Sitting of 28 July 1868

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246].
Report—District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246].
Considered as amended—Poor Relief [186]; District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246].
Third Reading—Poor Relief [186]; District Church Tithes Act Amendment [246], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

UNITED STATES—LIBRARY COMMITTEE OF PHILADELPHIA.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence relative to the recent restoration of certain State Papers to the British Government by the Library Committee of Philadelphia, in the United States of America, and whether any and what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to mark their sense of the liberality of the Library Committee?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, he would be very happy to lay upon the table the Correspondence to which the lion. Member had alluded. A set, as far as published, of the Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Calendars of State Papers, with fac-similes in photozincography of the Domesday Book and other national manuscripts, being in all 156 volumes, uniformly bound, was sent to the Philadelphia Library Committee by the Lords of the Treasury in grateful acknowledgment of the honourable and disinterested feelings which prompted their gift. The Directors have returned thanks to Her Majesty's Government for this munificent donation.
MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table any official acknowledgment of "the discernment and judicious course of action" whereby, as stated by the Master of the Rolls, five valuable volumes of original State Papers, tempore James I., were recovered by Mr. Hepworth Dixon for the benefit of the nation?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had inquired into the subject, but could not find that there had been any Correspondence or communication between Mr. Hepworth Dixon and the Lords of the Treasury with reference to this matter. The remark of the hon. Member was correct that the Master of the Rolls in his; published Report had stated that it was entirely owing to the zealous activity of Mr. Hepworth Dixon that these valuable muniments had been restored to the British nation.

ARMY—WIMBLEDON MEETING.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Corporal Peake, who won the Prize at Wimbledon, but of which he is reported to have been deprived, will be otherwise rewarded; and in the event of a non-regulation wad having been used and contributed to his success, whether that wad will be introduced into the Service?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON,in reply, said, he was unable to answer the Question of the hon. Member. The shooting for the prizes at Wimbledon was carried on under the management of the National Rifle Association, which was a private society, and not in any way connected with the War Office, and therefore he had no official knowledge of what had occurred on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member.

ARMY—MARCH OF TROOPS FROM ALDERSHOT TO SANDHURST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must request permission to answer a Question which had been put to him yesterday by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne), which he was then unable to answer from want of information on the subject. The hon. Member asked him whether it was true that during the march of a flying squadron from Aldershot nine

  1903
  men had been attacked by sunstroke, and upwards of eighty-seven men sent to the hospital in consequence of sickness caused by the intensity of the heat? He had informed the hon. Member yesterday that he had at that time received no information upon the subject, but that he would make it his duty to ascertain what the real facts of the case were. He had that morning received a letter from Sir James Yorke Scarlett, Commander-in-Chief at Aldershot, in which that gallant officer stated his great regret that such exaggerated statements should have found their way into the public newspapers. He held in his hand a telegram which had been received from Aldershot yesterday evening, and sent by Sir James Yorke Scarlett, which stated that during the three days that the flying squadron was on the march only three men were sent into the hospital, that no cases of sunstroke had occurred, and that there was only one slight surgical case. It would be recollected that the heat on the first day of the march was very great, but he was happy to say that all the cases of sickness were of a most trifling character.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had received information that on a late occasion, when the Household Brigade was inspected at Wormwood Scrubs, six men had to be carried off the ground and eight others were sent to the hospital?
  SIR JOHN PAKIGTONsaid, he had received no information upon the subject of the hon. Member's Question. He would make inquiry into the matter, and he trusted that the statement would prove equally unfounded with that to which he had just referred.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 135.]
(Mr. Walpole, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy.)
PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL— [BILL 135.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the Amendments introduced in the House of Lords into this Bill were four in number. By the first of those Amendments the time allowed to the Governing Bodies of the Public Schools as constituted by the Bill for exercising their power of proposing new Governing Bodies was extended from the 1st of January, 1869, to the 1st of May in that year, provision being made for a month's further extension by an Order in Council. To
  1904
  this Amendment he had no objection to offer. The second Amendment empowered the Governing Bodies to found exhibitions to be endowed out of the property of the Schools. To this also he had no objection to offer. The third Amendment, of which he also approved, referred to Westminster School. The House would remember that originally a sum of not less than £3,500, and not more than £4,000, was to be given by the Chapter for the purposes of the School, and certain buildings were to be assigned for its benefit. The Lords had, with the full concurrence of the Chapter and the governing body of the School, altered that provision, in order to make it more effectual. The School might now receive a sum of not less than £4,000, and the difference between the £3,500 and the £4,000 would be capitalized for the benefit of the school during the life-interest of certain persons who have houses to be assigned to the School. The fourth and last of the Amendments altered the number of the Special Commissioners from seven to nine, by adding to the names already agreed upon those of Canon Blakesley and Sir Boundell Palmer. There could be no difference of opinion with respect to the eminent fitness of these two gentlemen for the office; but he might express his conviction that nine was too large a working number; and that, by the addition, the balance of the Commission, both political and professional, would be very materially disturbed. He should move, therefore, that the Lords' Amendments be agreed to, with this exception; and that the fourth Amendment be disagreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the Bill, as far as regarded the number of the Special Commissioners, as it was sent up by them to the House of Lords. He thought that course would be more likely to give general satisfaction.
  Amendments agreed to, as far as the Amendment in page 9, line 4.
  Page 9, line 10, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEadmitted that if it had been desirable to increase the number of the Special Commissioners the names added by the House of Lords would deserve very respectful consideration. But it was from the first thought desirable to limit the Commission to seven Members; and that proposition, after

