Sitting of 24 February 1868

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—George Melly, esquire, for Stoke-upon-Trent.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance.
Ordered—Weights and Measures (Metric System); Sea Fisheries; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance; Court of Session (Scotland); Court of Justiciary (Scotland).
First Reading—Sea Fisheries [42]; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [43]; Weights and Measures (Metric System) [44]; Court of Session (Scotland) [45]; Court of Justiciary (Scotland) [46].
Second Reading—Railways (Extension of Time)* [39].
Third Reading—Public Departments (Extra Receipts)* [26].

TURKEY—APPOINTMENT OF SIR WILLIAM WISEMAN.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN MACKINNONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that Commodore Sir William Wiseman, R.N., was appointed some months ago, by the Admiralty, to proceed to Constantinople to assist in the organization of the Turkish Fleet; and if this appointment has been approved by the Secretary of State to the Turkish Government; and if it is true that this Officer is not now to proceed to Turkey, in consequence of another British Officer of the Royal Navy having accepted the appointment without the sanction of the Government; and what steps the Government have taken to recall this Officer, to allow Sir William Wiseman to take up the duties he was appointed to last summer?
LORD STANLEY: Sir, the facts of the case are these: In May of last year, the Turkish Government expressed a wish that a British Naval Officer of rank should be selected to act as one member of a Council of Naval Officers, a kind of Turkish Board of Admiralty, which has been lately established at Constantinople. The English Government saw no objection to that in principle, Turkey being at peace with all nations, and Sir William Wiseman was accordingly selected by the Admiralty for the post in question. But it was thought better that the appointment should remain in abeyance until the termination of the Cretan war. The Cretan war, however, still continues, though upon a reduced scale; and therefore Sir William Wiseman's appointment has not been carried out. In December last, it was reported at
1072
the Foreign Office that Captain Hobart, of the British Navy, was about to enter the Turkish service. I communicated with the Admiralty upon the subject; they made inquiry, and Captain Hobart was informed that in the event of his taking service under the Turkish Government, without the consent of the English Government, he could not be allowed to remain in the English Navy. A letter was shortly after received from Captain Hobart, stating that he had accepted the office of member of the Turkish Admiralty Board, and offering, in consequence, to resign his commission in Her Majesty's service. That resignation has, I understand, been accepted. No communication has been made to me by the Turkish Government upon the subject of Captain Hobart. I may add, in conclusion, that the appointment is one of a civil and not of a military character, and therefore Captain Hobart, in accepting it, has not violated any Law of this Country.

POLLUTION OF RIVERS.—QUESTION.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, during the present Session, he intends to introduce a Bill to prevent the pollution of rivers; or, if he does not intend to legislate on the whole subject, if he will introduce a Bill to prevent solids being deposited in rivers?
MR. GATHORNE HARDYreplied, that he was not prepared to legislate upon the subject during the present Session, as he did not think the inquiry into it had been sufficiently complete. The old Commission had been dissolved, but a new one would shortly be issued, and he therefore did not think it was advisable to legislate until that was done.

POSTAL.—MR. CHURCHWARD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TAYLORsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any foundation for the report that the Government are in negotiation with Mr. Churchward in respect of a new contract for the Mail Service to France?
  MR. HUNT: No, Sir, there is no intention whatever.

INDIA—MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, with reference to the statement made

  1073
  by the then Under Secretary, on the 15th May, 1866, that a sum of £600,000 was about to be lent to the Madras Irrigation Company on debentures, he is prepared to state what sums have been so advanced; upon what terms the advance is made; what is the state of account with that Company at the present date; and whether any net revenue has accrued from the work; and whether the chairman and directors of that Company are paid for their labours; and, if so, by whom?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the arrangement referred to was that the Government should advance a sum of £600,000 to the Madras Irrigation Company, for the purpose of enabling them to execute certain specified works, the money to be issued on debentures bearing 5 per cent interest, which was to be a first charge upon the profits of the Company. And there was this stipulation, that if within five years, from the 1st July, 1866, the work was not completed to the satisfaction of the local Government, the whole of the works should be made over to the Secretary of State, in exchange for an amount of Five per cent India Government Stock, equivalent at the price of the day to the actual amount expended. The amount which had been advanced as loan was £118,000, and the works were proceeding in accordance with the arrangement made. The Company were guaranteed by the Government to the extent that the Government made up the amount of interest on the capital of the Company to 5 per cent per annum. The amount of the capital of the Company—£1,000,000—was now all paid up, with the exception of some £100 or £200, and the amount paid by the Government between 1859, when the arrangement was made, to the present time was £311,918, as guaranteed interest, and in the last year the amount paid was £49,846 15 s. 3d., or about 5 per cent upon the amount of the capital called up. It was clear from this statement that the Company had not made any net revenue at present. The directors had hitherto been remunerated out of the capital called up, but now they were paid out of the advances obtained on loan.

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, To postpone the Committee on the Public Schools Bill, the Report of the
  1074
  Grammar Schools Commission not having been yet issued?
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, in reply, that he did not propose to take the Committee on this Bill until the Report of the Commissioners was in the hands of Members. He proposed, however, to go into Committee on the Bill pro formâ on Thursday, in order to insert some material Amendments with a view to putting the Bill into a more complete shape.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. EWART, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for the introduction into this country of the Metric System of Weights and Measures, said, that a Committee of that House which had sat upon the subject had reported in favour of such a measure. All the foreign Commissions likewise which had considered the subject had been favourable to a Bill like that which he now sought to introduce. He would leave the House to determine the period when the metrical system should be adopted. He thought himself that five years would be a sufficient time to allow in order to prepare the public for its adoption.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that he should not offer any opposition on the part of the Government to the introduction of the Bill; but he wished to remind the hon. Gentleman that this was one of the points which would be brought under the consideration of the Royal Commission at present sitting on the subject of Weights and Measures, and he thought it would be as well to defer any measure of this kind until that Commission had reported.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to establish the Metric System of Weights and Measures, ordered to be brought in by Mr. EWART, Mr. BAZLEY, Mr. BAINES, Mr. JOHN BENJAMIN SMITH, and Mr. GRAVES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]

SEA FISHERIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect a Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French concerning the Fisheries in the Seas adjoining the British Islands and France, and to amend the Laws relating to British Sea Fisheries, said, it would probably be in the recollec-

  1075
  tion of the House that in the year 1866 Her Majesty the Queen and the Emperor of the French charged a Mixed Commission with the duty of preparing a revision of the Convention of the 3rd of August, 1839, and of the Regulations of June 23, 1843, relative to the fisheries in the seas between Great Britain and France. Of that Commission he had the honour of being one of the English Members. Associated with him was his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre), of whose unwearied assiduity he could not speak too highly, and who brought to the task the experience he had gained from having served for two years on the Royal Commission for inquiring into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom. He had also the valuable co-operation of Mr. Goulburn, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Customs, and of Captain Hore, naval attaché to the Embassy in Paris. The Commissioners on the part of France were presided over by M. Manceaux, Conseiller d'Etat, and he should be guilty of a grave omission if he failed to acknowledge the unvarying courtesy and fairness exhibited by the French Commissioners during their somewhat protracted discussions. The chief points for consideration were—first, how far the regulations respecting times and modes of fishing in the seas beyond the territorial limits of the two countries might be modified. Under the old Convention there was a vast number of minute and elaborate regulations respecting size of meshes and other particulars which had always remained a dead letter. These the Commissioners of each country immediately agreed to sweep away. But there was one point upon which there was considerable difference of opinion—namely, in reference to oyster fishing. Under the old Convention the English and French bound each other not to dredge for oysters in the common seas between the 30th of April and the 1st of September. Constant complaints had been made of the oppressive effects of this law on the oyster fishermen of England by excluding them from the oyster grounds at the most favourable period of the season. The French attached very great importance to the restriction, not for the sake of the deep sea beds, but as a means of enforcing more completely the close-time on their own shores. The English Commissioners obtained, however, the important concession of an extension of the time of open fishing for six weeks—
  1076
  namely, to the 15th of June. The next point was the conversion of the cumbrous regulations respecting the conduct of the fishermen into a short and simple police code, in order to preserve the peace of the sea, to prevent collisions between the fishermen of the two countries, and to bring offenders to justice with all possible despatch. He believed that a satisfactory settlement had been arrived at on this head, and the most effectual mode of carrying out these desirable objects was allowed to be the enforcing of a greater uniformity in the system of marking, numbering, and registering boats for the purpose of ready identification. The third point was a more precise definition of the geographical limits over which the regulations should extend. There was considerable uncertainty on this point under the old Convention; and, in consequence, there was more than once exhibited the unseemly spectacle of the fishermen defying the authorities to enforce regulations they had issued. The English Commissioners agreed that while the ordinary police regulations should extend as far as they were concerned to all the seas surrounding the British Islands, the restrictive clauses respecting oyster fishing should apply only to the Channel. He might here state that the Convention applied only to the common sea beyond the limits within which, by International usage, the territorial jurisdiction of each country prevailed; that was to say, generally speaking, at a distance of three miles from the coast, and that neither under the Convention nor by the Bill did they interfere with the coast fisheries of Ireland. The last point on which the Commissioners agreed was the permission to the fishermen of both countries to sell fish on terms of reciprocity in the ports of either country, subject only to such regulations as might be necessary for the protection of the revenue. There was a difficulty with regard to bringing this arrangement into immediate operation, in consequence of there being still a duty, though much reduced, on foreign fish in France. They found, however, a strong wish on the part of the French Commissioners that this obstacle might soon be swept away. The Bill he asked to introduce was framed chiefly for the purpose of carrying this Convention into effect. It would have been brought in earlier, but that, owing to unforeseen delays in ratification, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office was only

  1077
  able to lay the Convention on the table last Thursday. The opportunity had also been taken of consolidating and amending the laws respecting oyster fisheries in this country. As he hoped the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days, he would only say further that the copy which was distributed last Session was merely a rough draft for consideration which was circulated by the printer's mistake, and was very different from the Bill he now asked leave to introduce.
  GENERAL DUNNEhoped he had correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish fisheries would be protected by the Bill. If not, they would be thrown open by this Convention to foreign fishermen for the first time. Some of the oyster fisheries were much more distant from the coast than three miles, the limit from the shore, which had been reserved by the terms of the Convention—one of the oyster fisheries—namely, that of Arklow being nearly twenty miles from the coast. He hoped that they would not be thrown open to foreign fishermen, and that all the oyster fisheries of Ireland would be protected by the Bill. Indeed, he did not see why Ireland should have been mentioned in the Convention, seeing that while endangering her fishing interests by opening them to the French, no reciprocal advantage would be obained by her.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to carry into effect a Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French concerning the Fisheries in the Seas adjoining the British Islands and France, and to amend the Laws relating to British Sea Fisheries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEPHEN CAVE, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, and Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  GENERAL DUNNE, in moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the illegal application of the surplus fees in the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Ireland, said, those fees which were levied for the registration of deeds in Ireland long since accumulated to a very large sum. There was a specific clause in the Act of Parliament which regulated this office, which enacted that the fees should be levied only to the extent of the requirements of the office. He contended that they had reached an amount
  1078
  beyond what was required for this purpose, and although, he believed, that for the last two years the amount of fees alone received may not have equalled the expenditure in the office; yet the actual receipts did so, and out of the large surplus which had accumulated little was required, and if the accounts were given fairly, an annual balance of receipt above expenditure would still be shown. He hoped the Committee he asked for would be agreed to by the Government, especially as its time would be taken up only for a few hours in inquiring into the subject.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that when the right hon. and gallant Member brought forward that question on two different occasions he had endeavoured to give him the only answer which the facts justified, although that answer did not seem to be satisfactory to him. He did not see what good would be attained by the appointment of the Committee now asked for. There were certain regulations for the disposal of those fees, and the Return which the right hon. and gallant Member had moved for would show how the fees had been applied. Whether they had been rightly applied or not was a question of law, and not one for a Committee. By the Act bearing on the subject the registrar had every three months to ascertain the amount obtained from the fees and the sums paid in salaries and expenses, and then by a certain day the balance or surplus remaining had to be paid into the Bank of Ireland to the credit of the Consolidated Fund. That had been done; but the Act went on to direct that certain duties were to be performed, the expense of which was to come out of the surplus fees, those duties comprising the preparation of certain indices and calendars, which it was desirable should be made out in a convenient shape. Years elapsed before the duties in question were performed. Since then, however, the indices and calendars had been prepared, extra clerks had been employed, and money had been voted to remunerate them. Therefore, what came into the Exchequer on the one hand was paid out of the Exchequer on the other; and, as a matter of equity, there was no fair ground of complaint against the present arrangement. He trusted that the Motion would not be pressed.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he must totally dissent from the statements and explanations of his hon. Friend. It was so far true that certain duties had been neglected, and

  1079
  an arrear of business had some time since occurred in the Registry of Deeds Office, but only because the Government, having a surplus of fees in their own hands, would not pay the clerks to do the work; and it had been a difficult matter to get a grant from them for the keeping up of the indices. He had himself at that time pressed it on the then Government, and in the end succeeded in obtaining from that large surplus a grant, which had enabled the clerks in the office to bring up the arrear of business. He denied that there was any right under the Act of Parliament to take more fees than were necessary for the requirements of the Registry Office, and it was expressly stated in the Act that no part of these fees should be considered part of the revenue of the country. Both the present and former Governments had very much neglected their duty in reference to this office, and the practice which had obtained was unjust and inequitable towards the people of Ireland. Any changes which the Treasury made, by the powers vested in it, for regulating the fees or personnel of this office, were to be stated to the House, and a Paper laid on the table explaining them in fourteen days after the meeting of the House, but no such statement has been made; yet his hon. Friend stated he had increased the staff and expense of the office. He saw, however, it would be useless to divide the House upon his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to 'inquire into the legal application of the surplus fines in the Office of the Registry of Deeds, Ireland,'"—(General Dunne,)
  —put, and negatived.

