in which their pictures would be housed well, and which would also be an ornament to the metropolis, and an honour to the nation.
  MR. TITEsaid, that as one of those who had been called in to act as judges in respect to these designs he wished to make a few remarks. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the competition invited by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper) was intended to be a competition which should end in the selection for employment of one of the architects taking part in it. It was true £200 a piece was paid to the architects, and it was a condition that the drawings of all kinds should be the property of the Government. But it could not be supposed that men of such professional standing entered into that competition merely to obtain a paltry sum of £200, which would hardly pay for the paper and the framing and glazing of their drawings. It certainly would not remunerate them for their office expenses. No doubt it was fully meant that the most successful man should get the prize. Notwithstanding what had unfortunately occurred, there was no reason why that could not be carried out now. The judges reported that the design of Mr. Barry was the best for a new National Gallery, and that of Mr. Murray for the alteration of the existing one. He did not quite agree with the latter view, being in a minority with his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke on that point, and he hoped the Government, to whom the matter was now relegated, would take the matter anew into consideration. The question with respect to the Royal Academy was in course of solution by the happy suggestion of Sir Francis Grant and the adoption of Burlington House, and the result as to that would, he trusted, be satisfactory to the country. But the question in reference to the National Gallery had been pending for many years, and it was now high time that something decisive should be done. He hoped the Government would really take the matter into their serious consideration. It was idle attempting to patch up the old building or trying to turn it into anything that would be creditable to the nation. Any attempt of the kind would neither be wise nor economical. Let them take down the
  834
  present Gallery, and erect a new one which would be an honour to the country. The proper course for the Government to pursue, he (Mr. Tite) would venture to propose, would be to take into their counsels the Council of the National Gallery, the President of the Royal Academy, and architect who were competent to advise them. But if the discussions of late years were to be continued, none of them would live to see anything whatever done in this matter. The drawings sent in by the competing architects were drawings of eminent beauty and excellent as works of high art; but he could not, under the circumstances, do otherwise than join with those who did not think them fitted for a National Gallery. If what he and his associates had suggested were well carried out, they would have a good gallery, creditable to the nation. There might be difficulties experienced in building a new gallery in consequence of the great irregularity of the site; but the difficulties would disappear in the hands of a competent architect with the guidance he would obtain in the way suggested.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that as a Member of the Committee which sat on these designs, he had no complaint to make of the tone of the present discussion. No criticism had been passed on the decision of the Committee, which was supposed on the whole to have decided pretty rationally and well, according to its lights and to the instructions it received. But though he was a Member of the Committee which sat upon those designs he was likewise a Member of the House of Commons, and could not refrain from remarking that his hon. Friend had implied that there would be 4 breach of faith on the part of some one unless one of those professional gentlemen was employed. He looked back at the printed instructions issued to the architects, and it appeared quite clear to him that there was no understanding come to with them that any one of them should be employed. They were asked whether they were prepared to send in designs according to the instructions, and those instructions stated that the First Commissioner of Works did not engage to adopt any of the designs which might be sent in, but that if any one of them was adopted, the author of it would be employed. [Mr. GOLDSMID said, he referred to a letter that was afterwards written.] That letter came a year later, or in 1867 instead of in

  835
  1866, and when the architects received the instructions, saying that the First Commissioner of Works would not hold himself bound to adopt any of the designs, they ought to have taken objection then, and not afterwards. There was no ground, therefore, for alleging that there had been a breach of faith towards them on the part of the Government. With regard to the general question, he much regretted the position in which it stood. Where the blame lay it was not for him to say. Sometimes one heard that it was due to the House of Commons, and at other times to the Executive, but he was disposed to think it rested with both. The erection of a new gallery at Burlington House would have been the best solution of the question. The position, however, in which the matter now stood was this:—it had been determined the pictures should remain in Trafalgar Square. They had a gallery which he might almostsay was discreditable to the nation, and every one felt that it ought to be removed and a proper building erected. If he were in his noble Friend's (Lord John Manners) place, he should be inclined to ask those two gentlemen who had been recommended by the Committee as having shown the most talent and produced the best designs, whether they were willing to try their hands again, and send in designs both for the adaptation of the old and the erection of a new building. He did not think that it would be wise to decide on sweeping away that which we had and to incur a larger expenditure, unless we saw the designs of the new building in black and white. He would therefore suggest that the architects should be invited to send in alternative designs, the one relating to the adaptation of that which was already in existence, the other to the erection of a new building. If it were found that anyone of the designs for a new building was such as to justify a larger outlay for that purpose, by all means let it be adopted; but if not, perhaps it would be better to take up some minor scheme.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he could not imagine that any public officer could be held to have pledged the country to incur a great expense before he had seen the plans and designs which the architects were about to send in—while they were yet in nubibus. That would virtually be buying "a pig in a poke"—a course which that House would, he felt sure, never approve. There was no doubt that some of
  836
  the designs which had already been sent in possessed considerable merit; but there was not one of them which he should like to see adopted for a National Gallery. This idea of a National Gallery was that the style of architecture should be chaste and plain, and that the proportions should be good, without any attempt being made at the picturesque. The chief faults of these designs were, that there was not among them a good sound general design for such a building. Some of them contained reproductions of particular parts of cathedrals and castles of different character, and there was observable a remarkable profusion of ornament. A building which was overloaded with ornament was spoiled. Such was the fault of the new Foreign Office. What a building ought to show was perfect proportion of all the parts, and adaptation to the purposes for which it was intended. There was a palace erected at Vicenza, by Palladio, with his usual pure taste, to which another architect had subsequently added a great many ornaments; but it was admitted by every one who was competent to judge of such matters, that the original beauty of the building was, as a consequence, greatly impaired. It should also be borne in mind that extensive ornamentation involved enormous expense, and he trusted no such false principle would be adopted in the new designs for a National Gallery. He might point to the Banqueting House at Whitehall as a building the outlines of which were of great beauty, although it was somewhat overlaid with ornament, and he should suggest that that simplicity of style afforded the best model for imitation.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he wished to explain that the only object which he had in view in inviting tenders from the twelve architects in question was to ascertain which of them was possessed of the greatest skill for erecting such a building as was required. In the conversation which had incidentally taken place between him and one of those architects, he had stated it to be his intention to engage the services of whoever might turn out to be the most successful. He did not deem it necessary to make a formal memorandum of that conversation for the office, nor had he been asked by any of the architects to put it into a formal shape.
  CAPTAIN GRIDLEYsaid, he thought the difficulty which had arisen might be solved if the noble Lord (Lord John Man-

  837
  ners) would return the whole of their present plans and specifications to the competing architects. He might then give them an opportunity of preparing others in an amended form, from which the plan most satisfactory might be selected. He thought the Government would not be dealing fairly with the other architects if they did not give them all an opportunity of remodelling their plans. This would be the fairest arrangement, and he hoped the noble Lord would take it into his consideration. He was sure the House would not grudge the necessary expense.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that although it was true that in the multitude of counsellors there was safety, if he were called upon to come to an immediate decision he should feel rather bewildered with the various suggestions which had been made in the course of the discussion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down recommended that all the competing architects should be invited to re-model their plans, try again, and, as a consequence, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should provide a sum of money to remunerate them for their trouble. Other hon. Gentlemen had been good enough to make other suggestions of quite another character. Therefore, whatever course he might ultimately adopt, it must fail to give satisfaction to some. He wished to express the obligations he felt towards the Gentlemen who had been kind enough to accept the office of judges. They had rendered the public a great service, at no little inconvenience and annoyance to themselves. Not only had they come to a right decision, but their judgment was ratified by public opinion and by the opinion of the House, as elicited during the discussion. The recommendations inserted in their Report were extremely valuable, and they would tend to render the building which might ultimately be erected far more satisfactory than it would have been without them. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory), he could not concur with his hon. Friend in thinking that there was any immediate pressure. The ground on which the gallery was to be erected, was not yet in the possession of the Government. The Bill enabling them to acquire that ground now stood for second reading; but, in all probability, a year and a half more must elapse before the ground itself would be in the possession of the Government; therefore, there
  838
  was no such immediate hurry in the matter. The discussion which had just taken place showed how very various were still the views of those most competent to express an opinion on the subject. It would be a very rash proceeding on his part if', at the close of such a discussion, he was to jump up and state what he intended to do—that he would recommend the Government to take this or that particular course. One thing which had been suggested had occurred to him before, and he intended to act in accordance with it. It had been proposed that the Trustees of the National Gallery should be consulted more than they had been as to the practical requirements of the building. He intended to put himself in communication with the trustees; and when they should have informed him on those practical requirements, the Government would be in a better position to judge of the whole question. He hoped that, with the assistance already received from the judges' Report, and the further assistance which they would receive from the Trustees of the National Gallery, the Government would be in a position before long to recommend the adoption of some sensible and practical course on the subject. With respect to the very complicated and unsatisfactory position of the competing architects, he thought he should best discharge his duty by saying nothing on that point. The judges who had spoken had expressed very plainly their view of the duties imposed on them; and he did not find that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) very much differed from the opinions which those judges had expressed on that matter. After what had occurred he did not think it necessary to rake up the past, or to re-open healed-up sores. He had every confidence that the course which the Government might take would not lead to heartburnings in the future. He hoped that the building which would be erected after so much consideration would be worthy its purpose and meet with the approval of the country.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE JEWS IN SERVIA.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that he wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), whether the communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Servia afforded any hope of an improved treatment by the

  839
  latter of its Jewish subjects? He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) regretted that he had not received the information on which his Question was founded before the late debate on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory.) He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) hoped, however, that for two reasons he should be considered justified in bringing this matter forward. In the first place, everything had now an interest which bore upon the relations of the Turkish Government with its non-Mahomedan subjects. In the second place, although as a general rule he was opposed to discussions in that House on the internal affairs of Foreign States, yet this was not a case in which an expression of opinion by the Government of England or by Members of Parliament could be considered, either in the English or French sense of the word, as officious. By the Treaty of Paris the independence of Servia, subject to the suzerainty of the Porte, was guaranteed by England in common with other Powers; and therefore they had a right to expect that the conditions upon which that guarantee had been given should be observed. The 28th Article of the Treaty was in these terms—
  "The Principality of Servia shall continue to hold of the Sublime Porte in conformity with the Imperial hatts which fix and determine its rights and immunities, placed henceforward under the collective guarantee of the contracting Powers. In consequence the said Principality shall preserve its independent and national administration, as well as full liberty of worship, of legislation, of commerce, and of navigation."
  The House would observe that liberty of worship in the Principality was here expressly stipulated for. But the Greek Christians of Servia appeared to understand by this, liberty of worship for the majority; while the Jews, who were a minority, were now subjected to vexatious restrictions, not only as regarded worship, but also in respect to their mode of living and the occupations which they carried on. Jews had been settled in Servia since the 15th century, when they had been expelled from Spain. During the Government of the Turks they seemed to have been subject to no special hardship, nor whilst Servia was passing from the complete dominion of the Turks to that modified independence which she had now attained. For more than twenty years after 1815 Prince Milosch bore a principal part in the government of Servia. He did not, indeed, appear to have been wholly free from the taint of semi-barbarism; but, at
  840
  the same time, he was firmly impressed with notions of religious freedom, and during his time the Jews had little cause to complain. In 1842 another dynasty was substituted, and shortly afterwards there was published a decree which was extremely hostile to the Jews. In March, 1856, the Treaty of Paris, containing the stipulation already referred to, was concluded. Yet in October of the same year a decree passed the Servian Senate confirming the previous proscription against the Jews. In September, 1859, Prince Milosch was restored, and he issued an edict declaring that no inhabitant of Servia, whatever his nationality or religion, should be prevented from settling where he pleased, or from devoting himself to commerce or any profession he might choose. In 1861, however, after the death of Prince Milosch, a change took place, and a law was enacted permitting Jewish subjects, who had settled in the interior, to continue to carry on their businesses in the localities where they were domiciled, but prohibiting them from entering into new undertakings. It also prohibited their children from succeeding to their fathers' occupations, and forbade the entrance of new Jewish settlers. Its terms were—
  "Art. 1. All Jewish subjects of Servia, who in virtue of the law of September 1859 have settled in the interior of the country, or who may settle there between this day and the 28th of February, 1861 (the date fixed for the coming into force of the law which forbids any further accession to the number of Jews inhabiting the interior), and who have established, or who may establish, a trading business there, are allowed to continue their residence and their business, but only in the localities in which they are domiciled. Art. 2. Israelites inhabiting Servia, who up to the present time have been engaged in retail trade only, who have not been manufacturers, and who have not sold articles of food, shall not in future be allowed to commence either of the two last-mentioned businesses within any part of the Servian territory. Art. 3. The right of sojourning in Servia, and of carrying on trade in the country, shall be enjoyed exclusively by such Israelites as shall be settled in the country previous to the 28th of February, 1861; they only are allowed to carry on business, or to exercise a profession. This right is not transmissible to their heirs."
  The 4th Article related to the liberty of trade, and it forbade the Jews to trade in houses or lands in the interior, without special authorization, under penalty of the application of the law of the 30th of October, 1856. Some hon. Members had, in conversation with him, expressed a doubt whether such a law as he had just read could really have been passed; but he

  841
  could assure them that it was not only genuine, but was being enforced with increasing rather than with relaxed rigour. If these things were to be ascribed to religious bigotry, they might call to mind the language which the great Spanish novelist put into the mouth of Sancho Panza. "I am an honest man," says Sancho, "and a Christian whose fathers were Christians before him. I hate Jews mortally. What more is necessary in order to deserve eternal happiness?" He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) was certain, however, that he might venture to inform the Servians that Sancho's doctrine was not that of Western Europe in the latter half of the 19th century. But further, he was assured, and he believed the Government had received similar assurances, that to ascribe the treatment of the Servian Jews to religious bigotry would be to give the Servians greater credit than they deserved. Their conduct really originated in a jealousy of Jewish traders, who either from being more clever in business, or from being contented with smaller profits than their competitors, were able to supply the Servian peasants with the necessaries they required on cheaper terms than their rivals. It was thus self-interest which was clothing itself in the garb of religious zeal—a kind of hypocrisy more contemptible than bigotry, if it could not be more mischievous. Great distress had been suffered by a number of Jews through the bombardment of Belgrade, their houses being situated almost under the guns of the fortress; and though the Servian Government might not be responsible for that bombardment, it was their oppressive measures which had obliged a large number of Jews to reside in that quarter of the town, and by interfering with their means of livelihood had reduced them to destitution. The exhibition of such intolerance ought to be well considered by those who wished this country to forego its old Eastern policy. The testimony of the hon. Members for Southwark and Bridgwater (Mr. Layard and Mr. Kinglake), of Viscount Strangford (a nobleman who it was to be regretted did not oftener give to the House of Lords and the country the benefit of his intimate knowledge of the East), and of other gentlemen best acquainted with Turkey, went to show that while our own notions of toleration nowhere existed in that country, the Mahomedans were much less inclined to oppress the Christians and Jews than the Greek Christians were to oppress all who differed from them, whether Protestants or Roman
  842
  Catholics, Jews or Mahomedans. Persecution would not be diminished by giving independence to the Christians; but its direction would simply be changed, and its virulence and intensity probably increased. Those semi-barbarians, reversing the maxim of the Roman poet, had learnt from the oppression which they had endured no other lesson than this, how best to avail themselves of the first opportunity of inflicting similar oppression upon others. He hoped the Servians would be made to understand that they would receive no further sympathy from England unless they conceded to others the rights which they were ready enough to claim for themselves. He acknowledged with gratitude the friendly remonstrances which had been offered by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and by his predecessors in office. He did not call upon the Government to take any action in this question beyond persevering in that course; but he hoped that the discussion of the subject in the British House of Commons would have a moral effect. He expressed a confident hope that the noble Lord would be found ready to offer again words of friendly, though earnest, remonstrance on behalf of the unfortunate class whose case he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had brought to the attention of the House.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Correspondence between Her Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Her Consul General in Servia, respecting the condition and treatment of the Jews of that Principality,"—(Sir Francis Goldsmid,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, the hon. Baronet might be certain of the sympathy of the House in the matter he had brought under its notice. Having taken some interest in the country to which the statement referred, he (Mr. Darby Griffith) should be the last to excuse any such persecution as that described. Interested as the hon. Baronet was in this subject, if he had remained up to a recent period ignorant of the facts, others might be excused for not being acquainted with them. Certainly he was taken very much by surprise. He should have hoped that those who had suffered persecution as the