  1905
  being carefully considered by the Government, had been accepted by the House, and he thought it would be undesirable to disturb it, even by adding to the Commission two such distinguished names as those which had been proposed. He therefore thought they had better adhere to the arrangement made by the Select Committee, and in that view his Colleagues agreed. He moved that the House should disagree with the Lords' Amendment, which proposed to add to the Commission.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with The Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote). It must have been a strong sentiment which had influenced the other House in the matter. He could not believe that the two additional Members added to the Commission by the House of Lords would render the number of Commissioners excessive; and the two names which had been chosen were those of men of distinguished eminence. Probably among the whole of the graduates of Cambridge University there was not one more thoroughly qualified to deal with questions of the nature referred to the Commission than Canon Blakesley, or who by his attainments occupied a more conspicuous position in the world of science. It would, he believed, be a serious loss to the public service, and a great disadvantage to the Public Schools themselves, if they had not upon the Commission the benefit of Canon Blakesley's services. The reason why his name, which had been originally on the list, was struck off, was because St. Paul's School, of which he was an almoner, having been exempted from the operation of the Commission, it was supposed that his name, as representing the School, ought no longer to be retained. That, however, was a great mistake, for it was not in any such representative capacity that he had been originally chosen; and the House of Lords, by a great majority, restored the name, in conjunction with that of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer). Having himself been first to a Public School and afterwards to Cambridge, he was in a position to speak confidently as to the reputation of Canon Blakesley, and the esteem in which his attainments were held. He (Mr. Bouverie) should divide the House upon the Motion.
  MR. POWELL,as a Member of the Select Committee, denied that Canon Blakesley's name had been omitted because St. Paul's School had first been removed from the list. There were other considerations, by no means disrespectful to Canon Blakesley, but arising from the desire to have a well-balanced Commission, which should fairly represent the different views entertained with reference to education, without giving a preponderance to any. He was quite certain that, as at present constituted, advanced views would have great power in the Commission.
  MR. NEWDEGATE,as an Oxford man, thought that the addition of the name of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) to the Commission would give increased confidence in the operation of that body to those who were connected with the University of Oxford and to many Members of this House. He therefore trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not persevere in their opposition to the Amendment. That opposition had the appearance of a party opposition, and there was no reason whatever for differing from the House of Lords in the matter. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered the distinguished part which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond took in the discussions on the Oxford University Bill, and the great majority of Oxford men felt very grateful to him for the part he took upon that discussion. They found in the hon. and learned Member a person imbued with the spirit of industry, and in every way competent by attainments and ability to deal with the subject of the regulation of the University to which he belonged. As a man who had been to these Public Schools, and as connected with the Governing Body of one of them, he (Mr. Newdegate) most emphatically asserted that there would be greater confidence placed in the constitution of the Commission, and that its operations would carry greater weight if the name of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was, according to the recommendation of the House of Lords, retained on the Commission. Although the Commission was, of course, nominated by the Government, it was to be a Parliamentary Commission with enormous powers conferred upon it by Parliament. Now, Parliament consisted of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, and he believed that

  1907
  if the House of Lords exercised their undoubted privilege of suggesting two additional men to whom individually no possible objection could be taken, it would be a graceless act for this House to object to that addition. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond was eminently qualified for the work, and he stood as high among Members of this House as he stood in the profession to which he was so distinguished an ornament.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he thought it only reasonable that in this particular instance the House of Lords should have a voice. They had treated with the greatest tenderness the recommendations of the House of Commons; they had not displaced a single one of the seven names which were inserted, but had added the names of two other extremely eminent men, which they felt would add weight to the Commission. A Commission of nine members would only differ from a Commission of seven in the greater knowledge, experience, and inquiring power which it would possess. It would be a most ungracious act to press for the omission of these names. Canon Blakesley, whom he had known for a great many years, was one of the most able and universally well-informed of all the tutors at Trinity College, Cambridge, and so scrupulous was he in his desire to act impartially as a Commissioner that during the two years in which he had now been designated as a Commissioner, he had purposely abstained from taking an active part in the discussion of educational subjects in public, which he would otherwise have been anxious to do. The hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was also admirably qualified for being placed upon the Commission.
  MR. NEATEalso thought the addition of the name of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) would be very desirable, as his legal authority would add great weight to the Commission, while his long experience as Attorney General would enable him to moderate between the extreme elements upon the Commission.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that if the Commission was now a well-balanced one it would not be advisable to interfere with it by the addition of names, however distinguished, if the effect of so doing would be to destroy the balance of opinion. He should vote with the Secretary of State for India.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 18: Majority 10.
  Other Amendments disagreed to.
  Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed:"—Sir STAFFORD NORTRCOTE, Mr. WALPOLE, Lord ROBERT MONTAGU, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, Mr. NOEL, and Mr. WHITMORE:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

POOR RELIEF BILL.—(Lords.)— [BILL 186.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. NEATE MR. NEATE moved the insertion of a new clause, (Greater uniformity in treatment of casual poor). The hon. and learned Member observed that there was a competition of cruelty on the part of the different unions. They were constantly inquiring what was the maximum of labour, and what was the minimum of accommodation for the casual poor. The result was, the treatment of that class of paupers sank in some cases below the level of humanity. He believed the Poor Law Board intended to issue a Circular to the various unions with the view of having a uniform system. He was in favour of uniformity as among the unions; but he thought the principle of uniformity, as to the treatment of all persons coming under the denomination of "casual poor" had been carried too far already. It was true that very many of those persons adopted a vagrant life voluntarily; but there was a large minority of the casual poor who were in that wretched condition from no fault of their own. Magistrates, in many cases, told prisoners who were brought before them as vagrants that "if they would take themselves off to some other districts they might be discharged at once." But this was altogether foreign to the purpose for which they were appointed, and it would be attended with good results if the Home Secretary were now and then to remind magistrates so acting that they sat not as protectors of the rates, but as administrators of the law. A distinction ought to be drawn between mere vagrants and persons temporarily destitute. Mere vagrants ought never to be sent to the workhouse, for they knew perfectly well that the only courses of living which they followed were beggary or robbery, with now and then a mixture of the two. It would be very desirable if