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE.—COMMITTEE.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in moving that the House should resolve itself into Committee, referred to observations made on a previous evening by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who had stated, in the course of the discussion raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), that the proper course to adopt in matters of metropolitan finance was, that the Government should advise the House as to the mode in which the necessary funds should be obtained, and that then the management of the works should be allowed to devolve upon
  1080
  the local authorities. He (Lord John Maners) was ready to adopt that principle, and it was embodied in the Bill he was about to ask leave to bring in. He had, however, in the first place, to move that the Speaker leave the Chair, in order that the question might be submitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to know from the noble Lord, whether the measure he proposed was identical with that which he brought forward last year, because the policy then attempted was most nequitable—it would enable the borrowing of money upon the securities of the Coal and Wine duties levied from the Metropolitan police area until the year 1888, and such a scheme ought not to be permitted. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) called attention to the principle, and said that, in his opinion, it was a financial system that would not be tolerated if embodied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget. Last year he (Mr. Labouchere) gave notice of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, and he would certainly persevere in that course unless the area were limited, for the Metropolitan police area was one established for an entirely different purpose. The Bill would press very hard upon manufacturers and others within this area, and therefore he was determined to oppose it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to further continue and appropriate the London Coal and Wine Duties.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Lord JOHN MANNERS, and Mr. HUNT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

METROPOLIS GAS BILLS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he believed that inquiries with reference to the Gas Companies of the Metropolis had been conducted with great advantage to the public, and moved that all the Bills relating to Gas Companies in the Metropolis be referred to a Select Committee of ten Members, five to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  Motion agreed to.

  1081
  Ordered, That all Bills relating to Gas Companies in the Metropolis be referred to a Select Committee of Five Members.—(Mr. Ayrton.)

COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Session, and the judicial arrangements in the Superior Court of Scotland, said, Mr. Speaker: I propose to explain to the House shortly the provisions of the Bill; but it would be improper for me to go into details, because many of them are technical. My object in bringing the Bill so soon before the House is that the country generally may have an opportunity of considering the alterations which are proposed by the measure. The Court of Session consists of thirteen Judges, five of whom discharge the duties which are performed by the English Judges at Nisi Prius and Chambers, and there are two Divisions which constitute Courts of Appeal for judgments of a single Judge. Now, complaints have been made that delay has existed in the disposal of cases in the Court of Session. I admit that in the Divisions to which most of the cases are sent there has been delay, which results in this—that nearly twelve months of late have elapsed before the cases are disposed of. That is an amount of delay which I believe is not peculiar to the Courts in Scotland, but which also exists in the Common Law Courts here. It is, of course, very desirable to expedite the decision of cases, and the object of the measure which I now ask leave to bring in is to effect that desirable result. Now, what is proposed to be done is to extend the sittings of the Courts to some extent, and also to make certain arrangements which will enable the Courts to dispose of cases at times when they do not at present come before them. One of the ways in which this contemplated improvement is to be effected is, that instead of taking up what are called teind cases, with reference to teinds and stipends to be paid to ministers as at present on alternate Wednesdays, and which have the effect of occupying the Court and interrupting the proceedings of the day; instead of this, the Bill provides that no such cases shall be taken up on Wednesdays. It provides that on Mondays—on which days the Criminal Court at present sits—teind cases shall be taken up by the Court; and to enable the Courts to effect this, and also to get
  1082
  throuh other business, it is proposed that there shall sit in the High Court of Justiciary only one Judge, as in criminal trials on circuit, thus setting free two Judges, who are now occupied in trying cases which are very often of very trifling importance. Liberty, however, is reserved for the bringing in other Judges in cases of great importance. It is further proposed that there shall be a Court of Appeal or Review, which shall review the judgments of the Sheriffs upon matters of proof. There are matters of such general importance, involving points of law, that it is proposed that all such cases—cases depending upon proof—may be sent to this Court of Appeal. It is believed that this will tend to relieve very much the Court from the restriction which it very frequently finds in the disposing of cases which are caused by the long arguments upon proofs; and it is thought that by removing these from the general roll, and by sending them to a new court to be constituted, and to sit on Mondays, a considerable portion of arrears will be got rid rid of. I think that these provisions will afford considerable facilities for the disposing of cases before the Court. There is also a provision in the Bill which has been acted upon to a considerable extent already—namely, that whenever cases are in arrear to the extent of two months—that it to say, when cases which have been brought in at the commencement of May are not disposed of at the beginning of July—that then the Court shall have extra sittings to reduce the arrear, or to dispose of it, so that there shall not be cases in arrear more than two months. I hope that there will not be even that arrear in a short time. This provision, I have no doubt, will give satisfaction to the country; and I know that the Judges are very anxious to bring about such a result as I have stated. So much in reference to the arrangements of the Courts. Now, a few words in reference to the changes in procedure. The following matters are contemplated:—The period within which a party must come into Court and plead will be shortened considerably; the improved facilities of communication between one part of the country and another by railway will enable us to do that with safety. Then, in addition, it is proposed that decrees in absence may be taken by the agent or solicitor and the party without the intervention of counsel; that where the party has not within the proper time given in a defence,

  1083
  that then by application to the Judge a decree may be obtained without any further expense. It is also proposed that decrees in absence, which at present are liable to be opened up and reviewed within a period of forty years, shall be made final within a much shorter time, that is to say if personal service has been made upon the party, and notice been given to him after judgment has been had, that it will be enforced. I think that this is a remedy which will be considered of importance, for I venture to say that no one will contend that a decree should be subject to be reviewed for a period of forty years. It is also proposed, with a view to expedite cases, that pleading shall be given in, according to statutory terms provided in the Act, and that there shall not be an extension of the period for pleading, except on cause shown to the satisfaction of the Judge. The next provision is one which I regard as of very great importance. It is one for the bringing of the parties together, in order that they may come to the point at once, and decide whether there is to be proof in the case, and, if so, whether the proof is to be taken before a jury or before a Judge. Our Courts differ from the Common Law Courts of England in this respect—that it is not necessary in all cases, though it is in certain cases, to have them tried by jury. Our Courts rather partake of the nature of Equity Courts, and we are in this position, that the Court of Session exercises both a common law and equity jurisdiction. I think that this has given satisfaction, and there is no desire whatever for a separation of the two branches of the law. Well, then, there is to be a meeting before the Lord Ordinary for the purpose of agreeing as to whether the parties shall renounce proof. I should hope it will be in the power of the Judge to dispose of the case there. If it is to be tried by jury, he shall give instructions to that effect; or, if it it is to be tried before himself, he shall direct that it shall so take place. I cannot but think that the parties coming together in this way, will tend to bring to a point an important question, and thus shorten the case. The greater part of the delay in the preparation of a cause is owing to the absence of such a proceeding The next matter provided for is, that it will be in the power of the Judge to allow of an amendment of the record. In on Act passed in the year 1825, after taking the best advice that could be offered,
  1084
  including some of the most eminent English lawyers, provision was made that what is called the record should be closed, and that no amendment should be allowed. It is proposed in this Act that power shall be given to the Court, whenever sufficient cause shall be shown, to allow an amendment of the record up to the last moment, so that justice may not be defeated by a technicality; care, however, being taken that no improper advantage shall be taken by the party in fault, and that he shall pay such costs as the Court may think proper. This provision will, I think, be found of advantage; it is copied from some recent provisions made for England, and which, I understand, have been found to work well. At present it is necessary to appeal against any judgment of a single Judge, to one of the Inner Divisions within twenty-one days after judgment has been pronounced; and yet if the party allows twenty-one days to elapse, he would run great risk of it being afterwards held that he was foreclosed from bringing the case under review at all. This rule has not been very much abused for the purpose of delay, but parties are frequently driven to the Inner House, in order to avoid the risk of being foreclosed, and some delay does occur in those cases. What is proposed now is, that it shall not be necesssary to appeal from any judgment of a single Judge until the whole cause has been finally disposed of; but at the same time power is given to a single Judge, when he thinks it would be of importance to have a decision of the Inner House upon any judgment of his. If he gives leave, the interim Judge's opinion may be submitted for review by the Inner House. Another provision which is made to relieve the Judges to some extent, is that it shall be competent for the clerk of the Judge to dispose of what are called unopposed motions without the intervention of counsel, and without going to the Judge. If the motion be opposed, then the Judge will be appealed to, and whoever is found to be in the wrong will be liable to costs. There is also power given to abandon before a jury, equivalent to the right of non-suit in England. That is a power, which, I think, ought to exist in Scotland; and we propose that the Bill should contain provision to that effect. I now come to a question which I regard as one of general importance, and the proposition which I have embodied in the Bill is somewhat of a bold character. I allude to

  1085
  a matter relative to jury trials. I may explain to the House that according to the old law of Scotland, in criminal cases, which still subsists, the case is always submitted to a jury consisting of fifteen, one-third of whom must be special jurors, and the other ten what are called common jurors. Now, I do not propose to interfere with that arrangement so far as the Criminal Courts are concerned; I do not propose to interfere with the constitution of the juries in the Criminal Court, although the number of jurymen in that class of cases in Scotland is larger than in England. Trial by jury in the Criminal Courts has hitherto worked so well that I am unwilling to disturb a system of such long standing. There is a great difference, however, in the case of trial by jury in the Civil Courts. The plan of jury trial in these Courts was instituted under a statute passed in the year 1815; but I do not know how it is, but it is the fact, that that mode of trial has not flourished in the estimation of the people. There can be no doubt that there is a considerable amount of the unpopularity attaching to the Civil Court generally arising from the existence of trial by jury. Indeed, until I had conferred with persons interested in the subject, and who gave me suggestions as to the framing of the present measure, I had no idea that the public feeling against this mode of trial was so strong. Many gentlemen who are amongst the most successful practitioners before the Court of Session, and gentlemen connected with the legal profession in Glasgow, expressed their desire to see jury trial in civil cases abolished altogether in Scotland. I am not prepared to go that length. I could not say that it would be right to abolish the system absolutely; but it is essential that some modification of it should be introduced. An Act was passed in the year 1866 which gave the Court a discretion to withdraw a case from the decision of a jury, and allow the judges to take evidence in a certain class of cases which were formerly handed over to a jury. That Act has worked very well. There are, however, a class of cases—such as cases of libel—which I very much doubt whether it would be proper to remove from the cognizance of juries. Admitting, therefore, that the system of trial by jury in civil cases is in an unsatisfactory state, and that the existence of such a system deters many persons from appealing to the Court of Session for settlement of disputes, still I am not, as I
  1086
  have already stated, prepared to go the length of abandoning the system altogether. I propose rather to amend in some respects the number of jurymen who sit upon cases. In the Civil Court there are at present twelve. This number I propose to reduce to seven. I am of opinion that twelve is too large a number to deal properly with such complicated cases as frequently came before them, and that owing to this reason the jurymen are not so well able to consult together, nor are they so manageable as they would be if the number were reduced to seven. I am confident that if this alteration be effected, the result will, in the generality of cases, be much more satisfactory. I further propose, in accordance with the old law of Scotland, which divided jurymen into special and common—that of these seven two should be special jurymen and the remaining five common jurymen. This method has been found to work well in the Criminal Courts of Scotland, and I think it should be extended to the Civil Courts. There are, I regret to say, a great number of exemptions from serving on juries, established in favour of gentlemen who would otherwise form part of the special jury list; and the result is that there is a very small jury list from which to select. Now, I venture to think that it is both for the interest of the public and of these gentlemen themselves that there should be a large and fair selection of persons who have hitherto been exempted from serving upon juries. I therefore propose to abolish all exemptions, except in the cases of ministers of religion and medical men. I would not even exempt the members of my own profession, unless it should be thought by the public that they would make the worst jurymen possible. The public have the power to challenge lawyers from serving on juries if they see fit to do so; but if the public desire to exempt the profession altogether, I am sure those who would then be exempted would not be disposed to quarrel over the matter. All I desire is that the matter shall be fairly considered by the country. Passing to another portion of the measure, I must acknowledge that a great deal of delay arises from the system of remitting cases to accountants, who, however, have not the power of enforcing their orders. Now I propose to give them the power of enforcing their orders, which should be peremptory. The result will be to expedite this class of cases before the account-