  843
  Servians had would have learnt a lesson of mercy; but the perversity of human nature taught exactly the opposite lesson. We had acquired a moral right to offer a remonstrance in this case to anything we conceived opposed to the principles of humanity. That rested upon the Treaty of Paris, and upon the part we had taken on all occasions with the greatest impartiality to introduce peace and comfort into those countries which were partially under the Turkish rule, and partially emancipated from it. While, however, he condemned the conduct which had been described, he could not fail to notice that the hon. Baronet had spoken of no flagrant cases of oppression, and no doubt what had occurred was attributable to trade jealousy. He could not refrain from expressing his opinion that throughout the whole of the negotiations in reference to Servia the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office (Lord Stanley)had displayed extreme tact and judgment.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had acted perfectly right in bringing before the House the wrongs of his co-religionists, and he was sorry to hear the statement that had been made. It was a grievous thing that the noble and gallant people who had for so many years been engaged in a conflict for liberty themselves should have been so oblivious of the causes of that conflict as to oppress a race of people within their borders solely on the ground of religion. The Jews, wherever they settled, were a quiet and orderly people, turning their attention to trade, and engaging in no intrigues. He hoped that this discussion would meet the eyes of the wise and liberal Prince who governed Servia, feeling confident that he would take the matter into his consideration, and show his people that the sympathy of Europe with the Christians in the East extended to every race of people whatever their religion who suffered on account of their religion. A favourable opportunity was now presented for interference on our part. The Prince of Servia in the course of a very few days would be in Constantinople, and it might be possible for our representative at the Sublime Porte to lay before his Highness what transpired this evening. If that were done he felt certain, from what he knew of the character of the Prince, that a complaint so well founded would not be allowed to go long unremedied.
  LORD STANLEY: I have no objection
  844
  whatever to lay upon the table the papers for which the hon. Baronet asks. They will contain all the information that exists, or, at any rate, that is in our possession on this question. As these papers will shortly be before the public there is less reason for me to trouble the House at any length. The hon. Baronet has adverted to the most material features of the question, and I believe that his statement is fair and accurate. I am quite sure that the feeling of the House will be unanimous in cordially and sincerely sympathising with the object he has in view. I quite agree that we have a moral right to give advice to the government and people of Servia. I should not rest that right so much on the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris. I think we may fairly rest it upon the efforts which not England alone, but Europe collectively, has made on behalf of the Servians in order to remove that foreign occupation of Belgrade which was the constant and fruitful cause of irritation and annoyance. I can only confirm what has been stated by the hon. Baronet as to the laws now in force in Servia regulating and restricting the occupations of the Jewish community; and I do not think that the hon. Baronet has characterized those laws in terms which are too strong for the occasion. I am afraid it is impossible to deny that the conduct of the Servian people in regard to the Jewish community residing amongst them has been utterly unworthy of a people who reasonably and justly aspire to take their place amongst the civilized communities of Europe. I say the conduct of the Servian people, rather than the Servian Government, because, if I am not misinformed, it is much more a case of popular prejudice and popular bigotry than any intentional impolicy on the part of the Government. I believe that the Government will be willing to do what is fair and reasonable in this matter if they are assured that they can do so without coming too strongly into conflict with popular prejudices. The existence of these prejudices is the more discreditable, because the Servians ought to remember that no people have spoken more strongly on behalf of their nationality—none have shown more impatience of oppression, of anything like foreign constraint or domination—and none have appealed more freely or frequently to the general feeling of Europe on behalf of Christian races than themselves. I think this dis-

  845
  cussion, however short it may be, will do good. A state like Servia—a half civilized community—is always peculiarly sensitive to European opinions, and I think in that respect also the publication of the papers will be useful. The influence of the British Government, whatever that influence may be, has been exerted, and will for the future be exerted in Servia, and we hope everywhere else, in the cause of toleration and humanity. We must, of course, do this not dictatorially, but unobtrusively and quietly. Above all, we must not suppose that in a day we can overcome the rooted prejudices of years. For my own part, I have great confidence, not so much in diplomatic representations, as in the pressure of general European opinion, which as nations come more and more into contact with each other is brought to bear on every community and every people. With regard to the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman opposite has thrown out, that of taking the opportunity of the visit of the Prince of Servia to Constantinople, I think it is very judicious. I might suggest that any memorial or representation from the Jewish community, either of Servia or of Europe at large, will receive the support of the British Ambassador.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he cordially agreed with everything that had fallen from the noble Lord. During the time he was at the Foreign Office, the hon. Baronet and that distinguished philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore were constantly in communication with him on the subject of the illtreatment of the Jews in Servia; but his hon. Friend with great good taste and good feeling was unwilling to bring the question before the House of Commons, hoping always that the representations which, by the direction of the Foreign Office, were made to the Servian Government by the British Consul General would have the desired effect. Unfortunately his hon. Friend had been disappointed, and the only resource left to him was to bring the matter under the notice of the House. He quite agreed in the opinion that the publicity of this discussion would have its effect in Servia in removing the vexatious and unjust laws and restrictions affecting the Jews. The Jews in the East formed a much larger community than perhaps the House was aware of. When banished from Spain by the bigotry of that country, they took refuge in large numbers in Turkey, and they had always been
  846
  treated by the Turks with considerable fairness and moderation. In Constantinople there were many Jews, several of whom had risen to great wealth and influence, and had been employed by the Turkish Government. The great enemies of the Jews in Turkey were not the Mahomedans but the Christians. The animosity did not arise from the competition in trade, but depended mainly upon bigotry. His impression was that Jews were practically unable to reside in Greece on account of the persecution and ill-treatment to which they were subjected. Such was the persecution of Jews by the Christians in Turkey, that during Easter week they were obliged to keep within their houses, for if they ventured into the streets they would run the risk of being murdered. That was even the case in Smyrna, where perhaps the most civilized Christian population of the East resided. This was really a very shocking state of things, and it was an unfortunate necessity that the only Government in the East capable of keeping order amongst the Christians and Jews was the Turkish Government. If they would go to Jerusalem in the Easter week they would find that this was perfectly true; and that Turkish troops had to be sent even into the Holy Sepulchre itself to prevent the Roman Catholics cutting the throats of the Greeks, and the Greeks from cutting the throats of the Roman Catholics. In all communities where there were Jews they were placed upon the municipal councils; and in certain provinces Jews, Christians, and Mahomedans were equally represented in those councils. He trusted that what had been said that night would go to the East; and that both Greeks and Servians would learn that they would not be supported by this country if they persecuted others because they did not agree with them in religious opinion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRE- LAND).—MOTION FOR PAPERS.
SIR JOHN GRAY: Sir, the Question which I have put upon the paper is one to which I am certain the House will give its most anxious attention, as it refers to an alleged offence against the administration of justice in Ireland. This House has at all times shown the greatest anxiety that the administration of the law should not only be beyond reproach, but above

847
suspicion. The case which I am about to bring under the notice of the House is one of such a character that it can hardly be rendered intelligible within the limits of a mere Question; and I shall, therefore, have to trespass somewhat at length upon your indulgence in order to place the House in possession of the facts which have given rise to the remarkable judgment referred to in my Question. The House will, I am sure, recognise at once that one of the highest functions which it has to discharge is to see that the laws which it assists in making are administered even-handedly as between all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The importance of having good laws made is great—inexpressibly great—but of what value are good laws if the Executive fail to administer these laws in a spirit of perfect equality, recognising no distinction of persons, but dealing out justice with an even hand to all? The complaint, which is substantially put in the form of a Question to-night, is not a complaint which comes from any disappointed suitor, or from any person who has failed to escape a punishment which he had hoped to avert. It does not come from any advocate engaged on one side or the other. It does not come in a factious form from the member of any local party. It does not come from any person who may reasonably be assumed to have a particular bias one way or another. It does not even come in the shape of a report to which any of the privileges of impunity attached to a private report belongs, and which almost amount to licence. But it comes direct from the judicial bench. It is the open, plain statement made from the judicial bench in the public court, before the assembled county, jurors and people, by one of the circuit Judges of Assize in Ireland, and in effect amounts to an assertion that justice has not been done, and that the administration of the law has been partial and one-sided. Considering that the person who makes that charge is officially commissioned by Her Majesty to pass from county to county in Ireland for the purpose of administering the laws—that he is a personage who has been for a long period conversant with the administration of the law in all its branches, who filled the offices of Solicitor General for Ireland, of Attorney General for Ireland, and who for twelve years has filled the office of one of Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland, his words will not fail
848
to impress this House with a sense of the gravity of the case. During the whole period for which that learned Judge has occupied a seat on the judicial bench, I think hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as Gentlemen on this side of the House will admit that no complaint has ever been made with respect to the able and impartial manner in which he has discharged his duties. He is not personally unknown to this House. He long sat as a Member in this House, where he was admired for his ability, his clearness of intellect, his frankness and his readiness to deal with every subject in an impartial spirit; and when I read to the House the observations he has made in reference to the manner in which the law has been administered in one of the Northern counties of Ireland, I am sure the House will not fail to give attention to his complaint—his judicial complaint—and to deal with it in such a manner as to vindicate its own honour and satisfy the country that an impartial administration of the law will be recognised by this House as one of the first objects it has to secure for the subjects of the Queen. I feel, Sir, that I cannot put the Question better before the House than by reading the observations which were made by Mr. Justice Keogh, at the recent assizes, held at Omagh, in the county of Tyrone. These observations are somewhat long; but it is only by reading them to the House in full that I shall be able to make the important interests involved clear to the conception of the House. On the occasion to which I refer, Mr. Justice Keogh said—
"I have now been for twelve years on the bench, and never, during the course of that time, had I ever so painful a duty as now. I do not wish to be considered as sitting in judgment on the act of the magistrates who first heard this case at petty sessions, or to assert positively that they had not discharged their duty. But it will become my duty in another place to bring the facts of this case under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He is at the head of the magistracy of the country, and it remains with him to determine who are fit and who are utterly unfit for the discharge of their important duties. I do not say to which category the magistrates who sat at Donoughmore petty sessions belong. I am sitting here to preserve the peace of the county, and it is melancholy to observe that here are two informations made by members of the constabulary force, to which nearly every Grand Jury in the country have been paying tributes, and well-merited tributes, of respect for their gallant conduct in preserving the peace of the country. The informations before me show that the peace of this Donoughmore district was disturbed at nine or ten at night by a faction to the number of 120 men who are

849
called Protestants. I wish to God that in the discharge of my duty I had never to mention the words Catholic or Protestant. But here 120 men of this so-called Protestant party invade the district, and constable O'Neill says that he and sub-constable Thackaber followed the processionists, who were marching to the music of fifes and drums for half a mile. Then they are joined by the Castlecaulfield party, who have also fifes and drums. They are all headed by two men, one on horseback, and O'Neill asked them to stop the music. They said they would do so, and halted. The constable feared there would be a collision with the Catholic party, which, however, had not then assembled in force. Reney then came up, catches the constable by the breast, and says to the party, 'Beat on, we'll not stop drumming.' The procession then marched off towards the Cross-roads, where they were attacked by the Catholic party, who ran out of their houses when the chapel bell was tolled. These are the short facts of the riot. What follows? The case comes before the magistrates, and that intelligent constable (O'Neill) tells us that he identified six of the Protestant party, and yet not one of their names is returned in the informations of the police except Stinson Reney, who appears to have been the leader of the band, who told his party to 'beat on.' And yet, I say, he is sent here merely for committing an assault, as if everything else he did was justifiable and proper."
A gentleman, Mr. Lyle, one of the magistrates who acted in the case, and who was present, here interrupted the Judge with some observation. Judge Keogh proceeded—
"I will not hear another word, sir, on the subject. I will do my duty here fearlessly, not regarding whether these parties are Protestants or Catholics, but with regard solely to preserving the peace of the country. I have now to pass sentence on these men, but I do so, perfectly convinced that the aggressors in this case—the really guilty parties—are not before me. It is grievous and lamentable for this country, when such things can be done with impunity. The police—I am bound to say a body inadequately rewarded for their exertions in preserving the peace of this country—in this case did their duty: but I know who are wanting in this case for the interests and peace of this country."
The Judge then addressing the prisoners—and I beg the House to take particular notice of these words—said—
"Notwithstanding the deliberate attempt to keep it back, I have now before me the whole truth, and the facts of the case. It appears that you were not the originators of the riot; but I can see what party was really to blame in this transaction. I care for neither. I care not who regards the line of conduct I am adopting: for I can see where the line of strict justice should be drawn in this case. The men before me were not the instigators of this riot; but others who are absent now. If I had them here I should know how to deal with them. Justice is not to be onesided—one-handed. Let the people of this country know it, that so far as the Judges of the land are concerned, fair and impartial justice shall be
850
meted out to all. I take it for granted that you were all at your houses when this lawless band were among you with music and arms, and that you collected hastily to repel a superior force. The constable says your party were not so numerous as the invaders. But I wish to impress on you that you acted foolishly, nevertheless. You, by leaving your home, played their game; for had you stayed indoors, and let them play away at their party airs, you would not now be standing in the dock. Therefore, learn wisdom for the future. Keep within your houses, but watch their movements doggedly, silently, and determinedly, and when they break the laws appeal to the laws of your country, and I tell you that you will find them able to protect you. You have also the constabulary at hand for your protection. Are they not able to do so? In other places one of them has been found equal to sixty disaffected persons, and, if encouraged by those whose duty it is to do so, they can protect the well-disposed as effectually in the North as in the South. But I know not what to say if it shall happen that those in authority shall consider it necessary to make one party amenable to justice in such cases as this, and let the others escape. It is due to the law that you prisoners should be punished; still, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the sentence of the court is, that each of you be imprisoned for one calendar month, and kept to hard labour."
Now, I ask this House to remember that this is a declaration—a judicial declaration, made in open court, made before the Grand Jury of the county, made before the petty jurors of the county, made, I may say, before the whole assembled county by the representative of the Sovereign, presiding in that court to administer justice—that injustice had been done, that the guilty parties had been let off, and that the parties least guilty were transmitted for trial in such a manner as to be in danger of receiving the most severe punishment. Those who have followed me in my reading of the statement of Judge Keogh will observe that he says the parties on each side were equally identified by the constable, who appeared as a witness at the petty sessions court. As I am anxious that the whole of this case should be laid fully before the House, and that I should not hold back any mitigating circumstances, my sense of justice induces me to read the statement of Mr. Lyle, one of the magistrates who was present at the petty sessions, in which he defended the course of his brother magistrates. He occupied the chair on the occasion, and he denies that the parties were identified, though Judge Keogh said there was sufficient identification to justify informations being returned against each of the parties. Mr. Lyle said—