  1909
  some statement were given to the House of the intention of the Poor Law Board with reference to this subject, which deserved, if time allowed it, a much fuller discussion.
  Clause (Greater uniformity in treatment of casual poor,)—(Mr. Neate,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexpressed regret that his hon. and learned Friend, in accordance with the Notice which had been given, had not brought forward this subject at an earlier period of the Session, when it might have received that careful consideration which its importance demanded. The first portion of the clause related to the issuing of orders prescribing the time and conditions of the admission of casual poor into the workhouse; and the second enacted that vagrants should be detained in the workhouse a certain specified time after their admission. He doubted the wisdom of the latter provision because it would naturally occur that vagrants would avoid the workhouse, seeing they were liable to be detained. The visiting of the casual poor by one or more Guardians was a thing which he considered would be impossible to carry out. So much for the clause. Then came the question as to what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the order proposed to be issued? In reply, he had to say that the Poor Law Board were fully conscious of the need of uniformity in dealing with this matter. It was obvious that no system which endeavoured to separate the really deserving poor from the vagrants would be successful unless uniformity were had recourse to. Vagrancy had increased very considerably all over the country within the last two years, owing, doubtless, to the financial crisis and the consequent absence of employment. But in the metropolis, where a novel system of dealing with vagrants had been adopted, it was found that the proportion of vagrants in London in January, 1868, had only increased by 11½ per cent over the number in January, 1866, whereas throughout the rest of the country the increase of vagrants was no less than 50 per cent. That clearly proved that the practice in London was better than the practice in the rest of the country, and accordingly the Poor Law
  1910
  Board had it in contemplation by a General Order to extend the system which had already been found so beneficial in practice. It would be required, for instance, that Guardians should take the responsibility of a sound and vigilant discrimination between deserving travellers in search of work and professional vagrants not really destitute, by the appointment of officers capable of exercising such discrimination; and that where practicable the police should be appointed assistant relieving officers. Another provision would be that a proper search should be instituted, to secure that persons applying for relief should have no means of obtaining lodging or food in any other way. A book of descriptions would also be kept, in which the persons of the vagrants, together with their line of travel, would be described. Again, it was very desirable that uniformity should be secured, at least between neighbouring unions, in the diet and lodging of vagrants, and also in the task of work which they would have to do in return for their lodging and food; and some provision might well be made under this head for increasing their task of work in the case of continued applications for relief by habitual tramps. With regard to the accommodation of tramps, it would be very desirable that baths should be provided in all cases, and that each person should have a separate or divided bed place. The forthcoming Order would likewise suggest in cases where it might be practicable that the accommodation for deserving travellers should be different from that given to professional vagrants. He trusted that the provisions of the Order, as he had sketched them out, would be satisfactory to the House, and would be productive of beneficial effects in checking vagrancy; at all events, the attempt was well worth making. In another respect also it might be found possible to assimilate the practice in rural districts to that which obtained in the metropolis. In the country the expense of maintaining vagrants was sustained by the unions separately, while in London it was thrown on the common fund. And there was a reason for putting this charge upon the common fund which did not hold good in other cases, that with regard to vagrants that knowledge of local circumstances, which was the safeguard of local administration, did not apply. Vagrants were generally the poor of the country, and not of any particular union, and, looking at

  1911
  the matter in that light, it might be a subject for future consideration whether, by analogy to the common fund in the metropolis, the charges for vagrants might not be thrown upon the county rates. It might also be matter for consideration on some future occcasion whether the care and custody of vagrants might not be put entirely into the hands of the police. However, nothing of this kind was proposed to be done by the Order which was shortly to be issued, and he merely mentioned these points for the information of hon. Members. There was one thing which would do even more to check vagrancy than any improvement, however meritorious, in local administration, and that was, if some means could be devised of checking the mistaken bestowal of alms by the charitable public. When the public came to understand that persons really in want of relief could obtain it either from the poor or from the county rates, they would be less disposed, he hoped, to bestow mistaken charity than they were at present. But as long as the indiscriminate bestowal of alms to anybody who asked; for them continued—and it was always easier to give than to refuse—vagrancy; must continue to flourish in this country.
  MR. HENLEYconsidered the subject dealt with by the clause before the House one of the gravest importance. He was very glad that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) was not going to press his Motion, because lie did not think it went to the root of the question. This matter of vagrancy would, in his opinion, never be ameliorated unless they treated casual poor as they treated all other classes of poor. The present system was really nothing more than a system of shifts and contrivances in order to throw the burden of maintaining vagrants off the shoulders of one parish upon another, Instead of meeting the evil, or attempting to face it, we strove to shift these vagrants from one place to another at the least possible expense and inconvenience. Thus we had some 50,000 people constantly circulating all round the country, and proving just as great a burden to the ratepayers as they would be if settled in one place, and had the means afforded them of living decently, instead of being, as they were, a curse to the whole body politic. Unless the question were looked upon in this large view, they would never be successful in abating this great pest to society. The present system reminded him of hunting
  1912
  crows from one field in order to let them settle down upon another. The evil would never be abated unless they grappled with it boldly and in a large comprehensive manner.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read the third time.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will not think me unreasonable if I move at this stage of the Bill that Clause 3 be struck out. I shall also have to object to clauses from 6 to 12 inclusive, which are connected with Clause 3 in substance; but the clause to which I now object is the 3rd. By that clause the Poor Law Board is enabled, after giving notice to the Guardians, to appoint what officers it may think fit in any or each union of this country, and to direct what salaries shall be paid to these officers out of the rates, thereby acquiring a power totally to supersede every Board of Guardians in the country with reference to the appointment of officers and the payment of these officers out of the rates, which each Board of Guardians is bound to collect. This, Sir, is a very decided step towards the establishment of a centralized power; and I further find that it is understood in the House that this step is taken with the immediate view of appointing chaplains of other denominations than the Church of England, and among these Roman Catholic priests as chaplains. We have had some discussion upon this clause, and a division. This clause is mixed up with miscellaneous clauses in this Bill, but taken in connection with the clauses from 6 to 12, inclusive, it constitutes a separate portion of the Bill; this is understood and acknowledged. I wish, then, to show the House the sort of sense in which these provisions,; when taken together, are understood by the conductors of some of the Roman Catholic papers. Last Saturday there appeared an article on the subject of these clauses in The Weekly Register, a well known Ultramontane Roman Catholic paper, and I will take the liberty of reading the concluding portion of that article to the House, in order to warn the House and to warn the country of the sort of operations that the conductors of this newspaper expect the clauses, to which I have alluded, will have, when the power they confer is enforced by the Poor Law

