Sitting of 20 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—District Church Tithes Act Amendment * [246].
Committee—Registration (Ireland) (213); Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market (re-comm.) [139]—R.P.; Inland Revenue * [207]; Army Chaplains * [225]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Expiring Laws Continuance * [241].
Report—St. Mary Somerset's Church, London * [223–247]: Registration (Ireland) * [213–248]; Inland Revenue * [207]; Army Chaplains * [225]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Expiring Laws Continuance * [241].
Considered as amended—Sale of Poisons and Pharmacy Act Amendment * [181].

ASSESSED TAXES.—QUESTION.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that persons in the
1476
country districts who keep one horse and a phaeton, or a wagonette, to let for hire, and pay the Post Horse Duty of £5 per annum, if they use the same horse and vehicle occasionally for the conveyance of their wives and families are now charged, in addition, with the Assessed Taxes of £3 1s. per annum, making the total annual charge for Duty on one horse and one vehicle £8 1s. per annum; and, if he is so aware, whether he will provide a remedy for this grievance?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that it was undoubtedly true that the alleged grievance existed, and it was a subject of frequent complaint. It must be recollected, however, that the post horse duty was paid really by the public, who used the post horse and carriage, so that the proprietor was re-imbursed by the amount he got from the hirer. The assessed taxes the persons referred to in the Question only paid in common with other members of the community for the luxury they enjoy.

METROPOLIS—INCLOSURE IN REGENT'S PARK.—QUESTION.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What is the cause of the delay in the completion of the works in the inclosure in the Regent's Park, and when the same are likely to be completed; and, whether it is intended to cover the bottom of the lake with cement?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that the works were completed, and the water would be introduced almost immediately. The reason why the water had not been introduced was that a defect had been discovered in the drainage of the Regent's Park College, and till that was made good the water could not be let in; but that defect had now been remedied. It was not intended to cover the bottom of the lake with cement.

ARMY—MANUFACTURE OF ROCKETS.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will afford Mr. Hale an opportunity of substantiating the complaint he has briefly made—namely, that his Rockets are manufactured in the Royal Arsenal in a manner which renders them more costly and less efficient for the Public Service?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he could not consent to afford Mr.

  1477
  Hale an opportunity of substantiating his complaint that his rockets were manufactured in the Royal Arsenal in a manner which rendered them more costly and less efficient for the public service. Mr. Hale had received a large sum of money as compensation; and in making these rockets there was no further need of the services of Mr. Hale. The rockets were made in the best manner for the public service.

  NAVY—THE "ACHILLES" AND "MINOTAUR."—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN MACKINNONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is true that the designer of the Achilles was compelled by the Controller, against his judgment, to provide more masts than she was designed for; and, whether any notice was taken of the vehement protest of the designer on the Naval Committee ordering the Minotaur more masts than suited her form, or for which she was designed?
  SIR JOHN HAY, in reply, said, some misapprehension existed on the part of the hon. and gallant Member as to the form of the Return which was laid on the table some time ago with regard to this Question. Four out of five naval officers forming the Committee reported against the masting of the Achilles with four masts; but when the matter was brought before the Admiralty, it was unanimously resolved that the Controller should be ordered to give the Achilles four masts. The original design was for four masts, and it was laid down accordingly. This was complicated with another Question. That Committee recommended that double topsails should be adopted in that class of ship; finding that the area of canvas of three masts would not be sufficient, it was therefore considered desirable that four masts should be adopted to give a sufficient spread of canvas. With regard to the Minotaur, there was no protest on record at the Admiralty.

  AFFAIRS OF CEYLON.—QUESTION
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute any local inquiry into the affairs of Ceylon?
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in reply, that Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of Ceylon, was on his way to England, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies
  1478
  awaited his arrival in order to obtain from him a statement of the grievances and proposals of Reform made on the part of the island; at the same time it was not his intention to make any constitutional changes in the form of the Government.

  NAVY—ROPEMAKERS IN CHATHAM DOCKYARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the wages of the Ropemakers in Chatham Dockyard have been reduced to nineteen shillings and two pence per week, and that men who have been working overtime have been suddenly dismissed from the service; and in such case whether the Board of Admiralty contemplate any arrangement which would diminish the distress occasioned by these proceedings?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said he presumed that the hon. Member referred to the reduction made in the time men were employed—namely, from six to five days in the week. If this reduction had not been made the amount of Supply voted for the Department would have been exhausted by the end of the year, a circumstance that would have led to the dismissal of all the men, and to great distress in Chatham. This was an arrangement which had been proposed by the late Board of Admiralty, and the steam machinery which had been erected was capable of working small quantities when the times were slack, and also of working off what was wanted at periods of pressure. This was the first time the Board of Admiralty had attempted to follow the advice of our great political economists—namely, to regulate our supplies with the reasonable demands of the year. Judging from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's Question, be was afraid that the change was not likely to meet with much favour amongst the artizans of Chatham. Very few hired men had been dismissed, and those had received as long a notice as the requirements of the service allowed.

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN SPAIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that Julian dc Vargas, a Spanish Schoolmaster at Malaga, has been imprisoned in a felon's prison since the 12th of March, and is now under prosecu-

  1479
  tion by the Fiscal, who demands a sentence' of seventeen months' imprisonment for having in his House a Spanish Bible and, Testament and a few French Protestant; books not of a controversial character; and whether he will use the friendly influence of this Government with the Government of Spain to obtain an abandonment of this religious persecution, so calculated to offend the public feeling of the rest of Europe, where the rights of conscience are now acknowledged by the law of all countries—Protestant, Roman Catholic, and even Mahometan?
  LORD STANLEY, in reply, said, he believed that the facts of the case to which the hon. Member referred were these—A man named Vargas, a schoolmaster at Malaga, was now under prosecution by the local authorities of the district. There was some discrepancy between the several statements that had reached him from various sources as to the precise nature of the charges against this person. The charge against him, he believed, was not that of having Protestant books in his possession, but that he, being a schoolmaster, was alleged to have taught Protestant doctrines to the pupils under his charge, and the fact of his having certain Protestant books in his possession was only brought forward as evidence in support of the charge. The proceedings instituted against him had been instituted by the local authorities upon their own motion, and not by the Spanish Government who did not even appear when the matter was first mentioned to know that such proceedings had occurred. With regard to the later part of the Question he need hardly remind the hon. Member that this was a very delicate matter for the Government to meddle with, because, the man being a Spanish subject and subject to Spanish laws, whatever Her Majesty's Government might think of the policy of the proceeding, they had absolutely no right to interfere. Any communication between the two Governments upon the subject must be one of an entirely friendly and unofficial character; and even in that case we had to guard most carefully against the appearance of wishing to dictate to the Spanish Government. The only ground upon which diplomatic action could be founded in a case of this kind was that such proceedings tended to create a good deal of excitement among a Protestant community, which might result in international ill-feeling. Upon that ground alone had he felt himself at liberty in a
  1480
  perfectly friendly and unofficial manner to advise the Spanish Government to deal with Vargas with as much leniency as was possible under the circumstances.

CAPTAIN PIM'S ELECTORAL ADDRESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in reference to a passage in the Address recently published by Captain Pim, the Conservative Candidate for Gravesend, in which he says,—"as your Member and a Naval Officer, it would be my duty to urge upon Government (and I have every reason to hope with success), the great natural advantage your Borough possesses "—i. e., for the formation of a Dockyard and Arsenal, Whether he is aware of any communication between the Admiralty and Captain Pim which would have authorized the latter to hold out such an expectation to the Electors of Gravesend, or whether the idea of such an arrangement is now or ever has been entertained by the Admiralty?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he could not help expressing his regret that the hon. Member for the City of Oxford, who felt himself secure in his seat, should have thought it his duty to interfere with a gentleman who was a candidate seeking to secure a seat in Parliament. He should have thought that the House and the country would view with leniency any statement made by candidates who were anxious to win the favour of this new and numerous constituency. The hon. Gentleman asked him whether the gallant Captain had had any communication with the Admiralty with regard to the establishment of a Dockyard and Arsenal at Gravesend. He had not seen the whole of the gallant Captain's Address, but the extract which had been read to the House by the hon. Member led him to suppose that the gallant Captain had not even suggested ouch a thing, but that the project having been suggested by the constituency had been favourably received by him, and that he hoped that his powers of persuasion, if returned, would be such as to enable him successfully to plead their cause in Parliament. No doubt it would be a great loss if they did not in the next Parliament have Gentlemen returned who possessed those powers of persuasion which the gallant Captain believed he possessed.

  NAVY—COALING HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. EDWARDSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the great economy in time and cost which would be effected in the shipment of Coal at Portland, by availing of the direct Railway communication with the Coal districts of South Wales, it would not be desirable to provide forthwith the necessary facilities at Portland for coaling Her Majesty's Ships, in lieu of the more expensive and tedious mode of supplying through depôts?
  MR. DU CANE, in reply, said, he gave an answer to this Question a few evenings since, when the last Vote for the Navy Estimates was under discussion. He then stated that the coaling arrangements by means of pontoons at Portland were merely temporary. If the hon. Gentleman would look to the Navy Estimates he would find in Vote 11 that £30,000 was taken for the coaling arrangements at Portland, £2,000 of which had been taken this year for the commencement of the works. The Admiralty were endeavouring to enter into arrangements with the Great Western and South Western Railways, by which it was hoped that by the aid of those systems the South Wales collieries would be brought into direct communication with the inner line of breakwater at Portland. The subject was one that had attracted the attention of the Admiralty, and the proposed new means of communication would be carried out with as little delay as possible.

MONITORS IN THE FRENCH NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is correct, (as stated in The Engineer of the 17th instant), that the French Government have now at Bordeaux two Monitors fully armed, equipped, and ready for sea, and a third building?
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, in reply, that the best Answer he could give to the hon. Member was that, according to the best information that the Government possessed, the French Government had no Monitors at Bordeaux, although they had one at Brest. One was certainly building at Bordeaux; but it was not being constructed, he understood, for the French Government.

  IRELAND—CORONER'S INQUEST AT MONAGHAN.—QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Relative to an alleged irregularity in the proceedings of a Coroner's Inquest which has been lately held in the town of Monaghan; and if any information has reached him respecting the origin of the affray which led to that inquiry, and who were the aggressors?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that a full report of the occurrences to which the hon. Member referred had not reached the Government, but it certainly appeared that there had been some irregularity in the proceedings at the coroner's inquest to which he referred. With regard to the second part of the Question, as to who were the aggressors it would clearly be contrary to his duty to express any opinion upon the subject, seeing that it was likely to be made the subject of judicial investigation.

IRELAND—DIETARY IN WORKHOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COGANsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Return presented to the House on the 3rd of May from the Poor Law Commissioners' Office in Dublin, from which it appears there are seventy-eight unions in Ireland in which a third meal is not jot allowed to the several classes of healthy inmates of the workhouse, and that there are fifty-five unions in which the workhouse inmates or certain classes of them are not provided with shoes and stockings, notwithstanding the strong remonstrances of the Poor Law Commissioners against the continuance of these practices as being calculated to be injurious to the health of the inmates; and, whether the Poor Law Commissioners intend to take any and what steps to secure a general uniform observance in the workhouses of their recommendations on the subject?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that he really had little to add to the remarks he made a short time since in reply to the hon. Member for Waterford upon this subject. He stated on that occasion that the Poor Law Commissioners had made, and were making, great exertions to press upon the Boards of Guardians their opinions of the question of diet, and he believed with considerable success. When

  1483
  the right hon. Member (Mr. Cogan) complained that seventy-eight unions continued to give only two meals a day, he must remind him that a short time ago that was the general rule, except as regarded children and infirm persons. Considerable difference of opinion continued to exist with reference to the dietary in Irish workhouses, and he could only say that the Poor Law Commission would continue to use every exertion in their power to induce Boards of Guardians to adopt their views.

ARMY—EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Sir John Simeon), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the system of employing soldiers in trades and callings which has been for some time pursued at Parkhurst Barracks; whether he is satisfied with the success of the experiment; and, whether he is prepared to recommend the adoption of the principle in other Depot Battalions?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, in reply, that he was happy to say that the system of employing soldiers in barracks had been found to work very satisfactorily. The system had been already extended to the other depots, and it was the intention of the War Office to still further extend it.

  SCOTLAND—PAROCHIAL ASSESS MENT.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM STIRLING-MAXWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the discrepancies which occur in the practice of Parochial Boards in Scotland in imposing assessments under the Poor Law Amendment Act—namely, that some Parochial Boards make no deductions in terms of the thirty-seventh section of the Act, while some Parochial Boards make an uniform deduction in regard to all classes of property, and others make different deductions in regard to different classes of property; and, whether he is prepared to state, for the information of the Parochial Boards, the course they ought to follow in regard to making deductions under the thirty-seventh section of the Poor Law Act?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, I consider those Parochial Boards are in error which make no deductions from the gross
  1484
  rent of property for the probable annual average cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain such properties in their actual state, and all rates, taxes, and public charges payable in respect of the same, as required by Section 37 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 8 & 9 Vict., c. 83, in order to bring out the net or rateable value for the purposes of the Poor Law assessment. I consider also that those Parochial Boards are in error which make an uniform deduction from the rents of all classes of property, because it is impossible that the deductions required by Section 37 of the Poor Law Amendment Act can be the same in amount for different classes of property, such as houses or manufactories, and for arable or pasture land. Those Parochial Boards which make different deductions in terms of the 37th section founded upon the difference of the cost of repairs, &c, in different classes of property alone act in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Parochial Boards, after ascertaining the net or rateable value, have by the 36th section of the Act power, with the consent of the Board of Supervision, to classify properties and to fix such rates of assessment as to them may seem just. The Board of Supervision have issued circulars bringing these matters under the consideration of the local Boards, which it is hoped will correct the erroneous systems which have hitherto prevailed.

  METROPOLIS—FLOWERS IN THE PUBLIC PARKS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the decision of Mr. Arnold, the Police Magistrate at Westminster, on Thursday last, in the case of a woman brought before him for plucking a plant in Chelsea Hospital Garden, that it was no offence, as plants and flowers were not protected by law; and, if this is so, what protection there is for the plants and flowers in the Public Parks which are maintained at so great expense?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that his attention had been called to the case alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member, and he believed the decision of the magistrate was erroneous. Sir William Atherton's Act was, he believed, still operative, and he was prepared to

  1485
  proceed under its provisions against any such offenders.

IRELAND—QUEEN'S PLATES.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, By whose authority was a Queen's Plate removed this year from the Curragh to Limerick; are the Stewards of the Irish Turf Club vested with any powers to pro hibit the transfer of a Queen's Plate from the Curragh to any other locality in Ire land; and, with whom does it rest to authorize the changes of the Queen's Plates from one locality to another in Ireland?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that the removal was made by the orders of the Master of the Horse, after several communications with the authorities at the Curragh, who were willing to accede to the arrangement. It rested with the Master of the Horse to make any changes which might he deemed necessary in connection with the running for the Queen's Plates.

  ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—VOTE OF THANKS TO LORD NAPIER.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House, that he had received a Letter from Lord Napier of Magdala, dated the 18th day of this instant July, acknowledging the Thanks of this House to himself and other Officers for the success attending the Abyssinian Expedition:—Letter read as follows:—
  49, Cleveland Square, Hyde Park, July 18, 1868.
  Sir,
  I have duly received the Resolutions of the House of Commons conveying the Thanks of the House, for the manner in which the Campaign in Abyssinia was conducted, to myself and to Commodore Heath, C.B., Major General Sir C. Staveley, K.C.B., Major General George Malcolm, C.B., Major General E. L. Russell, Brigadier General W. Merewether, C.B., and the other Officers of the Army and Navy:
  And the further intimation that the House acknowledge and approve of the conduct of the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and Men of the Navy and Army, both European and Native, during these operations:
  I beg to express for myself, and on behalf of the Officers and Men of the Force, our profound sense of the honour conferred upon us.
  I have taken the requisite steps to convey the said Resolutions to the Officers named, and to the several Officers of the Navy and Army who have served in the Expedition.
  I have the honour to be,
  Sir,
  Your most obedient Servant,
  NAPIER OF MAGDALA.
  P.S. I regret extremely that this Communication should have been accidentally delayed.
  To the Right honble. John Evelyn Denison, Speaker of the House of Commons.

REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Earl of Mayo, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 213.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, he rose to make an objection to the title of this Bill, which, he contended, did not cover its contents, inasmuch as a Registration Bill could not be presumed to contain provisions with reference to polling-places. The objection might be got rid of either by discharging the Order and bringing in a new Bill, or by altering the Bill in order to make it correspond with its title. He believed that the objection ought to have been taken on the second reading; but, as the Bill was read a second time before it was printed, it was impossible for him to have offered the objection at that stage.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that most Bills, after indicating the contents, contained the words "and for other purposes." In this instance these words did not occur; but the objection taken by the hon. Member was a preliminary one, which ought to have been offered on the second reading, and it was now too late to make it.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that in moving the second reading he had informed the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) that the Bill would contain provisions for additional polling-places, and had also stated the fact in the few words with which he introduced the measure; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would acquit him of having acted in any way unfairly. It was true that the Bill was read a second time before

  1487
  it was printed; but be stated at the time; that if that course were at all objected to he should not think of pressing it.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could not regard an accidental remark made to himself in the light of a communication to the House of the contents of the Bill. It would have been much better if the noble Earl had had the Bill printed.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the Irish Members had been taken quite by surprise. This Bill had not been discussed, not a word said, upon the second reading. It was introduced at two o'clock in the morning on Tuesday week. The noble Earl did not then explain its provisions fully. The noble Earl stated that the object was simply to have the registration taken in such time as to enable the General Election to take place in November, and then just as he was sitting down he said that it would also contain some; alteration with respect to the increase of polling-places. It was put down for a second reading on Thursday, and when it came on it was found that it had not been printed. At the time of the second; reading he and several other Irish Members were in Ireland. When the Bill was printed it was discovered that it made a most material change in the law of Ireland regarding polling-places. The result had been to bring back Irish Members who had left for the Session, and the first opportunity they had of considering it was after the Appropriation Bill had been read a second time in that House. He certainly thought this was not fair in the noble Earl or Her Majesty's Government. If he were in "another place," he might say that it was a dodge or a trick, but as he knew that that would be un-Parliamentary in that House, he would not use the expression. According to the existing law in Ireland, application might be made to the magistrates in Quarter Sessions for new polling-places, and if such application were sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council the alteration took effect. By the present Bill it was proposed to render the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council unnecessary. Now, nine-tenths of the magistrates in: Ireland were Conservatives of the highest possible order, and to place in their, hands such a power was certainly not a proposal that ought to be made at the end of a Session when so few Irish Members were in London. The result would
  1488
  most probably be that every magistrate who was a landlord would make his own rent-office a polling-place, and the tenants would be marched up to give their votes. It was a proposal he could not sanction, and he felt it his duty to give the Bill every opposition in his power.
  MR. SYNANsaid, the Irish Registration Bill ought to have been brought in simultaneously with the English Registration Bill, and not in the last week or the last fortnight of the Session. But in the English Bill there were provisions for increasing the polling-places according to the increase made in the county constituency; while in Ireland there was no increase in the constituency, and it was expected that the Irish Registration Bill would be confined to registration. In the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) in introducing the measure, as reported in The Times, not a word was said about an increase of polling-places. On the second reading the noble Earl said that clauses relative to polling-places would be introduced, and they were introduced before the Bill was printed, and what the clauses were had only just become known. [The Earl of MAYO: I stated them publicly.] He was not aware what they were till Saturday night; and the clauses had kept him and other Members in town. Many Irish Members who had not seen them had, however, gone to Ireland; and he objected to the alteration of the law at this late period of the Session.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he must contend that there had been no surprise in this matter. The Bill would increase, instead of diminishing, the facilities for voting. If hon. Gentlemen wished elections to be conducted with order in Ireland they would vote for additional polling-places. The clauses relating to new polling-places were precisely similar to clauses in the English Bill, except where concessions had been made to Irish Liberal Members.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he had not supposed the Bill was anything but a simple Registration Bill. The House ought not to consider the circumstances of England and Ireland as being alike. In England the magistrate would exercise his power with respect to additional polling-places as a matter of business; but in Ireland party feeling ran so high as to make it highly undesirable to give this power to the magistrates without some check. He hoped the Government would withdraw this portion of the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, he could assure the Irish Members that there had been no intention on the part of the Government to cause them any inconvenience. He suggested that the discussion on the subject of the polling-places could be taken much better in Committee than on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
  COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsaid, that as the Irish Reform Bill did not touch the county franchise he could not see why the Government had thought it necessary to interfere with the question of polling-places in a Bill which he had supposed to be merely a Registration Bill. At present application could be made at Quarter Sessions for an increase in the number of the polling-places. He thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to give some explanation before the House was asked to go into Committee.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, that perhaps it might facilitate matters if he now offered a few remarks by way of explanation. He believed he could satisfy the House that there was an absolute necessity for the clauses which provided facilities for increasing the number of polling-places. As the law stood at present it was impossible to get additional polling-places in Ireland, no matter how general and how just the demand for them might be. That had been decided on several occasions, in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The alteration he proposed was not one in the law, but merely a provision to make the existing law workable. By the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 50, it was provided that certain places duly scheduled in that Act should be the polling-places for the whole of Ireland; but by Clause 22 of that Act it was further provided that no barony or half barony in a county could be divided for the purpose of making additional polling-places. By the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 62, that latter restriction was removed; but no provision whatever was made for the distribution of the voters in accordance with the number and the situation of the polling-places. This was sought to be amended by the 27 & 28 Vict. c. 22, which was partly retrospective and partly prospective in its provisions; but here, again, there was a defect, because if an alteration of the polling-places occurred in, say, the early part of the year, it was impossible to obtain any re-distribution of voters for nine or ten months after. In the event of
  1490
  an election in the interval, very great confusion would be certain to occur, by reason of the uncertainty as to where each man should vote. It had been therefore held by successive Advisers of the Crown that, under the circumstances to which he had referred, it would be improper for the Privy Council to make the Order respecting the applications for additional polling-places contemplated by the Legislature. The consequence was that the law was a dead letter, and it was impossible to obtain additional polling-places for any county in Ireland. The first case arose in reference to Kilkenny. It was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, who gave their opinion that it would be improper and dangerous to make the Order. The result was that the last Act was passed; but, while providing for the case of Kilkenny, it omitted to provide for the other case to which he had just referred. In the year 1864 the magistrates of Queen's County applied for additional polling-places. The Law Officers, however, advised the Privy Council not to make an Order, as it would be productive of great confusion. As the whole necessity of the present legislation arose out of that opinion, it was desirable that it should be read to the House. It was as follows:—
  "We are of opinion that the Privy Council ought not now to make the proposed orders, involving as they do a division of baronies. We think that the making of such orders would cause very great confusion and embarrassment, by constituting new polling-places for barony divisions without any machinery being in existence for making out separate lists of voters for each division before an election may take place for the county in which the divided barony is situate. The Act of Parliament, 27 & 28 Vict. c. 22, is, we think, defective in not providing that the polling at elections which may happen between the making of the order for the new polling-places and the revision of the separate lists consequent thereon should proceed as if no such order was made, and the said Act must, we think, be amended. Pending this amendment, it appears to us that the Privy Council should make no order involving a division of a barony. We think it right to add that, in our opinion, the amendment of the Act ought to provide that the separate lists should be made out and revised at the Quarter Sessions next after the order of the Privy Council, by enacting clauses similar to the 10th and following sections in the Act abovementioned, and that elections in the meantime should be conducted as if no such order was made.
  "THOMAS O'HAGAN.
  "JAMES A. LAWSON.
  "EDWARD SULLIVAN."
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: What is the date?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, it was dated

  1491
  the 27th of December, 1864. No doubt, that opinion was perfectly correct; and, after such advice, it was obviously impossible for the Privy Council to make any Order for additional polling-places. Another case had arisen more recently in reference to the county of Donegal; but the application was not complied with, on the ground that the Privy Council felt it unsafe to make an Order on the subject until the law was completed. Both the late and the present Governments, therefore, had been obliged to refuse relief when it had been applied for. He hoped hon. Members would now see that the accusations brought against him of taking the House by surprise, of making material alterations in the law, and other ridiculous and absurd charges had no foundation whatever. He merely proposed to facilitate the action of the present law; and, with one single exception, he did not deviate from the very letter of the advice given to the Crown by its Law Officers of the late Administration in the case to which he had referred. The necessity in Ireland for additional polling-places was very urgent. To show this, he would compare three Irish counties with three English agricultural counties, as it would obviously be unfair to take manufacturing counties in this country for the purpose of making the comparison. The English counties he had selected were North Devonshire, Westmoreland, and the North Riding of Yorkshire, and these he would compare with the counties of Tipperary, Donegal, and Cork. In North Devon there were eleven polling-places for 9,500 electors, or one polling-place for about every 900 voters; but in Tipperary, where the number of electors was the same—9,500—there were only five polling-places, or one for every 1,900 voters. Again, Westmoreland, with 4,200 electors, had thirteen polling-places, or one to every 400 voters; whereas Donegal, with 4,300 electors, had but four polling-places, or one to about every 1,100 voters. He might mention that there had been repeated applications from Donegal for additional polling-places, and that some of the voters in that county had to travel no less than twenty-five or twenty-six miles across a mountain to record their votes To show further the disadvantage at which Irish counties were placed in this respect as compared with English counties, he need only state that whereas the North Riding of Yorkshire, with 15,400 electors,
  1492
  had seventeen polling-places, the county of Cork, with 15,700, had only ten. Then in Ireland itself the greatest inequalities existed between different counties with regard to polling-places. The county of Clare, for instance, with 5,460 electors, had ten polling-places, while the county of Cavan, with 5,900 electors, had only four. These statistics must convince the House that, putting aside all other considerations, there was a necessity for immediate legislation. He believed the present Bill would effect a great improvement. According to the old law, which was inoperative, alterations with respect to polling-places could only be made at Quarter Sessions, which in Ireland were not generally well attended by the magistrates, but were mere hole-and-corner meetings. He proposed, therefore, that a public notice should be given of all intended alterations of polling-places, with the view of securing the attendance of all the magistrates and other persons interested, and that the subject should be discussed at a Special Sessions. This, indeed, was the only alteration he proposed to make in the existing law. When the list of polling-places had been arranged by the magistrates it was to be submitted to the Privy Council, as at present, for approval and rectification, and afterwards published in the Dublin Gazette. It was also provided that in the event of there being an election between the appointment of new polling-places and the revision of the lists, the old lists should remain in force as respects the polling-places. Of course the Executive Government, through the action of the Privy Council, would in every case be responsible for alterations in the polling-places. He implored the House to pass these clauses; they would save large numbers of electors in Ireland from having to take long and sometimes dangerous journeys. They carried out the principle which was always acted upon in England of bringing the polling-places as near as possible to the electors. He was astonished that any Member connected with Ireland could get up and oppose these provisions. They were proposed for no party purpose whatever: in fact, the greater number of applications for additional polling-places came from the North of Ireland; but he believed that they were calculated to facilitate elections in Ireland, to prevent disturbances, and to contribute largely to the convenience of the voters.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he thought the speech of the noble Earl was the strongest

  1493
  possible argument against the clause, because if the grievance was one of so many years' standing it was difficult to understand why the noble Earl had not addressed himself to it before, instead of so unexpectedly proposing to legislate upon it by introducing special clauses in a Bill introduced for quite another purpose. The noble Earl told them that n formal and technical defect in the law was pointed out in 1864; but he was in power in 1866 and 1867, when there were applications from King's County and other places, and yet he took no steps towards remedying the defect. Why did not the noble Earl propose the change in the Irish Reform Bill when there would have been an opportunity of discussing its expediency? The alterations proposed by the noble Earl were not quite so insignificant as he had made out. By the present law no additional polling-places could be applied for except at Quarter Sessions, and he must say that he was surprised to hear the noble Earl talk of Quarter Sessions in Ireland as "hole-and-corner" meetings, for they were as well attended as Quarter Sessions in England. The noble Karl now proposed that six Justices of the Peace, or twenty electors, upon requisition to the Lord Lieutenant, should have power to convene a Special Sessions, to be held ten days from the date of the application. This proposal he condemned as an unconstitutional innovation. The power to convene the Special Sessions would rest with the Lord Lieutenant, and not with the Privy Council, and the month's notice now necessary would be dispensed with. The Special Sessions proposed to be substituted for the Quarter Sessions in this matter would really be "hole-and-corner" meetings. He looked upon these provisions as an after-thought. He fancied they had been added at the suggestion of some person whose object was to enable a large number of fresh polling-places to be granted in the ensuing month of August, a time when a great many of the influential residents were out of the country, for the purpose of obtaining some political advantage. He trusted that the clauses would not be pressed. If they were he hoped the Irish Members would give them their most determined opposition.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think the best way to advance the Business would be for us to go into Committee without further delay. If there are on our part any of the deep-laid plots that the right hon. Gentleman opposite supposes, the scrutiny of the
  1494
  Committee will soon reveal and defeat them. But until we get into Committee we are making no progress.
  MR. COGANsaid, it would be a great inconvenience if just on the eve of a General Election the polling-places throughout Ireland were changed. But the great objection to the plan was that it was a surprise, no intimation on the subject of these polling-places having been given on the introduction of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I stated distinctly on that occasion that provision would be made for additional polling-places.
  MR. COGANsaid, that the no mention of them would be found in the report of the noble Earl's speech, probably on account of the very late hour in the morning at which the noble Earl addressed the House. He trusted that the House would come to a clear decision on these clauses before going into Committee. It was clear that the most strenuous opposition would be given to the third part of the Bill, and as practical men they ought to consider that at this period of the Session great powers and facilities were given to an Opposition to defeat any measure of which they disapproved. Those powers had been exercised already on another Bill, and if they were driven to exercise them on this Bill very serious consequences might ensue.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he hoped the House would follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and go into Committee; but he rose to call attention to two preliminary points on which he thought the whole discussion in Committee would turn. The two points were these. In the first place, his right hon. and learned Friend objected not so much to legislation on this matter as that the clauses referring to it were in the wrong Bill. The Government had had the opinion of counsel before them for four years, recommending a change in the law; but the clauses making the change ought, as in the English Bill, to have been placed in the Reform Bill, and not in the Registration Bill. The other point was that if these clauses were to appear in the Registration Bill the Government ought to have given Notice of their introduction. But the Bill was allowed to be read a second time without being printed, because it was supposed that it would be strictly confined to the subject which was represented by its title; but when the Bill was printed they found to their surprise that it referred

  1495
  to quite different matters, and many of the Irish Members who had left England were obliged to return to this country in consequence. These were the points which required explanation. There was nothing of which the House was so jealous, and the right hon. Gentleman had shown tonight that there was nothing of which he was so sensitive, as the suspicion that the House was about to be taken by surprise, Having listened to this discussion with the greatest interest and attention, he was brought to the conclusion that the noble Earl had given no answer at all to the objections of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville-Nugent), and that the Bill as a Registration Bill ought not to have been extended to the increase of polling-places. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would not persist with these clauses.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought the House should not come to any hasty conclusion with regard to principles which might have a vital effect on the character of the Bill. It seemed to him that if this Bill contained any lingering remnant of the old system of favouritism and ascendancy, it was time for that House, which represented the people of the United Kingdom, to put an end to it. The object of the clauses he understood to be to give the landlords power to bring their tenants like serfs to the poll. Now, if that were so, he asked the House to pause before adopting them. He implored the House to consider that this was but a remnant of powers attaching in past times to property as disconnected with labour and the rights of industry, and that it was now time to put an end to them all. He would support the proposition of the right hon. and learned Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson). He would never be satisfied till the Union was made complete, and Ireland enjoyed all the rights and all the liberties of England.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Definition of "Principal Act").
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the present would be a good opportunity to ask whether the Government intended to persevere with the third part of the Bill? Several hon. Gentlemen took a great interest in the question which stood nest on the Paper (the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill), and it might be convenient to them to know if that Bill was
  1496
  not to come on till eleven or twelve o'clock that night.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Courts of Revision to be held between 8th September and 6th October).
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the Government as to the necessity of taking some steps to secure greater facilities than had commonly been given heretofore for the registration of voters belonging to the working classes. By the Act of last Session they had in towns greatly extended the bounds of electoral privileges, more especially by the concession of the franchise to lodgers. But from what reached him he feared that this boon would be rendered useless, unless the Government would either introduce a measure or give directions to the Revising Barristers as to the time at which the Revision Courts should be held. It was plain that those who lived by their labour could not afford to hang about a Revision Court for the greater part of a day, or of more days than one, to secure their claims being admitted; and, if they were in consequence denied their promised share of enfranchisement, would not a feeling inevitably arise that hopes had been held out to them that were not meant to be realized? He was sure that this was not in the intention of any party in that House; and therefore he trusted that he might be pardoned for making a suggestion which, if acted on, he trusted would tend to prevent dissatisfaction or distrust arising. The Revision Courts were to be held in September; and at that season of the year there could be no possible objection to their sitting in the evening from six till eight for the purpose of hearing the claims of lodgers. He would suggest that whenever a Revising Barrister was called upon by a sufficient number of persons, say fifty or 100, to hold his Court on alternate days till eight o'clock in the evening he should be bound to do so. When the ordinary day's work was done the frugal and careful man would thus have an opportunity of making good his claim, which he otherwise could not be expected to do. He (Mr. Torrens) put it to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Treasury whether he could do anything more generally acceptable, more considerate, or more just, than to act upon the suggestion which

  1497
  he (Mr. Torrens) had ventured to mate. He had been anxious to urge a similar provision in the English Bill.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he did not know what the law might be in England, but in Ireland it was competent to a Revising Barrister to sit to any hour, and he himself, when he was a Revising Barrister, in his younger days, had on one occasion sat till ten o'clock.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Expenses of Chairman).
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsuggested that the scale of remuneration should be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant or the Law Officers, instead of by the Revising Barrister, to whom the duty was a very invidious one.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, that the Government could not tell what the clerk's duties had been, and might give too much or too little, while the Barrister knew exactly to what he was entitled.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 26 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Occupiers not to claim as Lodgers, and Persons making false Declaration as to Claim guilty of Misdemeanour).
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that this clause, which made it a misdemeanour for anyone who was an occupier to have himself rated as a lodger, created a new misdemeanour, and was not in either the English or the Scotch Bills.
  THE EARL OF MAYOcould only express his surprise and regret that the clause had been proposed to be omitted. He thought the Committee would not wish that those who were entitled to claim as occupiers should also claim as lodgers. The clause could be inconvenient only to those who were desirous of setting up fictitious claims.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he must object to the clause, which made the offence of making a false declaration to get on the register a misdemeanour. Why should a clause of that kind be introduced into the Irish Bill when it was not in the English Bill?
  MR. VANCEsaid, the lodger franchise was a new franchise. It was well known that much stir was now making in the city of Dublin to take every advantage of it. It was stated by the correspondent of The Times, that if the matter was allowed
  1498
  to proceed as intended, it would amount almost to universal suffrage, for all those persons who could not claim as occupiers were determined to claim as lodgers. The clause could not be objected to by any man who did not wish to make a fraudulent claim. If the clause was not in the English Bill there was no reason why a precedent for introducing it should not be set in the Irish Bill. He would point out that there was no rating check upon the lodger.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, be could now see whence the clause originated. It appeared from the observations of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) that objections were entertained in certain quarters to a lodger franchise for the city of Dublin. The clause appeared to be framed solely with reference to that class of voters.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the clause contained two distinct and incongruous propositions. It ought to be divided into two clauses, and he thought it would be impossible for the Committee to pass it in its present shape. The first part enacted that no person rated as an occupier should claim to be placed on the register as a lodger; the second part said that a person making a false claim as a lodger should be guilty of a misdemeanour. The first part was open to objection, because a man might be wrongly rated as an occupier. To the second part, the objections were insurmountable. The Committee ought to proceed on the principle of equity and equality with regard to all persons claiming the franchise. All the reasons for providing against fraudulent claims on the part of the lodger were equally applicable to the case of the leaseholder and freeholder.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he objected to the clause, which he believed to be due to the oracular interference of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, there would be no difficulty in dealing with the two parts of the clause separately if the Committee desired it. It was manifest that the lodger clause required peculiar safeguards, which he could not but suppose hon. Members, who were in favour of purity of election, were anxious to see provided. The object, then, of the first part of the clause was to make rating as an occupier conclusive evidence that the person was not a lodger, so that a man who was rated as an occupier could not come forward and say, "It is true I have not paid the rates which according to the

  1499
  ratepaying books I am liable to pay, and I claim as a lodger." With regard to the latter part of the clause, he trusted that no hon. Member would, after consideration, say that the Government had done wrong in attaching a stigma and punishment to wilful and corrupt falsehood in reference to the elective franchise.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, some hon. Gentlemen seemed to entertain a perfect horror of the lodger class. He did not see how a person duly rated could claim as a lodger, for a lodger must reside in some part of a house occupied by another party. He thought that to meet a danger of so problematical a character as the one supposed, it would be most unwise to apply this new and exceptional legislation to Ireland. He strongly objected to the second part of the clause, which created a new crime, and did not see why the penalty should apply to lodgers and not to other claimants for the franchise.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the lodger qualification was a perfectly unique one and would be fruitful of fraud. So far from wishing to see the provision limited to Ireland he should like to see it extended to England, and so far from its being unnecessary, it was only analogous to the proposals made on the other side of the House with respect to the declarations required from candidates. Every precaution ought to be taken against fraudulent attempts to obtain votes.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he saw that the Government attached importance to the first part of the clause. Though he thought it a great mistake to introduce legislation of the kind proposed into a Bill of this character, yet he desired, out of deference to the views of (he Government, to suggest the introduction of the word "duly." The first part of the clause would then run thus—"No person duly rated as the occupier of any house or premises shall be registered in respect of being a lodger." With respect, however, to the latter portion of the clause, he would remind the Committee that it was a distinct stigma, not only upon lodgers as a class, but on the Irish lodgers as compared with all others.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he saw no objection to the introduction of the word "duly." He would observe that in Ireland the lists were taken from the rate books, and no one could get on them without being duly rated.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, it was all very well to talk about extending these provisions to England, but the English Bill could not be re-opened. He did not wish—and he thought it came with a bad grace from the noble Earl the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Attorney General for Ireland—to brand their countrymen with a desire to get on the register by corrupt practices. If the clause were not extended to England, why should it be applied to Ireland?
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he objected to the imposition of a new penalty, and to the attempt to fix on Irish lodgers the crime of misdemeanour. Instead of increasing the list of crimes it was most desirable to diminish the number. The voters under the Reform Bill would be enormously increased. In his own constituency the number would be increased four-fold, and it was not likely they would be willing to be convicted of misdemeanour. He protested against the doctrine of the Attorney General for Ireland which made that a crime in Ireland which was not an offence in England.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he thought there was some force in the objection, and he would consent to leave out the latter part of the clause, which made a false declaration a misdemeanour.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Evidence to support Claim).
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that as the clause was worded he apprehended that it might preclude an appeal. He thought the words stating that the evidence should be such as was satisfactory to the chairman or Revising Barrister should be struck out. He moved to leave out all the words after the word "claim."
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, the law of registration in Ireland was different from that in England. In England a claimant would be obliged to bring forward some evidence of his claim. In Ireland any one who made a claim was put on the electoral roll of the borough or county as the case might be, unless his claim was objected to. A case had occurred in which the Revising Barrister erased a name which was not objected to. On appeal the late Judge Perrin ordered the name to be placed on the register. It was therefore necessary, as a large number of claims would be made by lodgers, to place the law by a clause of this kind substantially on the same footing as that in England.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that the noble Earl was quite correct in his statement of the law on the point. A roan could register himself for every one of the thirty-two counties by sending in a claim i for that purposes, and if his claim was not objected to he would have a vote in; each of those counties. He thought the noble Earl would do well to bring up a clause to alter the law in that respect.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he had heard of a case in which a man had succeeded in getting himself on the register for eighteen counties without any real qualification.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he believed it was a fact that one individual had claimed to vote in twenty counties, and that he had actually got on the registers of eighteen and voted in five. He made out his claims by means of maps and documents in the Landed Estates Court.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he would move, in order to make the operation of the clause general with regard to all claimants, whether lodger or other, to omit the words "in respect to the occupation of lodgings."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Act and Parts of Acts in Schedule (E) repealed).
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that they had now come to the objectionable part of the Bill—the clauses for establishing new polling-places—and these clauses he proposed to strike out. In 1865 he assisted the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel)—who was at that time Chief Secretary for Ireland—in the preparation of a Bill to; remove the very difficulties in respect of increasing the number of polling-places which the noble Earl now proposed to remove by this and the next twelve or thirteen clauses of the Bill. The rejection of that Bill was moved, and was carried by a factious majority of 2, and it was a curious fact that the noble Earl the present Chief Secretary and the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County (General Dunne) voted with the majority on that occasion. This fact showed that if there were any defect in the law, his side of the House was not answerable for its continuance. The present Government were in Office two years, why had not they thought of amending the law before, and not reserve the
  1502
  question till the fag end of a Session, and the advent of a General Election? Was not this evidence of some electioneering contrivance? He would say no more at present, as he intended to speak again and divide the Committee on every clause, and perhaps on every line of every clause, relating to what he considered a most objectionable scheme. He would, however, make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that in order to facilitate Public Business, he should not go on with this part of the Bill.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the hon. and learned Baronet had made an appeal to him of a peculiar kind; for, though conceived in an amicable spirit, it was founded on a threat of a very elaborate character. He had no doubt that if an opportunity presented itself his noble Friend (the Earl of Mayo) would give a sufficient answer to the attack which the hon. and learned Baronet had made upon him with respect to the Bill of 1865. It was quite clear from the last expression of opinion on the part of the hon. and learned Baronet that he was influenced at the present time by personal reminiscences of a peculiar nature, though he (Mr. Disraeli) could not withstand the conviction that as the discussion went on the hon. and learned Baronet would come to the conclusion that to pursue the course he had just announced would not tend to advance Public Business, nor to raise the hon. and learned Baronet's character for learning and good temper. He trusted there would be a full and complete discussion of these clauses. If they could not bear such discussion, of course they would not be carried; but he could not bring himself to the belief that the House would witness from the hon. and learned Baronet or any of his friends that exhibition of Parliamentary tactics which had been just referred to.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that he had been accused of inconsistency because he voted against the Bill of 1865, and he had done so because at the time there were special objections to that Bill, which was merely brought forward for a party object, and not on any principle. He could only say that the hon. and learned Baronet, who was one of the promoters of the Bill, had adopted a most singular method of proving his consistency on the present occasion by voting against it, when no one knew better than he did the necessity for some means of preventing violence at the ensuing elections.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, that his Bill did not deal with the question of jurisdiction. It had left the appointment of polling-places with the Quarter Session and the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council.
  MR. ESMONDE MR. ESMONDE moved the omission of the 34th clause, the first of those relating to the alteration of polling-places. There was no reason for passing this clause now which did not exist when the Irish Reform Bill was before them. The Irish county constituencies had not been increased, and these clauses were quite out of place in a Registration Bill, which never would have been allowed to pass a second reading unopposed, and without having been printed, except on the supposition that it was what its title proclaimed it, a mere Bill for the registration of voters.
  MR. AGAR-ELLISsaid, the present law had worked well except in one particular, which was not at all touched by the present Bill.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he concluded that the hon. Member could not have been in the House at the time he made his opening statement. He would therefore repeat that, according to the opinions of the Law Advisers both of the late and the present Governments, the existing law was totally inoperative, and that it would be unsafe and improper for the Privy Council to add to the number of polling-places in Ireland on application from any quarter.
  COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTsaid, that these clauses had taken Members for Ireland by surprise, and they had not had the opportunity of consulting their constituents with regard to them. He objected to these clauses being included in the Bill, and begged to move that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he did not deny that difficulties existed with respect to increasing the number of polling-places in Ireland; but he would suggest that the best course for the Government to pursue would be to withdraw the clauses relating to jurisdiction, and on the Report to bring up new clauses to remove the technical difficulties referred to. He had no objection to remedy existing defects in the system, but these clauses would make a very serious change in the tribunals by which the matters were to be decided. It would make the mere ipse dixit of justices in Session the law of the land, without any appeal to the Privy Council.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was mistaken in supposing that the authority of the Privy Council would be affected. The Bill, with the Amendment of which he had given Notice, would not deprive the Privy Council of any control it at present possessed. He might add that he was quite willing to accept the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the right hon. and learned Member for Portarlington (Mr. Lawson), which perhaps was couched in terms more clear and explicit than his own. The only alteration proposed to be made in the law was that in respect to the Special Sessions. A great deal had been said about altering the law in Ireland from that which it was in England; but it was remarkable how hon. Members opposite, when it suited them, could at one time argue that the peculiar circumstances of Ireland rendered necessary a different law for that country from that in England; and at another insist upon the same legislation for Ireland as had been established in the other parts of the United Kingdom. The simple proposition now was, that Special Sessions for the purpose of appointing polling-places in Ireland should be convened. He maintained that this mode of proceeding—namely, by Special Sessions, was a vast improvement of the law, and infinitely superior in the way of publicity to the old mode of proceeding by Quarter Sessions, even if the latter were practicable in the present instance. When hon. Gentlemen exhibited such an ardent desire to have the same law in this respect for England and Ireland they evidently forgot what was the law in England, which was that upon which he had based his first proposition. He had shown that in Ireland there was a great want of polling-places. For example, in the county of Donegal, voters had sometimes to travel twenty-five or thirty Irish miles, and in the counties of Cork and Waterford to travel also immense distances for the purpose of recording votes. The principle of multiplying the polling-places was admitted by all parties. He confessed he was lost in amazement to find a party movement now made to defeat the carrying out of that principle, of which, he believed, every man in Ireland having an interest in peace and the proper conduct of elections would express his approval, if asked to give his candid opinion. He could not conceive any party object to be gained by this proposal. They had a General Election coming on, when the

  1505
  want of a sufficient number of polling-places would be felt as an injustice and an enormous inconvenience. He therefore submitted that there was nothing in the proposition he had made to justify the opposition of hon. Members from Ireland.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would repeat an anecdote he had heard, which he thought would have a bearing upon this question. In the county of Leicester a question arose at the last election in respect to polling-places, and it turned out that a Committee of Justices, on whoso recommendation new polling-places had been created, was constituted precisely of the same gentlemen who formed, a few weeks before, the Election Committee of one of the candidates. Those circumstances having excited extraordinary interest in Leicestershire, a legal opinion on the present state of the English law with regard to polling-places was obtained, to this effect—that although under the Act of last year the justices were enabled for the first time, contrary to the provision of the former law, to divide their counties into polling districts, nevertheless that process having taken place no further change could be made except by a process identical with the Irish mode—namely, by means of petition from the justices in Quarter Sessions to the Privy Council. It was because the noble Earl proposed seriously to alter that system that he and other Irish Members opposed the provision. If the Government were unwilling to acquiesce in his (Mr. C. Fortescue's) reasonable proposition, he hoped that the Committee would at once divide upon the clause, and with that view he would ask his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Greville-Nugent) to withdraw his Amendment that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he wished to explain the state of things in Leicestershire during the last election, which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. Many complaints had been made as to the distances which some of the electors had to travel in order to reach the polling-places. It was found that serious inconveniences had arisen to all parties concerned, and scenes of tumult and disorder had been created by mobs of roughs—but from no political motives whatever—in consequence of the want of a sufficient number of polling-places. The magistrates remedied the inconvenience by creating polling-places within five miles of every village; but nothing like party feel-
  1506
  ing influenced their decision. The Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject of polling-places on that occasion was constituted as fairly as possible, and without the slightest reference to party purposes. The results were satisfactory to all classes. The object of Parliament should be to protect electors from inconvenience and insult, and on this ground he should support the clause.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was of opinion that this matter being intimately connected with questions of class and party, should be handled with some tenderness. He was sorry that the noble Earl had designated the opposition to the clause a party move. A very large portion of Irish Members—who had the best means of judging—regarded the proposed alteration as of a serious character, and believed that it would act injuriously upon the conduct of the coming elections in Ireland; and the defect existing, as the noble Earl ha6 stated, in the present law was no justification for it, since all parties would be willing to co-operate in removing that defect, and it had been shown that that could be done without resorting to the sweeping change proposed by the Government. Whether the proposal was an improvement or not was not the question, for the matter could not be fairly discussed under present circumstances, Irish Members having had no notice that it would be raised, beyond a fugitive sentence uttered by the noble Earl at two o'clock in the morning, which naturally was not reported in the newspapers. During the passage of the English Registration Bill the noble Earl, being asked to produce this measure, said he was reserving it till that Bill was disposed of, a statement which implied that the entire issue depended on the English Bill. Even if the proposal were a good one it ought not to be brought forward in the last week of a Session, and he felt bound to protest against it.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was quite willing to accept the proposition of the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr.Chichester Fortescue) if it could be shown to be practicable. He had been surprised, on an allusion being made to the impending election, to hear a derisive cheer from the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) and some of his Friends, as if they had discovered some secret motive for the clause. Why, all those arrangements for registration had reference to the impending election, the desire to advance which on the part of the House ns much

  1507
  as possible wag the only reason for the introduction of the Bill. This being the case, it was of undeniable importance that there should be free and convenient access to the polling-places. If it was possible to have a Special Quarter Sessions, so that the body which had hitherto dealt with these regulations might continue to do so, he should he perfectly satisfied. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth could suggest any terms by which the course recommended by him could be adopted, he should willingly support it, and it was therefore unfair to impute to the Government any covert purpose.
  GENERAL DUNNEsaid, that a special meeting of the county and a Special Quarter Sessions would probably be attended by the same magistrates. He was anxious that the arrangements should be made by the entire magistracy of a county, so that the magistrates of a particular section of it might not bring about objectionable arrangements. His own county had made a demand for additional polling-places, and if they were of any utility at all they should be provided in time for the next election.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had misunderstood his proposal. He objected to the proposal of a Special Sessions, because his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had failed to give a sufficient reason for it, and because it would create those Sessions as a permanent tribunal. He objected to meetings at this particular period of the year. His proposal was to remedy the technical defects which had been alluded to by a measure like that introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) and the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen). He was wholly opposed to the exceptional legislation proposed.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he must maintain that the inconvenience caused by an insufficient number of polling-places, and the scenes of violence which were likely to occur if the defect was not removed, called for exceptional legislation. In reference to the objections urged as to the late period at which this proposal was brought forward, he wished to explain that until he received an application from the comity of Donegal the question had not been brought prominently under his notice, and though it had been mentioned incidentally, he was not till then aware that such great evils existed. On looking into the
  1508
  matter he found counties with 6,000 or 17,000 electors having only four or five polling-places. In view of an election, which would probably be contested with singular warmth, ought such a state of things to remain? He did not attach great importance to Special Sessions, and if power were given to the Lord Lieutenant to summon the ordinary Quarter Sessions for this purpose, leaving their jurisdiction for other years unaffected, he should offer no objection. He was anxious only that additional polling-places should be provided in time for the impending election. Had they not hastened the time for all these proceedings? Had they not run the risk of great inconvenience arising to numbers of electors, and of many of them being excluded from the register, owing to the limited lime at their disposal in consequence of their desire to give the country an opportunity of declaring its opinion at the earliest possible moment? Therefore, when he asked that with regard to the next election there should be special legislation in order to provide the requisite number of polling-places, he did not think he was asking anything wrong or unreasonable. Now, in the English Registration Act that had recently received the Royal Assent, there was a clause which provided that a power of dividing the counties into polling districts and of assigning polling-places to each might be exercised by the Justices from time to time as they should see fit, and it was added that such power of dividing each county into polling-places should be deemed to include the altering of such places. Therefore, the Bill which passed a few weeks ago had altered the law in England in the way that he proposed to do in Ireland, and yet he was charged with having a political motive in view when he sought to relieve the Irish voter from the disabilities under which he lay. He cared not by what machinery additional polling-places were to be established, provided it was made available for the next election.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought it was an unwise thing to take the period just before a General Election to make new arrangements with regard to polling-places. But what he and those who agreed with him honestly objected to was this—and the noble Earl must feel the force of the objection—that for an election which, according to the noble Lord himself, would be fought with peculiar vehemence, it was proposed to place the initiative with, regard to a change of poll-

  1509
  ing-places in a body of men whom he respected as much as the noble Lord, but who were known to be far more favourable to the party opposite than to that (the Opposition) side of the House. He was quite willing that power should be given to the Privy Council to sanction the creation of additional polling-places in those cases in which application had already been made.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he believed that the Bill had been introduced not to protect the voters, but to enable the landlords to poll their tenants against their will. So high did party spirit run in Ireland at election times that magistrates were not allowed to act at elections unless they got a fresh commission; and yet it was into the hands of these very magistrates that the noble Lord now proposed to put a power which might be used with the most crushing effect against the unfortunate tenantry.
  VISCOUNT HAMILTONsaid, that at the last contested election in the county of Donegal, when a number of voters who had travelled about twenty-eight or twenty-nine miles arrived within a mile of Letterkenny they were met by a ruffianly mob, who destroyed their cars. Applications had at different times since then been made to have new and convenient polling-places provided, but the Privy Council always returned the same answer—that under the existing law it was impossible. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would consent to give the magistrates the power provided in the Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, that the discussion had commenced in a very angry tone. They had been told by one hon. Member that the landlords took their tenants like serfs to the poll; another hon. Gentleman had said that he would divide on every line of the Bill; but the discussion appeared to be about to take another tone when the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) suggested that two clauses should be brought up for the purpose of meeting the admitted difficulty of the case. It had been admitted then, by an authority than whom none was higher, that there was a defect in the law which required to be remedied. Now, he maintained that it was right that au authority should exist somewhere—that a power should be vested in some body, to create polling-places. There existed a technical difficulty in the way of providing these polling-places, and a remedy was
  1510
  proposed. What were the objections to the proposal of the Government? The first was that no effectual supervision by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council was provided. But an Amendment had been suggested by which that objection might be removed. The real point of conflict was the necessity of providing additional polling-places before the next election; he apprehended that if there were any necessity for them it was eminently with reference to the next election; and it was with that view that provision was made for resort to Special Sessions when Ordinary Sessions were not available, just as a similar provision was made in the 6 & 7 Will. IV. A Bill had been introduced this Session with reference to the presence of military at elections by those who objected to that species of protection being given to voters; the only effectual way of obviating the necessity for that protection was to provide additional polling-places, so as to facilitate the access of electors to the poll without danger of molestation and violence; that such was the object of this measure; and it had no party object beyond that of securing to electors the free exercise of the franchise.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, those who i thought that landlords were desirous of driving their tenants to the poll as if they had no will of their own would entertain a different opinion if they knew more of the North of Ireland; for landlords exercised nothing but a moral influence, acquired by residence and good deeds among their tenants. Would it not be better to take the polling-places to the electors than to incur the heavy expense of taking electors in cars to polling-booths, in localities where they were not known? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) made a proposal but little different from that of the noble Earl; and he was inclined to accept it until he heard the second explanation. If the right hon. Gentleman would promise to support the Government on the Report in providing additional places for the next election he would not vote with the Government on the 34th clause; but he must do so in the absence of such an undertaking.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Member for Louth, who was acquainted with the working of the present law, did not give Notice of clauses to remedy it. The Bill would do what was wanted; and if the right hon. Gentleman was not able to propose what would equally accomplish

  1511
  that he ought to support the Bill. It would be dangerous to give up the clauses on the mere assumption that other clauses would be brought up and that they would effect the object.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, that such anomalies would not be tolerated in England as existed in Ireland with regard to the distances voters had to travel to the poll. There was an increasing dislike to the long journeys; and the lower the franchise was reduced, the more necessary was it to bring the poll to the voter. In this matter, he asked, why was the urban voter to have a privilege denied to the agricultural voter? The former could reach the poll by walking a short distance from his home; and why should the latter be compelled to make the sacrifice involved in travelling several miles?
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) would agree to an arrangement by which a sufficient number of polling-places might be provided for the protection of the voters in Ireland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, there was a clause in the Scotch Act giving the sheriff the power of increasing the number of polling-places in any district, so that not more than 300 need vote at one booth. He did not see why a different law should be applied to Ireland.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 84: Majority 10.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Sir, it is quite clear we must take it that the decision at which the Committee has just arrived is conclusive upon the subject of providing additional polling-places for Ireland at the next election, and therefore I propose to withdraw the whole of Part III. of the Bill. In so doing, however, I must say distinctly that, in the event of scenes of violence and bloodshed occurring at the ensuing election in Ireland, the responsibility will rest not with us, but with the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, in defiance of every principle of their own, and in defiance of every vote they have given with regard to the provision of additional polling-places in England and Scotland, have voted against the clause which was intended to provide facilities for polling in Ireland. Of course it will be the duty of the Government to endeavour to do everything in their power to preserve
  1512
  peace at the ensuing election; but the difficulties they will have to contend against will be enormously increased by the decision at which the Committee have just arrived.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: Sir, the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) has prophesied the most frightful consequences as the result of the vote just given, and he has chosen to throw upon us the responsibility of those consequences. We are quite ready lo bear whatever responsibility properly belongs to us; but we decline to acquit the Government of any blame which may hereafter attach to it in consequence of neglecting until a few days before our separation to take means to prevent what the noble Earl fears, but which I, for one, do not. But the noble Earl's remarks are not consistent with his own statement of an hour ago, when he seemed to anticipate that the number of applications would be very few indeed. [The Earl of MAYO: Not very many.] The noble Earl said the number of cases of difficulty which had arisen were few, and that they had mostly arisen in the quieter districts—some places in the north, I believe. Now, with respect to the Midland, Western, and Southern regions of Ireland, I am convinced that in the present political state of the country there is no reason to fear any danger unless extravagant, unreasonable, and improper means are taken to prevent the great mass of electors from recording their votes in accordance with their wishes. If attempts are made to compel the large body of the Roman Catholic voters to support the Established Church in Ireland contrary to their feelings, difficulties may, indeed, arise. It may be hardly credible in this country that an attempt could be made to maintain Protestant ascendancy by means of the Roman Catholics' votes; but I am afraid we cannot allow ourselves to hope that the attempt will not be made.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, the noble Earl ought to have been the very last person to throw responsibility on the Opposition when he knew he had voted against the Bill of 1865 which, if it had passed would have prevented any difficulty upon the point now before them.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite was bound to do something to remedy the evil which he admitted to exist, and it would be very unsatisfactory if Parliament were prorogued without effectual measures being taken. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to attempts to maintain Protestant as-

  1513
  cendancy in Ireland. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman there was no such thing as Protestant ascendancy in Ireland; but there was a vast amount of Papal aggression.
  MR. O'BEIRNEsaid, he wished to explain that no Gentleman on that side of the House had objected to the creation of additional polling-places, all they wanted was that such places should be appointed in the same way as they had hitherto been.
  Clauses 35 to 45, inclusive, struck out.
  Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Power to Lord Lieutenant to appoint Revising Barristers in certain Cases).
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that this clause cast upon the Lord Lieutenant the duty of appointing additional Revising Barristers, He (Mr. Lawson) thought it would be well to amend the clause in such a way that the English practice should be followed. He therefore begged to move, in page 21, line 26, to leave out "the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland," and insert "any Judge of Her Majesty's Superior Courts of Common Law in Dublin sitting as vocation Judge for the despatch of chamber business." He also thought that such appointments should be made only if they should prove necessary.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he objected to the alteration. The public had hitherto exhibited no want of confidence in the appointments made by the Lords Lieutenant, and those appointments had this advantage, that whereas the appointments made by a Judge who might be a strong partizan could not be challenged, the Lords Lieutenant were responsible to Parliament for the exercise of their patronage. In some places it might be necessary under the peculiar circumstances of this year to appoint additional Revising Barristers, though he hoped that it would not be necessary so far as Dublin was concerned. It was not the intention of the Government to make any appointment until the revision had progressed some way, nor unless it was shown that the present officials would be unable to get through the work in time. But if some assistance were needed, care would be taken that the selection should not be confined to men of one particular party.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he would not, after the statement made by the noble Earl, press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved a new clause (Parties at the Revision Court may appear and be heard by Counsel).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)said, he must oppose the clause. The time of the Revising Barristers would, he thought, be too much taken up by long speeches from counsel.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Schedules A, B, and C agreed to.
  Schedules D and E negatived.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 248.]

METROPOLITAN FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 139.
(Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Hunt.)
METROPOLITAN FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 139.

  COMMITTEE. [Progress July 16.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government as to the expediency of proceeding further with the measure. It had already, he said, been discussed with great minuteness on the Motion for going into Committee, and it was quite evident from the opposition it had met with, that there would be a lengthened discussion on the clauses. That being so, and seeing that the Bill must also lead to considerable discussion in the other House, he did not think there was any hope that it could be carried to a satisfactory conclusion in the present Parliament. It should be borne in mind, too, that those who opposed the Bill in its previous stage represented no less than 10,000,000 of the inhabitants of the country, and that those whose interests would be affected in the matter would not be content unless they were heard by counsel against it in "another place." Taking into account, besides, the great amount of business which still remained to be disposed of—among other measures the Electric Telegraphs Bill, which would give rise to a great deal

  1515
  of discussion in both Houses—he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of responding to his appeal, and, in deference to the wishes of those who were deeply interested in the question, not proceeding further with the Bill then under the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, the question was one which affected, not only the interests of the metropolis, but of the country at large, inasmuch as the Bill, if passed, would make the importation of foreign cattle difficult for all future time. He objected to legislation being pressed on so important a question at so late a period of the Session, and the proper course was, in his opinion, to postpone the present Bill, and to institute an inquiry into the whole subject.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), in the appeal which he has made to me, was very inconsistent. He tells us that this Bill was very recently discussed with great minuteness in this House, and he asks us on that account not to proceed with the Committee upon it. But is it not the proper inference to draw from the very minuteness of the discussion which has already arisen that our proceedings in Committee will be greatly facilitated in consequence, and that, coming to a subject which we have fully mastered, we shall be likely to make more progress than under ordinary circumstances we could fairly anticipate? I am hound, also, to say that I cannot express any sympathy with the general views which the hon. Gentleman has advanced on this subject. He refers to the Paper containing the order of Business, and tells us that if we do not go on with this measure we may go on with the Electric Telegraphs Bill; but he must know that it is necessary, especially at this period of the Session, to arrange the Business before us with some adherence to the plans which have been laid down, and that the Electric Telegraphs Bill has been fixed for half past four to-morrow, in order that the Committee upon it might not be broken. Therefore, if we do not go on with the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill, we cannot go on with the Electric Telegraphs Bill without deranging all that has been settled and disappointing many hon. Members who have left the House on the faith of the arrangement made. To agree, therefore, to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman—which I can by no means
  1516
  accept—would simply be to waste an evening. It appears to me that we shall go with great advantage into Committee, inasmuch as every point of the Bill—according to the hon. Member for the City—has been thoroughly investigated. Then, with regard to the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us (Mr. Headlam). His speech was one against the principle of the Bill and against the policy of the Government, and not a speech in Committee on the Bill. At this stage, with Mr. Dodson in the Chair, it is ridiculous to go into the principle of the Bill and to say that the large majorities by which the Motions to stop the progress of the measure were defeated are not to be respected because they were the result of passion. I may remark that those majorities were furnished from both sides of the House, which is strong evidence that the decisions of the House in respect of this Bill were as free from passion as the votes of a popular assembly can possibly be, and that the subject is felt to be one of general, I might say universal, interest. The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to the Government not to proceed with the Bill; and he based that appeal on grounds which I think cannot be entertained at this stage. I have risen at the present moment to prevent any discussion of this kind from proceeding—a discussion which is always very inconvenient when we are in Committee. I hope that we shall not only proceed with the Committee, but shall make such progress as will assure us of carrying the Bill to a successful issue.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the Telegraphs Bill stood next on the Paper after this Bill.
  MR. DISRAELI: Yes; but in conversation on Saturday it was arranged that it should be taken as the first Order to-morrow.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he was not aware of that; but the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to the difficulties which this Bill would have to encounter in the other House.
  MR. DISRAELI: I am responsible for the arrangement of Business in this House, and in its arrangement I endeavour to consult the convenience of Members; but I am not responsible for the management of Business in "another place." It is not very long ago since comments were made to the effect that "another House" was not occupied so much as the country would desire; and therefore I think no one here

  1517
  should complain if the Members of that House are now asked to give us their valued assistance in advancing the Public Business.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he should not have risen to continue this discussion, but that hon. Members on his side of the House were cut short on a former night by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who declined to allow them to discuss the principle. They declined to allow hon. Gentlemen to address the House, and yet they declined to allow the House to adjourn; while they talked of sitting up all night, or sleeping on the Benches, of refreshing themselves, and stimulating themselves to oppose the adjournment of the discussion. When the Bill was formerly discussed he (Mr. Ayrton) urged that it was unnecessary, because a Bill had been passed last Session on this subject which had been unanimously adopted as a compromise between conflicting opinions; and they were told at the time that it would be satisfactory. But in answer to his remarks he was told by the First Minister of the Crown that that Bill, so far as the metropolis was concerned, was a dead letter, because the local authorities would not put the Act in force. He (Mr. Ayrton) had since applied to the local authorities, and he was positively assured by them that they had received no communication whatever from the Government requiring them to carry the Act into effect. Fearing their memory might be at fault he desired them to search among their records, which they did, but could find no authority on the subject. Now, he wished to know from the Government if they would produce the Correspondence, or state in what form it had taken place—whether verbally or in writing. The present Bill contained no compulsory powers; so that even if it were passed it would not put the Government in a better position as regarded the taking of land than that in which they stood under the Act of last year. If they could not get land by agreement, they would have to come to Parliament next year for compulsory powers to take it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not help thinking the tactics adopted by the other side in regard to that Bill somewhat peculiar, if, as the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) now said, the Privy Council already had power to do all that that Bill would accomplish, why did the hon. and learned Gentleman not inform the House of that on the second reading? The
  1518
  House had been occupied three days in discussing the Motion for going into Committee, and the adjournment was moved at nine or half past nine—a thing almost unprecedented—merely, as it seemed, that they might have the same speeches made over again, the whole burden of the song then being, "Let us trust to the Privy Council, with its elastic powers; an Act of Parliament is unnecessary." But, surely, if the Privy Council had had the power to save the country from the cattle plague, and yet had failed to do so, it was not surprising that the House should want to have some statutory authority for that purpose? But the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) now came down, and in the blandest manner asked them how they could expect to pass that measure at that period of the Session. He did not know whether the hon. Member desired to have dear meat; but it was quite clear that he wished the inhabitants of London to have their trade subjected to all the existing inconveniences. He hoped this matter would be soon settled, and not kept hanging between heaven and earth in the way it did at present.
  MR. DENTsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that no discussion was taken on the second reading of the Bill. He had risen to make a remark personal to himself. He thought he had reason to complain of a speech lately made elsewhere by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read), in which his conduct in opposing that measure was unfairly denounced and characterized as rendering him unfit to be a member of the Royal Agricultural Society. The hon. Member had stated that he (Mr. Dent) had always taken a course opposed to agricultural interests. Now, he appealed to the House whether that was the case. He had never spoken in that House as representing the Council of the Agricultural Society, and he thought it was unfair of the hon. Member to make the statement he had. His object as a Member of Parliament was not to look at public questions in their bearing upon the interests of one particular class only, but as they affected the community at large; and for that reason he had opposed the present Bill. On the same principle he was ready to vote for Amendments in the measure which would make it less onerous and less oppressive.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he trusted the right

  1519
  hon. Gentleman would not persevere with the Bill, which was extremely unsatisfactory to the metropolis. If the proposed cattle market should he established meat would be a great deal dearer than it was at present, and 3,000,000 of people would be left in the hands of the agricultural interest, to be dealt with as they might think proper. That was the position which consumers in the metropolis occupied with regard to their supply of bread before the repeal of the Corn Laws, and they were not desirous of being placed in the same position with regard to meat. How could the House pass the Bill at once? There was a great mass of evidence before the Committee, and it was most difficult to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion. The opinion of the noble Lord who presided had changed from north to south and from east to west, and any man must possess the greatest temerity who would venture to predict the effect of the Bill. Supposing the Bill to be carried, the project would not be advanced one step. Did any one even know where the proposed market was to be? A great amount of evidence was given on the subject by the butchers. [" Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that butchers were no judges in the case; but they were as good judges as farmers or landed proprietors. Members on the Opposition side knew well the course taken by the landed proprietors with reference to the Corn Laws; that they would have starved the people of this country if they could; that their object was to raise the price of corn and put the money into their own pockets, and some of the Liberal party were so foolish as to think that the landed proprietors entertained precisely the same idea with respect to meat as they did with respect to corn. The butcher said, and it was a very reasonable assertion on his part—" If there is to be a market it must be accessible to me; I must have an opportunity of purchasing carcases and carrying them away conveniently, at a small expense, to some place where they are to be retailed." How did the Bill deal with that matter? It did not indicate any spot where the market was to be established. Would any hon. Member point out any spot where the proposed market could be placed? [An hon. MEMBER: Smithfield.] Was the hon. Member aware that no market could be established within seven miles of Copenhagen Fields? The Bill ought to be pressed no further this Session, and in the Recess the Chancellor
  1520
  of the Exchequer ought to go down the river and select some spot near Southwark as the site of a market from which the tanners of Southwark could conveniently get hides. The City of London ought to have been asked whether they would establish a market for foreign cattle on the banks of the Thames. This Bill was an interference with the privileges of the City of London as to the markets of the metropolis. In the Select Committee it was proposed to put certain burdens on the City, and the representatives of the City walked away. They refused to have anything to do with the affair. So did the Metropolitan Board of Works. And how did the case stand now? The Privy Council was to have power to make regulations, and the construction of the market was to be intrusted to five Commissioners who had not twopence in the world. They had no money; but the City had, and that was why he always liked the City to undertake matters. They not only had money to undertake the execution of a work, but they asked you to dinner to congratulate them when they had done it. He was one of their officers in former days, and he had a great respect for them. The Consolidated Fund, he was informed, was in an awkward state at present, and therefore it could not be made to supply the means of establishing this market. Moreover, supposing the Bill were passed, it could not be brought into operation for three years, and perhaps never. Besides all this, there was no market authority, and Heaven only knew what a market would be without an authority. It would be a scene of riot and confusion. Cows and bulls would be running wild, the offal—of which they had had in these discussions supplies ad nauseam—would be pitched at everybody, and the confusion would be complete. Everything that could possibly be said on this subject had been said already; and he would therefore say no more, but would content himself with appealing to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government to postpone the consideration of the Bill until next Session. There was no machinery to carry it out. It could easily wait; there was no occasion for pressing it on as the Government were doing.
  MR. KENDALLsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) and his Friends had done their work in attempting to talk out this Bill, and had done it well. But business was

  1521
  business, and ought to go forward; and were the majority who supported this Bill to go back to their constituents and say that they had allowed the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson), to talk down this Bill, although there was a large majority in its favour? He, for one, would not go back and say so. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman at the Head of the Government, who had shown courage in this matter, not to be beaten by such an opposition.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought that the matter ought to be looked at from a business point of view. Regarding it in that light, the First Minister of the Crown must see that there were no means of giving effect to the Bill. He found that last year 177,000 head of cattle, and 500,000 head of sheep came into London, and that the maximum charges imposed under this Bill for the importation of these animals would do little more than pay the interest on the money which the Bill proposed the Commissioners should borrow for the purpose of forming the markets. The Commissioners to be appointed to carry out this Bill—the Corporation of London having refused to accept it—would have no security to offer for the capital necessary for the erection of the market, except the tolls. The Bill would therefore be inoperative and illusory. ["Oh!"] How many hon. Members opposite would lend money on the security of these tolls? Not one would lend a sixpence.
  MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, this was a case of the metropolitan Members against the country. The metropolitan Members were making an attempt to talk out the Bill, and it was the duty of the country Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House not to countenance such a state of things. One of the principal arguments against the Bill was that it would raise the price of meat. So far as the metropolis was concerned, it was probable that the effect of the Bill would be to raise to some extent the price of meat; but the Legislature must not sacrifice the interests of the whole country to those of the metropolis, large as those interests were. Mr. Dudley Baxter, who had obtained some reputation as a statistician, bad published a pamphlet showing that only one-twelfth of the whole
  1522
  of the cattle consumed in this country came from abroad, and one-twenty-fourth, of the sheep. Would the House benefit the interests that supplied the one-twelfth of the markets or those that supplied the eleven-twelfths? Would they, for the sake of that small importation, risk the whole stock of the country? The metropolitan Members had a case against the Bill, but that arose from the existing regulations, and if those were removed the metropolitan market would be open to the whole stock of the country. It had been said that this was an election cry, but on which side? Considering the sacrifices some of the farmers of the North of Scotland had made for the Liberal cause, it was the height of ingratitude on the part of the Leaders of the Opposition to oppose this Bill. In matters of police regulation like the present they must disregard the laws of political economy. Absolute free trade in cattle and freedom from disease were incompatible, and they must choose which they would have. The true way to provide the poor with cheap meat was to keep our cattle healthy. He should give his cordial support to the Bill.
  MR. MELLYsaid, he would admit that the case was one of town against country; but he had looked at the figures of the late division, and he thought they would be a sufficient answer to the assertion of the hon. Member who had just sat down that the Bill was only opposed by metropolitan Members. He found that the 82 Members who voted against the Bill on the late division and the 25 Members who paired against it represented 457,099 electors, and 10,204,013 of the population, It was notorious that the Bill was opposed by the representatives of most of the large communities. Perhaps there had never been a question on which they had been more unanimous than in their opposition to this Bill. This was not a question, therefore, merely between the metropolitan population of 3,000,000 and the rest of the country. It was not a little remarkable that the Members for Liverpool and other Conservative representatives of large towns were absent from the division, possibly as arrangements had been entered into excusing their absence. The representatives of the manufacturing population of the metropolis, of the Midland counties, and of the North of England repudiated the Bill, and it was objected to by the large employers of labour, who were responsible for the happiness of those they employed. The

  1523
  price of animal food in London affected the price throughout the whole country. Every animal killed at £10 instead of £15 reduced the price £5 in every market in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown probably wished to go to the country as the friend of the farmers as well as the friend of the Church; but he, and those who represented large manufacturing districts, would rather go to the country as the friend of the working man. As the representative of a large Midland constituency he should vote against the Bill. Independently of the objections to its principle, there was not machinery for carrying it out.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken said he represented the working classes; but the working classes would recollect at the coming election that it was the Conservative party, with a Conservative Chief, that first proposed the tariff under which foreign cattle were admitted into this country. He had sat in the House in 1842, and at that time not a single animal could be imported. Having voted on that occasion, with the late Sir Robert Peel, for admitting foreign cattle, and also for the repeal of the Corn Law in 1846, he repudiated the imputation that he was a Protectionist in supporting the Bill before the House.
  MR. W.E. FORSTERsaid, he regretted that the appeal of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) had not been acceded to. He did not think a single Member on either side believed in the probability of this Bill being passed. It was only persisted in for the sake of a victory of country over town, and it was absurd at this period of the Session to continue a conflict having no other object. Even if the measure passed this House, evidence would be required on the subject in the other House, and it would probably be referred to a Select Committee, so that it could not become law, unless, indeed, the Prorogation were delayed for three weeks or a month. He did not believe the Prime Minister was prepared for such a proceeding, and he presumed the understanding was that to-night should be wasted and that then there should be an end of the matter. Even the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) had admitted that the scheme was counter to the interests of the metropolis and to political economy. If the Bill were passed it could only be by a class struggle at the end of the Session. Was it advisable to try to hurry through the House
  1524
  by means of the exceptional strength of the Government at the end of the Session a Bill which was opposed by the City of London and other large towns of the kingdom. The feeling of the country would be that the Government had taken the present opportunity of forcing the Bill through Parliament, knowing that the next election would be against them.
  MR. R. W. DUFFexplained that his argument was that, in the case of police regulations, the ordinary rules of political economy must be disregarded.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had understood the hon. Member to admit that the Bill was prejudicial to the interests of London; and that this was the case was tolerably evident from the opposition to it of all the metropolitan Members. It was true the hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. Kendall) had described those Gentlemen as actuated by an anxiety to retain their seats; but even on this hypothesis their constituents were opposed to the measure.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he must remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Bill was introduced as long ago as the 5th of December, and that every possible obstruction had been thrown in its way. During the sixteen years he had sat in the House he had not witnessed such a scene as that of Thursday last, when thirty Gentlemen kept up the opposition to the Bill till three o'clock against 130 Gentlemen who supported it; that opposition, moreover, being led by two ex-Cabinet Ministers, though a much larger number of Members of their own party voted on the other side. But for an appeal made on behalf of the Speaker by an hon. Member opposite, he believed the scene would have been kept up an hour longer. It was all very well for Gentlemen opposite to urge the withdrawal of the Bill; but he hoped Members around him would sit till six o'clock in the morning, if necessary, rather than yield to these obstructive tactics.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not intend to enter into the question of opposing the Bill by means of time; but he must protest against the doctrine of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North). The hon. and gallant Member, on reflection, would not, he thought, adhere to his assertion in its full breadth. According to the accounts that had reached him of the operations of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman so much complained, they were all comprised within a single hour.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that the right

  1525
  hon. Gentleman himself took part in them, and then walked out of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not regard this as a just accusation, and would like to know the hon. and gallant Gentleman's idea of justice. Was it a just accusation? He heard a Member near the hon. and gallant Gentleman say, "No, it is not," and he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman was by this time ashamed of what he had said. [Colonel NORTH: Not at all.] He was obliged, then, to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his assertion amounted to an arrogant declaration that he (Mr. Gladstone) had no right to give his vote upon a Bill in this House, for the vote he gave was upon the merits of the Bill. In any vote having reference to time or to adjournment for the sake of delaying the Bill he had taken no part whatever; and therefore, with great deference to the superior knowledge, judgment, ability, and experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman—[loud cries of" Oh, oh!" which prevented the remainder of the sentence from being heard]. It was all very well for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to retort by a personal observation that had no foundation. He was not sure whether the bon. and gallant Gentleman had been present much during the debates on this Bill. [Colonel NORTH: I think every night.] He thought that in that case the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be able to bear him out in what he was about to say—namely, that during nearly the whole of the debates upon this Bill about the same time had been occupied by the speeches on one side as by those on the other. The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council opened the debate with much the longest speech that had been made throughout the whole of the discussion. He fearlessly referred those who had any doubt on the matter to the columns of the newspaper, and then they would admit the justice of what he said. In fact, the nature of the subject involved so many complex considerations that it could not be treated otherwise than with much detail on both sides. The best proof of that was that the debate was not carried on by long strings of speeches from the same side of the House, but by short addresses, in which hon. Members from each side followed one another. And here he wished to say that if he had used any strong expression with regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel North) he wished to withdraw it,
  1526
  though that hon. and gallant Member did not seem disposed to recede from the statement which he had made. He (Mr. Gladstone) had wished simply to defend himself and his Friends from the accusation brought against them. With regard to the merits of the Bill, he had on a preceding occasion offered many objections to the measure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had replied to those objections in a tone of perfect candour and fairness; but he must say that the right hon. Gentleman's speech appeared to leave the Bill in a worse position than before. In his opinion the Bill was a bad one; but, nevertheless, he intended to yield with deference to the opinion of the House. [Viscount GALWAV: Why don't you go on with the clauses, then?] Because they were now discussing the Motion on the Preamble. Now, he would ask what would be gained by the passing of this Bill? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with truth that it would be necessary to come to a new Parliament for another Bill before this Bill could take effect, because, though it might be possible that by voluntary arrangement a particular plot of ground might be obtained for a separate market, yet that railway accommodation which was absolutely required could not be obtained except by the usual method of notice. When the new Bill for obtaining a site was submitted to Parliament neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North) nor the noble Viscount behind him (Viscount Galway) would hold that the new Parliament would be in any degree committed by the decision at which the present Parliament might have arrived. It would be the business, right, and duty of the new Parliament to pronounce a perfectly independent judgment on the merits of the Bill. And if the new Parliament should pronounce such an opinion, whether favourable or adverse, nothing would have been gained by pressing forward this Bill. One remark more with respect to the financial provision. [Viscount GALWAY: We have had all this over and over again.] Yes, but it must be gone over many times more, and it was perfectly clear that it had not as yet made its way in the slightest degree into the inner intelligence of the noble Viscount. In answer to his observations on this part of the scheme the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that by the Bill as brought in by the Government, a revenue would have been provided which would have

  1527
  sufficed for the expenses of the establishment. But would the right hon. Gentleman allow him to point out that, even if that were a true and sufficient answer with regard to the Bill as it was brought in, it was not a true and sufficient answer with regard to the Bill in its present shape; because the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, if his many duties would permit it, that new charges had been introduced which would raise the outlay from £300,000 to £500,000, and no revenue whatever had been provided to cover those new charges? He believed the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) was perfectly right in saying that those Commissioners would go forth into the money-market, and that they would be objects of commiseration rather than of any other feeling, hopeless and helpless, unless some new source of supply was opened, of which as yet they had no scheme before them. Though he respected the judgment of the House in the decision which they had arrived at he still felt that there were very many questions on which they would require explanation with respect to this Bill; and on every legitimate opportunity it would be his duty to question the scheme, and resist its further development.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he had not intended to take up the time of the House, because it seemed to him that the arguments advanced did not apply to the question before the Committee, which was whether the Preamble should be postponed, but were rather arguments against the principle of the Bill, and should have been employed on the second reading or on the Motion for going into Committee rather than at present. But after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), he would be scarcely showing respect to him or to the House if he did not advert to some of the points which had been referred to. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) objected on the score that they could already do, independently of the Bill, all that they desired. [Mr. AYRTON: All that you can reasonably desire.] Well, then, the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to say what they desired to do that was unreasonable. And then the hon. and learned Gentleman had found fault with the First Minister of the Crown. But the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister had never said that the Metropolitan Board of Works had cast any ob-
  1528
  struction in the way. They did nothing of the kind. The Chairman, Sir John Thwaites, gave every assistance in his power; but even with all the knowledge which Sir John Thwaites possessed of the peculiarities of the metropolis, they had found it impossible to carry out the Act of last year in the metropolis, though it had been carried out in other seaports throughout the country. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had complained that this was a class struggle at the end of the Session. But that was not the fault of the Government. They introduced the Bill on the 5th of December; on the 13th of December it was read a second time, it was then referred to a Committee, and all the members of that Committee were well aware that the Government forbore from bringing forward a great deal of evidence, scientific and other, which they thought essential, in deference to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who desired that there should be no further delay. Therefore, it was very unfair to charge the Government with delay. The delay was far more due to hon. Members of the Opposition, who, day after day, insisted upon calling a great mass of irrelevant evidence, and who argued points which had been previously decided. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had said that if they could not get land they must come to Parliament next Session. But it had been understood all along that a certain piece of land was available, which was in the hands of the Corporation. This, therefore, would require no Provisional Order, nor additional Bill. The same remark applied to the objection with respect to railways. They would not have to bring in a Bill to construct railways for this reason, that the piece of land in question was already accessible to existing railways. He was confident the Corporation would undertake to carry out this measure; and if the clause of which he had given Notice was passed, the Corporation would be able to pledge, not only the limited funds at their disposal, but their whole property, and so be able to raise the means at the cheapest rate. With regard to the supposed financial difficulty, he must observe that this was either an object of national importance and benefit, or it was not. If not, then the Bill should be opposed and rejected on that ground alone; but if it would be a national benefit, then it would be worth while for the nation to

  1529
  guarantee the expenses, and defray any deficit which the income of the market might be unable to cover.
  MR. GOSCHEN, who was received with cries of "Divide," said, hon. Members on that side of the House are in this predicament, that if they wished to discuss the measure they were met with cries of "Divide," and if they wished to adjourn at a late hour they were told they were factious. He would ask the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council on what clause it will be most expedient to discuss the general financial bearings of the question? [An hon. MEMBER: The last clause.] He would bow to the decision of the House, and discuss the matter on another clause.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it had been asserted that the metropolitan Members had endeavoured to talk down the representatives of the counties upon this subject. It so happened that the metropolitan Members, except the right hon. Member for the City (Mr. Goschen) and himself, had abstained from taking part in the discussion, because they desired the discussion to show, as it had done, that the question was a national one, and that the views of the majority of the people of the country were against the Bill. No doubt the representatives of counties and small boroughs connected with them were, in the present state of the representation, a majority of the House, and the proceedings on this Bill would furnish a powerful argument for the re-consideration of the representation of counties.
  SIR J. CLARKE JERVOISEpointed out that there was no discussion on the second reading of the Bill. If there had been one thing made clear, it was the fact of the great inefficiency of the Privy Council. Nevertheless, he for one did not see how that inefficiency was to be cured by a Bill of this dangerous character. Such a proceeding was like the application of a blister over the whole body for the healing of a local irritation.
  Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Interpretation. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120).
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he rose to move an Amendment, the effect of which was to exempt sheep from the operation of the Bill. He was at a loss to understand why the Government proposed to place a restriction upon the importation of sheep. If there were a statutory restric-
  1530
  tion upon their importation into the port of London, there must be a similar restriction applied to other ports. It showed no confidence in the Privy Council to say they could not be trusted to regulate with the help of their scientific advisers the importation of sheep when circumstances of danger arose; and if they could not, we had better do away with the Privy Council. What was the meaning of this proposal? The farmers could not supply the people with food. We had a limited island and a growing population, and yet it was proposed permanently to restrict the importation of foreign sheep. Since the adoption of Sir Robert Peel's policy no such change as this had been proposed. Did anyone pretend to say there was any danger in the importation of sheep? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] Well; but the Privy Council did not think so. To use the words of a very moderate Lancashire paper, the Manchester Guardian, "Such a proposal would justify the most strenuous opposition." It was not a metropolitan question only. Foreign sheep could not be sent alive from London to other large towns, and that would have a most disastrous effect upon the importation of foreign sheep. What was the danger—what were we afraid of? Foreign sheep were at present forwarded to every part of the country, and was there any danger? The Privy Council did not think so, or they would make regulations to stop it. The Government did not think it wise to do that upon their responsibility as Ministers. He had in his hand a Return of what had gone on since we first admitted foreign sheep into this country; and he found that they had increased from 634 sheep and ten lambs imported in 1842, to 914,170 imported in, 1863. That importation had, however, been checked since 1865, owing to the Orders in Council with regard to cattle. The restrictions imposed then by the Privy Council had reduced the importation by 500,000. Sheep, however, had never been treated as cattle. They had heard a great deal about the Commissioners' Report, advising the stoppage of the importation of cattle; but the Commissioners never made any recommendation respecting sheep, and he did not think that sheep were treated in the same way as cattle in the measures passed with reference to the movement of cattle. There had always been a difference with regard to the importation of sheep and the importation of cattle. In this Bill that was abolished, and they were

  1531
  both placed upon the same footing. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government seemed to be posed by this question of sheep. He (Mr. Milner Gibson) could not understand how any Government should incur the responsibility of excluding sheep, seeing how it must affect the working classes of this country. There was a slight restriction already; sheep to enjoy freedom must be imported by themselves; but the Bill contemplated no such distinction. The Select Committee had inserted in the Bill the word "sheep," instead of the more limited words "sheep imported in vessels with foreign cattle." Sheep were sold out of the metropolis to the best butchers at Richmond, Twickenham, and that neighbourhood. They were also purchased by butchers in other counties. If the foreigner who dealt in sheep were not treated in the same way as the Englishman, he would not send his sheep to this country at all. If he had healthy sheep, and he was told that they should not be sold in the metropolitan market nor forwarded alive to inland towns, he would not send his sheep to this country at all. The object of the Bill was, indeed, indirectly to bring about a prohibition against foreign sheep, which Sir Robert Peel thought he: had put an end to in 1842. A gentleman residing in London had written to him stating that 6,000 or 7,000 foreign sheep were at times sent out of the metropolis weekly to Wolverhampton, Manchester, and other large towns. Now, if it was intended to stop that traffic, some very good reason ought to be given for such a proceeding. If in the present hot weather these 6,000 or 7,000 sheep were killed at Barking Creek and forwarded to the metropolis to be sent to the great manufacturing towns in the shape of dead meat, he fancied that the legs of mutton would look a little green on arriving at their destination. The contractors for the army and navy would not take dead meat, because the Commissariat and Admiralty preferred seeing the live animals, so that they might judge what the soldiers and sailors would have to eat, and consequently the proposal of the Government was to give to British agriculturists the monopoly of supplying the army and navy of this country with live meat. One eminent contractor stated before the Select Committee that if in purchasing live sheep and cattle he was to be exclusively limited to British agriculturists, he should be obliged to raise his contract at least £50,000 a year. That
  1532
  amount would have to be paid by the British taxpayers. The Bill was a deliberate proposal to establish a gross monopoly at the expense of the taxpayers and consumers of this country. No one ever alleged that foreign sheep coming from healthy districts in a ship by themselves, unaccompanied by cattle, would introduce the cattle disease into this country; and, consequently, the clause now under consideration appeared to him to be so indefensible that he would press his objections to it over and over again, in spite of any charge which might be brought against him of offering improper obstructions. The President of the Board of Trade went before the Select Committee and gave useful evidence, though not as a public officer representing the community, but, as he frankly and fairly declared, in the character of the farmer's friend, and in the interest of the producer. He went into the price of his Southdowns; but he would get a better price for these if foreign sheep were excluded. Now, he wanted to call the attention of agriculturists to this question. He wished he could act with the farmers and with Chambers of Agriculture. He believed, however, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would find the Chambers of Agriculture more difficult to manage than they imagined. They had three pet schemes—the malt tax, County Financial Boards, and the exclusion of foreign cattle. With regard to the malt tax——
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose to Order. It was not competent for any hon. Member to go into the malt tax in connection with this clause.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not competent on this clause to discuss the malt tax; but it was competent for an hon. Member to refer to it in illustration of his argument.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the Chambers of Agriculture had been induced to give up the malt tax and the County Financial Boards by a promise of getting the exclusion of foreign cattle. The farmer was told that the repeal of the malt tax would be inconvenient to the Government, and that the Financial Boards would displease the magistracy; but the Government would go in for cattle exclusion. Now, he (Mr. Milner Gibson) would gladly enable the farmers to exercise control over the expenditure of rates in counties; but the object of this cattle-and-sheep-exclusion scheme was to reverse the policy which let in foreign cattle to compete

  1533
  with their own. He believed that was the fact. But the exclusion of foreign sheep from Denmark, for instance, which were unaffected by disease, would be a great loss to the farmer. There were thousands of acres in Scotland not stocked at the present time, and these restrictions would stop the importation of sheep as well as cattle. The evidence of Mr. Robinson, a great promoter of this Bill, showed that the farmers as well as the consumers had an interest in the importation of sheep. The compulsion to slaughter sheep at the port of importation would make a difference of 6s. a head in the price. The quarantine system for fat stock was out of the question. It was condemned by most of the witnesses favourable to the Bill for store stock. It would be a great restriction, and afforded no security against cattle plague. For lean stock it was not practicable. There was only one security against cattle plague, and that was the prevention of cattle or sheep coming from an infected place—the restrictions not being greater than the necessity of the case and safety required. That was the course which statesmanship dictated. That was the course which France was taking—all the ports and frontiers of France were open. There was perfect free trade. Foreign sheep and French sheep, foreign cattle and French cattle, were sold in the same market.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERasked, where they were killed?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: They were killed wherever the purchaser chose to take them. If they were to be killed in Paris, they must be killed in the abattoirs. The French Government were not so unreasonable as to oppress the French people with unnecessary restrictions or impose large sacrifices on the population to benefit the agriculturists. They did not demand anything so monstrous in order to meet a temporary emergency. If a permanent law should be passed, it would never be repealed without the consent of the other House of Parliament, the Members of which were extensively engaged in that very cattle trade for whose benefit foreign cattle and sheep were to be excluded. Why were they afraid of these foreign sheep? Did they think they would introduce disease? Why, the Privy Council would not undertake the responsibility of prohibiting them. The Privy Council would not have been silent unless their advisers had told them to be so, and
  1534
  as they had not attempted to put such a wanton restriction on the supply of food to the people of this country, why should the House now be asked to impose it by a permanent law? Experiments to test the liability of sheep to take the cattle plague had been conducted in 1865 by Professor Dick and other eminent authorities, and the results militated against the notion that they were likely to take the cattle plague and to carry infection to cattle in their wool or otherwise. No doubt they might, under certain circumstances, take the cattle plague. He had heard that men had taken it; but he contended that sheep were much less liable than other animals to take or to communicate it. He should be glad to hear what the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say upon this part of the question. The Commissioners had never recommended the separate market now proposed. After the Commission had concluded their task a Committee sat, consisting of nineteen Members, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they unanimously agreed that this proposal for a separate market was wrong. That Committee had read all the evidence taken before the Commissioners and the Commissioners' Report, and they agreed that it was undesirable to put the proposed restriction on the trade and the food of the country. One Member of that Committee was the Marquess of Salisbury, one of the ablest of the Commissioners; and he (Mr. Milner Gibson) contended that on this subject the Committee were quite as good authorities as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe.) His Report was written in a time of panic, whereas the Committee approached the subject more calmly. He appealed to those Irish Members who, under the leadership of Mr. O'Connell, were mainly instrumental in carrying the great question of Free Trade, to support the Amendment he now proposed. Many of their poor fellow-countrymen were living in Wolverhampton, Manchester, Ashton, and the other seats of industry in this country, and he asked them not to aid the attempt which was now deliberately made by the supporters of this measure to deprive these poor Irishmen of the few opportunities they had of tasting animal food. ["No, no!"] That could not be denied. The struggle of life was great enough without increasing its difficulties by such a measure as this. He trusted that the Government would consent to strike out the word "sheep" front this

  1535
  clause, which they could do without interfering with that part of the Bill which dealt with sheep which had been brought over in the same vessels with foreign cattle. He begged to move that the word "sheep" should be omitted from the Interpretation Clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the word "sheep."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the difficulty of the subject was sufficiently great without the real point being smothered by matters so completely extraneous to it, as were the topics which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. Milner Gibson) had introduced into the discussion. Indeed, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated the matter convinced him that he had been speaking throughout against his own conviction. The real question with which they had to deal was "aye" or "no"—were sheep liable to this disease, and could they bring it into this country? The right hon. Gentleman, losing sight of the real point in dispute, had devoted the greater part of his speech to the discussion of the question of free trade in food. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, given up the case with reference to sheep imported in the same vessels with foreign cattle; but what security was there that the sheep had not mixed with foreign cattle before they entered the ship? He had admitted that butchers going from market to market might convey the cattle plague in their clothes, and sheep had as handy clothes to convey the infection as the butchers. If the right hon. Gentleman could not prove that the means of detection in the case of cattle and sheep coming by sea were as great as those possessed by the French in the case of the cattle and sheep coming over their frontier, the whole of the fabric which the right hon. Gentleman had built up would fall to the ground. He would not himself give an opinion as to sheep having this disease; but, as far as he could form an opinion, he thought that it would be sufficient if the restriction were to apply to sheep coming over with cattle. If the right hon. Gentleman was not able to show that sheep were not liable to the disease, the whole of his arguments about the food of the people could only have been lugged in with the view to muddle the water, and keep in the background the real question, which was, whether sheep were or were not any source of
  1536
  danger? It was most unjust to charge the agricultural classes with trying to injure other classes in their action in regard to sheep. The object they had in view was to keep the disease out of the country, for by so doing they would tend to lessen the price of meat, and he could not sec that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would be attended with that result.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he thought the Amendment in its present form could not be accepted. The clause originally was to apply only to sheep which came over in the same vessel with cattle; but the Committee, in consequence of a great weight of evidence, unanimously altered it be that it should apply to all sheep. Professor Spooner said that the infection could be carried in wool, and Mr. Rudkin, the Chairman of the Markets Committee, said that the great fault of the present system was that sheep could go from the metropolitan market into the country. The Committee therefore were urged to cut out the words "imported with foreign cattle." He, however, would, in consequence of the want of time, offer no objection to these words being re-inserted.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was of opinion that before the proposed Amendment of the noble Lord was adopted the noble Lord must show that sheep which were not infected could be the means of communicating the disease. It was a most monstrous proposal that, because the cattle plague was engendered in certain spots on the Continent, no sheep were to be allowed to be imported from any part of the world. The proposal was one which would have the effect of preventing the free importation of sheep, and would thus result in depreciating the value of those sent to this country to an extent which would greatly discourage that branch of trade. The area of the cattle plague was becoming more circumscribed day by day, and what right had the Government to say that there should not be free importation of sheep into the port of London, and that in fact they would create a monopoly for the advantage of English sheep breeders?
  MR. READsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that all the veterinary evidence given before the Committee by opponents of the Bill distinctly showed that sheep transmitted the cattle plague more freely than any other agent, and were themselves subject to the cattle plague. Imported sheep also very often came with, the small-pox, and in 1866, when he had

  1537
  lost all his cattle, he bought some imported store sheep, but found them all so diseased with scab that he had to kill them at once.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he approved the proposal of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council to except sheep imported alone.
  Question put, "That the word 'sheep' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 52: Majority 82.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU LORD ROBERT MONTAGU moved to insert after "sheep" the words "imported in the same vessel with foreign cattle." His only object was to save the time which would otherwise be lost in endless discussions.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 (Constitution of Market Authority).
  MR. WATKIN MR. WATKIN moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the hour was not very late, that there had been no Morning Sitting that day, and that there would be no Morning Sitting to-morrow. The Committee, therefore, he thought, came to the discussion of the Bill with unusual freshness, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere with his Motion.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that no doubt there was abundant opportunity for the two par-tics in the House to discuss the question; but there was a large party deeply interested in it out-of-doors, and in order that they might know how it had been discussed, and learn the decision of the Committee, he must persevere with his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Watkin.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 132: Majority 95.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the clause under discussion, as well as those which followed it, involved important principles, and as there were many Members who desired to speak, he must appeal to the majority not to oppress the minority by insisting, contrary to all usual practice, on going on with the debate at an hour
  1538
  when the strength of Members was exhausted. These were important discussions, as was shown by the fact that they had practically extorted from the Government the admission of sheep. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, by the last Amendment sheep were practically admitted. The hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Read) had said to him, "They have spoiled the Bill, and you ought to be satisfied;" but he was not satisfied, and he hoped the Government would not proceed further to-night.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he rose to move an Amendment, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "or;" and he also proposed to leave out the words from "if" to the end of the clause. If the Committee adopted the Amendment, he would be enabled to move that the Corporation should be the authority of the market, and this, be believed, would be entirely in accordance with the views of the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill. The City of London had a Committee to regulate all the markets, and as they had invariably done so to the satisfaction of the public, this market should be placed under their direction, instead of that of Commissioners, who would not understand what they were to do. The proposal of the Government to give inexperienced Commissioners the power to raise money—how they were to raise it did not appear—was very improper. Should these Commissioners become the market authorities, it would be a great failure.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "or."—(Mr. Locke.)
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Amendments of which he had given Notice were carried, there could be no Commissioners, while the Corporation would not be obliged to take up the work of establishing the market.
  MR. GOSCHENasked why the Commissioners were left in the clause if they were not to be called upon to act; and if they were to act, how they were to be provided with funds? He believed they had been introduced into the Bill merely to place a screw upon the City. He wished to know how the Government intended to deal with this question of Commissioners? They had not yet had an explanation of the financial part of the question—not a single line of estimate. There was no precedent for Government Commissioners interfering with municipal concerns as here

  1539
  proposed. If appointed, it was at least to be hoped that they would be supplied with Imperial funds.
  After a few words from Mr. SELWIN-IBBETSON,
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any assurance had been given by the Corporation that they would have anything to do with this measure or were willing to act under it as the market authority? It had been said in the Common Council and in the newspapers that the Government had broken faith with the City.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUrose to reply.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is most unusual for any Member of the House to single out a Member of the House to answer a Question. I cannot answer it, because the Privy Council and not my Department is the Department of die Government that was in communication with the Corporation of London.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the chief Member of the Government now present, and because I saw his name on the back of the Bill.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, that before the Bill went to the Committee upstairs the Corporation had intimated to the Privy Council Office by letter enclosing a formal Resolution, that they would undertake the execution of the Act. It was not true that the Government had broken faith with the City. The Corporation had furnished to the Committee a scale of tolls and a number of clauses, all of which were inserted into the Bill, except one which the Metropolitan Board succeeded in persuading the Committee to strike out. That produced a certain feeling of resentment, perhaps, in the mind of the Corporation. It was proposed to restore that clause, and then he was confident that the Corporation would undertake the execution of that Bill, and would he quite able to provide the funds requisite for the purpose. He spoke advisedly and on good grounds of authority. In fact, they had experienced considerable difficulty in dealing with two rival and jealous parties, the Metropolitan Board and the City; the City got angry with the Metropolitan Board, and a quarrel arose as to what should be done with the surplus which would accrue from the
  1540
  market. The City wanted to secure that surplus to themselves; the Metropolitan Board desired that it should be applied to the reduction of the tolls. They quarrelled over the booty, in fact, and the City being beaten, pretended to retire in a huff. The City had however, since evinced a friendly assistance. This was the "great financial difficulty."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was quite sure that the Corporation would not undertake the execution of the Bill if it remained in its present state. No answer had been given to the question how the Commissioners were to have funds provided for them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I thought, Sir, I gave an answer to that question the other night. I then stated that the Commissioners would have no funds to fall back upon, except the tolls; and I believe that on that security persons would lend money to the Commissioners to establish the market. We could not assist them out of the Consolidated Fund, or give them a guarantee. If the Bill were restored to its former state, so that the Corporation should have the surplus tolls, there would not be the slightest difficulty in regard to the Corporation of London undertaking the execution of the Act. I believe the Metropolitan Board of Works would be willing to undertake it if they would have a right to the surplus tolls. If the clause be restored to its original shape, the difficulty will disappear.
  MR. AYRTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the tolls would be sufficient to enable the Commissioners to raise money for all the purposes of the Bill—to buy the ground, carry out the works, and give compensation?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: There has been so much misrepresentation that I must beg leave to say a word or two. I never said the Government had broken faith with the Corporation; I merely said it was stated in the Common Council and in the newspapers. I think the proposition to give the surplus tolls to the City is the worst of all that have been made. Here is a market to be supported out of the tolls, and if there be a surplus, they should be devoted to the lowering of the tolls.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, if the word "or" were struck out, he would endeavour to strike out the remainder of the clause. There never was such a market authority on earth as would be created if the House carried this clause.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that when once he heard it admitted that the population of London would suffer by this Bill, that was quite enough for him. He advised hon. Members opposite not to be the Stupid country Gentlemen to be driven before the Government. Seeing that the Commissioners were to have no means of carrying out the scheme of the market, he hoped they would see that the Government were really laughing at them. The Government had broken faith on a question of bribery, and they should adjourn to see if the City of London would accept this new offer. He therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. AYRTONthought they ought to have some explanation from the Government of how they intended to treat the Committee, because after a certain hour it was impossible for notice to be taken in the newspaper reports of what took place, and therefore no means were afforded to the public of knowing what occurred. The last thing heard of the City of London was that they had withdrawn in the Select Committee from all connection with the Bill, and he wished to know whether the Government had communicated further with the City on the subject?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that if the Motion for reporting Progress was withdrawn a division should be taken on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke). When they had passed the clause the Government would consent to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, That the word "or" stand part of the Clause.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 26; Majority 87.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREthen moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  MR. GOSCHENsupported the Motion. The noble Lord (Lord John Manners) had been understood to say that the Chairman should report Progress after this division. ["No!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that what his noble Friend had consented to, was that when the Committee had arrived at the end of the clause, the Chairman should then report Progress. As, however, there had been some misunderstanding on this point, and as it was now nearly two o'clock, he would not oppose the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 91: Majority 55.
  MR. CRAWFORD MR. CRAWFORD moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not control his own party even—the Members of the Government having voted some one way and some another—he trusted they would not now proceed further with the Bill on which they were so much divided in opinion.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friends to give way. He thought it was useless to attempt any further Progress to-night.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that, being unwilling to take advantage of any misunderstanding, and several hon. Members having stated that they had misunderstood his noble Friend (Lord John Manners), he had thought it right that Progress should be reported. He had consequently voted in accordance with that view; but it was quite open for his hon. Friends behind him to take what course seemed to them proper.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, he must point out that the misunderstanding had entailed no consequences on hon Gentlemen opposite, none of them having left the House. He could not conceive how the noble Lord could have been understood otherwise than as consenting to report Progress after the clause had been agreed to.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was surprised at his words having been misunderstood, and could only attribute it to the lateness of the hour and the length of the Sitting. A misunderstanding having, however, occurred, he hoped his hon. Friend would allow Progress to be reported, with the view of resuming the Committee on Wednesday.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he was willing that the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair should be negatived, in order that the usual Motion to report Progress might be proposed.
  Motion negatived.
  MR. CRAWFORD MR. CRAWFORD moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 52: Majority 19.
  After further short discussion, the Motion to report Progress was agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Danube Works Loan* (272); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 4)* (273); Colonial Shipping* (274).
Second Reading—Courts of Chancery and Exchequer (Ireland) Fee Funds* (171); Public Schools (262); Tithe Commutation, &c. Acts Amendment* (256); Municipal Elections (Scotland)* (263); Public Departments Payments* (264); Sir Robert Napier's Annuity* (265); Marriages Validity (Blakedown)*(271); New Zealand Company* (154); Turnpike Acts Continuance* (253, and passed).
Committee—Court of Session (Scotland)* (246–275).
Report—Burials (Ireland) (269); Bankruptcy Act Amendment* (270).
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners* (259); Contagious Diseases Act (1866) Amendment* (229); Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Accounts Audit* (237); Court of Justiciary (Scotland)* (232); Ecclesiastical Buildings and Glebes (Scotland)* (233), and passed.

ARMY OF ABYSSINIA (VOTE OF THANKS).
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That he had received a Letter from Lieut.-General Lord Napier of Magdala, G.C.B., G.C.S.I., in return to the Thanks of this House and to the Resolutions of the 2d Instant, communicated to him in obedience to an Order of this House of the said 2d Instant: The said Letter being read as follows:—
"49, Cleveland Square, Hyde Park, July 18.
"My Lord,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated July 6th, communicating to me the resolution of the House of Lords, conveying the thanks of the House to myself and to Commodore Heath, C.B., Major-General Sir C. Staveley, K.C.B., Major-General George Malcolm, C.B., Major-General E. L. Russell, and Brigadier-General W. Merewether, C.B., and also the other officers of the navy and army. I have received the thanks of the House of Lords with a profound sense of the honour conferred upon me and also upon the other offi-
1460
cers, the petty officers, and the non-commissioned officers and men of the navy and army engaged in the Abyssinian Expedition.
"I have taken the requisite steps to transmit the resolution to the officers named, and to communicate it to the several officers of the army and navy referred to.
"I regret extremely that this communication should have been accidentally delayed.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord, your most obedient servant,
"NAPIER OF MAGDALA.
"To the Right Hon. the Lord Chancellor."
Was Ordered to lie on the Table, and to be entered on the Journals.

THE CANNING STATUE.—QUESTION.
LORD CAMPBELLinquired of Her Majesty's Government, What Steps it is proposed to take with a View to replace on a fitting Site the Statue of Mr. Canning, in accordance with the general Opinion expressed last Session in the House against that on which it stands at present? The removal of the statue last year was condemned as an unwarranted though unintended diminution of the honour which had been paid to Mr. Canning. He had since heard ascribed to the Public Works Department the opinion that though the statue could not be replaced upon the site it had previously occupied, it would probably be placed in the centre of the open space and a few yards behind where it formerly stood.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that none of their Lordships could have the slightest doubt of the disposition of the present or of any Government to comply as much as possible with the public taste in reference to such a matter s that to which the noble Lord's Question related; but the difficulty was to ascertain what that taste was. They all remembered the old proverb, De gustibus non est disputandum; and it was extremely difficult for any Government to ascertain precisely, amid the discordant opinions prevalent in such cases, what would really be the best course to follow. But, as to the facts, he could inform the noble Lord that, after the conversation with respect to the statue of Mr. Canning last year, the subject was again discussed in the House of Commons, which decided by a large majority that the present site was the one most desirable. The noble Lord seemed not to agree in this; but that was the information he derived from the best authority—the Office of Public Works. Subsequently to that, in a conversation

1461
with Lord John Manners, Mr. Westmacott also approved the present site. When Lord John Manners asked this year for a sum of £1,000 for the arrangement of the ground in front of which the statue stood, no objection was taken to the present position of the statue, although Lord John Manners referred to the matter. The Government, therefore, concluded that the present site was agreeable to the public; nor had they received any remonstrances on the subject from the family or admirers of the late Mr. Canning, which would certainly be attended to and treated with respect. There was a great difference between the circumstances of the case now and last year, when the conversation to which he had alluded took place. Then all the space which was now very handsomely enclosed was a sort of wilderness, and the statue looked as if it had been disrespectfully put out of view. But now the aspect of the place was quite changed; and, considering the general appearance of the ground, he could not agree with the noble Lord that there was anything in the position of the statue of which complaint could justly be made.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEadmitted that an improvement had been effected in the appearance of the ground since last year, but still thought the position of the statue not satisfactory. In these matters there was something to be considered which was far beyond mere family feeling; for the memory of its departed great men was the heirloom of the nation. He hoped, therefore, that the expression of the opinion of the House in regard to this statue last year would receive due attention.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 262.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 262.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I could hardly have acceded to the request made to me by some of my noble Friends near me that I should move the second reading of the Public Schools Bill unless I had felt sure that at this stage it was not I likely to meet with opposition, or to give rise to any detailed discussion. It is difficult to imagine how any measure ever presented to your Lordships' consideration could have undergone more thorough
  1462
  examination or have received in its main principles more complete sanction than the Bill to which I have now to ask you to give a second reading. I would venture to remind your Lordships that in the year 1862 Her Majesty was pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the management of the nine principal Schools of this country. That Commission was presided over by a noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) whom I see opposite, who conducted the inquiry with, very great ability and very great diligence; and two other noble Lords, Friends of mine, were also distinguished Members of it. The Commission sat for, I think, a period of two years; it examined locally all the authorities and all the persons principally connected with those various establishments, and nothing could have been more searching or more complete than the examination and inquiry which they then made. They presented in the year 1864 a very comprehensive Report; and I am bound to say that whatever changes have since been made, and whatever investigations have since taken place, in the main the measure now submitted to your Lordships' consideration is founded on the recommendations made try that Commission. One of the points to which I believe the Commission agreed in attaching great importance—namely, that under the system now pursued at the Public Schools too exclusive an attention is given to the study of Greek and Latin, and too little attention to the modern languages. I should be the last to deprecate the study of the classical languages; but the Commissioners have been much misunderstood if it be supposed that their object, in recommending a larger introduction of modern languages, was to lower the standard of the Public Schools as a preparation for the Universities, although they thought that other branches of instruction might be usefully introduced. Before I go further, I would remark that, although no immediate result in a Parliamentary or legislative sense followed upon the Report, yet that the labours of the Commissioners were by no means fruitless. In regard to one of the Schools upon which the Commissioners reported in some respects unfavourably—the great school at Eton—a new Head Master, who is a relative of mine, has been appointed, and I rejoice in the amendment which has been apparent in that school. To show how far other branches of instruction beyond the classical languages have been introduced I will read

  1463
  a few lines which I have received from the Provost of Eton. He says—
  "There are at present 861 boys in the School. Of these, 761 are obliged to learn French. They have two hours a week at lessons and a French exercise. Nearly 300 of these 761 are also learning physical science (physical geography, mechanics, astronomy, hydrostatics, or optics), two hours a week and questions to answer. The first; 100 in the school are compelled to learn some modern language, or physical science, or political economy. Of these, 28 are learning German, 11 Italian, 6 physical science, 7 political economy, the rest French."
  This Paper shows that the recommendations of the Commissioners have not been barren of results. The principal recommendations of the Commissioners refer to the regulation of the new Governing Body to which is intrusted the duty of making very extensive alterations, partly by statute and partly by regulations. The statutes of the schools have reference to the foundation, endowments, and different fundamental rules of the College or School. These can only be altered by the authority of the Queen in Council, after due and ample notice has been given to all the parties, interested. The regulations, as distinguished from the statutes, are those which principally apply to the discipline, studies, and numerous details of the School—and these may be introduced by the Governing Body without the sanction of an Order in Council. The Commissioners proposed to carry into effect the alterations they suggested; and my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon), in 1865, introduced a Bill of an important character to give effect to these recommendations. In illustration of the concurrence of opinion that led to this Bill, I may state that, on the Motion of my noble Friend, the Bill was referred to a Committee of your Lordships' House. They sat and took evidence, They allowed all the Schools to be represented—and they were very ably represented—before the Committee. I had the honour of being a member, and I must say that I never sat upon a Committee which gave a more dispassionate and industrious consideration to the subject referred to them. The Committee introduced considerable alterations into the plan. The Commissioners had in the Schedule of the Bill constituted the new Governing Body of the Schools. That was thought to be going too far in interference with the local and internal management of the Schools, and the Committee, with the concurrence of my noble Friend, struck out the Sche-
  1464
  dule which constituted the new Governing Body, and left the Governing Body as it had previously existed; but with the power of recommending reforms in their own constitution. In order to carry out those reforms, they appointed by name a number of Commissioners, without whose sanction no step could be taken by the Governing Body. It was by this time rather late in the Session, and the Bill was not carried to a third reading. In 1866, the same Bill was introduced with no modifications whatever; but at the next stage an alteration introduced by myself was carried by the narrow majority of 28 to 27, which took away from the Commissioners so to be appointed the power of altering the constitution of the Governing Body, unless the Governing Body themselves chose to make the alteration. I thought it was a very large and extensive power to place in the hands of the Commissioners—the power of naming the Governing Body. The Bill went down to the Commons at the close of the Session of 1866; but at that period of the Session there was but small chance of making successful progress with it, and in July the Order was discharged. In 1867, when I had the honour of being at the head of the Government, I thought it my duty to introduce the Bill precisely in the form in which it had received the assent of your Lordships. Then came the question of vesting in the Commissioners the power of altering the constitution of the Governing Body; and, although I still thought it better to send down precisely the same Bill, yet I said that if the Commons thought fit to make any alteration on that point I should not feel that I was bound to offer any opposition to such Amendments. That Bill was sent down early in the year—in fact, in the month of March, 1867. Your Lordships know the importance of the various subjects which engaged the attention of the other House during the whole of last Session, and it is not surprising that that House had not time to take this and other important measures into its consideration. Again, in the present year, other Bills connected with the great measure of last year have been submitted to the House of Commons, together with other questions more or less apropos, of which I shall say nothing, except that they occupied a great deal of time and prevented, until a late day, the progress of this Bill; so that it was only within the last few days that the measure