851
"They were most anxious to forward the ends of justice, but the identification of the parties alluded to by the constable (the Protestant party) so totally failed that they could not send them for trial. They were strangers, and came from another part of the country, while the others (the Catholics), being residents in the locality, were all known to the police."
That is the statement of the gentleman who avowed that he occupied a seat on the bench at the petty sessions court when one party was discharged and the other sent for trial. He admits that the charge against the two parties was the same—that is to say, for riotously and unlawfully assembling, and he defends the conduct of the bench by the assertion that the identification failed, and that because of the failure of identification, and because of that alone, the rioters were not sent for trial. This, then, is the statement—this the defence, made by one of the magistrates. Now, mark what follows. There was present in the court at the time this defence of the absence of identification was set up, the witness O'Neill; and, after hearing the assertion of Mr. Lyle; Mr. Justice Keogh called O'Neill up. He was then sworn, and gave the following testimony:—
"Constable O'Neill (to the Court)—I swore positively to Reney (Reney was one of the Protestant party), and identified him. I know him as well as any man in the dock.
Court—Did you identify any others of what is called the Protestant party?—I did, my Lord, six of them.
Court—And did you know them as well as the men in the dock?—I did, my Lord."
In dealing with this matter I have endeavoured to do so with perfect frankness, and have laid before the House the statements of both sides—the statement of the Judge, the denial of the magistrate, and the evidence of O'Neill. You have the assertion of one of the occupants of the bench of magistrates, not that the parties were not charged with the same offence, but that the offence charged was one and the same. The Catholic and the Orange parties were both before the magisterial bench at Donoughmore, charged with the offence of riotous and unlawful assemblage, and the defence set up by Mr. Lyle, on behalf of the magistrates was, that whilst O'Neill perfectly identified the Catholic party, he altogether failed in identifying the Protestant party. Thus, we have on one side the evidence on oath of the constable O'Neill that he did identify all the parties, and, on the other side, the statement of the magistrate, that there was no
852
identification—one on oath, the other merely the assertion. Of course, I do not wish to cast any imputation upon the accuracy of the magistrate's memory; but as there is a discrepancy between his statement and O'Neill's oath, I wish to bring before the House what appears to me to be the strongest and most conclusive corroboration of the accuracy of the sworn testimony of constable O'Neill before Judge Keogh. I hold in my hand the report of the proceedings of the magistrates at the petty sessions referred to. They assembled on the 1st of October last, and six Protestants and nine Roman Catholics were placed before them, charged with a riotous assembly at Donoughmore on the 17th September. Among the witnesses examined was this very constable O'Neill, who asserted on oath in court to Mr. Justice Keogh that he had not failed to identify the Protestant party; that he knew them well, and that he identified six of them before the magistrates assembled in petty sessions. Now, before the question was raised whether Justice Keogh had made an exaggerated statement or not there was printed in the Belfast papers of the 2nd of October last a report of the proceedings. O'Neill was examined, and in the course of his examination he said "Thornberry," one of the six, "stepped forward and said he would do all he could"—that was, to stop the music and prevent the proceeding of this unlawful assembly to and through the Catholic district. The witness thus plainly identified Thornberry as one of those present, and he then identified each of the Orange party who were summoned as forming part of the assembly, the report saying "the witness here identified the Orange party who were summoned as forming part of the unlawful assembly." Not only, then, have we the fact that the names of two of the six Orangemen are given incidentally in the evidence of O'Neill—which completes the identification of these two men, but we have the general statement of the reporter that O'Neill identified every one of the six then standing in the dock. In addition to that identification, we have the testimony of his brother constable Thomas Thackaberry, who gave this evidence—
"Sub-constable Thomas Thackaberry was next examined by Mr. Moore, and corroborated the evidence of sub-constable O'Neill. Witness identified Dilworth of the Orange party, and Loughran, M'Kinney, Gillan, and Nogher of the Roman Catholic party, as forming part of the mob."

853
O'Neill identified every one of the six. The report published in October gives you an accurate statement of the identification, by each of these two witnesses, of all the Orange party then in the dock, as well as the whole of the Catholic party. And what was the course taken by the magistrates? Did they make any observations which indicated that they entertained doubts with regard to the accuracy of the evidence these witnesses had given, or that they thought the identification was imperfect? No such thing. On the contrary, after the case closed, the Crown prosecutor applied to those very magistrates, one of whom denied that there was any identification, and explained the absence of identification by alleging, before Mr. Justice Keogh, that the parties were "strangers," and asked that the two police constables be recommended for promotion. Mr. Brooke, speaking on behalf of the whole bench, said, "we have already recommended them" for promotion. They recommended these very men to be promoted, who, if the statement of Mr. Lyle before Judge Keogh were correct, ought to have been recommended for promotion to the dock on a charge of perjury. This report says that they were recommended for promotion in the force on account of their good conduct throughout the whole of the prosecution, and so recommended after they had identified each and every of the prisoners, including the Orangemen as well as the Catholics, as having been present at this unlawful assembly. But what is the course which was taken by the magistrates with regard to the accused? They ordered informations to be returned against every one of the Catholic prisoners, charging them with the most serious offence; they sent five of the Orangemen home rejoicing in their immunity from punishment, and ordered the sixth, who struck the policeman, to be sent for trial for the minor offence of an assault. That, then, is the conduct which Mr. Justice Keogh reprobates. That is the conduct which I venture to think worthy the attention of this House, and which I say the Lord Chancellor of Ireland ought to examine into, for the purpose of determining who they were on that bench, if any, who, to use the words of Mr. Justice Keogh, were "utterly unfit for the discharge of the magisterial functions." ["Hear, hear!"] I understand that "hear, hear!" from hon. Gentlemen opposite. What we say is, that this case
854
ought to be investigated by the Lord Chancellor. Very recently this House, and, if I mistake not, some of the hon. Members whom I now see opposite, expressed a strong and decided opinion at the instance of Gentlemen opposite, that this House was bound to interpose for the purpose of seeing that magisterial functions were committed to men who were above suspicion. Sir, I contend that that vote justifies me in asking the House to consider this question, and to determine by an expression of its opinion whether or not that portion of the Irish Catholic public, who live in the midst of a large population of armed Orangemen, are to have justice impartially dealt out to them by magistrates who are above suspicion, by magistrates of whom it cannot be said, on the judicial authority of one of Her Majesty's Judges, and in the presence of an assembled county, that there were some who "were utterly unfit for the discharge of magisterial functions." I wish also to justify myself in asking the House to consider this question upon the further ground that this is not an isolated case. Sir, it is only one of a series of cases which occur twice every year from the extreme portion of the North to the extreme Southern portion of the same province. In the same paper which reported the case that has been so severely commented on by Justice Keogh is a report of some proceedings in the adjoining county of Down, which also contains a large proportion of that particular class of politico-religious confederates who are known as Orangemen. At the county Down assizes, according to the report in this paper, there were six criminal cases tried, and out of the six, five were cases of Orange riotous assemblies. I will give you in brief the particulars of these five cases. No. 1 was the case of Scarva, which occurred, not on the occasion of the special anniversary of the confederation, a day which some persons might think afforded an excuse for excesses, though I cannot allow it, but on the 13th of January. In that case the constable proved that several "thousands of persons" assembled, wearing "Orange ribbands," carrying "Orange flags," bearing "swords," and firing shots. These persons were tried under the Riotous Assemblies Act, as were the Catholics who were tried at Omagh before Judge Keogh, and were found guilty of assembling to the extent of several thousands of persons, assembling with firearms, decked out

855
with Orange ribbands, carrying flags, and playing party tunes, but recommended to mercy by the sympathetic jurors. The result was, that they got off with a sentence of one month's imprisonment without hard labour. No. 2 was a case which occurred at Lisburn. The charge was that of having "riotously assembled," and having "stabbed" certain persons at such assembly, and the defendants got off with a verdict of acquittal. No. 3 was also a case of riotous assembly at Loughbrickland on the 12th of July. In that instance a thousand persons assembled together, carrying arms, Orange flags, and firing shots; their band played "Protestant Boys" and the "Boyne Water," and the prisoners were found guilty, but unanimously recommended to mercy by the sympathising jurors. In consequence of that recommendation the Judge deferred passing sentence, and I do not know that any sentence has yet been passed, though the probability is that, according to a general custom, the parties will be discharged upon their own personal recognizances to appear when called on to receive judgment. In No. 4 case the prisoners had assembled in the town of Kilturby, they carried eight Orange flags, were decked out with Orange ribbands, and had with them fifes and drums, on which they played "Protestant Boys" and the "Boyne Water." These persons were all fully identified, and the Judge observing something in the jury box which indicated to him that there was a deep sympathy on the part of the jurors with the prisoners which it was his duty to guard against, addressed these words to the jurors—
"If you can entertain a doubt, from what you have heard, that it was a procession calculated to excite feelings of animosity between Protestants and Roman Catholics, by all means give them the benefit of the doubt; but if you have no such doubt, do your duty as honest men, and convict the prisoners whether you think the Act of Parliament is a wise one or not."
Notwithstanding that solemn appeal from the Judge—consequent, probably, upon the indications shown of the sympathetic feelings of the jurors who were trying the case, there was a unanimous verdict of not guilty, though no rational defence was set up for the prisoners. [Mr. E. W. VERNER: Who was the Judge?] Baron Fitzgerald; and the case was tried the same day, I believe, in the adjoining county to that in which Mr. Justice Keogh delivered the judgment I have read to the House. I think, then, I have established a case for
856
coming before the House and asking it to assist in taking care that hereafter throughout the Northern provinces of Ireland justice shall be administered to Catholic and Protestant with impartiality. Need I remind the House that it has before effectively interfered in reference to this Orange confederacy. It will be remembered by the House that in the year 1835 a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the constitution, proceedings, and objects of the Orange societies; and before that Committee it appeared in evidence that Ireland was the very hot-bed of the confederation; that from thence it had spread to England; that in England at that moment there were 140,000 members of the confederacy, bound by a secret oath, and in Ireland not less than 220,000 members, all of whom were fully armed and likewise bound by a secret oath. It also came out before that Committee that every individual of these 360,000 armed Orangement had bound himself to rally round the "head centre" of his lodge; that outside that head centre there was a still larger circle with another head centre, the baronial circle; outside that was the county circle with another head centre; outside that came the provincial circle, with its head centre; outside these was the national circle, with its head centre; and outside the national circle came the imperial circle, with an imperial head centre, and the dictum of that imperial centre the entire organization of circles and centres was bound by oath blindly to obey. Really, one would almost think that I was describing the Fenian system in Ireland. Well, it is a sort of Fenian system in Ireland; but though a Fenian system, it is a Fenian system that is upheld by the exclusively Protestant party—by the party who profess to be the monopolists of all the loyal feeling of the country. Now, when this House investigated the question in 1835, and weighed the whole of the evidence placed before it, what was the opinion of the House with regard to this Orange confederacy? Permit me to read a sentence from the Report of the Committee on the subject. They say there existed—
"An organized institution pervading Great Britain and her colonies to an extent never contemplated as possible, and which your Committee consider highly injurious to the discipline of His Majesty's army and dangerous to the peace of His Majesty's subjects;"
and they end by asking that steps should

857
be immediately taken for the "suppression" of the society. The House will have observed that there is a reference in the extract I have read from the Committee's Report to "His Majesty's army," and the particular fact which came before the Committee to give rise to that was this:—At that time a certain Royal Duke, who was described in the Orange papers as the person "who stood nearest to the throne," gave his warrant to one Colonel Fairman to traverse the country as his deputy centre, to go from one part of the kingdom to the other, visiting the several military posts, and you who have read the accounts of the Fenian proceedings in Ireland during the last twelve months cannot fail to have remarked that, in like manner, the great head centre of Fenianism traversed England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, visiting the military depôts on a special mission, just as one of Her Majesty's colonels traversed the country with a special commission from the Imperial head centre of Orangeism, who was also a Royal Duke. The places most frequented by the Fenian Centre were the barracks in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland; and all the money he could spare was devoted to inducing the soldiers to join his confederation, just as the Orangemen admitted all soldiers without the usual fee. It came out in evidence before the Committee that Colonel Fairman, whose example General Stephens seems to have followed, went with the Royal ducal warrant in his pocket from barrack to barrack; and although the Commander-in-Chief issued a specific order that no member of the army should become a member of an Orange lodge, this Colonel Fairman, with the authority of the "person nearest to the throne," induced hundreds and thousands of His Majesty's soldiers to join the confederacy which this House considered as "dangerous." And it is this which gives a meaning to the passage I have read from the Committee's Report, that it is highly injurious to "the discipline of His Majesty's army." [Mr. CONOLLY: What is the date of that transaction?] The Committee sat in 1835. I may state, for the information of the hon. Member, the Report and evidence are in the Library of this House. Upon examining the last volume it will be found that there was not a single colony of Her Majesty into which this "dangerous" Orange system had not penetrated, corrupting the soldiers, causing them to recognise a head centre outside
858
the Commander-in-Chief, and pledging them on oath implicitly to obey the dicta of that head centre, and within ten hours from the issue of a mandate from him, wherever they were, to assemble for the purpose of performing his behests, whatever they might be. [Mr. CONOLLY: That was thirty years ago.] Yes, thirty years ago, under the old rules; but the new rules are as exclusive, and require the same blind obedience to the head centre. At that period there was an eminent statesman who led the party opposite; and speaking of the recommendation of the Committee, of the action of this House, of the Address to his Majesty—the then King—praying Him to direct that such measures should be taken as would suppress this dangerous conspiracy; of the fact that the Royal Duke, the Imperial head centre, had given an undertaking, which he signed with his name "Ernest," authorizing a gentleman named Maxwell to come to this House with his letter, declaring that he would at once dissolve the associated confederates—the late Sir Robert Peel said on that occasion—"It matters little if you do dissolve it as regards its external form, unless you also dissolve it as regards its spirit," and I maintain that in spirit that society still lives.
MR. E. W. VERNER: I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know from you what all this has to do with the conduct of the magistrates to whom the hon. Gentleman refers?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has given notice of a Motion; and at this moment it is difficult for me to tell how this will bear upon it, though it certainly seems to be travelling rather wide of the mark.
SIR JOHN GRAY: I readily bow to your decision, Sir. I fear that for a time I must appear to travel a little wide of the Question I have put on the paper; but I trust I shall be able to show that all the facts I adduce bear directly upon the administration of justice in Ireland, as affected by the exclusive organization alluded to in the judgment of Mr. Justice Keogh. I respectfully but confidently come to ask the House to express an opinion upon this case. It is an important case, because of the extent of the district to which the principle of that case applies. If I do not establish by the facts that the failure of justice in Ireland in this case is but an example of many similar cases, then I will