  1913
  Board. This is the conclusion of the article—
  "As the Bill has already passed the House of Lords, it will be law in a day or two, and the Marylebone, Pancras, and Chelsea Boards of Guardians will have lost their proselytizing power, and be compelled to carry the Poor Law into effect, in accordance with the enlightened and generous views of the Whig and Tory Governments, and of the two great parties in Parliament. We promise these low-bred, discomfited bigots that they may calculate upon a rigid surveillance of their future conduct, and upon the adoption of energetic measures to force them to do their duty, however sorely it may go against their grain,"
  Now, Sir, no one can read this paragraph, which is strictly in accordance with the tenour of the whole article, without seeing that the conductors of this newspaper—which is a very influential Roman Catholic organ, advocating Ultramontane principles—consider that these clauses in the Bill are virtually penal upon the Guardians of the unions to which they allude—nay, more, virtually penal upon the Guardians of the unions throughout the whole country. It is obvious, Sir, that a law is not less a law because it passes this House, when there are not above 100 Members remaining in town to attend our Sittings than if it had passed in a House of 500 Members; and my conviction is that these clauses would not have passed unless the House had been in the feeble condition in which it is usually found during the dog days. These clauses will, nevertheless, have the force of law. There were but two Amendments made on these clauses. Both of them were made last night. The first Amendment was to this effect—whereas, the 10th clause stood so that every adult pauper, every adult inmate of a union-house, would be compelled, whether he or she liked it, or whether they disliked it, to receive the visitation of a minister of the particular denomination, to which such pauper inmate was entered on the Creed Register, as belonging. The House was last night merciful enough to decide, that, if after once receiving the visitation of such minister or priest, any pauper objected to a renewal of the visitation, he should not be compelled again to submit to it. We had a division upon that point, in which those Members, who have been the most active promoters of these clauses voted against this Amendment; for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. P. Villiers) proposed an Amendment upon that Amendment—whereby he would have
  1914
  again interposed the authority of the Poor Law Board, that of the central authority—to control the freedom, the discretion given in this Amendment, to the unhappy pauper as to whether he would continue to receive or would decline the ministration of the priest or minister of the denomination to which he is under the Bill to be registered as belonging. This Amendment was rejected, but the Amendment which the House has adopted goes only to this—There is no power in the man to alter the description of the religion to which he is held to belong in the Register, the entry being made in the first instance when he comes into the union-house; but he may object to receive the ministrations of the individual minister or priest after he has been once visited by him. Now, I say that this exception which we introduced last night in favour of the religious freedom of the individual, small as it is, un-mistakeably proves the stringent character of the whole measure. But there was another Amendment made last night, and it is still more remarkable. When the title of the Bill was read the learned Lord Advocate—and the Lord Advocate is always held to be the Minister for Scotland in this House—moved, that the title of the Bill should be altered so as to mark clearly that the operation of the Bill is limited to England and Wales. As a good Scotchman, the Lord Advocate has taken care to exclude his own country from the operation of the measure. Sir, it is a well-known fact that the policy of the Ultramontane party, in this and every country, where the State is not Roman Catholic, is to secularize the State; to divorce the State from all connection with any religion as its own. The operation of these clauses will be to constitute the Poor Law Board, which is a secular Board, but which, as has been over and over again stated in the course of the debates on this Bill, is at present subject to, and acting under, Ultramontane influences—[" No, no! "]—I say that has been over and over again stated, and that no one has denied it in debate. The operation of these clauses is, I repeat, to constitute that secular Board the supreme judge of the religion of the inmates of those workhouses; the supreme judge of the religion in which the children in those workhouses shall be brought up; the sole arbiter as to which of the various religious denominations in this country the religious teaching of deserted children shall be committed. Take then this Bill,

  1915
  as exemplified by these clauses, and it is clear that the central power of the Poor Law Board is to over-ride the Guardians of every union in the country with respect to the appointment of officers and the allotment of salaries to those officers. A Creed Register is for the first time established as a public document; not as a document in the manner it has hitherto existed, for the information of the Guardians only, and for their guidance, but as a public document open to the ministers of every denomination in order that they may claim the inmates of those workhouses according to the description of their religion in the Creed Register as their peculiar property. I have described the Amendment by which there is to be a partial mitigation of this system in the case of individual adults; but as the Bill now stands, under the operation of these clauses, when once a man, or a child, whether a boy or a girl, is entered upon the Register, as belonging to a particular denomination, he is the property, the religious property of the minister of that denomination who may undertake to visit the workhouse; the minister of whose chapel is nearest the workhouse having the preference in claiming or asserting this property in the pauper inmates or children of his denomination. Now, Sir, these provisions have been proposed in two Parliaments and in several Sessions; but never until this House was in its present debilitated condition have those provisions received the assent of the House. They are of a most stringent character, and I wish to take this opportunity of making known to the whole body of Guardians throughout the country the nature and extent of the power which these clauses give to the central authority, the Poor Law Board, over them. I wish to inform them that in the opinion of the Ultramontane journal, which I have quoted, this power is to be exercised in the sense of being a penal power. I wish to inform them of the kind of regulation and coercion to which these clauses will subject them. And I wish to do so particularly before this present Parliament is dissolved. For if the Ultramontane organ, to which I have referred is correct in its assertions, there is a coalition between the Leaders of the two great parties in this House for the purpose of thus crippling, incapacitating, and coercing the local administrations of this country in all matters connected with the religious teaching, not
  1916
  only of the adults, but of the children in every union workhouse or union-house throughout this country. Sir, it is my belief that the allegation of proselytism, which this Ultramontane newspaper adduces against the Guardians, is if not altogether unfounded, to say the least grossly exaggerated; and, let it be remembered, that this allegation comes from an Ultramontane newspaper, the organ of the men, who are themselves the most unscrupulous of proselytizers. This allegation is, I believe, a mere attempt to conceal or to excuse the extension of this central power of the Poor Law Board over the administration of the Poor Law in matters, which enter more deeply into the social condition of the people than any others. No Parliament has hitherto permitted this central authority to reach to such an extent. Sir, we are told that we are in the midst of a crisis. So we are. It is said to be a crisis for the Irish Church. So it may be. But the crisis that we are passing through is, in my opinion, a constitutional crisis. The attempt is to secularize the State, whilst its central power, as secular, is increased over matters connected with religion. All this tends to the establishment of a far less free and a much more coercive system of government than that under which we have hitherto lived. Seeing, therefore, that the bearings of the clauses are of the most important description, that they touch the constitutional system of this country, that they invade the great principle of religious freedom, and the system of local self-government and local administration, I have thought that it would be inconsistent with my duty, as there has been no general discussion on the main provisions and purport of this Bill, and as these clauses form the most operative and characteristic portion of the measure; for these reasons I think it inconsistent with my duty, to those I represent, and to the Guardians of the poor generally, not to take this opportunity of informing them of the stringency of this measure, and of the opinion of its future operation which is entertained by those who have been and are the chief promoters of this Bill,
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed, with Amendments.

DISTRICT CHURCH TITHES ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 246.]