  1087
  ants, which at present occupy such a long time, owing to the parties themselves causing delay by not obeying the orders of the accountants, who, as I have intimated, have no power to enforce them. Then, again, there is what is called the Bill Chamber branch of the Court of Session, in which there is only one Judge who has the power of granting injunctions in certain cases; but it sometimes happens that before the injunction can be issued, the act threatened is done, and there is no remedy. I accordingly propose that the Chamber Judge shall have the power of ordering restoration against the act so done. There are certain further facilities given in the Bill for a more economical reviewing of proceedings in consequence of death or otherwise, and provision is made for affording facilities with regard to the payments that are to be made upon pleadings called fee-fund dues. The Bill of course contains a large number of details, all of which, I believe, will tend to improve the mode of procedure in the Court of Session. I feel confident that the measure will be recognized as conferring a benefit upon the legal profession as well as upon the public, because the profession can have but one interest, and that is, to make the Court of Session as popular and as accessible as possible. The interests of the public and the legal profession are in this respect coincident with it. It is not my intention to hurry the Bill through the House. I have brought it in at this early period of the Session in order that its provisions be carefully considered by the legal bodies before the commencement of the vacation of the Scotch Court. The custom has always been to submit such Bills to the consideration of the advocates and solicitors practising before the Court. It is quite possible that I may receive suggestions from these bodies which I may be able to incorporate with the measure when the Bill goes into Committee. As it is, I believe that the Bill will remedy almost all the grievances that at present exist. I beg to be understood that it will give me the greatest pleasure to receive any suggestion with the view of making the measure more efficient. I will not detain the House with any further remarks, but will simply move for leave to introduce the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that some time ago a Committee of the House had recommended that the number of Scotch Judges, which was at present thir-
  1088
  teen, should be reduced to eleven. He would like to know whether the Bill contained any provision for carrying this recommendation into effect? His own opinion was that they might very easily take two Judges away from Scotland and add them to England, more especially in consideration of the recent proposal to increase the work of the English Judges by adding to the functions which they already discharged.
  MR. MONCREIFFsaid, he had not the advantage of hearing all that fell from the lips of the learned Lord just now; but he had been previously put in possession of the particulars of the Bill which his right hon. and learned Friend proposed to produce; and he had given it the fullest consideration, and could say without hesitation that he considered it to be a great improvement upon the existing state of things. Whether in some respects his right hon. and learned Friend had not gone further than might seem well to some persons, it was not necessary that he should say. He proposed among other things, what he (Mr. Moncreiff) thought would be an exceedingly valuable change. He meant that he proposed to use the Lords Ordinary, by forming them into a new and separate Court, for the purpose of hearing appeals from the Sheriffs. He thought that a very desirable arrangement, and he hoped he would make the Court so constituted an independent Court in the proper sense of the term. He thought it would be extremely undesirable that the calling of such a Court into existence should be made dependent upon the heads of the Court in the Inner House. It was not desirable that Lords Ordinary should be in a subordinate position in any sense, and he felt quite satisfied that if he constituted that Court for the purpose of hearing appeals from the Sheriff Court, with an independent jurisdiction, he would confer an immense boon, and a great despatch of the pleas of the Sheriff Court. The delay that at present took place in the Court of Session acted as a discouragement, and prevented people appealing from the decision of the Sheriffs. That was one observation upon the Bill. A second was—and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give it serious attention—with regard to the trials by jury. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made some observations with reference to the unpopularity of jury trials in civil causes. It was quite true that the system

  1089
  had not achieved all the success which was expected. There might be many reasons for that. When the jury trial was first introduced into the Civil Courts of Scotland, before the case went to the jury the proposition would be simplified and put into a single question or more questions than the jury were to decide. Eventually, however, from this state of things arose one of the great incumberances of the system. There were many reasons why he should ask his right hon. and learned Friend to bestow his serious consideration on this matter—quite certain that his proposal to create a Court of Appeal was a step in the right direction. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee), it might be quite true that the nominal judicial staff of England did not bear the same proportion to the population as did that of Scotland; but in England the Judges were assisted by an immense staff of Law Officers, and the salaries of those officers in the Supreme Courts amounted to more than the salaries of the Judges in Scotland. They had chief-clerks in England who did a great deal of the work done by the Judges themselves in Scotland, and therefore they could not compare the mere number of Judges in the one country with that in the other. A good deal had been said lately about the falling off in the business of the Scotch Courts. It was true, he believed, that the number of cases introduced into the Court of Session was smaller than it was some years ago; but, in the first instance, his own experience led him to say—and he thought his right hon. and learned Friend would agree with him—that the class of cases were far higher and more important than they were when they first joined the bar. The reason of that had been the establishment of minor Courts, which had absorbed and swallowed up the cases of smaller importance. The Sheriffs' Courts not being like the English County Courts, they were competent in all questions, whatever their amount; and they had consequently absorbed a good deal of the minor business which in former days went before the higher Courts. Some hon. Gentlemen were, he knew, anxious to disturb that jurisdiction, but he trusted that it would not be disturbed. In regard to the complaints of delay which had so frequently been made, there were no doubt matters which had created a good deal of delay in isolated cases. That there were great delays in many cases was true; but
  1090
  when you came to represent that as the normal state of the Court, it was a totally different matter. There were, however, two matters in the administration of the Judicature Act which might very well be changed. The first was the practice of holding that the Inner House ought not to decide any question which had not been previously decided by the Outer. That, he thought, was a mistake. He did not think that the intention of the Judicature Act ever was that the Inner House should only act as a court of review upon the cases decided by the Lords Ordinary. The other matter was the principle which had been acted upon, he thought too closely, of refusing to decide the law until the facts of the case had been established. He thought that was unfortunate. It was more a practice than a principle; but he knew many cases in which the Court had refused to go into the law of the case until the facts had been proved, when it might well have done so. With these few observations he felt bound to give his right hon. and learned Friend his support in the Bill which he asked leave bring in.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he must tender his thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having undertaken the difficult task of reforming the Court of Session, both in its expense and procedure. Certainly, he was not disposed to complain that he had not adopted a bolder or more decided course. The proposals made had the appearance of meeting many of the complaints as to the practical working of the system. One complaint of the public was that the Court sat only half the year, that its sittings were so short, that certain days in the week were blank, that a considerable portion of its time was taken up with formal business which might be disposed of by clerks, and this evil was proposed to be got rid of by continued sittings at the end of each session. He thought the efficient business of the Court might be disposed of by a smaller number of Judges; and the question having been raised, he believed public opinion would support some such reform. He did not, however, say that any great saving would arise to the public; for if higher duties were thrown on the Court of Session salaries must be raised, and the result would very probaby be the number of appeals would be diminished. With regard to the juries, he doubted very much whether a reduction in the number of jurymen would be attended with any advantage. The system

  1091
  was, in fact, altogether condemned by public opinion. As far as he himself was concerned, he should be reluctant to see trial by jury abolished; but the subject was one that demanded the most serious inquiry. It was certainly worth inquiring how a system which had worked so well in England had so signally failed in Scotland. He doubted whether the best way to ascertain the difficulties of the case, or to satisfy the public mind, was to lay the provisions of the Bill before the legal profession, and suggested that the subject should be referred to a Commission or a Committee.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that since the Lord Advocate was inviting suggestions, he should take leave to make one, and commence with the subject which had been touched upon by his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke)—namely, the time of the Judges. There was a general opinion in Edinburgh, and, indeed, all over Scotland, that the time of the Judges was not fully employed. For example, the Criminal Courts sat on Monday but only occasionally, and that day was therefore declared a blank day for all the Courts. The Inner House Judges remained at home, and the Judge Ordinaries remained at home, and this in itself constituted an abuse that ought to be remedied in any new Bill. Another point was that in 1828 a rule was made for the convenience of the senior counsel employed at the bar—and he might say the senior counsel were in number (according to an article in the Journal of Jurisprudence of last month) just about equal to, or, in fact, rather fewer than, the number of the Judges—that the Courts of the single Judges should sit at ten o'clock in the morning, and the Supreme Courts should sit at eleven o'clock, or practically a quarter past eleven, in order that these counsel might be able to attend to their briefs in both Courts; and the practice of these Courts was to adjourn for half-an-hour for lunch in the course of the day, and to rise finally at four o'clock, the Courts of the single Judges rising at three o'clock. It was clearly impossible to do much business in the course of so short a a time. He would, therefore, suggest that all the Courts should sit at ten o'clock; and this would, in his opinion, be a great advantage to the suitors and all parties interested. The present was not a right state of things, according to the general opinion of Scotland; he did not speak of the legal profession, but of the general public, which
  1092
  included poor litigants, who got into court, and had to pay largely in order to get out again. He would recommend the learned Lord not to be so solicitous about the opinion of the legal profession, who had opposed nearly all legal reforms in their Courts. He would rather appeal to the general good feeling of the public, and the good sense of the Lord Advocate to frame a good Bill. There was another matter he begged leave to suggest. Reference had been made to accounts. A great grievance in Scotland was, that the Courts, in place of doing something themselves, or by their chief clerks, in reference to matters of account, as was the case in England, remitted the business to Professional Accountants, who had in many cases to decide, not only as to the form of the accounts, but of the principle of law upon which they should be founded—becoming in fact accountant and Judge in one. The effect of this frequently was, that when an account was produced it was objected, not that it was a bad account as such, but that it was bad in regard to the principle on which it was constructed; and then the Court frequently ordered other accounts. The expense of doing this was something enormous. He (Mr. M'Laren) knew a case in which the accountants' bills amounted to nearly £3,000. Exceptions were often taken to the principle on which the account was made out—in other words, to the accountant's view of the law. The Court might find that the objection was well founded, and the subject was remitted to another accountant to make a report, and in that way an enormous expense was incurred. He therefore hoped that some provision would be introduced into the Bill, which would provide for the accountants being instructed at any rate as to the law which they had to frame their report upon before their account was prepared.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: A question has been put to me as to whether it is purposed to reduce the number of Judges according to the terms of the recommendations made by a Committee which sat upon this subject, I presume in 1840. That, I think, is the last Committee which sat. Now, I will read the following extract which I find in the Report of that Committee. It is to this effect, that any reduction in the number of the Lords Ordinary seems at present impossible. The Committee state, further, that they had considered the administration of justice with the view of ascertaining whether the num-

  1093
  ber of Judges could be reduced, and that they were not prepared to recommend such a reduction. It is plain, therefore, that the Committee of the House of Commons did not recommend any diminution in the number. [Mr. M'LAREN: I think there has been a Report since that time.] I think not. So far as I am personally concerned, I really do not care about the matter; and if it should be found necessary hereafter to reduce the number of Judges, they can be reduced; but I scarcely think that it would be proper to reduce the number when the complaint is that they do not get through their work. It is said that a good deal of litigation is kept out of the Court in consequence of there not being that rapidity of discussion which there ought to be; and we must expect a considerable increase in the business if a satisfactory result is arrived at. I am not prepared to say that the number of Judges ought to be diminished. It is impossible on an occasion like this to go into all the details of a Bill which embraces upwards of 100 clauses, without subjecting the House to inconvenience; but I may say that many of the objections which have been raised this evening are provided for in the Bill itself. For instance, it is said that the Court ought to meet at ten o'clock. There is a provision in the Bill to that effect. As to the remark that delay arises in consequence of consulting the convenience of senior counsel, I can only say that in 1865 I brought that question before the Faculty, when a proposition was agreed to that no case should be adjourned for the convenience of counsel engaged in another Court. My hon. Friend opposite, who is at the head of our bar, gave me every assistance in the matter, and when the proposition was submitted to the Court it was agreed to; and from that day there has been considerable improvement in the administration of the Courts—the cases being better disposed of than they were before, and with less delay. I hope, therefore, it will be understood that I have no desire to protect the interests of the senior counsel at the expense of the public; nor do I wish to limit consideration of the Bill to legal bodies, because I know that commercial bodies also take great interest in the measure The Bill contains a provision, that on what are called their blank days the Lords Ordinary shall not dispose of motions or hear argumentative discussions, but sit for taking proofs on trials by jury. I have had conversation with one of the learned Judges,
  1094
  who devotes the greatest energy to the discharge of his duties, and he says that these blank days are frequently the busiest for judicial work, and for this reason, that he then considers the arguments which came before him during the hearing of a cause, before giving the decision which it is his duty to pronounce. The Equity Courts of England, which more nearly approach the Courts of Scotland, meet for three weeks, and then adjourn for a week, and have sittings after term. The Scotch Courts sit for two sessions without interruption, and have only a fortnight's recess at Christmas. These weeks of vacation have provided means by which the Equity Judges are enabled to prepare their judgments, frequently requiring a great deal of consideration before they are pronounced. I have, however, put in a proviso—although I have done so with some hesitation—that in their blank day the Outer House Judges shall make use of that day for the purpose of taking proofs.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Session and the Judicial Arrangements in the Superior Courts of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 45.]

COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in rising to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Justiciary in Scotland, said, the object of it was to lessen the expense of conducting criminal prosecutions, and also to diminish the inconvenience of requiring witnesses to attend in certain cases. He might inform the House that a system had existed for some time in Scotland of having what were called two diets, or two days of appearance, on the first of which the accused was asked whether he pleaded guilty or not. If he pleaded guilty he received his punishment, and then there was no necessity for summoning witnesses. If he did not plead guilty, then he had to appear on the second day and witnesses were summoned to attend. That had effected a considerable saving; and he proposed that the same system should be established in the Justiciary Court, so that probably in one-half the cases it would not be necessary to have the witnesses present. They hoped to save in that way about £3,000

  1095
  a year. Another provision of the Bill was that the jury instead of being cited as at present by an officer called the Messenger at Arms, which involved considerable expense, should be summoned by registered letter through the Post Office—a system which would be equally effective and much more economical. It was also proposed that, instead of three or more Judges sitting in a Criminal Court on a Monday to dispose of cases, one would be sufficient, as was the case on Circuit. If any important matter were to arise, it would be in the power of the Court to call in assistance. In this way the Judges would be made more available for the work it was proposed to give them.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the procedure in the Court of Justiciary in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary GATHORNE HARDY, and Mr. ATTORNRY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 46.]
  House adjourned at half after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Members holding Contracts (Sir Sydney Waterlow), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Annuity Tax (Edinburgh; Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment*.
First Reading—Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment* [18].

ANNUITY TAX (EDINBURGH) BILL.

  LEAVE.
  MR. M'LAREN, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Annuity Tax, or Ministers' Money, in the parish of Canongate, within Edinburgh, and to make other provisions respecting the stipend of the Minister in that parish, I and of the Ministers in the city parishes said, he understood that the usual courtesy would be extended to him on that occasion, and that no opposition would be offered to the introduction of the Bill. He would not therefore take up the time of the House by making any statement in reference to the details of the measure he introduced. He would merely take that opportunity of saying, in one sentence, that the Bill he now asked leave to bring in had been modified considerably from that of last year; and that he hoped that when the Bill was printed, and hon. Members had made themselves acquainted with its contents, those who opposed the Bill of last year would be induced to give the present Bill their hearty support. The Bill had now been approved by twenty-eight members of the Magistracy and Town Council of Edinburgh—only six having voted against it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  ME. MILLERseconded the Motion.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill; but he must express his astonishment, after what took place last Session, when the Bill introduced by the hon. Member was thrown out, after considerable debate in the House, that he should now propose to bring in a measure nearly identical in character with that which he formerly proposed. Last year, immediately after the rejection of that Bill, the hon. Member for Edinburgh introduced a second measure to abolish the municipal rate of a Id. in the pound, imposed by the Act of 1860, as a compensation to the city creditors in lieu of seat rents handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That was a right and proper thing to do, if it were generally admitted that the city's funds were in such a state that they could well afford to do without the Id., but he (Sir Graham Montgomery) contended that the proper course for the hon. Member to pursue now was to bring in a Bill to

  281
  abolish the 3d. police rate or clerieopolice tax as it was sometimes called, which was very much complained of in regard to the city of Edinburgh, and more especially as he thought it would be found on inquiry that they already had a surplus fund, which could be devoted to the purpose to which the 3d.. tax was at present applied. He did think it would be much fairer to all parties if, instead of attempting to upset the settlement come to in 1860 by an Act to be passed this Session, the hon. Member would propose to abolish the rate which was so much objected to; and he understood the Corporation of the City of Edinburgh were quite in a position to do without it. He did trust the House would not consent to any meddling with the Bonds of Annuity which were imposed by the Act of 1860 upon the city of Edinburgh, and which Bonds of Annuity were a security to the ministers of the Church for the payment of their stipends. Considering everything that took place on the last occasion on which the Bill was introduced, he trusted the House would not consent to any proposition of that nature. With regard to the Annuity Tax on the Canongate, which he admitted at that moment might be considered as a small grievance, it was to be remembered that the whole amount of that tax was only £250 a year. It used to be levied at the rate of 10 d.. in the pound. It was now only levied at the rate of 3d.. The Session before last, a Bill, which lie had the honour of introducing, was passed reducing that tax from 10 d. to 3d., and in passing which, he must confess, he was to a great extent assisted by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and was much indebted to him for that assistance. Having, however, had the honour of carrying that Bill through Parliament, and constituting, as it did in his opinion, a settlement of the question as regarded the Canongate, he must confess he should be very much opposed to disturbing the two settlements to which he had alluded—namely, the settlement under the Act of 1860, and that of the Session before last with respect to the Canongate; for he believed that most, if not all, of the parties who were concerned in the matter generally understood that that measure was to be a settlement of the question. He did say, then, that it was not right that the hon. Member should attempt, Session after Session, to legislate in the
  282
  manner he now proposed in regard to that question.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he might, perhaps, be permitted to say a word in explanation of the objection made by the hon. Baronet. His speech had shown the inconvenience of discussing a Bill with the provisions of which he must be necessarily unacquainted, since it had not yet been printed. If the hon. Baronet had waited until the Bill had been printed and in the hands of Members, he would have found that one of the clauses proposed to reduce the 3d.. rate, to effect which object the hon. Baronet had recommended him to ask for leave to introduce a Bill. The hon. Baronet was in error in supposing that lie (Mr. M'Laren) was at all instrumental in having laid on the 1d.. municipal rate in 1860. On the contrary, he was one of the 14,000 petitioners against that rate being laid on; and it was carried through the House in spite of the strenuous opposition of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, whom he had now the honour to represent. Again, as to the Annuity Tax Bill of last year, the hon. Baronet had himself furnished the strongest argument for its repeal; for, if a direct tax, levied in a parish containing 12,000 inhabitants, produced only £250 a-year, surely no better reason could be advanced for abolishing so pitiful a tax for the support of the Church, and which was the cause of much annoyance to persons who did not belong to the Church: for in that parish a very large proportion of the inhabitants were Roman Catholics. It was one of the poorest parishes in the city, and he said it was as unjust to levy £300 as it was to levy £3,000, so far as the principle was concerned. No doubt he was very willing the Session before last to assist in reducing the rate from l0 d.. to 3d.; but, at the same time, he informed the right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) who had charge of the Bill, that although he assented to that measure as an instalment, it should not prevent him from endeavouring to obtain the repeal of the whole tax during the present or any future Session; and the Lord Advocate said that he quite understood that to be his (Mr. M'Laren's) position. He thought those facts were all that it was necessary for him to state until he asked the House to read the Bill a second time; and he hoped meanwhile that the hon. Baronet,

  283
  when he had seen the clauses of the measure, would be much better pleased with it than he now seemed to be. He would tell him that if he should feel disposed to appeal to the Town Council of Edinburgh for information in regard to the question of finance, he would find that his information was altogether erroneous, and that no such adequate surplus as he had referred to, at the present moment, existed.
  COLONEL SYKESremarked that this was another instance of the evil from which they had suffered on the preceding evening, by which the time of the House was taken up in prematurely discussing measures with the particulars of which they were unacquainted.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to abolish the Annuity Tax, or Ministers' Money, in the parish of Canongate, within Edinburgh, and to make other provisions respecting the stipend of the Minister in that parish, and of the Ministers in the city parishes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAREN, Mr. MILLER, and Mr. CRUM EWING.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. M'MAHON, Bill for the assimilation of the Law for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland to that of England, by substituting a Union Rating for the present system of Rating by Electoral Divisions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'MAHON, Mr. BLAKE, Mr. DOWNING, and Mr. STACPOOLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 18.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Private Bills appointed; on Opposed Private Bills appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Court of Appeal Chancery (Despatch of Business) Amendment (20); Tenure (Ireland) (23); Public Departments (Extra Receipts)* (25).
Second Reading—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance (18).

NAVY—IRON BALLAST IN THE DOCKYARDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, their Lordships would probably remember that about a year ago much was said about a quantity of iron ballast that was used for paving the dockyards, and of the great waste this was to the public service. He understood that this iron ballast had since been offered for sale; and with a view to ascertain the value of the iron, it was his intention to move on Thursday next for a Return of the number of tons of iron sold, and of the amount of money received for them and paid into the Treasury.
COURT OF APPEAL, CHANCERY (DESPATCH OF BUSINESS) AMENDMENT BILL— [H.L.]

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the Act which the Legislature passed last year, to enable the Lords Justices to sit separately to hear appeals against decisions of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors in certain cases, had led to some difficulty. By the Act constituting the Court of Appeal, the Court was formed of the Lord Chancellor and the two Judges of Appeal. The Court has the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, and an appeal lies to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor and the two Judges may, of course, sit together, or the Lord Chancellor may sit with one Judge, or the two Judges may sit without the Chancellor. The jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor is reserved, so that he may hear appeals alone. The pressure of business was such that last year a Bill was passed in effect authorizing either of the two Judges to exercise the jurisdiction under the original Act, provided that no decree made on the hearing of a cause, or on further directions, shall be re-heard before the said Judges when sitting alone.

  1039
  The object of the proviso was to prevent a single Judge of Appeal from hearing an appeal from another single Judge of a Court below where the cause had been regularly heard. It did not occur to the framers of this Bill that between the two Acts before referred to another Act had been passed, which enabled suitors, instead of resorting to the old practice of what is termed bringing a cause to a regular hearing, to move for a decree or decretal order, and thus save both time and money; and, where the motion is granted, the cause is as regularly heard as if the old practice had been resorted to. An appeal was soon brought to a hearing from a decree upon motion, and it was the opinion of the Judges that it could be heard by a single Judge of Appeal sitting alone. This was manifestly contrary to the principle of the new Act, and to give effect to the intention of the Legislature he had prepared a short Bill extending the proviso to decrees and decretal orders upon motion in like manner, as if they had been made on the hearing of a cause or on further directions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the practice arose from the words of the Act. It was quite true that the Lords Justices and himself, when a question arose on the matter, came to the conclusion that the Lords Justices might hear separately appeals against decisions made on motions for decree; but he had some doubt on the construction of the Act. It was very desirable to have those doubts removed, which would be done by the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, which, besides, had the great merit of being extremely short.
  A Bill to amend an Act to make further Provision for the Despatch of Business in the Court of Appeal in Chancery—Was presented by The Lord ST. LEONARDS; read 1a. (No. 20.)

TENURE (IRELAND) BILL— [H.L.]

  PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, rose to call the attention of the House to the question of land tenure in Ireland. He commenced by referring to the Select Committee of their Lordships' House, to which his Bill of last year upon this subject was referred. In the month of July, that Committee unanimously determined to issue an imperfect Report, and to recommend its own re-appointment this Session, in order that the inquiry might be resumed. The language of the Report was—
  1040
  "The subject-matter of the Bill is, however, of so much complexity and difficulty that they are of opinion that it is not possible for them, in the short period of the Session now remaining, to make such progress in it as to warrant them in recommending it at present for your Lordships' adoption. The Committee have therefore determined to report the evidence, together with the Bill in its necessarily incomplete state, and to recommend that the Committee be re-appointed at as early a period of next Session as practicable for the purpose of further considering it."
  He did not recollect that any objection was made by any Member of the Committee to that recommendation, which was moved by the noble Earl who represented the Government. He might say, however, that some Members of the Committee were of opinion that it would be well to draw particular attention to some of the statements made in the evidence, and to the conclusions to be deduced from them. A draft Report was prepared, and he should have been glad if it could have been laid before the House. One clause of the draft Report was as follows—
  "The Committee again direct your Lordships best attention to the entire evidence as now reported, and upon which they will not further enlarge. A correct knowledge of the present condition of the country is necessary in order to guide safely to future legislation. The assertions so often reiterated, to the effect that the tenant makes all the permanent improvements in Ireland, that the rents are extravagantly high, that a competition for land is encouraged by offering it to the highest bidder at the expiration of a tenancy, that evictions and changes of tenure are of frequent occurrence, that no general improvement is taking place, and that a bad feeling commonly exists between landlords and tenants, will probably receive correction from its perusal."
  It was to be regretted that this clause was not published along with the evidence. What, he asked, was the condition of Ireland now? There never was a time when it was less necessary to take extraordinary and novel action, with respect to the subject of land in Ireland, than existed at the present moment. The condition of neither landlords nor tenants presented any extraordinary difficulty, and it was only the condemnation of the existing law by Judges of the highest authority, and differences of opinion among them that created litigation and directed attention to its amendment. The evidence taken by the Select Committee of their Lordships which sat last year plainly showed the gross injustice, exaggeration, and absurdity of the statements made by agitators as to exorbitant rents exacted by landlords, and frequency of evictions in Ireland. It was not to

  1041
  be said that evictions never occurred; but it had been shown that they were by no means so common as had been represented. Among other things it was shown that upon four estates, the rental of which amounted to£54,000, the landlords had expended, exclusive of money borrowed under the Drainage Act, no less than£142,000. A great deal had been said about tenant-right, and he desired to say nothing against tenant-right as it existed in the North of Ireland; but the schemes of many of those who designated themselves advocates of tenant-right no more resembled the system of things which existed in the North of Ireland than did the laws as to landed property in the moon, if there were landed property, and laws regulating it, in that planet. The assertion was often made that if tenant-right existed in the South of Ireland there would be no evictions; but the Returns which were obtained by the Earl of Belmore, although the information they furnished was not perfectly accurate as to the number of evictions which really took place, showed at least that tenant-right had little or nothing to do with their frequency or infrequency. He would compare two counties in the North of Ireland—Antrim and Armagh—in which tenant-right prevailed, with two counties in the South—Cork and Clare. During the five years ending with 1865, the number of civil bill ejectments in the county of Antrim, with a population of 378,585, was 1,101; while in Cork, with a population of 544,818, they numbered only 1,483. In the county of Armagh, with a population of 190,086, the number of civil bill ejectments during the five years was 1,344; and in Clare, with a population of 166,395, it was only 781. The last volume of the judicial statistics exhibited facts which were equally remarkable. It was generally said that Ulster was a very prosperous province, and that Munster and Connaught were in a state of great misery and poverty. Now, he could not altogether admit the accuracy of such statements, for if their Lordships would look at the judicial statistics for 1866 they would find that there were in the province of Ulster 1,190 ejectments during the year, while in Munster there were only 771, and in Connaught only 619. Thus it would be seen that ejectments were more frequent in those parts of the country where tenant-right prevailed than in those where it did not. If any rule of political economy was admitted to be sounder than another, it
  1042
  was that the introduction of capital into a poor country would increase its prosperity, by increasing labour and giving means of living to the population, end it was one of the arguments put forward in favour of limited liability that it would enable companies to provide by association large capital which was necessary to make improvements in any business and in any country. What, however, would be the effect of the revolutionary propositions which had been made by Mr. Bright and Mr. Mill with respect to the mode of dealing with land in Ireland? Their propositions amounted to neither more nor less than to turn out all the men of capital in Ireland, in order to put in a class of peasant proprietors who had no capital. One proposal was that every tenant of a small holding should have a lease of sixty years as against his landlord, while the occupiers of large farms at high rents were to have a lease of sixty years imposed upon them. It was said that the carrying out of such a scheme would confer great benefits on the country. Such a proposition was ah-surd. Indeed, it was generally acknowledged, as could be proved by the evidence of men who knew the country well, that in many parts of Ireland the tenants were not much in favour of obtaining leases at all, and certainly would not consent to pay anything for them. But supposing for a moment the proposition for the purchase of the land of Ireland by the Government were entertained, what, he asked, would be the condition of the farmers? He believed the notion of those who wished to disturb the present system was that the holdings of the farmers of Ireland were all very small, varying from thirty acres to half an acre. He should like to hear the notion of the Government with respect to the manner in which the large farmers could be dealt with. Was the House aware that one family alone in Ireland paid from £30,000 to £40,000, and indeed he believed from £40,000 to £50,000 a year in the shape of rent for their holdings? Were the Government prepared to call upon tenants with such a holding to purchase it at the rate of twenty years' purchase? Why it would amount to £1,000,000. How could they expect one family to procure such a sum? The accounts they had as to the resources of the Irish tenantry were extremely contradictory. One day they were told that they were in a state of pauperism, and next day they were informed that they

  1043
  had £17,000,000 in the bank. It was well known that the effect of breaking up large holdings, and allowing the land to pass into the possession of small proprietors, was to increase the rents, whereas the large landed proprietors were content with smaller rents, and yet a proposition was gravely put forward to oust the great landlords in order to create a class who would infallibly raise rents upon tenants. He would now direct the attention of their Lordships to a very gratifying account of the improvements being made in Ireland. It was contained in a Report made by Mr. Adams, the American Minister, to his Government in September, 1865. That Report referred chiefly to a tour through the North of Ireland; but the remarks of Mr. Adams were also applicable in a modified form to the central and eastern portions of the country. He said—
  "I have not seen anywhere in England more indications of comfort, plenty, and general good condition than are to be found in that portion of the northern province through which I have passed. Neither did I observe in the populous towns more instances of poverty and destitution than are to be met with anywhere in corresponding places in the three kingdoms, with the exception, perhaps, of North Wales. The same observation may be made, but in a much more qualified degree, of the central and eastern region, including Dublin and its vicinity. Although the prosperity is not so much marked, and the poverty is more apparent, the aspect of the dwellings, the cultivation of the lands, and the substantial condition of the middle classes all combine to disprove the presence of suffering much beyond the average in most nations of the Old World."
  The wretchedness that Mr. Lawrence described, instead of being universal, appeared to be confined to one portion of the island. He thought that after such a statement as that, they might dispose at once of the revolutionary propositions which had been made to forcibly deprive the landlords of their existing right of ownership. Mr. Mill had suggested that there should be a Commission appointed to value all the landed property in Ireland; but the labours of such a Commission must necessarily be very protracted, as the number of holdings in that country was no less than 600,000, according to the estimates of the best statisticians. He understood Mr. Bright's proposition to be that the tenant, on being converted into a proprietor, should pay the present landlord the full value of the land. If this was so, he apprehended the tenant would have a very bad bargain; for according to Mr. Bright's plan, no one was to hold land but an occupier. But, suppose one of these oc-
  1044
  cupiers, having become a proprietor, made money and wanted to sell his land, if he was to be restricted to a market in which all the intending purchasers were occupiers, it was clear that he would be obliged to sell at a depreciated price that for which he himself had paid the full value. They were told that occupying proprietors were the best farmers in the world; but be would ask their Lordships whether that class of agriculturists were the farmers who had improved the breed of cattle, or who had introduced steam ploughs and steam thrashing machines, and made those other improvements in farming which had rendered the soil more productive with a less expenditure of manual labour? Mr. Mill had justified his proposition for the establishment of a peasant proprietary by the example of Belgium. If, however, they turned to that country they found that the principal portion of the agricultural work was performed by women, and there was no sign of the energetic improvement by the expenditure of capital in the application of steam or other machinery, such as was evinced in Ireland. Through whose instrumentality, he asked, was it that the steam plough, steam thrashing machines, and improved agricultural implements which were now to be seen in Ireland had been introduced? Could anybody deny that it was the doing of the landlords? In Belgium they might perhaps see in a whole village one single horse thrashing machine, while all the other agricultural implements were of the rudest character; yet the Belgian peasantry were held up as being superior to English and Irish farmers. He had avoided going into the question of the political condition of Ireland; but before sitting down he thought it right to say that Ireland never had been more free from agrarian disturbance than she had during the last year. The absence of crime in Ireland was really marvellous, not by comparison with the state of things in that country at any former period, but by comparison with the state of things among any other population of equal numbers in any other country on earth. He thought that the Minister whose duty it would be to ask their Lordships to continue the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would tell them that only very few of the farming class had identified themselves with the Fenian movement. Undoubtedly it was alleged that some of the farmers had shown a cer-

  1045
  tain amount of sympathy with the Fenians; that they had taken no active part in apprehending offenders and endeavouring to put down the movement. But let their Lordships just consider the temptations of such sympathy to which the people in the rural districts were exposed. These were temptations which it was hard for those who were subjected to them to entirely resist. The small farmers were told by agitators, and read in the papers, that they were going to be put in possession as proprietors of the land which they now farmed and paid rent for. Some such conversation as this took place—"Did you hear the good news? You are going to be put into possession of the land. You need not trouble yourself much longer about the rent." "How is that?" "The philosophers in England have found out that the tenants ought to have the land, and the Government are going to give it to you. It is all owing to the Fenians." "How can that be? I read in the paper the other day that the heads of the Fenians in America were selling our land, and I was thinking to myself whether I'd like my Yankee landlord as well as my Irish one." "Oh, that's not it at all. The English Government are so frightened about the Fenians that they are going to give you the land and put an end to the rebellion." It was not unnatural that the tenant farmers to whom such news was communicated should say "More luck to the Fenians." To put an end to such delusions his Bill, or some measure like it, ought to be passed by Parliament. He believed there was no honest man, whether landlord or tenant, who did not feel that the tenant ought to be fully compensated for any improvements he made in the land, and should be protected in his holding so far as was consistent with a due regard for the rights of the landlord and with the proper cultivation of the Irish soil. There was no occasion for a revolution. This year rents had been easily collected and most cheerfully paid in Ireland; profits had been made by the farmers; and this year the landlords had had less trouble than, perhaps, at any former period. If Parliament only endeavoured to improve the system of letting by such means as he ventured to submit for their Lordships' consideration, he felt no doubt that Ireland would progress, and the tenants would become contented and happy. The noble Marquess concluded by moving the first reading of his Bill.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he had no desire to enter upon a discussion on the Irish land question. There was no question before the House, and no conclusion could be come to. He, however, thought this was a very good time to promote any measure to remove, as far as possible, any objection to the existing relations between landlord and tenant in that country. But he must call their Lordships' attention to the fact that the evidence taken on this subject disclosed a very different state of things from that which was generally supposed to exist. From that evidence it would appear that landlords and tenants were on the best terms. It also showed that the landlords laid out many thousands of pounds in building houses and making other improvements which tended to the advantage and comfort of the tenants. There was no doubt, however, of the existence of much agitation on the land question. There was a feeling of uneasiness which must prevent things from going right if there was no other obstacle to their doing so. But before the Bill of the noble Marquess came on for a second reading, it would be well to consider if provision had not already been made by Parliament for what this Bill sought to effect. So late as 1860 two Acts were passed, one in relation to the tenure of land in Ireland, and the other having more direct reference to the relations between landlord and tenant in that country. They had a common design, though their provisions were different. It appeared to him that nothing had occurred since 1860 with reference to the tenancy of land in Ireland to make further legislation necessary, unless it could be shown that the Acts now on the statute book did not reach every difficulty. The first of the Acts to which he referred provided for improvements by the landlord and for improvements by the tenant, and it contained provisions for the acquiring of leases. The Bill introduced by the noble Marquess did not provide for more, except as regards binding remaindermen by the grants of tenants for life, which will require great consideration. The other Act of 1860 was not only valuable for its own provisions, but as a digest, admirably made, of the existing law between landlord and tenant, and a schedule of every previous Act repealed or affected by that Act. The date and chapter were carefully given in every instance. But what did the present Bill propose? By a single provision, and without any express reference whatever, it

  1047
  proposed to unsettle the whole of the existing law. Before dealing with the question in such a spirit, the defects, if any, existing in these two Acts of 1860, which professed, and did, in fact, attempt, to make a regular and business-like settlement between landlord and tenant, ought to be pointed out. If, therefore, this Bill were referred—as he presumed it would be—to a Select Committee, he hoped the noble Marquess would be prepared to point out in what respects those Acts of 1860 had failed. It was proposed that all the lettings in Ireland should be by lease, or, at least, that the conditions of tenure should be reduced to writing. But there were tens of thousands of tenants in Ireland who would not take a lease, because they would not incur the necessary expense. A gentleman was examined before the Select Committee upon this very question, and stated that he had got in his office a high pile of leases and counterparts, all duly executed by both landlords and tenants, but he could get nobody to take them away because they would not pay the expense which had been incurred in stamping them. Their Lordships might, perhaps, gather from this story what was the reason why the Act of 1860 had failed. Yet the noble Marquess proposed to repeat the same enactment, and to enforce it by a singular penalty. Because there were tenants that would not take leases the noble Marquess proposed to punish their landlords, by depriving them of the simple remedy he proposed to create, and by making them have recourse to more expensive tribunals. The reason a tenant was unwilling to accept a lease was plain enough. "If I take a lease for twenty years," he reasoned, "the landlord will know as well as I do when the term expires, and will insist on a re-valuation; but if I am only a tenant from year to year, my family and I will remain on at the same rate, and he will think nothing whatever about it." One of the most extraordinary provisions contained in the Bill, however, was that with regard to the planting of trees, which were to become the property of the tenant if planted under certain conditions, one of these being that there should still be seven years unexpired of his lease, or one life in the lease remaining—a life which might at that very time be eighty or ninety years old. Let any noble Lord say how he would like to get up some morning and find a tenant planting oak trees all over his estate, which the tenant might either cut down or sell on the expira-
  1048
  tion of his tenancy. The noble Lord then referred to the mode in which leases and compensations are managed in England; it was worthy of consideration whether the plan might not work well in Ireland. He disclaimed any intention to force upon Ireland a plan merely because it operated well in England.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, as a Member of the Committee which considered his noble Friend's Bill last Session, said, he desired to say a few words, not only on the present Bill, which resembled that of last year, but also to speak on the subject generally. The noble and learned Lord who had last spoken had done good service in calling attention to the difficulty which would arise in endeavouring to create a complete code of law as regards land in Ireland. Without careful examination the new enactment would clash with existing laws, which should be repealed, if it were desired to repeal them, not by general words, but by express provisions. Those not learned in the law who were on last year's Committee had considerable difficulty—he himself found insuperable difficulty—in drawing repealing clauses. He did not know whether his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had ever fully stated the provisions of his Bill; but he would doubtless forgive him if he gave his view of them. The Bill had four objects, setting aside subsidiary provisions. In the first place, it provided that all agreements for letting farm lands should, as far as possible, be in writing. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) would pardon him for saying that he had fallen into an error when discussing this part of the Bill, because he argued as if the Bill required the granting of leases, and by "leases" he evidently meant agreements for a term of years. The Bill, however, did not propose to force such agreements upon either landlord or tenant, but simply required that all land, whether let for a term of years, or only from year to year, or even for a shorter time than a year, should be let under an agreement reduced to writing, and that if no agreement in writing was come to within a certain period then the landlord should be able to take advantage of that special procedure created by the Bill, which might be described as its second set of provisions. These proposed that a Court should be established, simple in its procedure, to which all differences between landlord and tenant should be taken. The third object

  1049
  of the Bill was to enable landlords to grant leases, and to deal more freely with their estates than the law would now permit them, an object which all persons who had dealt with the question thought desirable. The fourth object of the Bill was to enable tenants to obtain compensation for improvements they might have made. Before going further he wished to notice what his noble Friend had said as to the relations subsisting between landlord and tenant in Ireland. As his noble Friend had spoken from actual experience, he should not think of setting up an opinion against his; but he asked whether it was not a fact that a great difference existed between the number of years' purchase obtainable for agricultural land in England and Scotland, and for similar properties in Ireland? Was not twenty years' purchase regarded as a very fair price for land in the South and West of Ireland; would not land similarly circumstanced in England sell for as much as thirty years' purchase, and if that were so could any one deny that the conditions under which persons hold land in Ireland caused it to be estimated less highly than in England and Scotland? This granted, did it not follow that the condition of agriculture in Ireland demanded the special attention of Parliament? Without objecting to the general tenour of his noble Friend's Bill, which was chiefly permissive, and not likely to lead to evil, he thought the clauses providing compensation to tenants for improvements were insufficient. His noble Friend proposed only that landlords and tenants should have power to enter into compensation agreements. Something more than this was necessary, and he (the Earl of Kimberley) believed it would be found advisable to enact some measure similar to that which was suggested by the late Government. He thought it would be found consistent with justice and expediency to establish that wherever no special agreement had been made between the landlord and tenant, prohibiting the tenant from making improvements, the general law of the country should by some means secure to the tenant compensation for any improvement he may have made. And when speaking of compensation for improvements, he desired to remind his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) that he was not referring to payment for manure or for root crops, for which in England the tenant was paid in a manner satisfactory to both parties, but to permanent improvements, such as buildings,
  1050
  roads, drainage, and the like, which in England were usually executed by the landlord. If in Ireland the landlord could not let his land if the permanent buildings on it were not in good repair, the case would be very different; but in the South and West of Ireland, permanent improvements were constantly executed, not by the landlord, but by the tenant. And it should be remembered that it was always intended to limit the claim for compensation to charges on account of permanent improvements only. There was, however, one point of great difficulty, and one in regard to which he freely admitted that the Bill of the late Government was defective. There must be some mode of registering the improvements, so as to prevent claims from being made for work which, in point of fact, had never been executed. Before sitting down he desired to say a word or two on other schemes which had been proposed to amend the defective relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland on a very large, and as some said, revolutionary scale. He did not scout a scheme because it had been styled "revolutionary;" the subject was so important that all schemes demanded careful examination. But any scheme for handing over the land to the existing tenants at the present rents, whether accompanied or not by measures of compensation to the landlord, seemed to him to be a scheme to which Parliament would not consent, and to which it was not desirable that Parliament should give its assent. He based his objection, not on any general abstract opposition to this scheme, but upon practical reasons. One proposal that had been put forward by a very eminent man was that the landlord should have the option of receiving an equivalent to the rent in Consols, if he were not disposed to continue to hold the land at such a fixed rate as it might be valued at by the State. But he would ask their Lordships whether they thought that if such a scheme were carried into effect it would really be calculated to improve the existing relations between the Irish people and the English Government? That was the test to which any such scheme must be brought. Admit, even, that the dissatisfaction which prevailed in many parts of Ireland was such that it required little short of what might be termed a revolutionary measure to allay it, the effect of this measure would be to hand over a considerable amount of land to the English Government, who would thus become the direct landlord, and would have

  1051
  to collect the rents from the peasantry, and to evict them if the rents were not paid. Was it not as certain as anything political could be that, so far from removing disaffection, such a scheme would have the effect of increasing it? The Irish landlords would naturally part with the worst portions of their estates, and the tendency of the measure would obviously be to strengthen the sympathies of the population with Fenianism; because the farmers who had become the direct tenants of the Government would, if they could succeed in getting rid of the Government, get rid of their landlord also. Other objections might be stated; but those which he had just urged seemed to be so fatal, that, with every respect for the author of the measure, he thought the sooner it was generally known that no party in Parliament or in the State was likely to entertain the proposition, the better would it be for the relations existing between the two countries. With regard to the scheme for giving compulsory leases of sixty years, it seemed to him also open to most serious objections, and to be one which Parliament was not likely to entertain. Land might be increased in value in other ways than by the improvements of tenants, such as by the establishment of new markets, the growth of towns, and the establishment of railway communication; and yet by this scheme the landlord would be deprived for sixty years of all advantage from such increase. He did not believe that any such indiscriminate and sweeping measures could have any good effect in Ireland or elsewhere. The nature of the disease was not such as could be cured by such measures; on the contrary, they would produce greater dissatisfaction than existed at the present moment. The circumstances of the land differed widely in different parts of Ireland, and the positions of the landlords and tenants were not the same; so that if all were dealt with by the same measure, although no doubt great advantage might accrue in some cases, great injustice would be done in others. It would be much more agreeable if they had to deal with a state of things in Ireland for which some remedy could be suggested that would have the effect of transforming that island at once into a thriving and prosperous country; but as he did not believe in any scheme of so Utopian a character, he thought they would do well to be contented with less ambitious endeavours. To any measure, however, which might be calculated to improve the rela-
  1052
  tions between landlord and tenant in Ireland, from whichever side it might come, he should be happy to give his most cordial assent. Meanwhile, he could not help remarking that he had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would have taken this opportunity of announcing the policy which they intended to pursue with regard to Ireland. When called upon, as they were to be, to sanction the continuance of coercive measures, they were, he thought, entitled to such an explanation. He trusted, at all events, that when that measure came forward for discussion the explanation would be afforded.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: No one has a better right to be heard on this subject than the noble Marquess who has introduced this Bill; but I can only now give him much the same answer that was given last year—namely, that Her Majesty's Government have no inclination, at this progress of the Bill, to oppose it. The noble Marquess has acted wisely, I think, in following the course he pursued last Session, and proposing to the House to continue the Committee, which no doubt elicited last year evidence upon the subject of a most important character. I believe the noble Lord proposes to read the Bill a second time some day this week, and whilst the Government offers no opposition to the Bill in its present stage, we reserve to ourselves entire liberty to support the Bill or oppose it, entirely or in part. I shall say no more on this subject at this moment, and with respect to what the noble Earl who has just sat down has said with regard to the policy of the Government with reference to Ireland, I may add, following the rules of the House in not having had any notice given of the important question, that I decline this evening to give any information upon the subject. Your Lordships will not, however, have long to wait for information on the subject; because to-morrow evening the Chief Secretary of Ireland will probably explain in "another place" the intentions of the Government with respect to Ireland.
  Motion agreed to.
  A Bill to provide a simple Law of Tenure in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord SOMERHIIL; read 1a. (No. 23.)

HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION (IRELAND) ACT CONTINUANCE BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)

(NO. 18.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, I am now called on to perform a very painful duty—as painful a duty as any that can be imposed on an English Minister—namely, to ask your Lordships to continue the exceptional legislation which it has been found necessary to adopt in reference to Ireland, and once more to deprive the Irish people of that protection to their liberties which is afforded by the Habeas Corpus Act. Nothing short of the most pressing necessity would, as your Lordships can well understand, have induced the Government to take this step, nor would Parliament for a single instant have listened to such a proposal, if there had not been the strongest necessity for its adoption. When, in May last, the Earl of Derby proposed the suspension of the Act, we had all hoped that before this the necessity would have passed away, and the conspiracy have ceased to exist; but I regret to say that, although it has been scotched, it has not yet been killed. The threatening appearances of the conspiracy have, I regret to say, been transferred partly to this country, and the crimes committed in London and Manchester have made such an impression on the public mind, that it is incumbent upon us to prolong this exceptional state of things. At the same time, there are some prospects, I am glad to say, which induce us to hope that the period is approaching when the suspension of the Act will be no longer needful. In the first place, the number of persons in custody has certainty diminished within the last year and a half. When the late Government left Office, there were 330 persons in custody; but I do not for a moment mean to say that it was a greater number than was absolutely necessary; but the numbers now in custody are such as to lead us to believe that Fenianism is less violent now than it was then. Since January, 1867, there have been 265 arrested, but there are only ninety-five persons at present in custody. The Chief Secretary for Ireland gave a very interesting statistical statement in the other House of Parliament on the different classes and characters of the persons who have been concerned in this
1054
rebellion, and for the information of your Lordships I will repeat it. Of military men, no doubt, Americans—and I may say, in passing, that but for the American war there would have been no Fenian out-break, for I believe the reckless men who sprang up in that struggle were at the bottom of that conspiracy—ten had been arrested and brought to justice. Of professional men and clerks there have been twenty-five, of artizans ninety, and of farmers eleven—the last fact having an interesting bearing on the debate which has just taken place, for it shows the feeling of Irish farmers towards their landlords and the laws under which they lived. Then there had been sixty-six labourers, twenty-eight shopkeepers an assistants, and thirty-five persons of various occupations not particularized. We have discovered as clearly as possible that ninety-five leaders—men who were willing to head the conspiracy—intended to come from America, and that, of these, forty-three had been officers in the American civil war. Out of this number twenty were arrested, eighteen never arrived, and three escaped, or were not found. So that almost all of those who did arrive were arrested. It is satisfactory to know that there has been but little bloodshed, and the principal loss has fallen on a class of men we cannot too highly praise, and who did their duty in a manner deserving the gratitude of the country. There have been two policemen killed in Dublin and one in Manchester. It is not unnatural under such circumstances to seek for some gleam of hope. The conspiracy has now lasted four years; but there is a marked difference between this rebellion and those of 1798 and 1803; and I might say that no person of property or position in Ireland has been found or suspected to be concerned in this rebellion. In 1798 and 1803, however, there were persons of high rank, possessed of property, and respected by their neighbours and society in general; and the inference is that the remedial measures which have been passed for the Government of Ireland during the past sixty-five years have been such that the upper classes of Ireland are satisfied with the laws and their relation with this country; and we may logically draw the inference that as the lower classes are more educated they will take the same views as the upper classes have taken in Ireland during the last sixty-five years. I sincerely trust that although this Bill will naturally ope-