859
admit that the hon. Gentleman is right in calling me to order. What I desire to show at this moment is, that a former Leader of that side of the House said in the year 1836 that unless the dangerous confederacy abandoned its spirit as well as its form no good whatever would result; and that afterwards, instead of dissolving in fact, they only changed their rules, the new rules having been prepared by a right hon. Gentleman who has since occupied the position of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Upon the organization being altered it was re-established in Ireland, and before I sit down I think I shall be able to satisfy the House that that organization attempts to interfere even with this House, and certainly does interfere largely with the electoral system which is under the special protection of this House. I will give the House an illustration, which has just occurred to my mind, of the manner in which this organized system acts. After this House had adopted the Resolution I have referred to, after His Majesty had declared his Royal opinion that this organization was dangerous to the public peace and ought to be suppressed, the Orange system was rehabilitated in Ireland, and at this moment there is said to be upwards of 120,000 men in the organization in Ireland, all bound to obey their head centre. The ostentatious displays made by these confederates is extraordinary. Some time ago I went to a Northern county as a candidate for the representation, and the Gentleman who opposed me was successful, and is therefore well known to this House. Some years previously that Gentleman, who was then Grand Master of the Orangemen either of the county or of the province, drove ostentatiously to the assizes with his orange scarf around him, and, so attired, walked into the court to assume the duties of foreman of the Grand Jury of the county. Now, that is a fact which came almost within my own personal cognizance. It is also known to some Gentlemen who are sitting not far from me, and I venture to ask was that consistent with the due administration of justice? [Major KNOX: What date?] About 1850, and since its new organization. On that day there was a dinner of the Grand Jury of the county; an hon. Member of this House, who is now present, and saw the exhibition I refer to, was at that dinner, and I now appeal to him to vouch for the accuracy of the statement I made.
860
That dinner was attended by the Grand Jury, whose duty it was to appear in the box as impartial administrators of justice, and if they had not the virtue of impartiality at least were bound to assume the semblance of it. Now, the Orangemen have as one of their rules that no man who was, or is a Catholic, shall be identified in any way with their organization. The hon. Member to whom I have referred is a Protestant, and not a Catholic. He was sitting at a window in the room when the Grand Master who had driven to the court house that morning with an Orange scarf upon his shoulder in the capacity of Grand Master, rose as foreman of the Grand Jury, and gave as a toast—
"The glorious, pious and immortal memory of the great and good King William, who saved us from Popery, slavery, brass money and wooden shoes, and may he who refuses to think the toast be——"
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he must appeal to the Speaker. They had been travelling back some thirty years, and now the hon. Gentleman was about to favour them with some account of certain festivities. He appealed to the Speaker to say if the hon. Gentleman was in order.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling wide of his notice, as he himself admitted just now. It would be more in accordance with the rules of debate if he would confine himself to the matter referred to in the notice before the House.
SIR JOHN GRAY: I am bound to abide by the decision of the Chair; but according to my view of the question, the Motion has reference to the administration of justice in Ireland, and I wish to indicate the facts which have induced me to bring before the House this particular case, and which will show that a condition of things exists in Ireland which of necessity impairs the administration of justice, and acts in such a manner as at least to destroy all confidence in its impartial administration. What I was endeavouring to show the House was that this organization alluded to by Mr. Justice Keogh in the statement which I have read to the House, exists to a very large extent in Ireland, and that persons who are bound by their official position, and who declare upon their oath that they will administer justice impartially to all the Queen's subjects, occasionally enter the Courts of Justice with all their Orange sympathies fully influencing them, and

861
that they enter those Courts of Justice decked out in Orange insignia. As an illustration of this, I may mention the fact that when the foreman of the Grand Jury of the Northern county went into court, as I described, he was met with a cheer from his sympathisers, though he went there so attired avowedly for the purpose of administering justice; and I contend that such a state of affairs is calculated to prevent the impartial administration of justice in Ireland, and leaves on the minds of suitors an impression similar to that which is left on the mind of Mr. Justice Keogh that such persons are utterly unfit for the performance of magisterial functions. If you decide that I am not to read the remnant of this precious toast I will leave it to hon. Gentlemen opposite to give us a description of what the toast is, as they, no doubt, are in the habit of drinking it. I will not pursue the subject further; but I now wish to call attention to another matter of some importance in reference to the very principle brought before a public court by Mr. Justice Keogh, which I ventured to bring under the notice of this higher court, which I contend is bound in honour to see that the laws which it enacts are impartially administered in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions. The ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland (the right hon. Maziere Brady) having taken cognizance of the facts which hon. Gentlemen opposite say I am not in order in mentioning here—but which I take this opportunity of saying I will bring forward on a future occasion in a manner that cannot be deemed beyond my notice; for if ample justice be not done in this case I shall feel it to be my duty to place a notice on the paper for an Address to Her Majesty, praying Her to take the whole question of the Orange confederation into Her most gracious consideration, when I hope to have an opportunity of bringing out the whole of the facts—the ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Mr. Brady), taking the facts, which I am not at liberty to state, into his consideration, came to the conclusion that, as the chief administrator of the law in Ireland, as the person who represented the Executive appointed by the votes of this House to carry out the law with impartial and even-handed justice in Ireland, no gentleman who was a member of that confederation was fit to hold Her Majesty's commission; and by a letter which he addressed to the Lord Lieutenant
862
of the county of Down he declared that he would not in future give the commission of the peace to any person who was a member of the confederation. That letter was discussed a good deal in the public press, and was discussed also in both Houses of Parliament; and I hold in my hand a statement which was made in the year 1858, with reference to that letter, by the late Lord Carlisle—a nobleman who was familiar with the whole state of society in Ireland, and was for some time chief of the Executive Government there. Speaking of the town of Belfast, which had been notorious for being perpetually in a state of civil warfare on account of the disunion which was created by that Orange confederation, Lord Carlisle said—
"The recurrence of these most unhappy and most disgraceful riots in Belfast only served to strengthen his conviction that the Irish Government last year acted in consonance both with their duty and with the strictest policy and prudence in taking the only step which it was in their power as a Government to take to show their disapproval of exclusive religious societies and organizations, by refusing any fresh appointment of members of the Orange society to the office of magistrate."—[3 Hansard, cl. 1594.]
I wish now to call attention to the happy results that followed a more recent and more stringent proceeding in the town of Belfast. Immediately after the publication of the Lord Chancellor's letter a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the condition of Belfast, and how it occurred that that city was always in a state of chronic civil war. The Commissioners went to Belfast, where they found that most of the magistrates were sympathisers with one side, and that the entire police force, with the exception of six or seven individuals, were members of one religious persuasion. It was reported by the Commissioners, one of whom is at present Judge of the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, that out of a police force consisting of 160 men but about half-a-dozen were Roman Catholics, while the whole of the rest were Protestants. They also reported that some of the police appointed by the local magistrates—gentlemen who were themselves sympathisers with, if not members of, Orange societies—appeared in Orange processions, with Orange ribbands bound round their staves, and recommended that there should be a change in a system which tolerated such occurrences. The Report was not, however, acted upon. The brethren of Belfast

863
had friends in high quarters, and from the year 1858 up to 1864 Belfast continued to be in that condition which warranted Lord Derby in stating that it was a disgrace to a civilized country that the most opulent, and the most flourishing, and most commercial city in the kingdom should be in a perpetual state of civil war. Sir, in the year 1864 the town of Belfast was for five whole days in a state of actual siege. [Major KNOX: Belfast is not Tyrone.] I know Belfast is not Tyrone, and I mention the case of Belfast because the same system, if not of partial justice, at least of want of confidence in the magistracy, prevails all through the North of Ireland, and I desire to show that if the same remedy which was so effectively applied to Belfast within the past year were applied elsewhere, the stigma which has been removed from Belfast might also be removed from the other places where similar practices still prevail. During the party riots in Belfast in 1864, 311 persons were wounded. Of these, ninety-eight suffered from gunshot wounds, and eleven of them died. There is in this House an hon. and learned Gentleman who was deputed, in common with another learned Gentleman, to inquire into the proper means of supplying an impartial police and impartial magisterial authority to put down those Orange displays and party riots which gave such unenviable notoriety to Belfast. Those Gentlemen reported that the number of Catholics in the police force dwindled down to five; that the police were looked upon as a partizan force in that town; and that the control of the police and the appointment of them ought to be taken out of the hands of the local authorities altogether, and that two stipendiary magistrates, the one a Roman Catholic, and the other a Protestant, should be appointed in their stead. This recommendation was acted on, and the local magistrates, one of whom rode at the head of an Orange funeral procession during the riots, and was cheered by the brethren, ceased to have any control over the police force, and from that day to this there has not been a single party riot in Belfast. Now if this course were adopted throughout the North of Ireland there would be no more party contention, and no more party processions, for the persons otherwise disposed to take part in those exhibitions would know that prompt and effectual justice would be done upon all who violated the law. Sir, we were en-
864
gaged last Session, and we have been occupied this Session, in endeavouring to produce a good electoral system throughout the country, by which every man entitled to a vote should receive the franchise. There is nothing which this House is more jealous of than external influence exercised over the enfranchised classes. Whether that influence be that of coercion or of bribery, or of secret intimidation emanating from some all-pervading power which issues mandates in secret from sources the existence of which are known only to the initiated, matters not, The House of Commons in all cases feels called upon to protect those whom it has deemed worthy of enfranchisement. But what, let me ask, is the practice of this Orange Association with respect to electors who join their confederacy. I hold in my hand a Report of the proceedings of the Grand Orange meeting, held in Dublin, at which Lord Dungannon and the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir William Verner) and other distinguished personages were present, and I find that among the business transacted was the consideration of a report upon the electoral condition of the county of Londonderry, and that forty-three members of Lodges in that county were expelled because they had voted contrary to the orders of the head centres.
MR. E. W. VERNER: I rise to order, Sir; we have not yet reached the Irish Reform Bill.
SIR JOHN GRAY: I am quite aware of that fact; but I merely refer to the influence which this association exerts to show the House the extent to which the classes whom it has enfranchised are interfered with.
MR. SPEAKER: The subject does not fall within the Motion of which the hon. Gentleman has given notice.
SIR JOHN GRAY: Sir, I shall cheerfully bow to your judgment, and pass to another branch of the subject. Since I gave notice of this Motion I have received several communications from the county of Tyrone, for the accuracy of which I cannot be expected to vouch, but I give them to the House as they reached me. Some of them state that there are only one or two Roman Catholic magistrates on the bench in that large county, although the great majority of cases to be decided by the magistrates arise out of party riots between Orangemen and Roman Catholics. I have also been credibly informed that the jury panel contains about 150 names,

865
and that although the Roman Catholic population of Tyrone is, in round numbers, 134,000 against 103,000 Protestants of all denominations. Now with these notorious facts, and regard being had to the additional circumstance that so many of the magistrates are either themselves members of the Orange confederacy, or warm sympathizers, we cannot feel surprised that a strong feeling of distrust in the administration of justice should pervade the public mind. And, Sir, I respectfully submit that, when an occurrence of so remarkable a character as that denounced by Mr. Justice Keogh is brought under its notice, it is the duty of the Government and of the House of Commons to give expression to their opinions, and to indicate a determination that vigorous action will be taken to secure that justice shall be as impartially administered to Roman Catholics in the North of Ireland, as to any other class of Her Majesty's subjects in any other portion of her dominions. But we may be told that the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Keogh was exaggerated, and not itself impartial. In order to meet any such assertion, should it be made, I may cite as an illustration of the perfect impartiality of that distinguished Judge, that on the very same day on which he passed a sentence of one month's imprisonment, with hard labour, on six Roman Catholic prisoners, and sentenced one Protestant to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, he also, in another case of riotous assembling which came before him, sentenced six Roman Catholics to six months' imprisonment with the addition of hard labour. This was in the Pomeroy case, and in that case I should state that the steward of one of the magistrates before whom the accused persons had to appear at petty sessions was the person who carried the Orange drum to excite animosity between Roman Catholics and Orangemen. That magistrate may be very just, and no doubt is; but will the public accept him as impartial in such a case? I am aware, Sir, that it was said by the learned Judge that the bell of the Roman Catholic Church was rung at Donoughmore, but what, let me ask, is the practice in the county of Tyrone, which led to the necessity of that measure. Shortly before the riot took place at Donoughmore, the Roman Catholic clergymen of Pomeroy, an adjacent district, received an anonymous letter, informing him that his parishioners would soon have a
866
visit from the "True Blues." Now, it is but right the House should know what a visit from the "True Blues" to a Catholic district really means. The town of Dungannon, which is represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Knox), received a visit from the "True Blues" about a year previous to the "invasion" of Donoughmore. He will, doubtless, recollect the riot of 1865, and that the town was wrecked—that is, the Catholic houses and the chief hotel in the town were reduced to a ruin. Dungannon was wrecked in 1865, under the new rules, just as Maghery was wrecked some thirty years before under the old rules. The rules were altered, but the practice was the same. The case of Maghery is reported by the Committee I adverted to, and in that Report it is stated that the "True Blues" paid a visit to that village, which was inhabited by Catholics. The place was the property of Lord Charlemont, and on that occasion the "Killyman" Blues wrecked it, by smashing the doors and windows, breaking the furniture, and everything movable within the house, and turning out the inhabitants to find shelter in the ditches. On that occasion property of Lord Charlemont to the value of £600 was destroyed by the invading Blues, and I feel it right to the venerable Baronet opposite to state to his credit that he accompanied the wreckers during the whole of that day, endeavouring to stay their hands, but in vain. He was not at that time authorized by the chief centre to command, and they wrecked the houses before his face, against all his entreaties and remonstrances. In this case there were no imprisonments, for it appeared that the plea that there were no identifications was to the full availed of by the Killyman wreckers. This was what was meant by a visit from the "True Blues" in 1830. This was what was meant by the visit to Dungannon in 1865. When, therefore, the people of Donoughmore heard that the "True Blues" were coming among them in force, and at night, what could they do but sound the alarm, assemble together, and protect themselves against the invaders? In these wreckings of villages the Orangemen spared neither sex nor age, and the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon knows well that such are their practices. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is himself a member of the Orange confederation. The town he represents was wrecked in 1865 as he ad-

867
mits. He knows that on such occasions Orangemen, always of course excepting the head centres, respect neither house of God nor the house of man, and that every body who does not bow down to the Moloch of Orangeism is regarded as an enemy. I have now only to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he had read or had had his attention called to the observations reported to have been made by Mr. Justice Keogh at the assize court of the county of Tyrone on Friday last, with reference to the conduct of certain justices of the peace for that county, and the alleged consequent failure of justice; and whether any and what steps had been taken by the Irish Executive to institute a full inquiry into the facts of the case, and the conduct of the magistrates referred to; and if no steps had been taken, was it the intention of the Government to take any and what steps in relation thereto? I also beg to move for the papers in connection with the subject.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, Copies of any Correspondence that has taken place with reference to cases referred to in Mr. Justice Keogh's statement at the Assize Court of the county of Tyrone, and of the Letter of Lord Chancellor Brady to the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Down, on the impropriety of conferring the commission of the peace on Members of the Orange Association; and, of any Correspondence that arose thereupon,"—(Sir John Gray,)
—instead thereof.
COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, that as one of the bench of magistrates attacked by the hon. Member, he had to thank him for bringing the question before the House, although, in doing so, the hon. Member had travelled into matters not at all connected with the subject. The hon. Member had abused the Orange lodges; but he did not seem to know that not one of the magistrates sitting on the bench on the day referred to was an Orangeman. He (Colonel Knox) was not ashamed to acknowledge that he was an Orangeman, and so long as he obeyed the laws of his country he believed he had a right to continue to be one. The hon. Member had alluded to confederations; but had the hon. Member never belonged to one. Had he forgotten 1848? The hon. Member had spoken of illegal processions. Had he forgotten the procession in which he himself had taken part in 1865? [Sir JOHN GRAY: Where?]
868
In Dublin. At that procession, conducted under the auspices of the late Government, and at which the hon. Member was prominent, there were bands, and banners, and party emblems, which brought it clearly within the Act against illegal processions. He hoped Mr. Justice Keogh had empowered the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain the hasty and ill-judged words which he had used, and to which the hon. Member had now called attention. He would tell the House what really happened. It was the habit of the Protestants in the North of Ireland to go about in the evening and amuse themselves by the music of drums and fifes. If party tunes were played they put themselves within the reach of the law. For himself, he did not approve of such a practice. He wished it could be got rid of; but the hon. Member would find that the habit was too inveterate to be easily put down so long as the persons acted according to law. On the occasion in question a small party of Protestants went to Donoughmore to meet another party whose drums they had borrowed. On their way they met the police, whose conduct on this, as on all other occasions, redounded highly to their credit. The police desired the party to leave off their drumming, and they did so instantly. After this an attack was made upon them by a party of Roman Catholics from Donoughmore. He would read the evidence which was taken before the magistrates, and which would show how far Mr. Justice Keogh was justified in the observations he made from the bench. Constable O'Neill stated that the Protestants ceased to beat the drums when they were told, and that after this the Roman Catholics came and made an attack on them, shouting out, "We will kill every man of them," and striking right and left. The constable added that the chapel bell was rung, and that he went to stop it—
"The drumming party were conducting themselves quietly when going through the town. Heard no party tunes played. Saw no firearms with them, or weapons of any kind. When the drumming party were returning from Mr. Lyle's gate the town (Roman Catholic) party went to meet them. The drumming party were attacked before they got into the town. They afterwards went on towards the Cross, and were again attacked at it. Up to the time they were attacked I did not see a weapon in the hands of the drumming party, nor observe them doing anything improper. They committed no breach of the peace until they were first attacked on the road, at which time they were not beating the drums. They did not then retaliate, as we managed to keep them asunder.