  [Lords.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee (according to Order).
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Sect. 9 of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 42 repealed).
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the effect of the Bill would he to divide the clergy of the Church of England into two classes—rectors and vicars. Under the Church Building Acts a great variety of designations had been bestowed upon different bodies of the clergy, who were styled incumbents, perpetual curates, and so forth. This was found to be a great inconvenience, which the present Bill was intended to remove. There was, however, already in operation a clause of an Act of Parliament under which if a portion of the tithes were given to an incumbent he could, with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, be declared a rector or a vicar as the case might be. The 2nd clause of the present measure fully provided for the division of the clergy into the two classes of rectors and vicars, and he should therefore move the omission of the 1st clause.
  MR. MONKregarded this as a most extraordinary attempt at legislation. His right hon. Friend who had moved the omission of the 1st clause seemed particularly anxious to undo all that had been done by the House of Lords. When the Bill was introduced into that House it consisted of a single clause, which was the second in the Bill as it now stood. The fact was that a compromise was come to. His right hon. Friend had not at all clearly explained the object of the 1st clause. Under the 9th section of the Act of 28 & 29 Vict. a clergyman who purchased even an infinitesimal amount of tithes might, with the assistance of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, become a rector. Indeed, he was credibly informed that a case had arisen in which the Commissioners were required to convert into a rector a perpetual curate who had purchased tithes which returned him an annual income of something under 2d.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he thought the duty of the House clearly was to consider the Bill on its merits with regard to what had been said in "another place." He
  1918
  should, this being so, support the Motion for the omission of the clause.
  Motion negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

WEST INDIES BILL— [BILL 124.]
(Mr. Adderley, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
WEST INDIES BILL— [BILL 124.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENT. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [27th July] proposed to be made to the Amendment made by The Lords to the West Indies Bill; and which Amendment was,
  To leave out the words "as such coadjutor, continue to act in the same manner as at present as Archdeacon of Middlesex," in order to insert the words "and exercises episcopal functions therein, continue to receive out of the Consolidated Fund the annual payment of two thousand pounds which has been hitherto made to him in part by the Bishop of Jamaica out of the stipend of three thousand pounds paid to the said Bishop from the Consolidated Fund under the before recited Acts, and in part out of the stipend appropriated to his Archdeaconry of Middlesex out of the Consolidated Fund, under the said Acts: Provided, That during his receipt of such annual payment no payment shall be made to him out of the Consolidated Fund in respect of the Archdeaconry of Middlesex,"—(Mr. Russell Gurney,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of The Lords' Amendment."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would support him in objecting to a proposal which, if adopted, would form a very bad precedent. The House was asked to make a new grant out of the Consolidated Fund by way of Amendment to an Amendment of the other House without any Resolution having been come to on the subject by the House in Committee. The clause, if amended as proposed, would give to the Bishop of Kingston £800 as his own salary and £1,200 from the Consolidated Fund as agent of the Bishop of Jamaica, so that the proposal actually suggested the appropriation of £1,200 out of the Consolidated Fund. The Act under which the payments were to be made was the 5 & 6 Vict., which empowered Her Majesty to devote such sums from the Consolidated Fund as she deemed necessary to carry out any arrangement which might

  1919
  be come to for the spiritual welfare of the people of Jamaica. It appeared to be a new charge upon the Consolidated Fund for the benefit of a particular individual, and such a charge ought not to be created except in Committee. The proposition ought not, he believed, now to be made, and he trusted, therefore, that the Lords' Amendment, which was a very harmless one, would be agreed to. It was harmless because it could never come into operation, and he hoped, therefore, that the House, out of compliment to the other branch of the Legislature, would agree to the Amendment as sent down.
  MR. GILPINsaid, he hoped the time would soon come, and he should see it, when the question of Bishops' salaries would occupy as little time in that House as the payment of salaries to Dissenting ministers and of funds for the erection of chapels. With regard to the question now before the House, he should vote against the proposed alteration of the Lords' Amendment, for the reason that if it did not actually create a new charge upon the Consolidated Fund, it would create a charge for an additional life.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that by the patent under which his appointment was made the Bishop of Kingston was not merely appointed coadjutor to the Bishop of Jamaica. For his duties as coadjutor to the Bishop of Jamaica he received £1,200 a year out of the salary of the Bishop of Jamaica, in addition to the sum of £400, formerly £800, which he received as the Archdeacon of Middlesex. But he was also empowered on the death of the Bishop of Jamaica to perform the episcopal duties of that See until a successor had been appointed, consecrated, and had arrived in the diocese. The whole object of the Amendment now proposed was that the Bishop of Kingston should, in such an event, receive the same emoluments as were now given to the Archdeacon of Middlesex. He could see no objection to this proposal, and should therefore support it.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Russell Gurney) proposed to strike out part of the Lords' Amendment by which a pecuniary saving would be effected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman purposed to strike out that part of the Amendment which conveyed the intention of the other House, and to put in something entirely different in its nature, and not
  1920
  in any way connected with the subject of the Lords' Amendment; and he desired to know, whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House to take advantage of the technical fact that an Amendment had been made by the other House to insert a fresh provision which could by no possibility have any connection with that Amendment?
  MR. AYTOUNsubmitted that they had no power to do what was proposed by the Amendment. Power was given to grant a salary out of the Consolidated Fund to some person holding a particular office and provided for under the Act of Parliament; but was it competent to them to transfer the salary to some totally different office?
  MR. SPEAKER: A Question was put to me on this point last night, and I made answer to it that it appears to me, so far as the privileges of the House are concerned, the question turns upon whether there is any new charge upon the Consolidated Fund, and while the Bill proposes to relieve the Consolidated Fund of £20,000 this Amendment would relieve it of £ 18,000 only. The question of the merits of the Bill is a matter for the consideration of the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) has asked me whether in point of form this Amendment can be put? The question is whether it is relevant, and it appears to me that it is relevant to the Amendment of the Lords. I do not mean to say it is not a somewhat complicated question. I adhere to the substance of the opinion I gave last night that, as there is no new charge upon the Consolidated Fund, therefore I think it is a matter more to be decided by the House on its merits than by any opinion from the Chair.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 29: Majority 1.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Colonial Governors Tensions Act Amendment * (239).
Committee—Inland Revenue * (279); Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (287); Danube Works Loan * (272); Saint Mary Somerset's Church, London. * (278).
Report—Inland Revenue * (279); Election Petitions and Corrupt Practices at Elections (287); Danube Works Loan * (272); Saint Mary Somerset's Church, London, * (278).
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *; Colonial Shipping * (274); Turnpike. Acts Continuance * (253); Electric Telegraphs (282); Expiring Laws Continuance * (280); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 4) * (273); Poor Lair Board Provisional Order Confirmation * (266); Registration (Ireland) (28l), and passed.

ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
ELECTION PETITIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.