1055
rate for a year, Parliament may before that time be able to restore to Ireland the liberties which it wishes her to possess, wishing her to stand in every respect on the same footing as the rest of the United Kingdom.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
EARL RUSSELL: I regret that the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury is absent on this occasion from indisposition, and is thereby unable to be present to explain, in his own clear manner, why he thinks this measure is again required. I regret his absence also because I should have asked him more pointedly than I can the noble Earl who has just sat down what is the policy of the Government in regard to Ireland, which I think, on an occasion of this kind, should be fully explained. It is no trifle to ask for a third time that the liberties of the people of Ireland shall be suspended, and that the Lord Lieutenant may have, for more than a year, the power to arrest any person who may be suspected of disloyalty, and confine him during the whole of that time. Nor is it a thing which your Lordships can pass over as a matter of course. The only reasons on which I could object to the second reading of the Bill would be, in the first place, that it is not necessary; and, in the second place, that the powers hitherto given have been abused. I confess that I think neither objection can be fairly taken to the course at present pursued by the Government. I have always understood that the reasons for the suspension of the great Act of Habeas Corpus were that there were known to the Government plots and combinations, and disaffection and conspiracies; that although there was not sufficient evidence to arrest those persons, and bring them to trial and convict them of high treason, there was sufficient knowledge in possession of the Government to enable them to say that such conspiracies existed, and to ask Parliament for powers by which they might defeat those conspiracies before they ripened and broke into positive rebellion. In former days, I remember, with regard to this country, that the Minister of the Crown, more than once, brought down what was called a "green bag" full of details of treasonable plots then hatching in some parts of that country. No such "green bag" is necessary now, because the Fenians have never disguised that their intention and purpose was to
1056
break off the union between England and Ireland, to dethrone the Queen as Sovereign of Ireland, and to take possession of the country for themselves. Therefore, there is no question as to the nature of the conspiracy. With regard to the expediency of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act with a view to our security—I think we may be sure that if these plots were allowed to ripen and break out into a considerable insurrection, although there is no doubt that the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, Lord Strathnairn, would be speedily able to suppress the rebellion and defeat it, there would nevertheless be considerable bloodshed and destruction of property. I think, therefore, on the first ground, that the suspension of the Act is a necessity. With regard to what would be the second ground of objection—that the powers have been abused—I have no hesitation in saying that I think the Government of Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and others connected with the Executive, have shown the greatest discretion and the utmost impartiality, and they have, so far as we know, never acted without sufficient grounds in depriving persons of their liberty on charges of treason. I have also great satisfaction in observing that while these powers have existed there has been no indisposition to put in force the usual laws of the land, and that there has been no want of co-operation on the part of those concerned in carrying on the ordinary process of justice. Whether we look to the Judges—to the Law Officers of the Crown, or to the conduct of juries, we have reason to be satisfied with the manner in which they have all discharged their several functions. I was happy to see, in reference to the abuse of the liberty of the press to such an extent, that the writers evidently intended not to comment on or criticize the measures of the Administration, but to attempt by their writings to excite the people to insurrection against law and authority; that when the prosecutions were instituted the juries have faithfully and bravely done their duty, and convicted those who have been proved to have been the guilty parties. I think that the juries in these cases are entitled to our applause and sympathy; and in those cases in which the Law Officers of the Crown had not been able to obtain a conviction there seemed to be sufficient ground to induce the juries to arrive at the conclusion that what had been done was not contrary to law; especially

1057
after processions had been allowed at Cork, and after it had been stated in this House that those processions were not contrary to law. The whole proceedings, I must say give me the greatest confidence, which I did not feel twenty years ago, that the administration of justice will be carried on not only with purity but with strictness and impartiality. But while there were all these sources of satisfaction, and while there were reasons why these powers should be given to the Government for the third time—whilst they may be rightly intrusted with them, I must confess that it is a melancholy aspect of affairs which imposes upon us the necessity of granting such powers. No doubt, as my noble Friend has said, this state of things is greatly owing to the civil war in America; but what is there in the state of Ireland that has made these persons disaffected to the Crown and to the laws of this country, and that has produced such a difference between those who have gone from Ireland, and all other emigrants in the United States? There have been emigrants from every part of Europe—from England, from Scotland, and from Germany; and to South America from Italy. With regard to all these, the natural supposition is that men unable to earn their livelihood comfortably in the country of their birth, and finding in the United States or in South America very high wages and very profitable employment, should be satisfied with their change of condition, and that they should remain in that country to enjoy the fruits of their enterprize and the produce of their industry. And such is the fact with regard to the English and Scotch, and with regard to the Germans and Italians. We never hear of any of those people coming back to England, Scotland, Germany or Italy, and complaining of the Government of their own country, and risking their liberties, and even their lives, in order to produce a change in that Government. What is there in Ireland which makes such a melancholy difference? I cannot but think there are evils in Ireland which call for the attention of the Government and of Parliament, and which, I think, the organ of the Government in this House ought not to have omitted from his statement. I should have been happy if I had heard the noble Earl say that while Her Majesty's Government thought these powers were necessary, still if there was anything in the present state of Ireland requiring amendment and reform they should be ready to give that amend-
1058
ment and reform. [The Earl of MALMESBURY: Hear, hear!] I have explained what are my views on the subject, and what measures ought to be adopted, and I can assure your Lordships that I shall not imitate a great orator in the last century, who, in delivering a speech in Parliament, was accused of only giving a new edition of his own pamphlet. If, however, I do not attempt to explain my own views, I am most anxious that the Government should explain theirs. I cannot but think that you have an opportunity which has almost never occurred before. There was an opportunity in 1801, and another in 1825, but they were both thrown away. I hope that the opportunity of 1868 will not be thrown away; because great as were the dangers in those times, there are at the present time, or may be, most serious perils impending over this country. The noble Earl and his Colleagues may think it perfectly easy to postpone all measures of redress, and to say that next year, or at some future time, we shall take those measures into consideration; but you do not know what will be your situation then. I think that I remember Sir Robert Peel, in proposing his measure for a grant to Maynooth, which, though not very important in itself, was one which conciliated and pleased in a great degree the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty—I remember his saying, when there had been some critical discussion with the Government of the United States, he was happy to send a message of peace to Ireland. I am happy to find there is now no serious cause of difference between the Government of Her Majesty and that of the United States; but no man can say, when the new President is elected, and when a new Congress and a President are playing against each other for power, that discussions may not arise with America which would render it imperative, but at the same time difficult, to satisfy the mind of Ireland. That is your business not only with regard to land, but with regard to the Church of Ireland. There is no parallel to that Church anywhere—in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America, there is nothing like the Established Church of Ireland. There is no institution in any country which produces amongst the people living in it such a feeling of humiliation and degradation—such a sentiment that they have a badge of conquest imposed upon them, as the Church of Ireland produces among the people of Ireland. I say, then, my Lords, that the Government

1059
which neglects this great question, or either postpones it, or says it has no measure with regard to it, greatly neglects its duty. It would be better, at all events, if their policy were such as was declared by the Solicitor General at Helston, that they were determined to make no change in the Church of Ireland, that they should avow such to be their intention. It would be better to declare that policy, and openly avow what they mean, than leave all the questions connected with the Church and land to be debated and discussed and the wildest schemes and the most extravagant and impracticable prospects of change. It would be much better to say that they are determined to do nothing, and to resist everything, than to allow discussion to go on in the vague hope that some day or other that Minister who made so great a change last year in regard to England might be disposed to make as great a change in regard to Ireland. Let us have a clear and decided policy stated with regard to the Irish subjects of Her Majesty. Do not allow them to be tossed about between fear and hope. Do not allow this disaffection to go on; and, if possible, give us hope that when this question is next considered Her Majesty's Government may be able to say that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act is no longer necessary.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, as no Member of the Government rose to address their Lordships, he wished to make a few remarks. He would not go into the question of this particular Bill; but he wished to say a few words on the subject just raised by the noble Earl. The noble Earl who had just resumed his seat, had been the great advocate of Liberal principles in this country ever since he had been in Parliament. Many of those principles he had been able to carry out, and his career had been most consistent and honourable in consequence of the success which had attended his efforts to carry out those principles. But he was perfectly astonished that such a man should during his long career have overlooked that which he now so clearly saw; that he should have resisted any change in reference to the Church of Ireland; and that he should have maintained the Protestant Church of Ireland as strongly as any man in the country. Now, however, the noble Earl suddenly finding himself in Opposition, seized, as the only point he could raise, this question of the Irish Church, in order
1060
to excite against the Government all the disaffection of the United Kingdom. He was astonished that the noble Earl who had so long held the helm of the State, should never before have raised his voice for the objects which he now declared to be essential for the well-being of Ireland—should never have used the power which he so long enjoyed as a Minister of the Crown to secure those objects; but that at this moment, above all others, he should issue a pamphlet for the purpose of turning men's minds towards the destruction of the Church of England in Ireland. That destruction, if accomplished, would assuredly raise more enemies to this country in Ireland, and would weaken the power of this country more than any single act which could be attempted. His firm conviction was that, whatever was done in Ireland, the Church of England must not be destroyed. It might be perfectly right and proper, and he thought it would be, to deal with the Roman Catholic Church, placing it in an independent position, and a position of equality with the Church of England; but he hoped that no Government would propose the destruction of the English Church in Ireland.
EARL GREYsaid, he could not allow this discussion to close without expressing his extreme surprise and regret that the Government had thought fit to pass over without any notice whatever the appeal made to them by his noble Friend (Earl Russell). Surely, the state of Ireland at this moment was most grave and serious? As his noble Friend most justly said, the fact that for three successive years Parliament had been called upon to pass a Bill which placed the liberty of every man at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which enabled the Lord Lieutenant, without any evidence that need be brought before a Court of Law, to inflict upon any suspected person the grievous punishment of imprisonment—such a state of things, though it was inevitable that the Government should ask for these powers, was one which surely called for something more than a mere passing allusion? As far as he had the means of judging, the Government of Ireland had used these extraordinary powers with great discretion, moderation, and propriety. He had no fault to find with them; but he could not forget that a bad system of Government became established in this manner. It was by granting extraordinary powers, which in the first instance were not abused, by al-

1061
lowing the existence of these powers to be gradually prolonged from year to year until that system of government became habitual, that the greatest danger arose to anything like Constitutional Government. It was, he said, a serious danger for England, as well as for Ireland, that Parliament should be compelled to continue a state of things in which all securities for liberty of the subject were necessarily suspended. In his opinion, Parliament was not justified in passing from year to year a measure of this kind unless it had resolved also to deal with the causes of such a state, of things and to correct existing evils. Parliament ought not to content itself with a mere measure of coercion; it was bound to take some means of remedying the mischief which made coercion necessary. It was the duty of Parliament not to object to this Bill; at the same time it was the duty of Parliament to insist upon the immediate adoption of some decisive measures for improving the general condition of Ireland. When he said that this was his strong conviction, he knew he should be met by the old assertion, "There is nothing we can do." He should be told that everything had been tried; that no measures were suggested which would have the slightest effect in remedying existing evils, or in reconciling the minds of the Irish people to the Imperial Government. He was quite prepared to admit that no sudden, immediate change in the state of Ireland was to be looked for. The evils from which the country suffered were of too long standing and were too inveterate to allow us to expect that we could at once remove them. Those who promised sudden and immediate improvement in the condition of Ireland were acting the part of political quacks; and, for his own part, he had no confidence whatever in what were called "heroic remedies." But he had great confidence in the efficacy of wise and just legislation. He believed that human nature was the same in Ireland as in other parts of the world, and that a proper system of government and wise and just legislation would not fail in due time to produce beneficial results in Ireland as elsewhere. We must have patience; but he had no doubt that if proper measures were adopted these results would follow by degrees. Unhappily, as far as he could see, we were not even beginning to make progress towards a better state of things. His noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) had told the
1062
House that the number of persons arrested under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act showed a diminution in the number of persons it was necessary to prison by the exercise of the extraordinary power given to the Government, as compared to two years ago; and he urged that this fact implied a less widely spread disaffection than there was. He feared this argument was not sound. The measures of repression which had been adopted might have discouraged offenders; but the minds of the great bulk of the Irish people seemed to be more than ever alienated from the Imperial Government. [Earl RUSSELL: Hear!] Funeral processions had been got up in honour of certain persons who had been found guilty of an atrocious crime, and this mark of honour was paid to them because their crime was supposed to have been prompted by hostility towards the British Government. Surely this was a most grave circumstance, as showing the feelings of the Irish people? Remembering what was the offence of the persons thus held up as martyrs, the fact that such crowds had collected in their honour at Dublin, Cork, and elsewhere appeared to him to be the most alarming symptom he had yet heard of to prove the estrangement of the people from the institutions under which they lived. He was persuaded that no legislation calculated to improve the general condition of Ireland, no such measures as that suggested by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) at an earlier period of the evening, could have a proper effect so long as there remained in existence the one notorious and crying injustice of the Irish Church. While the Irish people continued to feel, as they must feel, that in this respect they were treated with indignity and injustice—while this feeling of injustice rankled in their minds, and this source of bitterness was left untouched, no good effect could be hoped from other remedial legislation. As his noble Friend behind him had said, in Ireland alone, of all countries in the world, the Church of a small minority of the people was richly endowed, while the religious teachers of the great majority were left without any provision whatever. While a Church Establishment which was regarded as a badge of conquest and of inferiority by a great majority of the population was maintained in its present state, and nothing was done to redress the inequality, he had no hope whatever that anything which Parliament could do would