  1465
  was submitted to your Lordships' House. In the first place, therefore, the subject was inquired into by a Royal Commission. A Bill was then brought in, which was before your Lordships for three successive years, and was examined by a Select Committee. It went down to the House of Commons, where it was also referred to a Select Committee; and from that House the Bill has emerged in its present state. The main principle of the Bill has never varied from its first introduction, and has been acceded to by both Houses; and, under these circumstances, I hope it will not be found necessary by your Lordships to offer any opposition to the second reading. With regard to the composition of the Governing Body, a proposition has been made that does not altogether correspond either with the propositions first submitted to this House or the alteration made in it. The House of Commons has introduced a provision that the present Governing Bodies shall have the power for a limited time of reforming their own constitutions. It appears, however, to me that the time given for this proceeding is unnecessarily short, extending only until the 1st of January, 1869. That is a period of only five months; and it will probably be the month of November before the several Governing Bodies can meet to consider the subject. Whatever alteration they may make of the nature to which I have previously referred will have to be submitted for the consideration of the Queen in Council, and will not take effect until three months after being approved by Her Majesty in Council. The period allowed for any Governing Body to carry into effect the change in its constitution seems to me unnecessarily short; and although there is a provision by which the Crown may extend it for three months, the time will even then be so brief that I submit for your Lordships' consideration whether you concur with me in thinking that it might be usefully prolonged. In the event of the Governing Body taking no action, or no action approved by the Commissioners, within that short period, the Special Commissioners are then to have the power of taking into their own hands the composition of the Governing Body, and up to the 1st of January, 1870, or, if extended by the favour of the Crown, up to the 1st of January, 1871, the existing or reformed Governing Body is to have the power of framing statutes and regulations in pursuance of the provisions of this Bill. If the
  1466
  Governing Body, however, fail to satisfy the Commissioners with regard to such schemes and regulations before the 1st of January, 1870, or, if extended, before the 1st of January, 1871, the whole power devolves, as in the case of the Oxford and Cambridge Acts, upon the Special Commissioners of framing their schemes and regulations, the schemes being subject to the revision of the Committee of Privy Council, and two months elapsing before their coming into force, for the purpose of giving persons an opportunity of preferring objections. I presume that if the time is extended for the Governing Bodies to make their schemes and regulations, a corresponding extension will be allowed to the Commissioners, whose powers may be extended from the 1st of January, 1871, to the 1st of January, 1872, at which time the whole powers of the Commissioners lapse. With regard to the schemes and regulations now for the first time introduced into the Bill, your Lordships will find that the 7th clause enables the Commissioners to frame statutes as to the disposal of the income or property of the Schools, for the purpose of improving or enlarging the existing establishments or of establishing any subordinate or other Schools in connection therewith. There is a subsequent provision that no existing rights shall be interfered with; but the Commissioners will have power to regulate the income of future Wardens, Provosts, and Fellows. Now, there is a doubt whether such power was not included in the general powers of the Bill; but I have thought it right to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this power is expressly given in this Bill, to the Governing Body in the first instance, and failing them, to the Special Commissioners. With regard to regulations, a provision has been introduced giving the Governing Body or the Special Commissioners power of making regulations which do not require the consideration of the Privy Council, for the purpose of giving facilities for the education of boys whose parents or guardians wish to withdraw them from the religious instruction of the School, and also for enabling boys other than boarders to attend school and participate in its educational advantages. Now, as to the latter, I doubt whether any such provision is necessary, for I recollect that when I was at Eton, considerably more than half a century ago, two little boys, aged five and six, whose parents resided at Windsor, were brought

  1467
  down every day, attended by their nursemaid, it being an object to enter as Collegers, at the earliest possible period, because no boy entering the same year was allowed to be placed above them in the School. Those boys were allowed to come to Eton and partake of all the instruction given there. Under what authority that was done, I do not know; but this Bill gives distinct authority for that purpose. I do not think that such a provision is likely to be extensively applied at Eton; whether it will have more extensive operation at Harrow, Rugby, and the other Schools, of which I have not the same knowledge, I cannot say. I understand a great effort was made in the House of Commons to make these last two powers compulsory on the Commissioners; but that House negatived the proposal, and have left it to the Governing Body or the Commissioners to decide whether or not they will extend the privileges of Eton by admitting boys whose parents wish to withdraw them from religious instruction, and also by admitting boys other than boarders to attend at the School for daily instruction. These, I think, are the only modifications of any consequence which the House of Commons have introduced into the Bill. They are matters for consideration in Committee; but they certainly would not justify your Lordships in offering any opposition to the second reading. I will now call your Lordships' attention to another point of great importance. Nothing can be larger than the powers which by this Bill are conferred upon the Special Commissioners, and it is, of course, of the utmost importance that those Commissioners should be persons commanding the confidence and respect of the country. Seven gentlemen were originally named; but from various causes only two of them remain on the present list—the most rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of York and the Clerk of the Parliaments. The other gentlemen whose names now appear in the Bill are—the Marquess of Salisbury, the Recorder of London, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Coleridge, and Mr. Charles Stuart Parker. In the Bill as originally introduced the last name was that of a gentleman universally respected, the Rev. Canon Blakesley; but, for some reason—I know not what—his name was struck out when the Bill was in Committee in the House of Commons, and Mr. Parker's name was substituted. I have not the honour of personal acquaintance with
  1468
  either of those gentlemen, and I have no opinion to offer as to the propriety of the alteration; but I cannot help expressing great regret that any alteration of a personal character should have been made. At the same time, I am sure that no gentleman in that position would have the least desire that any personal interest or feeling should stand in the way of the passing of the Bill. There are several other questions on which I should not venture to express an opinion, such as the financial arrangement with regard to Westminster School. The Governing Body in the case of Westminster consists of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, with the Dean of Christ's Church, Oxford, and the Master of Trinity, Cambridge. Now, they have but a slight interest, if any, in the School; and it has been thought desirable—I have no doubt they themselves feel it desirable—that a new Governing Body should be appointed. It will therefore be necessary to make some arrangement with regard to the contribution to be made to the School, and a provision has been introduced by which, within a limited time, it shall be open to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, if they can agree, or if not, to either of them, to submit a scheme whereby the new Governing Body shall contribute to the School a sum not less than £3,500, and not exceeding £4,000, after deducting expenses of management. That is a question on which I understand the noble Earl at the head of the Commission will make some observations; but I presume they will be more fitly addressed to your Lordships when in Committee than at the present time. There are subordinate provisions affecting the different Schools; but considering the ordeals through which the Bill has passed, and the general assent given to it by your Lordships on previous occasions, and also by the House of Commons, I need not trespass further on your Lordships' time, and I will therefore conclude by asking you to give the Bill a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Derby.)
  THE EARL OF CLARENDONsaid, that as a Member of the Commission appointed six years ago and also of the Select Committee of this House, he thanked the noble Earl for his lucid explanation of the origin, progress, and general history of the Bill, which had freed him from the necessity of

  1469
  entering into some details which might otherwise have been necessary. He was glad to learn from the noble Earl's statement that the main principle recommended by the Commissioners, and founded upon the evidence given before them, had been in no respect departed from by the House of Commons. Seeing, however, that no intimation was given of a difference of opinion with respect to the principle of the Bill, and that such very little alteration was made in it at any stage of its progress, he regretted that so much time should have been spent in passing the Bill through the House of Commons. He knew very well that the time of the House of Commons last year was almost exclusively occupied with the Reform Bill, and that this year it was partly occupied with Reform Bills and partly with another subject; but as there always was an intention to send the Bill to a Select Committee, some steps should have been taken at an earlier period to expedite the measure. He did not think that the Bill should have come up to their Lordships' House at a period when they were told that they must absolutely pass it through its successive stages in the four or five following days. He hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) would consent to an extension of the period during which the Governing Bodies might reform themselves. It was not a very easy matter, and would not be done without considerable discussion. These Governing Bodies could not be brought together before November; and even if they were to agree more quickly than they could be expected to do, the assent of the Privy Council would be necessary, and before the arrangements could be made the time allowed to the Commission would have expired. He hoped, therefore, his noble Friend would consent to have the time enlarged. With respect to the Memorandum, a most satisfactory statement had been made by his noble Friend. And here he must take the opportunity of distinctly contradicting the allegations that the Commission over which he had had the honour to preside were opposed to the teaching of Latin. He certainly considered, and had often said in that House, that Latin should be the basis of every liberal education. But what the Commissioners complained of was that it was exclusively taught; and he must say that the Paper which his noble Friend had read fully justified the views of the Commission, and was an earnest of the great
  1470
  change which had occurred at Eton. But he begged their Lordships to bear in mind that all these alterations which his noble Friend had referred to had been made within the last six months. It appeared that now 761 boys, which was just 700 more than before, were learning French at Eton. The French Master in his evidence had stated that seventy boys were the maximum that had ever learnt any scrap of French, and he could not say that any real progress had been made. He (the Earl of Clarendon) remembered putting this question to the witness—"Having now been twenty years a French Master at Eton, your greatest ambition would be to be recognized?" and the answer was—"Exactly so." He would also recall to their Lordships' minds that when Dr. Balston was before the Committee, and was asked whether he did not think modern languages necessary to the liberal education of an English gentleman, he admitted that they were—that it was desirable to learn French, and that education was not complete without it; but he seemed to think that modern languages should be learnt somewhere else than at Eton. His noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) had alluded to the clause which he carried by the narrow majority of 1—that was done by a sort of "fluke;" and, certainly, when they had changed sides in the House, and the conduct of the Bill had devolved upon his noble Friend, he introduced it. But he (the Earl of Clarendon) would have endeavoured to induce their Lordships to reverse their former votes, and he thought he could have given very good reasons for such a course. His noble Friend, however, had made a very satisfactory statement now with regard to the clause. He was glad that the clause had been omitted. There was only one more point to which his noble Friend had alluded upon which he wished to say a few words—namely, as to Westminster School, and the importance of not altering in any way Clause 21 of the Bill. He believed the very existence of Westminster School might be said to depend on the retaining of that clause. In pursuance of the general wish, both of old Westminsters and the public, it had been decided that the School should not be removed into the country, but should be retained as a great Public London School. But, after personal inspection, and with the entire approval of his noble Friend opposite, it was recommended that a grant should be made by

  1471
  the Dean and Chapter and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which was necessary not only for the help, hut the proper status of the School. He believed that this matter had been taken into the very serious consideration of the House of Commons, and that Clause 21 would satisfy all the requirements of the school. Some legislation of this kind was necessary, for, although the Dean and Chapter were now very liberal-minded men, and would do what was right and just, yet in this matter they wanted some looking after.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he must deny that the introduction of French at Eton was altogether due to the new Master. The improvements adopted there in this respect were due to the friendly writing of Sir John Coleridge, to the writing of Mr. Higgins, which was not very friendly, and lastly to the Commission. As to the Bill, he approved entirely of the scope of it, which had not been materially altered. Having compared the Bill, however, with the recommendations of the Commissioners, with the Bill as it came out of the Select Committee three years ago, and with the Bill of 1867, he found that there were several changes in details of which he did not see the necessity. He would desire, therefore, to propose some Amendments which would make it more in accordance with the measure as it came out of the Select Committee of this House. Their Lordships had reason to complain very much of the position in which this House had been placed with regard to many important Bills by the late period of the Session at which these Bills had come up. He was told that if their Lordships touched a single letter of this Bill, they might imperil it. Now, that was an exceedingly unfair position for the House to be placed in. He did not wish to imperil the Bill; but he hoped there was time to make the Amendments which were necessary.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTER, speaking as an old Westminster boy, expressed a hope that nothing would be done to diminish the usefulness of that ancient foundation.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that no blame could be attributed to the Government for the late period of the Session at which the Bill had come up to this House; but seeing the pressure of important business upon the other, it was difficult to see how greater despatch could have been secured. He could assure their Lordships that the Government had
  1472
  done all they possibly could to push on the Bill, which had been considered at Morning Sittings; but the opponents of the Bill were so determined to delay it, that the Government had found it impossible to bring it on until now. He agreed that it would be most desirable to extend the time within which the Governing Bodies were to make such reforms as were desirable. But the Privy Council would now under the Bill have the power of extending this period for three months, and their Lordships would probably do well to extend it for three months longer. Having been educated at Eton, he knew that at that time, although there was a French Master, few boys learnt French. But while strong prejudice existed against Eton on this account in the mind of many persons, he thought that much blame rested with the parents of the boys. It was impossible to learn French by a lesson of two hours a week, and the preparation of one exercise a week. Many of the parents of Eton boys were well-to-do and even wealthy, and it was quite in their power to teach their boys French, and perfect French, before they went to Eton. French might be taught, through a French bonne, without the child knowing he was learning French. He travelled with the late Duke of Hamilton who learnt French and Italian in that way; and wherever they went in those two countries the natives believed him to be one of themselves and no Englishman. If a boy arrived at Eton, having learnt French in that way—not grammatically, but by the ear—he would soon perfect himself as a French scholar. He knew a family, and that not a rich, one, in which four or five children were acquiring French through companionship with a French child. He thought it rested rather with parents than with the Heads of the much abused Schools to teach children a language which he believed it was impossible to learn in a desultory way at a Public School, where so many other things were taught. One evil in connection with Public Schools was the length of the holidays, which took from three to three and a half months out of the year, to the total interruption of tuition during that period. By far the greater number of boys had complete holiday, their minds were allowed to lie fallow, and, if their memories were not unusually retentive, they forgot much of what they had learnt. Under these circumstances, he was compelled to say that many of the

  1473
  sins which were laid at the door of Public Schools ought to be laid at the door of the parents. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had not kindly taken charge of the Bill, he would himself have introduced it into this House.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEhoped that some time would be given for the consideration of the Amendments before the next stage of the Bill was taken.
  LORD EBURYurged the utter impossibility of boys being instructed properly with the amount of tutorial assistance employed at the Public Schools. When thirty or forty boys were intrusted to one teacher they could not make the progress they would if the teachers were more numerous in proportion to the pupils.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, a noble Lord opposite (Lord Lyttelton) had remarked that it would be dangerous to make any Amendments upon the Bill, because they would be refused by the House of Commons. Now, there were some points in the Bill which the Government considered worthy of consideration; and he did not believe that the other House would act in so unusual—not to say so unconstitutional—a manner as to refuse to consider their Lordships' Amendments to a Bill sent up to that House at so late a period of the Session. That seemed to him rather a reason why their Lordships should make alterations. The Bill had been twice fully considered by their Lordships, and had been twice referred to Select Committees; so it might be considered their own Bill; and they had a perfect right to make what Amendments in it they thought proper. He quite agreed that time should be given for the consideration of the Amendments; and he should therefore propose not to take the Committee until Thursday.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 269.)
(The Earl of Kimberley).
BURIALS (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 269.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved that the 4th clause, as amended, be omitted. The clause was designed to apply to certain parish churches recently
  1474
  erected on new sites, the churchyards of which were purchased solely for the use of the persons worshipping in the churches. If that were so the churchyards would be solely for the use of members of the Established Church; and in that case the Bill would not, and ought not, to have any application to them. He was informed, however, that it went further, and that it would apply to certain small graveyards as to which it would result in positive inconvenience to exclude certain persons from being buried in them.
  Moved, to omit Clause 4, as amended.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that no real argument had been advanced against the clause when it was proposed in Committee. He himself considered that the clause was a very fair one. The clause merely declared that any claims for exemption were to be determined by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. The Bill itself only dealt with the performance of the burial service. Particular churchyards would practically be reserved for the Established Church congregations, because persons would not allow their relatives to be buried unless their own burial service was read over them. Their Lordships should not, he thought, be too critical upon the Bill, because it stood upon, and was framed upon, a wrong basis; for the framers of it were in error in thinking that there was any right of burial in the churchyards in question. Any right of sepulture in the parish churchyards was simply a right conferred by Lord Plunket's Act. He thought there was no foundation for the objections urged against the clause.
  LORD CRANWORTHreplied, that whatever might be the foundation of the Bill, the clause, as it stood, had no foundation at all, for it would not enable the Lord Lieutenant to do anything.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMobjected to the Bill generally, holding it to be wholly unnecessary, and calculated, if passed, to prove an element of discord in Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHhad been astounded at the introduction of that Bill—especially at the present most inopportune time. The measure would only increase religious animosities in Ireland, and work most mischievously. It would repeal the necessary precautions provided by Lord Plunket's Act without establishing any substitute for them; and now, when the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Armagh) proposed a most reasonable

  1475
  protective clause, which did not interfere with any private rights, the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) must needs oppose it. That noble Earl, because he happened casually to have once held high Office in Ireland, thought he knew something of that country, and presumed to take charge of all its interests. God forbid that his unfortunate country should ever again fall under that noble Earl's administration
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that persons who came to perform the rites of burial when another burial according to the rites of the Church was proceeding, would be acting illegally, and would be punishable according to the existing law.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would not trouble their Lordships to divide.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, That for the Remainder of the Session the Bill or Bills which are entered for Consideration on the Minutes of the Day shall have the same Precedence which Bills have on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.