  (NO. 287.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that the question dealt with by this Bill was one of such importance that, notwithstanding the late period of the Session at which it had come up to their Lordships, he wished to trespass upon their attention for a few minutes while he expressed his opinion upon it. He thought that the transfer of the jurisdiction of the House of Commons in deciding upon election cases to the Judges was a very serious matter, and ought not to have been done without the gravest consideration. If, indeed, he could believe that the transfer would lead to the repression of bribery at elections, he should be inclined to waive his objections; but, he must say, he did not anticipate that such would be the result. The transfer of jurisdiction he regarded as in itself an evil, and it was certainly a great change in our Constitution; for although the Grenville Act and subsequent Acts had transferred the jurisdiction from the whole body of the House to five Members of it, the power had virtually jested, up to the present moment, with the House of Commons. But it was now, for the first time, to be taken away altogether. It seemed to him a grave constitutional question, whether the House of Commons should part with this tribunal. Another evil of the transfer was that there would not be henceforth the same opportunity for that exercise of business habits which
  1890
  made the House of Commons something more than a mere debating society. If both Election Petitions and Private Bill legislation were taken away from them, the functions of Members of the House of Commons would be materially curtailed. This would not have mattered so much, if the House of Commons had retained ultimate decision over these matters; but their whole powers were transferred to the Judges, and nothing kept back. He did not believe the Bill now under discussion would be a remedy for electoral corruption, for the evil, he feared, was too deep-seated to be removed by this measure. He was sorry, too, to find that a great deficiency of the present system had not been supplied—he referred to the want of motive power. Only electors would be able to initiate proceedings, and the consequence would be that in the very boroughs where there had been the greatest corruption, and where both parties had been engaged in and had profited by it, no Petitions would be presented. It was notorious that the worst cases were those in which, both parties being afraid of the consequences, no Petitions were presented. Now what was wanted was that any persons, whether electors or not, should be competent to bring forward cases, or else that a public prosecutor should be appointed. The matter ought not to be left to the electors, because the most flagrant cases would then he hushed up. The consequence would be that the Bill would altogether fail to put an end to bribery and corruption. Another point deserving of consideration was that legislation was of little use, unless it was supported by public opinion, which was not the fact in the present case. What instance was there of a man engaged in bribery having been on that account discredited in society, or having any moral stigma attached to him? So far from this, he had known cases of men who had been guilty of bribery becoming Cabinet Ministers, and filling the highest offices in the State. Without a healthy public opinion the provisions of this Bill would be of little effect. He believed, indeed, that election agents throughout the country were putting their heads together, and were already coming to the conclusion that corrupt practices would go on much as before, notwithstanding the coming down of a Judge to institute an inquiry on the spot. He was sorry that some provisions which would have been very beneficial had been rejected by the House of Commons.

  1891
  One of these was that election expenses, or at least a moiety of them, should be charged on the rates. That was an excellent proposition, and he regretted that after having been inserted in the Bill it was ultimately struck out. He would say nothing of what passed in the other House on the subject, as he wished to avoid anything offensive, but he much regretted the absence of that clause. He also regretted that an end had not been put to canvassing agents, and, indeed, to canvassing altogether, for if bribery was to be put clown some strong step of this hind must be taken. He approved the clause disqualifying any person who had been guilty of bribery from sitting in Parliament for seven years. He was not so sure, however, that the disqualification should be extended to disqualification for the magistracy, and unless there was to be an Address to the Crown to remove persons guilty of bribery from the commission of the peace he did not see how this provision was to operate. A proposal had been brought forward that Members should make a declaration that they had not been guilty of corrupt practices; but under the circumstances he was glad that it had been rejected. Its operation would probably have been just as nugatory as the property qualification used to be, for it was notorious that Members possessed of some pretended qualification did not scruple to go up to the table of the House of Commons and make the declaration. The declaration against bribery might in the same way have become a mere farce, and he was therefore glad that it had been rejected; but the way in which it was generally recoiled from was a proof that no public opinion existed which would back legislation, and so put an end to bribery. Another question was that of travelling expenses. There was no more frequent form of bribery than the paying voters a larger sum than they had actually disbursed; yet the Bill contained nothing to check this. The municipal Elections were another source of bribery. When the Municipal Reform Act was passed apprehensions were expressed on this point, and it was notorious that bribery prevailed at these elections. This, he feared, would continue to be the case; and indeed bribery might be practised at municipal Elections with a view to influencing Parliamentary Elections. He regretted, therefore, that the Bill did not attempt to deal with the former. There was one remedy for bribery,
  1892
  the ballot; but that was so objectionable in other respects that he, for one, could not support it. At the same time he believed it to be the only effectual check. Again, in this Bill there was a want of definitions. In the 1st clause, indeed, there was a definition of "corrupt practices;" and what were they? They were bribery, treating, and undue influence. In an after-part of the Bill they were told that a Commission was to be issued to inquire into corrupt practices. But was a Commission to be issued to inquire into treating, and, if so, what was the amount of treating to be inquired into? Again, what was undue influence? Would anyone give him a definition of it? He could not conceive anything more difficult. Then there was bribery by custom, as, for instance, if a candidate employed tradesmen in a town—if he employed the butcher, the shoemaker, and the grocer; but, in that case, how could the Bill reach him? And yet bribery in that shape was quite as foul as in any other. He felt that bribery could only be put an end to by creating a public opinion against it; but it might be very much checked in the way he had indicated. He believed that candidates were more in fault than any other persons, and that if they chose really to set their faces against bribery they might do much to put an end to it. He was perfectly willing to admit that it did Her Majesty's Government great credit to have made this attempt to put down bribery, and he had not the slightest intention of opposing the Bill. But he thought that some measure was wanting to bring this offence before the Judges otherwise than through the electors, who were persons very much interested, and who would be under the apprehension of being disfranchised themselves or getting their borough disfranchised. The consequence would be that many cases of bribery most gross and lamentable would never come under the cognizance of the Judges; and in this way the Act would become inoperative.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought that the conclusion which would naturally be drawn from the noble Lord's speech was that he would vote against the Bill, because he considered that no legislation whatever would be of any use—he seemed to consider that the vices of human nature were so inherent and impossible to correct that all attempts to legislate on the subject would be thrown away. That might be the case; but at all events Her Ma-