1063
meet the Irish difficulty. Now, he confessed that though there was a great deal in the speech of his noble Friend who had last spoke (the Earl of Hardwicke) with which he did not agree, he was glad to hear from him that he thought the time was come when Catholics and Protestants must be put upon a footing of religious equality in Ireland. That was an admission which he had heard with the greatest pleasure, and if it were made not by any independent Peer, but by Her Majesty's Government and by Parliament—if the principle of religious equality were once fairly recognized, even though they might not be able all at once to decide upon a practical mode of carrying that principle into effect—a great step would have been taken towards removing the evil from which most of our troubles in Ireland had sprung. Only two years ago he had so fully stated his views with regard to the Irish Church, and more than thirty years ago he had stated them so fully in the other House of Parliament, that it was unnecessary to trouble their Lordships by re-stating them on the present occasion. It was sufficient for him to say that, however their arguments might satisfy themselves of the propriety of maintaining the present state of things, they might rest assured that those arguments would utterly fail in Ireland. Their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, without one exception, felt that the maintenance of the existing state of things was unjustifiable. They were supported in that opinion by the public expression of the views of some of the great ornaments of our own Church, and by a great number of statesmen of various parties during a long series of years. They were also supported in that opinion by the unanimous voice of the civilized world; and while that was the case it was impossible that they could be contented with the continuance of the present state of things. He had already said rather more than he had intended, but there was one further observation that he desired to make. He had heard it suggested that the consideration of the policy of the Government on that subject ought to be deferred until after the presentation of the Report of the Royal Commission appointed with reference to the property of the Irish Established Church upon an Address to the Crown agreed to by that House last year. He said that that was an utterly untenable argument. That Commission might, and he hoped it would be of very great use in
1064
discovering a mode of improving the management of that property, and of increasing the funds which might be available for the purposes, whatever they might be, to which they would be applied. But he would remind their Lordships that when last year it was proposed, in the Address which asked for the appointment of that Commission to insert words which pointed to the consideration of the question, whether the application of those funds might not be altered, those words were deliberately rejected by their Lordships. Why, the effect of that Vote was expressly to exclude from the inquiry of the Commissioners all consideration of the great question of what was the policy they should adopt with regard to endowing different forms of religion in Ireland. The Commissioners were as much debarred from inquiring into that point as the power of Parliament and the Crown could debar them. Therefore, their Report could throw no light on the great question of the policy which they were to pursue. That subject had been debated now for thirty-five or thirty-six years. Since the Appropriation Clause it had never been entirely at rest. There had, indeed, been intervals during which other matters had temporarily somewhat obscured it; but that question had always been more or less before the public. They had all formed their judgments upon it, and, as his noble Friend had justly observed, looking to the state of Europe and also to the state of America—looking to the possibility, at all events, of differences arising in that quarter—surely any man who could recommend the postponement of that great question for another year in the face of all those dangers must indeed be wanting in the most ordinary qualities of a statesman. Could, he asked, their Lordships afford to trifle any longer with that subject? Was it not one which, beyond any other that could be named, called for the immediate and earnest consideration of Parliament? It was one which, he said, they could not afford to delay; and he trusted that if Her Majesty's Government should refuse to bring it under their notice, when that Bill for investing the Executive with extraordinary powers should have passed into law, some Member of their Lordships' House would bring distinctly before them the question of whether or not they ought to allow that Bill to remain by itself on the Statute Book without attempting to take any step whatever which might relieve them from the painful necessity of going

1065
on from year to year in the same miserable course of endeavouring to repress discontent and disaffection by mere coercion, while they neglected to adopt any means for removing the causes from which that deplorable state of things proceeded.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he could assure their Lordships that it was not from any want of courtesy towards the House, or towards the noble Earl who spoke second on that occasion (Earl Russell), that no Member of the Government rose before the noble Earl who last addressed them. The Government had considered, as it was natural that they should consider, the whole condition of Ireland; but they could not but think that that was not the best time for making a statement of the conduct which they intended to pursue with regard to that country; and he was at a loss to know upon what occasion it had ever been thought that the Government were not the proper judges of the time when that announcement should be made. When his noble Friend in the other House of Parliament (the Earl of Mayo) moved the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill, he did not enter into a general discussion of the policy of the Government towards Ireland, but thought it better to confine himself to the subject immediately before the House. No objection was taken to the course of proceeding which his noble Friend then indicated his intention to adopt, when he stated to the House of Commons that on a very early day, upon the Motion of, he believed, the hon. Member for Cork, (Mr. Maguire) on the state of Ireland, which stood for to-morrow night, he would be prepared, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to declare distinctly the course which they meant to pursue with respect to that country. It was not necessary for him (the Duke of Richmond), he was happy to think, to add anything to the remarks made by his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Malmesbury) in moving the second reading of that Bill, because the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) had distinctly stated that there were but two or three grounds on which any objection could be taken to such a measure as that; but that no one of those grounds existed on the present occasion. He would not be tempted by the noble Earl's suggestions in the latter part of his speech to break through the rule which the Government had laid down for itself—namely, that of waiting till to-morrow evening, when their policy
1066
was to be promulgated in the House of Commons. He would not be induced to enter upon those topics which the noble Earl had brought forward with a view to show that they ought to make a statement at once. The noble Earl had assumed that they were not even going to legislate for Ireland next year in regard to the land and the Church—that they intended to do nothing; and then he argued that the Government which so neglected its duty, and which attempted to do nothing, was not worthy of the confidence of the country. No doubt, if those statements had been correct, the noble Earl would have been right in his conclusion from them; but he (the Duke of Richmond) had yet to learn that such conduct could be imputed to the Government on that occasion. The land question had been before the House at an earlier part of the evening; and if he had thought a Motion for the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act was the proper time for discussing the subject of the tenure of land in Ireland or the subject of the Irish Church he would have been quite ready to do so. He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient, on a Motion like the present one, when the noble Earl opposite could find no fault with the Government for bringing forward that measure, that the Government should enter into the discussion of the general subject of tenant-right and the Established Church in Ireland. At the risk, however, of being thought to promote a second edition of the noble Earl's (Lord Russell's) pamphlet, he would take the liberty, if the noble Earl would excuse him, of reading one or two extracts from that pamphlet, which, he believed, afforded very sufficient grounds, among others, for not entering upon the subject of the Irish Church at the present moment. The motto which the noble Earl had taken for his pamphlet was a very fair one—namely, "Let right be done." They would all agree in that, although there might be on that, as on many other occasions, some difficulty in finding out exactly what was "right." Therefore, they would not quite so well agree, perhaps, with the noble Earl as to what course should be adopted in order to "let right be done." The noble Earl, with that talent for discovering the weak points of his own case, or rather, anticipating what his own great experience suggested to him as objections which might be urged to his own dictum, said at page 67 of his pamphlet—

1067
"We may suppose the first objection to be on the part of Conservatives in both Houses of Parliament, who would say, 'There is already a Commission appointed on your own Motion. Wait till they have made their inquiries, and suggested in their Report the remedial measures which they consider appropriate to the case. This is surely a reasonable request.' I should admit the request to be reasonable if the whole case of the Churches existing in Ireland had been submitted for inquiry to Commissioners fit for the task, and they had been left at liberty to consider what was best for the welfare of the Irish people."
No doubt the noble Earl thought he qualified the objection by the last part of the paragraph; but in the course of a discussion and inquiry into the Irish Church there were several very grave and very large subjects which must arise. Those subjects were suggested to the noble Earl by the observations of a noble and learned Friend of his (Lord Cairns) in the last Session of Parliament, because at the end of that chapter the noble Earl said, "Questions would no doubt arise respecting the property in glebe lands." It may be observed in passing, that the noble Earl, taking a comprehensive view of the whole question of the Irish Church, in one short sentence said—
"A fair division of the rent-charge in lieu of tithes would give about six-eighths to the Roman Catholic, about one-eighth to the Protestant Episcopal, and less than an eighth to the Presbyterian Church."
Whether noble Lords and Members of the other House of Parliament who followed the noble Earl, but who were opposed to all religious establishments, would quite agree in that suggestion, he would not stop to inquire. The noble Earl continued—
"Questions would no doubt arise respecting the property in glebe lands. Lord Cairns contends that many of these glebe lands were forfeited to the State, and were granted to the Protestant Church by the Act of 1662. Mr. Hallam remarks that many of these lands had belonged to the Church, and had fallen into lay hands during the confusion of the civil war. These are questions for Commissions to investigate in the first instance, and for Parliament in the last resort to decide."
He concurred in this opinion, and did not think that this was the proper time to go into the question of tenant-right in Ireland. The course the Government proposed to take on this question would be stated very fully by the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland in the other House of Parliament to-morrow evening, and he must decline to anticipate that statement by entering into a discussion on the general question this evening.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that for nearly half a century he had lived on his estate in Ireland, doing his duty as a magistrate and as a country gentleman; and he could affirm that it was the universal practice of the Roman Catholic clergy continually to stimulate the feelings of the people in their parishes, and of those who listened to them, against the British Government and against British institutions. There was no truce to this kind of thing, and it had gone on in one shape or another ever since 1641. There could be no doubt that the Roman Catholic religion was a political engine in Ireland, and that it had been made use of to alienate the affections of the people from this country. The English had given an open Bible to Ireland, and had ignored the Pope of Rome. There is an undying hatred for this borne by the Popish clergy towards England which nothing can extinguish. Was any man weak enough to suppose that if the Protestant Church was broken up, and its emoluments made away with, there would be peace? Not as long as there was a Protestant in Ireland would there be peace. He would take the part of the Roman Catholics if he thought they had anything to complain of; but they were the aggressors throughout. He knew the people of that country, and he knew that they never liked the appeals made to them; but no Roman Catholic durst raise his voice in Ireland to say that what the Priest said was not correct. If they chose to make an improved distribution of Church property in Ireland, it was for the Imperial Parliament to do so; but if they thought that by doing so they would conciliate the Roman Catholic clergy they were mistaken. So long as there was a Protestant institution in Ireland which they were bound to sustain, depend upon it so long they would fail to conciliate the Roman Catholic clergy.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I agree with the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) that Her Majesty's Government should refrain to-night from entering into any discussion or statement of their general views with regard to Ireland, as to what remedial measures would be desirable. I do not think it would be expedient to enter upon such a discussion to-night; but, at the same time, I think it not inexpedient that independent Members should express their opinion. I entirely agree with my noble and gallant Friend on the cross Benches (the Earl of

1069
Hardwicke). I desire to see the establishment of religious equality in Ireland. The very first vote I gave in the House of Commons, considerably more than half a century ago, was in favour of a Motion tending to Catholic emancipation. But, my Lords, that equality must be established, not by depressing the Protestants, but by raising the Roman Catholic population. It would be a great wrong and impolicy to set up the Roman Catholic Church by the spoliation of members of the Church of England. I consider that that would be altogether inconsistent with the integrity of Parliament, with the solemn declaration made at the time of the Union, and subsequently at the time the Act for Catholic Emancipation was passed. The maintenance of the rights of the Church of England is bound up with the honour of Parliament; but, at the same time, I think that the establishment of religious equality is a measure demanded by justice and by policy. I know not to what extent it may have been the desire on the part of Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh to improve the condition of the Roman Catholic Church; but every one who knows anything of the character of either of those great statesmen must know that neither of them would do anything unjust to the Church of England; and they knew, as we all know, that to preserve Ireland we must avoid giving dissatisfaction to the Protestants of Ireland—that they are especially the civil garrison of Ireland, and by them we must stand or fall. I do not know that I need add anything at present; but I thought it my duty to express that which has always been my opinion, and which increases in strength every day. I think that Parliament should, without delay, take into consideration measures which should give contentment to every reasonable person professing the Roman Catholic religion, and take away from them everything which, in the present state of things, can be considered either offensive or ignominious.
THE BISHOP OF OSSORYsaid, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without expressing his surprise that on a Motion of this kind the noble Lord who had stated the grievances, or supposed grievances, of Ireland, and the cause or supposed causes of the disaffection which unfortunately prevailed there, had insisted upon only one grievance—that of the Established Church. If, however, you allowed the disaffected people in Ireland to state their own griev-
1070
ances, while they might not deny that the Irish Church was a grievance, they said plainly and distinctly that while they might be pleased by the abolition of it, nevertheless it would by no means satisfy them. Not only the Fenians, but persons who might be supposed to be equally disaffected, expressly said that although the abolition of the Established Church might gratify them, it was not a thing they aimed at.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Order Committee on, appointed: The Lords following, together with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

Ld. President

V. Eversley

D. Somerset

L. Camoys

M. Winchester

L. Saye and Sele

M. Bath

L. Colville of Culross

M. Ailesbury

L. Ponsonby

E. Devon

L. Sondes

E. Airlie

L. Foley

E. Hardwicke

L. Dinevor

E. Carnarvon

L. Sheffield

E. Romney

L. Colchester

E. Chichester

L. Silchester

E. Fowis

L. De Tabley

E. Verulam

L. Wynford

E. Saint Germans

L. Portman

E. Morley

L. Stanley of Alderley

E. De Grey

L. Belper

E. Stradbroke

L. Ebury

E. Amherst

L. Churston

E. Kimberley

L. Egerton

V. Sydney

L. Penrhyn

PRIVATE BILLS.
All Petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Standing Order Committee unless otherwise ordered.

OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.
The Lords following; viz.,

M. Bath

L. Ponsonby

L. Colville of Culross

L. Stanley of Alderley

were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the Names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the Consideration of each Opposed Private Bill.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.