869
[Mr. SULLIVAN: Where are you taking the evidence from?] He was reading from the Belfast News Letter, and he had good authority for stating that it was a correct report. Did the hon. Member wish the magistrates to commit men for trial when even a Roman Catholic policeman declared that they committed no breach of the peace when attacked, and did not retaliate? The effect of the Judge's language would be to rouse ill-blood between the Orangemen and Roman Catholics of Tyrone and the North of Ireland, and to bring the bench into contempt. The magistrates to whom this stigma was affixed did not deserve it. They were highminded men, who had acted disinterestedly, without partiality or favour. If the hon. Member opposite chose to move for a Committee on the subject, the magistrates were ready to meet him, and it would be shown that they were men who were perfectly fitted to hold the commission of the peace. The hon. Member had made much of the accusation brought by Mr. Justice Keogh against Mr. Lyle, who had been a magistrate in the district for many years, who was no Orangeman, and who had always done his duty fairly and honestly. What Mr. Lyle wished to say, when he attempted to interrupt the Judge, was, that none of the Protestants were identified as doing anything contrary to law. If he had been allowed to finish his sentence to that effect it might have made a different impression on the mind of the learned Judge. That learned functionary had himself used language which was hardly justifiable. He advised the Roman Catholics to keep within their houses, but to watch the movements of the Protestants doggedly, intently, determinedly. He would ask the House whether that was language proper to be used from the bench, or whether it was not calculated to stir up ill-blood in the country? With regard to the single Protestant who was tried by Mr. Justice Keogh, and who was told by the Judge that he ought to have been indicted, not for an assault, but for a riot, the information which he (Colonel Knox) got was to this effect—that this man pushed the constable before the Roman Catholic party came up, and when, therefore, no rioting had taken place. If he had been indicted for a riot the bill would have been thrown out by the Grand Jury. After this statement which he had made, and which he believed to contain a plain narrative of the facts, he thought he had a
870
right to ask the noble Lord whether he would not call upon Mr. Justice Keogh to remove the stigma which he had cast, not upon the justices of that bench alone, but upon those of the whole of the North of Ireland, thus bringing the whole administration of justice into contempt. As to there being no Roman Catholic magistrates in Tyrone, he admitted this might possibly be the case; but that was because there were not resident gentlemen of that persuasion in a station of life that would qualify them for the bench. He was sure no one who knew the present Lord Lieutenant of Tyrone would doubt his willingness to act with perfect impartiality in the matter.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he felt a painful duty had been cast upon him. He would state the facts of the case as they occurred, and he would ask the hon. Member (Sir John Gray) how he could justify himself to the House for having ignored the evidence in the case, and tried to hide from the House the real facts, while he went on for more than an hour endeavouring to poison the public mind with respect to the administration of justice in the North of Ireland. This might be strong language; but he was forced to say that it had never been his painful duty to hear so extraordinary an attempt as this was to malign and misrepresent the conduct of worthy men. He could understand the object of the hon. Gentleman in going back to the events of 1835, in order to produce an impression upon the public mind which the facts of the present case, taken by themselves, would not justify. He would give the House a plain and simple statement of the facts. He would begin by referring to the charge of Mr. Justice Keogh, which was quoted by the hon. Member opposite. How far that learned and excellent Judge had been correctly reported he was not able to say; but if the report as quoted was correct, then the learned Judge must have received some secret evidence, which certainly was not brought before the public. He would tell the House what really did happen. Before doing so, he must state that just before the assizes an anonymous letter appeared in the county paper, the production of a violent partizan—a most improper letter, for the writer had the insolence to pretend to teach the jury their duty, and told them that all the Roman Catholics ought to be punished at once. The counsel for the prisoners, knowing that he had not

871
a leg to stand upon, appealed to Mr. Justice Keogh to say whether that letter was not fitted to poison the public mind, and asked him to postpone the case, as it was impossible that the prisoners could, under the circumstances, have a fair trial. Mr. Justice Keogh read the letter, and, though he could not consent to postpone the trial, his indignation was strongly roused by the letter, and he said he wished he had the writer in court, and that he could punish him. He (Lord Claud Hamilton) heartily wished so too. The men pleaded guilty at once, and the Judge was called upon to pass sentence while the feeling of indignation was still strong upon him. It was under the influence of these feelings that he made—if correctly reported—the statements which had been read to the House. Then, with regard to Mr. Lyle, who attempted to interrupt the Judge, and who said that the Protestants could not be identified—what Mr. Lyle meant to say was, not that they were not identified personally, for they were well known, but that they were not identified as having taken part in anything illegal. But he was rather nervous, and he interrupted the court, which he had no business to do; and when he endeavoured to explain, he was put down by Mr. Justice Keogh. The hon. Gentleman opposite talked of his love of justice. God preserve Ireland! A more unworthy attempt to speak in the name of justice had never come under his notice. A certain number of Protestants and Roman Catholics were indicted for rioting and assembling illegally, and the hon. Gentleman, having read the evidence, said that the magistrates dismissed the charges against the Protestants, and sent the Roman Catholics for trial. He charged the hon. Gentleman with having made that statement, or, at least, having conveyed that impression.
SIR JOHN GRAY: I did not make that statement. I stated that one was sent for trial, and the others were not committed.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: It was pretty much the same. Was it a magistrate's duty to commit two Protestants because he had committed two Roman Catholics, or vice versâ? Or was it his duty to listen to the evidence, and see how it applied to each person? Why did not the hon. Gentleman read to the House certain portions of the evidence which he had altogether omitted to refer to. The evidence of one of the Roman Catholic
872
witnesses—a Roman Catholic sergeant—distinctly stated that the Protestants were not guilty of anything illegal. But it would not have suited the hon. Gentleman's ideas of impartial justice to have read that. The hon. Gentleman's speech was to vilify the magistrates, and to convey to the House one of the most one sided and unfair representations he had ever heard. A sub-constable—a Roman Catholic—stated in his evidence that the Protestants were not armed; that they played no party tunes; that they had no colours; and that they committed no illegal acts; and that the Roman Catholics attacked them with stones and other weapons, their leaders saying that they would kill every one of them. Against the six Roman Catholics who were indicted there was the most distinct evidence of their having committed a breach of the law; but every Protestant who was charged, with the exception of the one who was proved to have committed an assault, and who was now undergoing imprisonment, it was shown had done nothing. The hon. Gentleman had spoken for an hour and a half to endeavour to show that they were all equally guilty, but that the Roman Catholics were all sent for trial, while the Protestants were all discharged. That was the charge made by the representative of impartial justice, and lover of truth! The hon. Member also talked of "armed Orangemen." Throughout the whole investigation it was stated that they had no arms, and it was distinctly stated that when attacked they did not retaliate. The Protestant party came with drums along the high road. There was nothing illegal in that. There were no colours and no arms; and yet the hon. Gentleman talked of armed Orangemen. Both witnesses—the Roman Catholic serjeant and the Roman Catholic sub-constable—said they saw no arms. The party came up playing music, but not party tunes; they had no emblems, there was not a single element of illegality. At a certain place the officers met the party and said, "Pray don't go on with that drumming, it may create a disturbance." The party complied and stopped playing immediately. Other persons who were also indicted attacked the party with stones and other missiles. The sub-constable, according to the Report, said—
"The first person I recognised coming forward to attack the drumming party was Patrick M'Cluskey. [The witness here identified all

873
the Roman Catholic prisoners.] M'Cluskey and O'Connor were the first to strike the drumming party. Those two men came forward shouting 'Kill them; we will kill theni every one.' They struck all round them—every one that they could get a blow at belonging to the drumming party."
The witness proceeded to say that he and another constable attempted to interfere. He then named other two principals, Loughlin and M'Girr, and then a third, Nogher, and gave distinct evidence of violence on the part of each. Nogher was—
"Shouting that Lyle (a magistrate) was away from home, and that they had the town to themselves. The other defendants of the same party were all striking at each other, or throwing stones."
The witness then came to the names of the opposite party. He said—
"I did not see Thornberry strike any one—on the contrary, he did all that he could to quell the disturbance. Reney only caught me. Dilworth did nothing. M'Ateer did nothing but beat a drum. Stewart did nothing whatever."
Thus this party committed no illegal act, but did what they could to check others, except one, who committed an assault, and was punished for it. Thus, man by man, the evidence proved the one party to be guilty, and on the other hand, man by man, the police constables testified that the other party had committed no illegal act. Yet the hon. Member spoke for an hour-and-a-half to induce the House to believe that the magistrates had evidence before them showing that all these men were equally guilty. In cross-examination, sub-constable O'Neill said—
"The drumming party were conducting themselves quietly when going through the town. Heard no party tunes played. Saw no firearms with them, nor weapons of any kind."
The hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gray) talked of "armed Orangemen." Throughout the whole of this investigation the term "armed Orangemen" was never introduced. The witnesses always spoke of Protestants. That statement was completely confirmed by the evidence given by sub-constable Thackaber, who saw all the men who were convicted assaulting the drumming party. It appeared that Mr. Justice Keogh had made representations to the authorities, and, for his part, he would invite the fullest inquiry into the circumstances. But he could not help again asking honourable Englishmen and honourable Irishmen what was the reason for poisoning the minds of those who were to hear the evidence by a statement such as had been made to the House that evening.
874
Was it right to endeavour to induce the House to suppose, in opposition to the facts, that the magistrates, in dealing with men who were equally guilty, had committed all the Roman Catholics and had discharged all the Protestants. Was it by such statements as these that Ireland was to be regenerated? Was that impartial justice? Why should magistrates, when they made a distinction between the innocent and the guilty, be charged with having come to their decision in consequence of political or religious bias? He pitied the man who was capable of making such a use of his position as a Member of the House of Commons, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman's speech would have a very different effect from that intended. Some remarks had been made respecting the absurdity of people going about with bands of music, and he certainly did not think it a very wise thing to do; but a distinction must be drawn between what was sensible and what was legal. Unfortunately, there was not in Ireland so much social amusement as was desirable; and, consequently, the people were led into the habit of playing music in a manner which sometimes unfortunately resulted in a disturbance. Drumming on the high road was certainly legal, though he did not at all approve the practice, as it had a tendency to arouse bygone animosities. The House had been told that the Protestant party had been solely to blame; but no mention had been made of the most gross outrage of all, the breaking into the belfry at night by two Roman Catholics tolling the bells and rousing the whole country. The exponent of impartial justice, however, had not thought proper to allude to that circumstance, although having read the evidence, the hon. Member could not have been ignorant of it. He trusted he had made it plain to the House that the magistrates had acted in accordance with the sworn testimony given before them, without being influenced in any way by the fact of the accused being Protestant or Roman Catholic.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he would not have interfered were it not for the observations made by the hon. Member for Dungannon respecting Mr. Justice Keogh, which he would not allow to pass unchallenged. The hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon (Colonel Knox) said he was an Orangeman; but even that did not justify in saying that the O'Connell procession in Dublin was illegal. He (Mr.

875
Sullivan) would rather hear the opinion of a lawyer on that point. He would answer for Judge Keogh that he had not given instructions for his defence to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Judge Keogh was not the man to intrust his defence to any other person and rested his defence on the due discharge of his public duties. He (Mr. Sullivan) defied hon. Members to point to any act of the learned Judge's judicial life that was not deserving of approval. The hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon should have quoted correctly the observations of the learned Judge. After the passage "keep within your homes, watch their movements doggedly, silently, determinedly," he should have added the words that followed—"and when they break the laws appeal to the laws of your country: they are able to protect you." Why did the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon suppress that part of the Judge's observations? Was that the practice of the Dungannon Orangemen? Judge Keogh never advised that revenge should be taken by the Roman Catholics. [Colonel KNOX: The passage was read before by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray)] That was not a fair way for the hon. and gallant Member to treat the House when the character of a distinguished Judge was assailed. By omitting the material and important part of the observations the hon. and gallant Member had misrepresented the learned Judge. Again, he (Mr. Sullivan) would repeat the words that were omitted—"when they break the laws appeal to the laws of your country, and they are able to protect you;" and he (Mr. Sullivan) hoped that these words of wisdom would reach the ears of the Dungannon Orangemen. The Orangemen of Ireland assumed to themselves a monopoly of loyalty while they did enormous injury to the country. They had no right to make such an assumption; there were as loyal men Roman Catholics in Ireland as any Orangemen. It was upon sworn informations returned by the magistrates from petty sessions that Judge Keogh made his observations. It appeared that 120 Protestants, with drums and fifes, with two horsemen in from, marched into Donoughmore, and an affray took place. It was said the constable could not identify them because they were strangers and came from another part of the country; but that was a miserable and unworthy quibble; and this patent fact stood out—every
876
Roman Catholic was returned for trial, and every Protestant was let off except the one man who struck the constable in the face. But no great credit could be given to the Tyrone magistrates for sending the Protestant to trial who struck the constable in the face. He thought this was a serious case, and so far from the Chief Secretary having instructions from the learned Judge, the matter would be investigated. But he (Mr. Sullivan) was not going to pronounce an opinion on the conduct of the Tyrone magistrates. That would become a subject of investigation by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who would no doubt deal with it fairly and impartially. But whatever might be the result of that investigation, he was convinced it would be found that the assault made upon that distinguished Judge, Mr. Justice Keogh, was Wholly unjustifiable.
LORD NAAS: Four hours of the time of the House were never, to my knowledge, worse employed than they have been this evening. The Notice given by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) was perfectly justifiable, considering the remarks that have been made on the conduct of the magistrates from the bench. The hon. Gentleman having given notice of a question—which I was ready to answer at once—took the opportunity of delivering a speech to which I will not allude at length. The hon. Member delivered a speech characterized by the worst qualities that distinguished our debates in the worst period of our history. The only consequence it can produce is unmixed and unmitigated mischief. I am sure that the English Members who agree with the hon. Member for Kilkenny in political opinions will regret that he should have thought fit to go back forty years and rake up stories and public events which every true lover of his country must desire had never happened. The learned Judge who made the remarks to which the attention of the House has been directed stated that he intended to draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of the particular magistrate and of some other magistrates. I can only say, on the part of the Government, that up to this moment no such communication has been made. When such communication is made—as I have no doubt it will be made after the words that fell from the learned Judge—I can answer for myself and for the Lord Chancellor that a fair opportunity will be given

877
for a full and impartial inquiry near the place where those occurrences are said to have taken place. Every one who comes forward to take part in the inquiry and to offer the evidence they think they ought to offer will be heard, and then it will be for the Lord Chancellor and the Members of the Executive Government to decide upon the result of the inquiry. It would have been more generous and proper, and more suited to his position as an impartial Member of the House, if the hon. Member had waited until the inquiry was concluded before making the remarks he did. It would be unbecoming in me to offer a word on the facts. I know nothing of them beyond what I read in the newspapers; but I should be sorry on a newspaper report to make an attack upon persons holding the commission of the peace when their conduct is about to be submitted to an impartial and rigid inquiry.
MR. VANCE: I have not risen to impugn the conduct of Judge Keogh, which I am sure was committed by him under an honest but mistaken impulse, but to defend one of the magistrates whom I know—Mr. Lyle—and he is as incapable of committing an act of injustice as any human being. The way in which the hon. Member for Kilkenny brought forward this question reminds me of the observation of Madame Roland—"Oh! justice, what crimes are committed in thy name!" The hon. Member did everything to enkindle animosities and inflame the passions of the people of Ireland. A few Protestants assembled together and chanced to be playing drums and fifes—without any insignia forbidden by law. They were unarmed, and were met by Roman Catholics. A riot ensued, and the rioters were not the Protestants. One of those Protestants committed an assault for which he was most severely punished by six months' imprisonment. The Roman Catholics who committed a riot were punished with one month's imprisonment. The result of the investigation will be, that the Lord Chancellor will be obliged to confess that no illegal act has been committed by the magistrates. He will, probably, add that the magistrate who had addressed him was not allowed by Mr. Justice Keogh to state the entire of the facts of the case. The bringing of the circumstances before the House is calculated to prejudice the judgment the Lord Chancellor may pass upon them. I think
878
the Motion for papers is uncalled for, and I hope it will be refused.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he thought it was the duty of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, or of some Gentleman on that or the other side of the House, to bring forward the question. He was not going to defend the conduct of Mr. Justice Keogh, who was as well able to defend himself as any man in the country; but on hearing such discussions in the House, he could not help thinking that it would have been a mercy if they had been born Turks. In the South of Ireland the Protestants and Roman Catholics were free to differ in religion; but these religious differences did not disturb the peace and harmony in which they lived. He regretted, as an Irishman, that these discussions should take place; and he believed that the parties on either side were equally wrong in forgetting, in their religious differences, that they were Irishmen, subjects of the same Queen, subject to the same laws, and living under the same Constitution. It was really distressing that such discussions as they had been listening to that evening should take place. Both sides of the House were equally guilty in stirring up such debates, and it was unfortunate that such should be the case. At the same time, he must confess that he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny had done right in introducing the question which he had done that evening.
MR. LANYONsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had brought that subject before the House, and had thought fit to indulge in the discursive observations he had made—particularly with reference to the riots in the town of Belfast. That hon. Member had made a most unjustifiable attack on the Orangemen of Belfast in saying that they had caused those riots. The Orangemen were not the aggressors, and he denied that the disturbances were due to them. The navvies and Ribandmen of the town began the greatest riot which ever took place in Belfast by attacking a Protestant school in Brown Street. He believed, however, that the partial administration of justice in Ireland sometimes created an irritation in the minds of the people. Illegal meetings had been held with bands and colours under the very nose of Government, and no notice was taken of them; while occasional petty processions of a few boys with banners had been punished with the utmost rigour of the law. The sooner the Irish

879
Members of that House forgot the violent party feelings displayed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny that evening, and united to promote the substantial welfare and prosperity of Ireland, the better it would be for their common country.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he was glad to hear from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas) an assurance that the circumstances which had been brought under the notice of the House would be fully and fairly investigated by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The case just brought before them was one which not only justified such an inquiry, but rendered it absolutely necessary. Notwithstanding all that had been said by hon. Members, he thought they were indebted to the hon. Member for Kilkenny for having brought the case forward. This was not a case of a class totally unknown to them. He feared that although such cases were not so rife as they were once in Ireland, they were still too familiar in that country. Knowing, as he did, the impartial character of the learned Judge whose observation had originated the discussion, he was certainly of opinion that it would have been impossible not to have brought the matter at an early period under the notice of Parliament. He would not now discuss the matter; but when the promised investigation took place, he trusted the House would take proper cognizance of the case.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, it must be abundantly manifest to every one that the observations which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must carry very different weight to those of an ordinary Member, when it was remembered that under the late Government he filled the high and responsible office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. Those observations were of the gravest character. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the case now brought under their consideration was only one of many with which they were familiar. Such a remark, coming from one of his high authority, was most improper. So far as he (Mr. Conolly) could recollect, no such imputation as the present had been made against the Irish bench of magistrates during the whole time the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary. When the investigation took place, it would be found that the magistrates would be thoroughly exculpated.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: The hon. Gentleman opposite has been
880
too hasty in imputing to me what he calls improper conduct. No doubt he is excited on this subject. [Mr. CONOLLY: Not at all.] At all events, I think he was not entitled to impute improper conduct to me. I wish, Sir, merely to say that the hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in thinking that I passed any judgment upon the conduct of the magistrates. I do not know who they are. I said I should reserve my judgment until after the investigation, when we should know the facts of the case. When I said that these events were too common in the North of Ireland, I meant party demonstrations of this kind.
MR. SERJEANT BARRYsaid, that the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Lanyon) had taken him by surprise. The hon. Gentleman said that the Orangemen of Belfast had been unjustly charged with being the originators of the Belfast riots.
MR. DENT: Sir, I rise to order. Have the Belfast riots anything to do with the question now before the House?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the observations were not out of order.
MR. SERJEANT BARRYsaid, that the Belfast riots of 1864 had been made the subject of a Government inquiry, of which he was the senior Commissioner, and that that Commission had affirmed that the riots were caused by the wanton and unprovoked assault of the Orangemen upon their inoffensive Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Since the subject of Orangeism had been introduced into the debate, he ventured to express a hope that before the present Session of Parliament closed the question of the future existence of that society would be brought specifically before the House. He believed it would be well if Her Majesty's Government would take the subject in hand, and would propose the abolition of that most mischievous society. He could assure them that although by so doing they might lose the support of some hon. Members, they would be compensated by the general support of the people of Ireland. Every Member of the House who knew the judicial character of Mr. Justice Keogh would admit that he was not more conspicuous for his ability than for his strict impartiality.
SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, he felt it to be his duty to stand up in defence of a body of men who had rendered the greatest possible service to their country. He was proud to say that he was a mem-

881
ber of that body. And he could with confidence state, after an experience of nearly sixty years, that he knew of no act committed by the Orangemen of Ireland which he should be ashamed to acknowledge. Great fault had been found with them for the last few years for going in procession. Now he would state what he knew from his own actual knowledge on that subject. He acted on one occasion with General Lake, who led upwards of 30,000 men, with his (Sir William Verner's) father at their head, in the district with which he was connected, when all the loyal inhabitants, men, women, and children, turned out to meet them. He defied any person living to mention a single instance in which the Orangemen had ever attacked or insulted any man living. He would tell hon. Gentlemen opposite what was once said to him by Mr. Daniel O'Connell. He said—
"I know your tenantry as well as you know them yourself; I have heard from your Roman Catholic tenants that you never make any distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestants; and although you and I differ as much as any two men in existence, if you were to change from what you are now I should never respect you again."
He could not refrain from again expressing the pride he felt in having been for fifty years a member of the Orange body.
MR. COGANcongratulated the hon. Baronet on the courage he had displayed in standing up and so boldly declaring his opinions. He thought it required no ordinary courage to do so. It was, however, astonishing, and he thought deeply to be deplored, that at this time of day two hon. Members should have stood up in that House and avowed themselves members of the Orange society—a society which was not only inimical to the prosperity and harmony and peace under which fellow-citizens should live, which so fatally kept alive and fanned the flame of those religious animosities which had led to so many fatal conflicts in the North of Ireland, and which it ought to be the aim of every lover of his country to mitigate and extinguish, which made so many in that part of Ireland live in a sort of latent civil war at all times, which broke out periodically in such excesses as they all deplored, and which had been so strongly and repeatedly condemned by every tribunal before which its proceedings had come—by Committees of that House—by Addresses to the Throne by both Houses of Parliament—and by public opinion out of that House on so many occasions—
882
so far back as 1813 by Lord Catlereagh, subsequently by Mr. Canning, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Derby himself. He had hoped that after all this no member of the Orange body in that House would be found avowing his connection with it, and that the good sense and better feelings of those who represented that part of Ireland would rather have lent the weight of their influence and authority in putting an end to that mischievous organization, which by dividing against each other fellow-citizens of the same country, so tended to hurt and weaken the power of the Empire at large. This course might render it necessary to take the sense of Parliament again on the question as to whether such a society ought to be allowed to exist, and whether it did not poison the administration of justice in the North of Ireland, and shake the confidence of the people in that which it was of such consequence they should have faith in, that any injustice being suffered from, could and would be remedied by an impartial administration of the law. In the year 1860 he (Mr. Cogan) had brought this subject before the House when he proposed the introduction of the "Party Emblems Act," which was taken up at his suggestion by the then Government, and became law, and he then stated it as his conviction that, although these sort of laws might act as palliatives, and might check these insulting displays which had so often led to loss of life; that we must go deeper if we wanted to go to the root of this evil; that he trusted the increasing enlightenment of the age and greater toleration of opinion which had sprung up might induce those who had weight with the Orangemen, those who, by their education and station, held positions of influence which entailed responsibility, to put an end to these irritating party displays, and dissolve this society; but that if this hope was disappointed, it was the duty of the Government, from which they should not shrink, to discountenance and discourage it—to allow no member of the Orange society to hold public offices of honour, such as lords-lieutenant and deputy lieutenants of counties, and especially not to allow them to hold official positions, such as sheriffs, sub-sheriffs, clerks of the peace, or crown prosecutors—and above all, that they should not be intrusted with judicial functions as magistrates, for although they might act with the strictest impartiality, yet it was neces-

883
sary that the administration of justice should be above suspicion, and that confidence in its entire impartiality in these frequent cases of party processions and riots should exist among the people. The whole question of Ireland must soon be dealt with boldly, and he wished he could hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be afraid to deal with this, which was a most important part of the question. He might, by doing so, lose the support of some Members from the North of Ireland by taking that course; but he would gain in public opinion, and other quarters, a strength that would more than counterbalance their loss. With regard to the particular case to which the attention of the House had been directed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), and the conduct of the magistrates, he (Mr. Cogan) refrained from expressing any opinion whatever; the matter would be the subject of inquiry, and until that inquiry took place it would be clearly premature to come to any conclusion. His hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) had put the conduct of the magistrates in a point of view quite in contradiction to that presented by the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone and the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon, who seemed to have come there that night with regular briefs for the magistrates. The two defences—that by the hon. Members for Tyrone and Dungannon, and that by the hon. Member for Donegal—were evidently contradictory and at variance; they could not both be correct. If his hon. Friend the Member for Donegal was right, Mr. Lyle agreed with the Judge that informations ought to have been sent up against persons who were not sent for trial, and therefore that justice was not done. He expressed no opinion on the case as yet. Very properly, inquiry was promised, and he was confident that in the hands of the distinguished and eminent man who was now Lord Chancellor of Ireland a full and searching inquiry would take place into the conduct of the parties implicated in the matter which had been brought under the notice of the House; and that when that investigation was made, he would fearlessly deal with it so as to satisfy the people, in the words of the learned Judge, that "justice is not to be one-sided—one-handed."
SIR HENRY EDWARDStrusted it would not be considered irregular or pre-
884
sumptuous on his part to address the House on what might be considered an Irish debate; but, as a Yorkshire Orangeman of twenty years' standing, he was proud of an opportunity of standing up in defence of that loyal society. He had little expected to hear such abuse lavished upon them, for they were men who would defend the Crown and the institutions of the country against all aggression—men who had hitherto been trusted by the Crown, and would, he hoped, continue to be so as long as a Protestant sat upon the Throne, He should not have intruded himself upon the notice of the House had he not felt bound to defend his brethren—the Orangemen of England—from the abuse which had been poured upon them by hon. Gentlemen opposite, not only below, but above the gangway; and also to protest against the most unjustifiable and violent attack made upon his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dungannon by the originator of the Motion under discussion. He hoped there would be an end of such trash as the hon. Member has indulged in, for the Orangemen had as much right to have their opinions represented in that House as the Fenians had. ["Oh, oh!" "Hear, hear!" and "Order!"]
MR. AYRTONrose to order.
MR. ESMONDEmoved that the hon. Baronet's words be taken down.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was out of order in applying such an expression to any Members of the House, after the terms in which the House had stigmatized Fenianism.
SIR HENRY EDWARDShoped he had sufficiently the feeling of a gentleman to withdraw any expression which the Speaker, representing the House, might think he was bound to withdraw; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the meaning of his words. He had simply meant the sympathizers with the Fenians. ["Hear, hear," and "Oh, oh!"] He simply meant the sympathizers with the Fenians and Ribbonmen in that House. ["Oh, oh!" laughter, and cries of "Order!"]
MR. ESMONDE: I rise to order, Sir.
SIR HENRY EDWARDS: Sir, I will not, under the circumstances, attempt to prolong the debate.
MR. ESMONDE: I beg to move that the hon. Baronet's words be taken down—"sympathizers with Fenians in this House."
MR. REARDEN: I second the Motion.
MR. SPEAKER: I expressed an opinion very decidedly with regard to the word "Fenian," and I express an opinion as strong with regard to the expression "sympathizers with Fenians." In answer to the Speech from the Throne, this House made use of these terms, that, "Fenianism was a conspiracy, adverse alike to authority, property, and religion, and disapproved and condemned alike by all who are interested in their maintenance." Therefore it certainly is an improper expression to address to any Member of this House, after that declaration has been made by the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir Henry Edwards) will, on reflection, feel that he has, in the heat of debate, used expressions which it is impossible to justify, and which he will deeply regret; because, to suppose for a moment that any Gentleman, on whichever side of the House he may sit, can possibly sympathize with opinions of a seditious and treasonable character, is a course which it is quite impossible to justify. But I very much regret altogether the general character of the debate which has taken place. I was not present during the whole of it; but when I came in, it recalled the days when I first entered the House of Commons. About five-and-twenty or thirty years ago I did hear discussions of this kind, and when I came in I felt something like Rip Van Winkle when he awoke after his long slumber. In those days we used to bandy these accusations between the two sides of the House, and Members used to dilate on the respective merits of Protestants and Roman Catholics. But I really thought all this was agreed to be passed. For many years past, I must say, although we have had moments of great political excitement, and strong and fierce political excitement, we have never stumbled back into those old ways of bad repute, and I very much regret that by any circumstance whatever, a discussion has originated to-night which when I entered the House appeared to me to lead us back to the days which I hoped had been entirely forgotten. I am afraid it was the original character of this discussion which has brought us to the climax at which we find ourselves. But I think it so important that we should not allow the unfortunate backslidings of this evening to bring us back to a repetition of the scenes
886
or a revival of the sentiments of the past with respect to this subject, that I hope both sides of the House will not allow this irritation to continue, but will assist any Gentleman who has been led in the heat of debate to use expressions which he must regret, to withdraw those expressions. The form of having the words taken down is not really necessary after you, Mr. Speaker, have interfered with so much propriety and such appreciation of the position of affairs. I hope we need not have recourse to these strict and technical proceedings; but that with a better feeling on both sides of the House we may put an end to this scene, and recur to those generous feelings of reciprocal regard which have hitherto characterized our proceedings. So far as the original question is concerned, I do not think there was the slightest necessity for the somewhat acrimonious feeling which has been exhibited on both sides. No doubt the subject itself might fairly have been brought under the consideration of the House, though I think it was brought forward in a manner much too elaborate and much too historical. I think my noble Friend (Lord Naas) treated it in a proper manner. If the learned Judge who is concerned makes a representation to the Government the Government will give to it that attention which a representation from such a quarter deserves. I remember the learned Judge in this House, of which he was a very able Member. He has proved himself a most admirable Judge, and I will not shrink from saying that I am proud of his personal acquaintance. I am sure he has performed his duty so far, and will for the future, in a manner not only honourable to himself but advantageous to society. I hope, therefore, that we may put an end to this misunderstanding, and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beverley will feel upon reflection that it will be a pleasure to him as a gentleman—and I know him to be a thorough one—to express regret that in the heat of debate he has used expressions which were not warranted, and which, I am sure, knowing him to be a man of extreme candour and friendly feeling, no one will more frankly or cordially retract than the hon. and gallant Member.
SIR HENRY EDWARDS: I have not had the experience of this House, during the last twenty years, without being able to appreciate kindness on the part of a friend. I deeply regret it is not in my

887
power to give expression to my feelings in the manner that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has just sat down has done; but I should be the last man alive to say anything to lessen the dignity of this House; and I will cheerfully withdraw any un-Parliamentary expression used that may irritate the feelings of any Gentleman, or that may have the slightest tendency to inaugurate anything contrary to that which has always been the custom in the House of Commons.
MR. ESMONDEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he wished to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought it would be much better, after the creditable way in which the question had been met by the Government, that the Motion should be withdrawn than that it should be negatived.
MR. SPEAKER: The rule of the House is that no Resolution can be withdrawn without the consent of the House; and as some hon. Gentlemen object to this Resolution being withdrawn, I must put it to the House.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE WEST INDIES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. REMINGTON MILLSsaid, he rose to call attention to the annual grant out of the Consolidated Fund of £20,300 towards the Ecclesiastical Establishment in the West Indies, and to move a Resolution on the subject—
  MR. SPEAKER: One Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply having been negatived, it is not competent for the hon. Member to move another Amendment.

IRELAND—THE CONSTABULARY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsaid, he rose to draw attention to the conditions of superannuation as affecting the men of the Irish constabulary. For some time past difficulty had been experienced in obtaining sufficient recruits for the force from time to time, and the difficulty at last became so serious that the Government found
  888
  it necessary to issue a Commission, which sat in Dublin for a considerable time, examined witnesses and received memorials from magistrates as to the efficiency and good conduct of the force. The Commission reduced the complaints that were made to three—first, that the claims that were made to superannuation after long service was not enough taken into account; second, that while the men had no prospect of promotion, the period of service was indefinite; and lastly, that the pay was inadequate. The first and third of these complaints were fairly met by the Commissioners, who embodied certain recommendations respecting them in a Bill that was hastily passed through both Houses of Parliament; but it was to the second cause of complaint that he desired to draw the attention of the House. The Commissioners stated, in their Report, that—
  "The men feel that while the prospect of promotion is remote, the period of service is long and indefinite, and they would regard it as a great boon if they were allowed to enter for a fixed period of twenty or thirty years, and were after that time entitled to some pension."
  The Commissioners consequently recommended an altered scale of superannuation. In several cases they reduced it; and, on the whole, he did not consider the alterations they made were open to complaint. But what he objected to was that in the 5th clause of the Bill embodying the recommendations of the Commissioners it was provided that no pension should be granted to the men in any case, except on the certificate of the surgeon of the force that the person claiming it was, from bodily or mental incapacity, unable to do duty any longer; and unless this certificate was granted, no member of the force was able to claim his superannuation except he had attained the age of sixty years or upwards. This rule might do very well for the higher ranks of the force; but he thought that, considering the arduous duties that the Irish constabulary had to perform—duties as much of a military as of a civil character—they ought to be entitled to their superannuation after twenty or thirty years' service. This would ensure a steady flow of promotion, retain many in the service who now left after ten years' service, and be an inducement to recruits to join. A man could obtain his pension after twenty-one years' service in the army, why not also in the Irish constabulary? They underwent as many hardships both

  889
  by day and night and in all weather. Under the present system, if a man entered the force at twenty years of age, he must remain in it forty years before he could claim his superannuation. This was a great hardship, and must have the effect of keeping competent men out of the force, or of withdrawing them from it whenever they had an opportunity of exchanging the service for work that carried with it a better prospect of remuneration. The Commissioners had recommended this system, on the ground that they feared that the efficiency of the service would suffer if the superannuation were granted to the men at an earlier period, and that Parliament would refuse to santion the extra expense that would be occasioned if twenty or twenty-five years' service were to entitle the men to superannuation. They admitted that a more liberal system prevailed in the army, and that the duties of the Irish police were frequently of a military character; but still they recommended, though without any sufficient reason, the more stringent system of superannuation for the Irish constabulary. They urged, however, that the question of promotion was one of serious importance, and no one who knew anything of the subject could feel any doubt of it. The Commissioners reported that at present—
  "It requires a long period of service, verging possibly on twenty years, for a member of the force to attain the position of constable, and a further period of several years before he can become a first-class constable, where the promotion virtually stops, the advancement to the lower ranks of officers being very limited."
  They recommended that instead of three out of seven inspectors the number should be three out of six; but they left the superannuation just as it was, and in fact had passed over the whole question of promotion without any suggestion for the effectual removal of the grievance. In regard to what the Commissioners had said respecting the extra expense that would be the consequence of a more liberal scale of superannuation, he desired to call attention on the other hand to the great saving that had been effected by the number of additional duties that had lately been imposed upon the Irish constabulary without any extra remuneration whatever. There were stated in the Report of the Inspector General for 1864. The constabulary force were employed in collecting agricultural statistics. Also in the taking of the census in Ireland,
  890
  the expense of which was only £2,000, while the expense in England was £67,000, and in Scotland £18,000, showing an expense of each enumerator in Ireland of 10 s. 11 d. against £2 3s. 7d. in England, and £2 5s. 8d. in Scotland. They were also employed in serving the notices of the Poor Law guardians, and in acting as inspectors of weights and measures. They also acted as a revenue police, looking after distilleries and private stills, and in this one item they had been the means of effecting a saving of £50,000 a year. Besides these, there were other minor duties which they performed. But he did not wish the House to be guided alone by financial considerations. The country had lately witnessed the position of difficulty into which the Irish constabulary had been placed; but they had never wavered in their loyalty, but had shown themselves to be courageous and worthy men, and deserving of the consideration of the country. He never could doubt what the conduct of the constabulary, under any circumstances, would be. He had never seen one of the force drunk in his life. All the additional duties cast upon them had been discharged most efficiently. He hoped the House and the Government would not refuse to take the case into consideration.
  LORD NAASsaid, he quite admitted the numerous and important additional duties which had of late years been imposed on the Irish constabulary, and the efficient manner in which they had been performed. But the question of superannuation really resolved itself almost entirely into one of finance, and he thought the House, before pledging itself to the recommendation involved in his hon. and gallant Friend's proposal, would recollect what took place with reference to this force last year. A great scheme in relation to the pay of the constabulary had been under the consideration of the late Government, and this was submitted to the Commission of Inquiry which sat in Dublin, presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Sandwich. The recommendations of that Commission were carried out by the Bill which he had the honour to introduce towards the close of last Session, and the effect of the scheme was to benefit very much the constabulary of Ireland as a body, as regarded their pay and allowances. The original Estimate for pay, allowances, and superannuation of the Irish constabulary was £736,000, and the supplemental charge

  891
  was no less than £95,000, in order to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. The House would therefore see how very considerable was the boon which had been conferred on the force. A great increase of pay would take place in the lower grades of the force, for this simple reason—that the Commissioners had discovered that, though the higher branch of the force was very fairly paid, the lower grades were very much underpaid. An increase of pay had accordingly been made. The sub-constable of six years' service—representing the cream of the force—now received £38 8s. 4d., whereas he formerly received only £27 2s., and this increase in the pay of over 11,000 men amounted to a considerable sum. The sub-constable, moreover, of twelve years' service had had an increase of £11, and the sub-constable of twenty years' service one of £6 3s. per annum. In the higher branches the improvement was much smaller; but, on the whole, according to Colonel Villiers, the force had been placed in a much better position. The result had been that, whereas on the 1st of February, 1866, there were 1,864 vacancies, there were on the 15th of this month only 1,198. There were, too, 111 candidates for admission now on the books. Last year there was not one, and a superior class of men had been induced to join the force. The present charge for superannuation was very considerable, it being this year £93,127, on a pay of £849,000. The men had hitherto subscribed 2½ per cent of their pay to that fund; but in future they would subscribe 1½ per cent to the reward fund, so that their deduction would be 1 per cent less. No change was made by the Act of last Session in the amount of superannuation that was payable to the men at present in the force; but there would be a great change with regard to the superannuation of the men who would hereafter enter the force. The present superannuation was very liberal and very high compared with other services. A man who entered the force previously to 1847 was entitled to two-thirds of his salary after a service of fifteen years, and to the whole of his salary after a service of twenty years. Those who entered the force subsequently would be entitled to two-thirds of their salary after twenty years' service, and to the whole of their salary after thirty years service. If the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend were carried out, men would generally leave the service at the
  892
  age of forty or forty-five, because they entered it between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. Therefore, they would leave the force at the very time when, as constables or head constables, their services would be most valuable. No doubt if a man remained in the force till he was sixty his services would not be very valuable; but it would be most imprudent to alter the important arrangement which was arrived at last year. That arrangement conferred lasting benefits on the force, and he believed it was perfectly satisfactory to the great majority of the force. It had not conferred much benefit on a few of the older members of the force, but they stood in a very fair position previously. It would be very unwise to make so great an alteration in it as had been suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, especially as the new superannuation scale would not come into operation for nearly fifteen years.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, the object in view was not to increase, but simply to define, the number of years which a man should serve without being worn out, and so avoid his being compelled to hold on until he could obtain a certificate that he was unfit to serve any longer. The Army Commission found that the average soldier was not fit for service after above twenty years' service, and the same rule would, no doubt, apply equally to the constabulary, whose duties were of an arduous character. The present term of service was calculated to lead to "malingering" and discontent. The difference to the public in point of money on the fixing of the period suggested would be very little compared with the beneficial effect the change would have in the force. Had the hon. and gallant Gentleman made any calculation as to how many of the men had served for twenty-five years? At the present time the police force was employed hunting Fenians through the snow in the mountains, and could it be said that as a rule men would be fit to do such work after they had gone through twenty-five years' service? A considerable proportion of the men had already retired by the time they had reached the period of twenty-five years' service, and all that was suggested was that the whole of the men should have the option of retiring at that period of their career. He was convinced that it would give great satisfaction if the men knew that they would have the right to

  893
  retire at a certain fixed time, instead of it being insisted that they should remain in the force so long as anything could be got out of them.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he could not agree with his noble Friend (Lord Naas) that the arrangements that had been lately made were regarded with satisfaction by the constabulary. Had it been easier to obtain recruits during the last six months than it was previously? His experience was that they complained that they were not allowed to leave the service until they were worn out. The truth was that the men got out of the service when they wished by procuring a medical certificate, even although they were at the time in such a state of health that they could, if they liked, continue in the service. He believed that a very great proportion of the men now left the service at an early period. Indeed, many of them entered it only to acquire money enough to take them to America. It would be much more desirable that they should have a retiring pension than an increase of pay. He believed that the organization of the police might be made infinitely more perfect and at a much less cost, than under the present system. He hoped he should see the day when they would have the police force in Ireland established on the same footing as that in England. The subject was a very important one, and he hoped the Irish Government would re-consider it. It was perfectly absurb and even mischievous to put forth, as was done in the Report of the Commission, that the constabulary should be paid out of the local funds when the greater part of their duty was Imperial.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he regretted, as a Member of the Commission, that he had not had as a Colleague his hon. and gallant Friend (General Dunne), because he believed he was capable of affording a vast deal of valuable information on this subject. It was an unfortunate circumstance that when that Commission was appointed the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in Ireland, and his hon. and gallant Friend suddenly left the country. He had a very strong opinion on the subject of promotion—that the more they encouraged the men by promotion the better it would be for the force generally. He could bear his testimony to the value of the Irish police for the maintenance of good order and
  894
  British rule in Ireland; but he thought the expense should be partly borne by local taxation. He denied that the Commission over which he had the honour to preside had abolished the good service pay. They found, however, that they could not both increase the pay and fix the term of service at the same time. As for a man being in the decline of life at forty-five, he should very much regret to think so.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
£2,000, Special Rewards to certain members of the Irish Constabulary Force.
LORD NAASsaid, that after the gratifying discussion that took place some short time since in that House, he should only be wasting time in entering fully into the Vote. He felt certain that the Committee would vote this small sum with the greatest satisfaction, in order to place at their disposal the means of rewarding those men who had done such great service. The rewards would be distributed as fairly and equitably as possible, according to the services rendered. The Government had also under their consideration the propriety of giving honorary rewards. Of course, it was a matter requiring great consideration; but he hoped to be able to bring the subject very shortly before the House. The country was under great obligation to the force, and especially to the gallant officer at its head, who had exhibited qualities, during the late difficulties, which enhanced the reputation he had previously acquired in the service of his country. He had great pleasure in moving the Vote.
MR. COGANsaid, he wished to express his concurrence in the Vote. It was satisfactory to find that the police force had been able to put down this insurrection.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he wished to express his satisfaction in the course proposed by the Government. Rewards to be effectual should be prompt. Had it not been for the recognition of the services of the force by the House on a former occasion, and also what had passed in the other House, he should have

895
asked for the postponement of the Vote in order that it might be discussed in a fuller House; but, under the circumstances, he thought he need not do so. The manner in which the force had discharged is duty was deserving of the highest praise. He was glad that the Government had under its consideration also rewards of an honorary nature.
MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, that as he had not the opportunity upon a recent occasion, when the conduct of the Irish constabulary formed the subject of so much just commendation in that House, to express his concurrence in the general and willing testimony which was borne to their devoted, and, he might add, chivalrous loyalty, he was anxious now to be permitted to do so; and as the representative of an Irish constituency also, to offer his acknowledgments to Her Majesty's Government for the well-considered and firm steps they adopted to protect the country from the serious danger which lately threatened it. He was happy to find that the noble Lord so promptly recognised the services of the constabulary, and that, as the organ of the Irish Government in that House, he had paid a just and generous tribute to a body of men who had for years entitled themselves to the confidence of the country, and who had upon a recent occasion so amply proved the high spirit by which they were influenced. But he entertained a feeling of regret with reference to the Vote now submitted. He could have wished that the Government had much enlarged the amount now proposed. He thought £2,000 was quite insufficient for the purpose intended; and he believed the country would readily offer a more substantial recognition of the services which that Vote was intended to reward. However, he was unwilling to interfere with the action of the Government, and his support should be very heartily given to the proposal now submitted by the noble Lord; although he could not help repeating his belief that it was by no means so substantial a return as the very remarkable and exceptional circumstances which had led to its being submitted to the Committee would have justified. The noble Lord had informed them that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to confer some honourable distinction upon the Members of the constabulary who had so eminently entitled themselves to the gratitude of the country; and he hoped in that recognition
896
they would find a compensation for what he believed to be the insufficiency of the amount now asked for.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he could bear testimony to the excellent manner in which the Dublin metropolitan police had discharged their duty in Dublin in apprehending members of the Fenian conspiracy, much larger than the body of men who apprehended them.
LORD NAASsaid, that the Dublin metropolitan police would be included in any honorary reward.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LAWSON, Bill to provide for the Winding-up of Railway Companies in Ireland in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LAWSON, Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, and Mr. SULLIVAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Eldon, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lyon King of Arms (Scotland)* (54).
Second Reading—Oyster Fisheries* (47).
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (£7,924,000),* and passed.
Royal Assent—(£369,118 5s. 6d.) Consolidated Fund [30 Vict. c. 4]; Duty on Dogs [30 Vict. c. 5]; Marriages (Odessa) [30 Vict. c. 2]; British North America [30 Vict. c. 3]; Metropolitan Poor [30 Vict. c. 6].

MILITIA.—ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of all Regiments of Militia in the United Kingdom; showing the

805
Number of Companies in each Regiment, the Establishment Number of Privates in each Company, the Number of Privates present with the Regiment at the last training in the Year 1866, the Number enlisted between the 1st Day of April 1865 and the let Day of April 1866, and the Sums paid in each Regiment for such Enlistments.
The noble Marquess, who addressed the House at some length, but whose remarks were inaudible, was understood to refer to the diminution of the numbers of the militia, to suggest that measures should be taken for raising the force to its full numbers.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he had no objection to the production of the Papers for which the noble Marquess had moved; on the contrary, it was desirable that as much information as possible on this subject should be laid before their Lordships. He thought, however, that the noble Marquess had taken rather too desponding a view of the state of the militia force; because, although it was true that a considerable diminution annually took place from deaths, expiration of time, and other causes, still he found from the figures which had been placed in his hands that in the last two years in which recruiting had been carried on with vigour the result had been satisfactory—the numbers having approached the prescribed quota of 120,000. In 1862–3 the number of new men enrolled was 29,233, in 1863–4 it was 29,236, and in 1865–6, when the previous efforts began to be relaxed, 23,449, therefore, though possibly all these men might not appear at the time of training, the figures he had quoted were sufficient to show that the decline in the strength of the force could not be going on at the rapid rate the noble Marquess seemed to suppose. The fact was that in 1864 a change was introduced, and a reduction was made from 120,000 to a lower quota. The explanation given was that several of the regiments were of an unmanageable size, and having to assemble at places where there was very limited accommodation, their very numbers were found inconvenient. A departmental order was therefore issued that not more than 600 men should be enrolled for each regiment. He had been informed that the result of that change was to introduce some uncertainty into the minds of commanding officers, and the recruiting, which before had been prosecuted with vigour, was relaxed, as
806
it appeared to be possible that further reductions might from time to time be made, whether from financial, or other considerations. The change had naturally a prejudicial effect upon the strength of the force; but he understood from those whose business it was to watch this force that they did not anticipate that any difficulty would be found in filling up the ranks again to the higher quota if an order to that effect should be issued. If the size of the militia regiments was objected to a remedy might easily be found in dividing them, though that might involve some increase of the staff; but the slight extra expense of such an arrangement was of little importance compared with the benefit that would result from preserving in efficiency so large and valuable a national force. The noble Marquess had mentioned that in 1852 the militia force was revived. At that time the staff had dwindled down to 715 persons, and the whole militia force enumerated on the Army List covered only three pages and a half. But, in 1852, Parliament took up the question vigorously; since then no less than sixteen special Acts of Parliament had been passed on the subject, and in 1859 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the force. The year 1852 was one of considerable political movement, a change of Ministry took place, and a general election soon followed. There was, however, at the time, a general concurrence of opinion in favour of the revival of the militia force. One Government introduced a Bill with that object at the commencement of the Session, and although they did not pass it, their successors carried the measure in a somewhat altered form. There was a great difference of opinion at the time and some hot discussions took place. While it was advanced on the one side that we had no respectable military force in the country, and that a revival of the militia was absolutely necessary, persons equally competent were to be found on the other, who were of an entirely opposite opinion. But even those who admitted that an addition to our military strength was necessary, differed as to the way in which it should be made. Some were for an increase in the regular army, some for a local militia, and some for an army of reserve. He had read in Hansard that one experienced Member of the House of Commons informed the Ministry that he had shown them how they may have a reinforcement

807
of almost any amount of regular troops in an army of reserve, at almost no cost. He had not heard that that project had been realized—perhaps the author had not lived to carry out his plan; but if any friend had inherited the details, the War Office would be very glad to hear from him. Some opponents of the militia scheme at the time grounded their objections upon the assumption that the force could never become efficient on account of the limited period of training. And this was said of those very militia regiments which, two years afterwards, most efficiently did the duty of regular troops both at home and abroad. And now, when he heard it whispered that the militia were falling away he reflected upon the predictions of 1852, and tried to reassure himself by the thought that the force which had grown efficient in such a short period, might still perhaps maintain its efficiency, notwithstanding the omens of decline which some thought they noticed at the present time. The noble Marquess had adverted to the deficiency of numbers now existing. That deficiency amounted to something like 800 officers and 7,000 men. The deficiency of men might be accounted for by the uncertainty to which he had before referred, which affected the recruiting; but the deficiency of officers was a more serious matter. It was gradual, but still in the same unfavourable direction. The Commission which sat in 1859 had considered the position of the officers of the staff, but not that of captains and subalterns, and had made some recommendations with regard to the former which had been adopted. Notwithstanding, the officers of the permanent staff were not altogether satisfied with their position now, and numerous memorials were received from them: representations were also made by captains and subalterns who attended training, complaining that the expenses they were put to were considerable, and calling attention to their inferior billets, and other matters. Some cases had certainly been made out for favourable consideration on the part of the authorities, and the heads of the Department were ready to consider them. It was well known that from year to year there was a Massacre of the Innocents at the time of the preparation of the Estimates, and many a wise and large-hearted project disappeared or died the slow death of postponement to a future opportunity. It should not be forgotten that the nomination of
808
the officers of the militia was a matter with which, as yet, the public Departments had no concern. There was no disposition to trench on the functions of the lords-lieutenant of counties, with whom these appointments rested, and until the lords-lieutenant came forward of themselves and begged to be relieved of the task—which he hoped would not be until a very distant day—the Departments could not interfere. In the county management of the militia there appeared to be some anomalies. For instance, they were under no military jurisdiction when they were assembled for drill, they did not report themselves to the General Officer of the district, and the present system of inspection was not altogether satisfactory. As the Inspector General of Militia was unable to inspect the whole force, military officers were taken from the neighbouring stations to perform this duty. They usually passed a very pleasant day, and were generally able to make a very favourable report of the regiment they inspected. But there was one point which they frequently pointed out as calling for some attention—namely, the state of the storehouses, the armouries, and quarters for staff-sergeants of militia. The law on this point had been altered, and the practice now was very uncertain. The Royal Commission reported as follows:—
"We find that in 1853 counties were required, under the provisions of the Militia laws, to provide quarters for at least one-half of the non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff; that in the subsequent year an Act was passed leaving the provision of such quarters to the discretion of the magistrates of the county; and that, practically, many counties have not even provided accommodation for the proportion above alluded to. We therefore recommend, with a view to the maintenance of discipline, that the whole of the non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff be provided by the counties with proper quarters in or near the storehouses, and that a quarter be also provided for the residence of the drummers and buglers of the permanent staff."
This, however, had not been done, and the result was very great inconvenience, and injury to the discipline of the force. Besides the quarters in or near the storehouses, the law originally required that yards should be provided for the mustering and drilling of the men. This also had been neglected, and there were some stations at which, practically, the whole business of the militia, was done in the street. The drill-ground was often at a distance, and the result was great loss of time, as well

809
as other inconveniences, and the few days allotted to exercise could not, under such circumstances, be turned to the best advantage. This question came before the authorities lately, in connection with reports from different localities, as to the insecure position of the arms of Volunteers. Similar reports were made of the militia stores; and it was found that in some cases only one, and in others no sergeant at all, was in the armoury. This was a matter of serious consequence; but it was also a point involving great expense. He had heard of counties which had spent £13,000 £15,000 in providing stores and quarters. He had no doubt that this was money well laid out, if the scruples of economists at quarter sessions could be overcome. The noble Marquess had alluded to the proposal respecting an Army of Reserve, which had been mentioned in the other House of Parliament. The details were not yet published, for, owing to the change in the head of the War Office, and to other causes, some delay had taken place. As regarded the militia, the proposal was that certain soldiers whose first period of service had not expired might have permission, after eight years' service, to commute the unexpired portion of their term for a double period of service in the militia; and that a certain number of militiamen ready drilled—a limited number—might, on receipt of extra bounty, be joined with those soldiers in the first reserve, both being under an obligation to join the ranks of the army on any emergency should their services be required. Until this emergency arose they would do duty with the militia, as they did now, and possibly might complete their whole service without being called upon to serve in the line. It was intended, he might observe, if the scheme was adopted, that the quota of the militia would be restored to its original strength of 120,000, in order that, after the withdrawal of these soldiers and Volunteer first reserve men, the remainder of the force should be not below its present establishment of 94,000. He had sometimes heard it said that the the organization of the Volunteer force had to some extent superseded the militia in public view. The Volunteers, no doubt, had the advantage of novelty; their dress was, perhaps, more picturesque, and they were more seen and heard than the militia. Nevertheless, there was plenty of room for both. The total of our regular and auxiliary forces did not exceed together 1·7 per
810
cent of the population. In reality, therefore, the militia had very little cause to regret that their patriotism in coming forward for the public defence should be shared by others. Although those who had charge of public Departments acknowledged cordially the spirit and good feeling with which so many had come forward to sacrifice money, time, and personal exertions to maintain and develop the auxiliary forces, of which the militia was the first and the oldest, nevertheless much remained to be done by local effort. Acts of Parliament and acts of administration required corresponding efforts and support from those who were interested—as all were—in the institutions of the country. The noble Earl concluded by stating that the papers moved for would be supplied.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in reply, regretted the economy of the War Office, and said that the noble Earl had not touched upon the mode of increasing the number of recruits.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he himself had reason to agree with the noble Marquess in regretting the economy of the War Office, for they had even cut off his half-pay, on the ground that he was now holding an office of profit under the Crown. As to the other point mentioned by the noble Marquess, he must remind the noble Marquess of what he had already stated—that in 1862–3 and 1863–4, there had been 29,000 recruits raised in each year, and, with very slight relaxations, he was informed that a full supply of recruits, whenever required, would be obtained for the militia without the ballot.
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was glad to hear from the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War that, from the information at his command, he did not acquiesce in the desponding view taken of the militia by the noble Marquess. In 1859, when volunteering for the militia was at its lowest ebb, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question. The recommendations of the Commissioners were considered and adopted by late Government, and had been followed by their successors; and the result of the measures thus taken was that the number of men enlisted increased, and that they were drawn from a more satisfactory class persons—namely, from those resident in the respective counties. Therefore, this recruiting from the militia must have interfered in a less degree with recruiting for the Line. There could be no doubt

811
that those causes, which were considered by the Royal Commission of last year to interfere with recruiting for the Line, in some degree affected the recruiting for the militia. The noble Earl who had just sat down had told their Lordships that there had been of late years no less than 29,000 men raised in the course of a year for the militia within the three kingdoms. It was impossible to say, if there were facilities for raising such a number of men, that they were likely to encounter any serious difficulty in obtaining the number of men required for that force. But the noble Earl seemed to think that a measure of the late Government had had an unfavourable effect on the recruiting for the militia. The noble Earl correctly described the objects of the measure; but he was not quite correct when he spoke of it as being intended to reduce the quota. The quota and the establishment remained just as they were before; all that was done was to direct that the larger regiments should not be filled up to their full strength. That direction was issued in consequence of its having been found that 1,000 or 1,200 men was a larger number than could be properly handled by one commanding officer. To divide the regiments would largely increase the expense; because, although division might not involve having altogether double the number of officers, it would necessitate the doubling of all the staff expenses and seriously interfere with the existing organization. Therefore, it was the opinion of the late Government that by diminishing the strength of the larger regiments and increasing the period of training from twenty-one to twenty-seven days in each year, they were adopting a course which was calculated not to diminish but to increase the efficiency of the militia. It might have turned out—but the noble Earl was better informed on that point than himself—that the measure had had some effect on recruiting; but he could not see how the measure could have had this result. A noble Friend of his drew his attention the other day to a matter which in some parts of the country had had a considerable effect on recruiting for the militia—namely, the change that had taken place in some districts from the system of engaging agricultural labourers by the week to that of engaging them by the year. It was not permitted to the recruiting officers of the militia to interfere with men engaged thus permanently as labourers; and he believed that in some
812
parts of the country this had greatly affected recruiting. He agreed with the noble Marquess that it was of great importance, especially at the present time, when they saw what was taking place in other countries, seriously to consider the question, and to take every step that could be taken to fill up the numbers and to increase the efficiency of this most valuable branch of our military service, which must form—as he took the liberty of observing the other night—the first portion of the home reserve. But the deficiency of officers was a more serious and more pressing evil than the deficiency of men. The noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) had told them that the militia was 7,000 men short of its quota. That was an unfortunate circumstance; but the want of 800 officers was a matter which required still graver consideration. One cause of the difficulty of obtaining officers for the militia of late years was, no doubt, the establishment of the Volunteers. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl that there was plenty of room for both forces, and that both forces were required; but undoubtedly the establishment of the Volunteer force had increased the difficulty found by lords-lieutenant in obtaining officers for the militia. The subject was one of daily increasing importance, and it had occupied much of his attention, particularly during the latter part of his administration at the War Office. He trusted that the present Government would give their serious attention not only to the number of the officers, but also to the quality of the officers to be appointed. It was as important that a due proportion of the officers should be men having practical acquaintance with military service, and some of them should be men of county position and influence. The noble Marquess, in alluding to the introduction of the ballot, dwelt on the great expense which attended the system in former times, and the length of time which it took to raise men by ballot. But in so doing the noble Lord was describing a state of things which did not exist at the present time. In 1860 a measure was passed, on the recommendation of the late Lord Herbert, for shortening the period required for carrying out the ballot, and the operation would now be less expensive and would occupy a considerably shorter time than was the case under the old system. He was entirely of the noble Marques's opinion that it would be a serious thing to entertain the proposal for the revival

813
of compulsory service in time of peace, not only on account of the expense and loss of time which would be involved, but for the obvious reason that it would necessary for the Government which would propose such a system to show that there was an overwhelming necessity for it. Still, he thought that the power of resorting to the ballot in times of war and emergency should be retained. It appeared to him that the system of local taxation which the noble Marquess had suggested would be neither practicable nor efficient.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEdesired to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War, whether, under the new scheme of army reserve about to be submitted to Parliament, a militia officer bringing 100 men to that part of the militia which was to form a portion of the reserve would be entitled to a commission? If so, there would be a great inducement for the sons of country gentlemen to join the militia. At present they preferred the Volunteer force as being the more popular service. Complaints had been made to him by officers commanding militia regiments, and by captains of companies, that they had had to discharge all the duties of subalterns, and this was regarded as a great hardship.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the scheme for the army reserve was not yet before Parliament; and he hoped that he might be allowed to defer his answer to another opportunity.
Motion agreed to.

ROYAL NAVY.—MOTION FOR RETURNS.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving for a Return of the Number of Lieutenants on the Active List of the Navy in each Year from 1856 to 1867; and also for a Return showing the Number of Lieutenants employed in each Year from 1856 to 1867, said: My Lords, the object I have in view is this—it has been reported that the Board of Admiralty consider that the number of cadets entered of late years is too large, and that we have too many junior officers in the navy, and I desire to remove that impression. My experience in office teaches me that, instead of there being too many lieutenants, even during time of peace, we have lately had too few, and the Returns I move for will show that. Your Lordships are aware that the efficiency of the navy, especially during the next few years, will depend very much upon the efficiency
814
of the lieutenants, and it is of the greatest importance that the number should not fall below a certain minimum. I feel the more responsibility upon this subject, because some years ago I was Chairman of a Committee of the House of Commons which, after hearing the evidence of Lord Auckland, then first Lord of the Admiralty, and of the Naval Lords, recommended the reduction of the number of cadets; and the Admiralty not only acted on this view, but carried it out to greater extent than the Committee contemplated. The consequence was that as soon as the Russian war broke out, there was a serious want of lieutenants for the navy, and great complaints were made. On that account, feeling the responsibility of the opinion which I gave in connection with the Committee, even though that opinion was founded on the evidence which we took, I am now anxious to correct, at least as far as I can, any erroneous impression which may have been made by that Report, and to say that we increased the number of entries of cadets, because there were so few lieutenants in the navy. I have continually had complaints made to me that when lieutenants came home from foreign service or tropical climates, instead of being allowed a reasonable time to visit their friends, they were, in the course of a few weeks, appointed to a ship, and again sent to a distant part of the world. And that was the case even in time of peace. Such a system is not only injurious to the lieutenants themselves, but likewise detrimental to the interests of the service. I am not aware of the exact number of lieutenants in the navy at present, nor of the number now employed, and I have moved for these Returns in order to ascertain that, and to have the means of comparing the numbers now employed with the numbers in previous years, and I shall afterwards call the attention of the House to the subject. There are no complaints against the Board of Admiralty that I am aware of; and, in fact, in declining to appoint a larger number of cadets, they have given up a certain amount of patronage.
Motion agreed to. [Parl. Paper, No. 79.]
Return of the Number of Lieutenants on the Active List of the Navy in each Year from 1856 to 1867: And also,
Return showing the Number of Lieutenants employed in each Year from 1856 to 1867.—(The Duke of Somerset.)
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.