  1893
  jesty's Government had thought it their duty to try a new course of legislation with regard to bribery when all other courses had failed. As to the privileges of the House of Commons, there could be no doubt that House had fully considered the matter during the period—some months—while the matter was before them. The noble Lord had said that he had no hope from the proposed tribunal, the highest in this or perhaps in any other country, the most respectable, and the most incorruptible. He differed entirely from the noble Lord. Let their Lordships only consider what was the state of opinion out-of-doors about the Committees of the House of Commons in trying Election Petitions. What was the first question asked when a man had got a Committee to try his Petition? It was this—" How is the Committee formed? Is it a good one or a bad one?" Questions of that kind were debated in the most open manner; and what did all that show? Not that the Members of the House of Commons were not capable of giving the best decision in the case, but that public opinion did not respect the tribunal and used to speak of the Committees in the offensive manner he had described. Assuredly, then, it was time to send Election Petitions to be tried before a tribunal which could not possibly be suspected. The noble Lord had said that more ought to be done with a view to encourage the presentation of Petitions. Now he very much doubted the necessity of such a course. By the new Reform Bill the number of electors would be very much multiplied; and almost every man in a borough—at all events almost every man of respectability—and every householder would be an elector, and everyone would have it in his power, on certain conditions, to challenge the election. He thought it very likely that the beaten party would have among its members plenty of persons with zeal enough to challenge the election when needful without the intervention of a public prosecutor. Then the noble Lord had said something about the ballot—that, though he would not vote for it himself, it would be a security against corruption. He differed altogether from the noble Lord. Their Lordships must have heard how the ballot was managed in other countries, how agents were engaged, how they organized bodies of voters, and told them that if Mr. So-and-So came in they would have so much to be divided among them—the candidate would make a conditional promise
  1894
  to the agent and the agent to the voter. This was only a temporary measure; it was only to be passed practically for four years; their Lordships would have an opportunity of seeing how it would work, and of judging of the results.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 23, inclusive,agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Shorthand Writer to attend Trial of Election Petitions).
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, this clause required that the proceedings of these election trials should be taken down by the Shorthand Writers of the House of Commons. He thought that it had better be left to the shorthand writers who usually attended the Courts; but he would not press the Amendments of which he had given notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought his noble and learned Friend had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing his Amendment. Admitting the respectability and talent of many of the shorthand writers who had signed the petition, he thought that, even if this were a permanent and not merely a temporary measure, there would be several things to be considered before the House would accede to the prayer of their petition. For instance, on the ground of economy alone, it was certainly a very grave question whether it would be wise to do anything which might have the effect of crippling the existing staff of shorthand writers, under the management of the Messrs. Gurney, who were found to perform the duties satisfactorily. But whether wise or unwise in that point of view—and he (the Lord Chancellor) thought it would be unwise—there could be no doubt that any alteration of this clause would come with a very bad grace from their Lordships. The House of Commons was, by this Bill, giving up its jurisdiction over the trial of Election Petitions—a jurisdiction which it had hitherto clung to with great jealousy—and in doing so it had expressed the wish that the record of the proceedings of the new tribunals should be taken down in shorthand by certain officers, of whose efficient discharge of similar duties it had had experience, and in whom it placed entire confidence. This was, he was sure, not a matter in which their Lordships would for a moment think of interfering with the Bill as it had passed the other House.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.
(The Duke of Montrose.)
ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS BILL.

  (NO. 282.) THIRD READING.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE,in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, that in reference to what had been said on a previous occasion with respect to the expediency of giving powers to make use of the railway wires in certain cases, he desired to explain that the Bill contained a clause empowering the Postmaster General to require the railways to carry on through their wires any business which might be necessary for the convenience of the public. The railway companies wished to have independent wires for their own purposes, but they were willing to act for the Post Office in cases where there might not happen to be a convenient telegraph office or local post office.
  Bill read 3a.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had an Amendment to move in that part of the Bill which provided for the distribution of money by the directors of the telegraph companies in recognition of special services. This clause put into the hands of directors and officers the power of voting money to themselves without much control, and he thought it would be only reasonable that the arbitrator named in the Bill should determine whether the sum was reasonable or not. He, therefore, moved to insert the words, "any sums so voted having been approved of as fair by the arbitrator hereinafter named."
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSEsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, because, if it were adopted, the Bill must go back to the Commons, and delay would thus be occasioned. The fact was that in the case for which the noble Lord wished to provide the shareholders must take care of themselves; and he should hope that, after the notice taken of the subject by the noble Lord, shareholders would be sufficiently alive to prevent any job of that sort. The arbitrator was really not the proper person to settle such a point as this; he was merely to fix the sum to be paid by the Government to these companies, and was not to decide between the directors and the shareholders.
  Amendment negatived.
  Bill passed.

  BABY FARMING.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he desired to ask the Lord President of the Council a Question on a subject which had obtained much notoriety, in a great measure through the efforts of The British Medical Journal, the conductors of which had incurred considerable trouble and expense in searching into this abominable system. The system might be divided into two parts. One, and a comparatively legitimate part, was the baby nursing where infants were placed out to nurse by persons who really looked after them to some extent; the other part was the baby farming, where infants were put out for the sole purpose of being got rid of altogether, or of never being heard of again by the parents. To the class of persons who made this a trade belonged Mrs. Winsor, who escaped from punishment by a strange technicality in the law; and there was every reason to believe that these Mrs. Winsors were numerous, and were carrying on a large trade in many parts of the kingdom. Such a state of things had excited, very naturally, much terror. What, it was asked, could be the state of our laws when they were found so ineffectual as to be totally unable to put down such practices? On the other hand there were persons who relied on the known inefficiency of the law to enter on a career of crime, and the knowledge that this crime existed and was not suppressed produced the worst effect, for it familiarized the public in the most frightful manner with the perpetration of crime, and taught them that it was not to be reached by the law. Under these circumstances he begged to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the System of Baby Farming; and, if so, whether they intend to institute any Inquiry into the subject?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, that owing to the Notice of this Question which had been given by his noble Friend, he had caused some inquiries to be made into the subject. Unfortunately it was too true that a system of what was called baby farming existed, under which the grossest crimes might be committed. His noble Friend had asked whether the Government intended to institute any inquiry into the subject? but probably the object which his noble Friend had in view might be somewhat defeated if the Government were to institute such an inquiry. He believed

  1897
  that the facts were not such as to demand inquiry. The system was well known. Persons who had an unnatural desire to get rid of their children put them out to nurse in the charge of those who, by neglect or other methods with which they were familiar, probably brought about the deaths of these poor infants. It was intolerable that such nets as these should be committed in a civilized country, and yet escape without punishment by the law. But the matter was rather one of police than of sanitary investigation. Measures might be adopted for putting an end to so inhuman a practice, either by registering the houses of persons taking these children to nurse, or by a system of licensing combined with periodical inspection by properly qualified officers. He was glad the noble Earl had asked the Question, because this was a Subject of great importance. Government would turn their attention to it during the Recess, and he hoped they would be able to discover means which, embodied in a Bill, would obviate the dangerous abuses to which attention had been directed.

REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 281.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD STRATHNAIRN: With a considerable experience of Ireland, my Lords, and as commanding the troops in that country, I cannot refrain from expressing my great regret that the Registration Bill should have come up without the salutary measure of the increase of polling-places. The distance and scarcity of polling-places not only facilitate, but invite attack on voters, and render necessary the employment of troops at elections. The bad effects of troops being thus employed are so universally recognized and have been so often brought before your Lordships that I shall not dilate on the matter. The distance and scarcity of polling-places cause great concentration of voters and the consequent concentration of rioters, and necessitate those long journeys by road through a highly-excited country which are so dangerous to voters. The increase and proper distribution, my Lords, of polling-places obviate these disadvantages, enable electors to vote in comparative security, and render unnecessary the general employment of troops at elections. If the increase of polling-places in Ireland was at all times
  1898
  called for, they are doubly so since, as was seen at the Tipperary and Waterford elections, the elements of disorder and intimidation have been organized by men who have learnt tactics in the American war. For example, barricades, strongly constructed with trunks of trees and large stones, are drawn across the road in ground which enables assailants, under cover, to attack the escorts on both flanks with a cross-fire of stones. At one place in Waterford one of these barricades was drawn across a sunken road; on the almost precipitous banks looking into it were stationed men ready to roll down rocks and stones on the voters as they passed. Luckily, the voters took another road. If they had not, your Lordships can judge how many good farmers and good soldiers would have been killed or cruelly maimed. At another place four-cross-roads was selected as the place of attack, as favouring the concentration of rioters from different quarters. They arrived at the rendezvous with a punctuality which would have done credit to the Quarter Master General's Department. They were placed in two lines—one attacking, one in reserve; both under cover. All the gaps leading from the roads into the fields had been solidly built up to prevent cavalry clearing rioters out of the fields; and piles of large angular stones called "smashers" had been carefully stored up in rows on each side of the roads. A man performing the duties of Staff officer rode continually during the collision which ensued with orders from the first to the second line. The results of these organized attacks on voters and their escorts were in the Waterford election thirty-six casualties among the military. Some of them were serious. One, a corporal of the Carbineers, a very good man, hovered between life and death from concussion of the brain by a "smasher." Another, a captain of the 75th, had his eye cut out by a stone. Under these circumstances, and as recent political events, into which I will not enter, render it more than probable that the coming elections will be unusually stormy, I venture to ask my noble Friend who has charge of the Bill whether it would not be possible, even now at the eleventh hour, to improve the old law in a way which would afford some protection to voters, and obviate the unsparing employment of troops at elections. For I am sure, my Lords, that you will agree with me that the present condition of elections in Ireland is

  1899
  very unsatisfactory, and discreditable to humanity, good and civilized government, and the freedom and independence of election. I beg to say, my Lords, that I have made these observations, not under the influence of any party feeling whatever, but solely from a sense of professional feeling.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Certainly, no authority on this subject can be higher than that of the noble and gallant Lord. I regret extremely it is now too late to do what he wishes to do—namely, to increase the number of polling-places in Ireland by an Act of Parliament. I must inform my noble Friend that the Government had taken measures for increasing their number in the counties, and that clauses with that object were prepared and inserted in the Registration Bill for Ireland when it was presented to the House of Commons. I regret still more to say that they met with so factious, so unbending, so determined, and what, looking to the consequences that may follow, I may call so wicked an opposition, that the Government were obliged to withdraw them; that opposition coming from those who two years ago were advocates for an increased number of polling-places. It is a disagreeable thing to attribute motives to anybody at any time; but, looking at the palpable advantage on the score of convenience of increasing the number of polling-places in a country where, in some cases, they are thirty and thirty-five miles apart, and seeing the palpable advantage to humanity and peace, and the general good of society in those districts, of increasing the number of polling-places, it is almost impossible not to impute motives as actuating the violent manner in which the Government were opposed on this particular point, There can be no doubt that an increase of polling-places in Ireland would not only contribute to the peace and tranquillity of the elections, but would render it unnecessary to employ a great number of the troops that are employed to maintain order. That of itself would be of a great advantage. Putting on one side the question of fairness and justice with respect to the elections in the counties, the very fact that one-half the number of troops would be required at the elections ought to have been the strongest inducement to any Irishman to do as much as possible to increase the; number of polling-places. It is now too late to consider the question. The Government having been baffled in the manner
  1900
  I have described, I have only to say I trust the good sense of the people of Ireland and the courage of the electors themselves will contribute to maintain peace and order, and, although I sincerely trust that nothing of the sort will be necessary, Her Majesty's Government will feel it to be their duty to maintain order if it is broken, and I think the maintenance of that order cannot be in better hands than that of my noble and gallant Friend.
  LORD DENMANthought it was due to Ireland that something of a conciliatory nature should be said before the close of the Session, and that every facility should be given for electors to register their votes, and it was to be lamented that the efforts of the Government had not proved successful in this respect. One of his first reasons for joining the party of the noble Earl late at the head of the Government, as he stated to him by letter, before his seeming likely to be again in Office (in January, 1858), was his knowledge of the forbearing and generous conduct at the time of the potato famine towards his tenants in Ireland by remitting their rents when they had not the means of paying them, and by forgiving them the severance of crops, and by paying their passage to a country where they might better their condition. He could not imagine how bitterness amongst such emigrants could be entertained. He had the honour of holding a name which of itself promised justice to Ireland; and acting on the conviction that Fenianism was not general, and that antipathy to England was not founded on the question of religion, he had called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to an old historical document, which showed that in 1641 there was an unreasonable desire, that—
  "Such of the English as could not prescribe a settlement in this Kingdom (Ireland) for 200 years are to be cut off, notwithstanding they be of the Romish Sect; and, what exceeds all, not an English beast, nor any of that breed, must be left in the Kingdom."—[Somer's Tracts,vol. 5, p. 578.]
  This unreasonable prejudice, then as now, had no foundation; and as the prerogative of mercy had been extended at the last moment, he could not but hope that his intercession in May of last year had helped to turn the balance in favour of the convicts whose case just before had seemed hopeless; and, as regarded the passing of abstract Resolutions with reference to the Irish Church they were likely to prove as

  1901
  abortive as the Appropriation Clause of 1835, and would do no more to advance a settlement in Ireland than any vague declamation in Hyde Park could have advanced the cause of Reform.
  Bill read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock.