Sitting of 5 July 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee— Electric Telegraphs.
Second Reading—Dublin Freemen Commission [189]; Railways Abandonment * [186]; Fisheries (Ireland) * [190]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) * [192]; In am Lands * [193]; Pensions Commutation * [187]; Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment * [184].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee— Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No; 2) * [173].
Committee—Report— Petroleum * [131–194]; High Constables' Office Abolition, &c. (re-comm.) * [183–195]: Sunday and Ragged Schools * [170]; Medical Officers Superannuation (Ireland) (re-comm.) * [185]; Stipendiary Magistrates (Deputies) * [176].
Considered as amended—University Tests * [15].
Third Reading—Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland) * [124]; Assessed Rates *[178]; County Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (1868) Amendment * [121], and passed.
Withdrawn—Ecclesiastical Titles * [13].

EMIGRATION TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN J. C. LAWRENCEsaid, he wished to ask the under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the agreement made with the Governor of Western Australia to send out Emigrants to that Colony at the expense of the Imperial Government has been entirely completed; and, if not, what number of Emigrants have still to be sent out in order to fulfil such obligations undertaken by the Government?
  MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that when Western Australia was made a convict station, the Imperial Government had undertaken to send out there a free emigrant for every convict it received, subject to the condition that the colony really required them, and could absorb and provide for them. The number of free emigrants stated by the Legislative Council to be now due to the colony was 3,550, but on investigation that number turned out to be inaccurate, and probably, the true number due was somewhere about 1,800. Unless, however, in answer to a despatch which was about to be sent out to him, the Governor could give satisfactory proof that emigrants were really wanted, and could be absorbed and provided for by the colony, none would be sent out except the families of convicts, and—but this had not yet been altogether determined—a few persons to be nominated for free passage by their relatives in the colony.

THE SOCIETE INDUSTRIELLE ET AGRICOLE D'EGYPTE—QUESTION.
MR. SIDEBOTTOMsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to a letter in the City Article of the "Times" of July 1st, relative to the Société Industrielle et Agricole d'Egypte, and whether the following statements are correct:—1. that the Egyptian Government had certified to the Foreign Office their intention of returning eighty per cent to the shareholders of the Company; 2. that this return is limited to the shares held by the Egyptian Trading Company and Messrs. Cavan, Lubbock, and Co.; and, if these statements be correct, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to adopt in the matter?
MR. OTWAY, in reply, said, he had seen the letter in The Times referred to by the hon. Member. It was not quite accurate to say that the Egyptian Government had certified to the Foreign Office their intention of returning 80 per cent to the shareholders of the Company. There had, in fact, been no direct communication on the subject between the Foreign Office and the Egyptian Government. Colonel Stanton, Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt, had been under the impression that it was the intention of the Viceroy to purchase the shares of the Company held by French houses at 80 per cent, but it turned out that it was the intention of the Viceroy only to purchase the shares of this Company held by two French houses at the price named. Colonel Stanton was instructed to use his influence in order that all the English shareholders should be placed upon an equal footing with the French shareholders, and the result was that the Viceroy had determined to purchase the shares held by Messrs. Cavan, Lubbock, and Co. and the Egyptian Trading Company at the same price; and, by so doing, it was alleged that the English shareholders had been put upon the same footing as the French shareholders—the shares held by two houses of each country having been purchased at the same price. In reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question he had to state that the Consul General in Egypt had been instructed to apply to the Government of the Viceroy that the English shareholders should be treated upon a
1168
footing of perfect equality with the French shareholders.

ARMY—GUNPOWDER MAGAZINES AT UPNOR.—QUESTION.
MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any, and, if any, what steps have been taken to reduce the stores of gunpowder which are kept in the magazines at Upnor? 30,000 barrels of gunpowder are stored at that place, in the neighbourhood of 60,000 people, who would be liable to be destroyed in the event of an explosion.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that, in consequence of representations which had been made to him, considerable reductions had been made already in the amount of gunpowder stored at Upnor, and the remainder was in course of removal. It was intended in future to keep only small arms, ammunition, and, perhaps, saltpetre at that place.

FIRE INSURANCE DUTY.—QUESTION.
MR. H. BEAUMONTsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the case of septennial Fire Insurance Policies which have still a few years to run, and on which Fire Insurance Duty commuted at six years was paid in advance, he will be prepared, now that the Fire Insurance Duty is abolished, to return to the insured (through the Insurance Offices) the amount of Duty paid on such Policies in respect of the period occurring after the abolition of the Duty?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Member I have to remark that those who insured seven years in advance obtained the remission of one year's duty, and that the arrangement so entered into was made subject to whatever might be the pleasure of Parliament. If the duty had been raised I do not think that those insurers would have applied for permission to pay a larger sum, and they must, therefore, take their chance of what has happened. Under these circumstances, it is not the intention of Government to make any return whatever.

EXPLOSION AT HOUNSLOW.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of the Government to adopt the suggestion contained in the verdict of the jury at the recent inquest at Hounslow—namely, that the Government should appoint permanent Inspectors to carry out more strictly the purposes of the Gunpowder Act?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the Home Department had taken the suggestion referred to by the noble Lord into consideration. He had to state, however, that the accident had not been traced to any want of vigilance or to any negligence on the part of the Inspectors. As a matter of fact, the magazine in question had been visited by Colonel Young husband and by Captain Smith about three weeks before the explosion occurred, and they then reported that the state of the magazine was perfectly safe and satisfactory.

METROPOLIS—CAB STANDS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LESLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether some means might not be taken to put down the prevalent practice of Cabs plying for fares off the regular stand?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, it would be impossible to take any steps against "crawling cabs" till a larger number of stands were provided; for at present there was only room on the stands for about 2,000 vehicles; Colonel Henderson was, however, making a careful survey of the metropolis, with a view to supply the defect.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES.—QUESTION.
MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have come to any determination with regard to the necessity of legislation on the subject of Ecclesiastical Titles in the United Kingdom; and, if so, when such legislation will be probably proposed?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, in reply, that there were two questions involved in the inquiry of the hon. Member. In the first place, the sentiments of the Go-
1170
vernment were well known to be favourable to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill introduced by the hon. Member, as matters stood under the present law, although there might be some difference of opinion upon the subject. In the second place, in the event of the Irish Church Bill, now under the consideration of the other House of Parliament, becoming law, the necessity for legislation upon the subject would be acknowledged most freely by those who were now indisposed to such a course. Putting these two things together, he had no hesitation in saying that the necessity for legislation on the subject in the event of the passing of the Irish Church Bill would be imperative, and could not be postponed longer than the next Session of Parliament.

IRELAND—RIOTS AT PORTADOWN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. VERNERsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, from the reports that have reached the Government relative to the lamentable affray at Portadown on the 1st of July, he considers that the Police were justified in acting on their own responsibility when the assistance of a Magistrate residing on the spot might have been instantly obtained; and, whether their conduct on the occasion is in accordance with the instructions issued by Government for the maintenance of the public peace in Ulster during the July anniversaries?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that it would be wrong for him, and he declined, on the part of the Government, to pass any judgment on the conduct of the police, which would be subjected to a strict investigation, both judicially and by the Government, as was absolutely necessary whenever a public force used their firearms against the people. Besides that, the inquest on the body of the unfortunate man who was killed was still proceeding. But he must add that the police could hardly be said to have acted on their own responsibility, because they fired on the order of their sub-inspector, after they had been violently assaulted with stones, and their lives put in danger. Besides, he had no reason to think that they could have reached the local magistrate, who was not at that time with

  1171
  them, or have availed themselves of his assistance at a moment of great pressure and danger, when they were making their way back to their barracks. There were no special instructions issued to the police with reference to the July anniversaries beyond those ordinary rules that they were to preserve the public peace and protect their lives by all legitimate means.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the Government will institute an Inquiry into the matter, and what will be its precise nature?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that as soon as the inquest was concluded, he would be happy to answer that Question.
  Afterwards—
  SIR JAMES STRONGEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have received any official information as to a riot which occurred at Portadown, in the county of Armagh, on the evening of the 1st July, when two young men were shot by the Police?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, of course he had received information as to the unfortunate event in question, although he did not know that he could add much to what was contained in the public papers. The state of the case appeared to have been this—On the night of the 1st July two parties of police were sent out patrolling the town and neighbourhood of Portadown. One of those parties, at the time when those occurrences began, were upon one side of a bonfire which had been lighted on the road, and the other party were on the other side, the two being separated from each other by a considerable interval. As far as his official information went, he had no reason to believe that the police interfered with the bonfire, or attempted to put it out, although it was so stated in the public Press. His information went to this—that the first party of police were attacked violently with showers of stones, and, being armed only with sidearms, they were obliged to run for their lives into the country, from which they did not get back to their barracks for many hours, and then they returned one by one, and some of them in disguise. Upon that, the other patrolling party armed themselves, and went in search
  1172
  of their missing comrades, who they had reason to believe were in danger. They were still more violently assailed by the crowd, and after being apparently subjected for a considerable time to volleys of stone, which wounded nearly everyone of the party, they at last, on the order of their sub-inspector, fired, and the unfortunate result was that two young men were shot; the one, being a Protestant, mortally; and the other, a Roman Catholic, not mortally. The police then escaped to their barracks, and so the affair ended. He might add that ample provision had been made for the preservation of the public peace in Portadown, and now there were a large force of police and a company of soldiers in that neighbourhood.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) ACT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, taking into consideration the fact that the occasion just referred to was the first in Ulster on which there had been a collision between the Police and the Orangemen, and considering the great amount of irritation and excitement in the North of Ireland, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the Party Processions Act before the 12th of July?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not able to combine the preamble or first part of the hon. Baronet's Question with the closing part of it; and I think it is very doubtful whether, in what he recited in that preamble, there is a reason for the conclusion that he intimates. The case of the Party Processions Act (Ireland) Bill, is peculiar. The hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Bill (Mr. W. Johnston) has declared his view of the subject, and the Government, by the mouth of my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Chichester Fortescue), have declared their view of it. If the Mover had continued in his place it might have been material to go forward with the discussion on his Bill, because the discussion might have had a practical result, and might have operated on the course of conduct of the Mover, who, as I apprehend, is the person having the principal control of the measure, his Colleague in introducing it being an hon. Friend of mine who sits on this

  1173
  side of the House. But now that the Mover is absent, the discussion would simply be a discussion on the Bill, without the possibility of any practical result. Therefore, the Question of the hon. Baronet really amounts to this—whether the Government is distinctly of opinion that benefit would arise from a general discussion of this subject in the House of Commons at this particular moment in the present state of feeling? "We are not satisfied that benefit would be likely so to arise, or that such a discussion would have such a soothing effect—as we may judge from slight indications from time to time in this House —on the public mind, or so contribute to the maintenance of the public peace, which is the main object we all have in view for the moment, as to induce us to interfere with the due course of Public Business in order to give an opportunity for that discussion.

PROPOSED MONUMENT TO FARADAY.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the following extract of a Letter, purporting to be written by him, dated 5th May, 1869, and read at a public meeting on the 21st June, be correctly reported:—
  "I do not in the least doubt the signal merits of Faraday, and I hope that a monument may be erected worthy of so great a man; but I cannot I consent to appropriate public money towards the monument of a private citizen, however illustrious; I do not make this rule—I find it."
  And, if it be a correct extract, whether he will state to the House the exact terms of the rule to which he refers, and the date at which it was made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the extract is perfectly correct; but I am sorry to say that I am not able to state the exact terms of the rule to which I referred. I find that the statues in London, putting aside the Kings, have been erected by means of funds provided in the following manner:—That of Lord Nelson was paid for by public subscription and by Parliamentary Grant. The statue of Richard Cœur de hon. was erected by Parliamentary Grant, aided by private subscription. The statue of Sir John Franklin was erected entirely by Parliamentary Grant. All the other statues have been erected by subscription; and I deduce from these
  1174
  facts the rule that it is not the general custom for Parliament to make grants for this purpose. Of course, Lord Nelson was an exceptional person, who does not appear twice, perhaps, in the history of a nation. The only other exception was the recent one of Sir John Franklin, whose strange and tragic death and the feeling occasioned by it may well account for his case being made an exception. I think, also, that the history of England shows that it has not been customary for us to erect monuments at the public expense to private citizens, however illustrious they may have been. Take the catalogue of illustrious names—Shakespeare, Milton, Newton, and Locke—and you will find that no monuments were erected at the public expense to their memory. Without any disrespect, therefore, to his memory, I think that Faraday may be well content to be passed by in such company. I will say, further, that the principle of this country has been to have its citizens actuated by a feeling of duty rather than of glory, and that the nation is not in an ascending scale which is prodigal of its rewards.

DUBLIN FREEMEN COMMISSION BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Chichester Fortescue.)
DUBLIN FREEMEN COMMISSION BILL.

  [BILL 189.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATE, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months, said, that disguise it as they might, it was universally believed by the country that this was a Bill of a very exceptional character, an ex post facto Bill, which was not only bad in itself, but would form a most pernicious precedent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, it was impossible to please Members on that the Opposition side, whatever form the legislation on this subject assumed. He admitted it. When the change was made in the Law of Election Petitions last year, the House was told that if they got rid of the Election Committees and transferred their jurisdiction to the Judges, all imputations upon the fairness of their de-3isions would be removed, these questrons being removed from the arena of

  1175
  the House. It was said that the Judges would go to the spot, that they were above all suspicion of political bias, and that when they were sent down to make these inquiries the House would have done everything that was possible. Having now trusted the Judges with this great commission, it was not for the House to go behind their backs and institute an inquiry as to whether the facts had been fairly investigated, and whether the House ought to believe their Reports. The greater the weight which ought to attach to the Report of a Judge the more necessary it was to inquire whether it justified the proceedings by which it was to be followed. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the House would not have taken the step which they were now asked to take if they had been acting upon the Report of an Election. Committee instead of that of a Judge. The right hon. Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) had betrayed the animus by which he and those around him had been animated; but nothing could be worse than that the House should be governed by political or party motives in taking the course that was now proposed against the freemen of Dublin. The only motives he could imagine for this Bill were either to discover a greater number of culprits for prosecution, or to discredit the freemen of Dublin, so as to lead to their disfranchisement. With regard to the prosecution of these delinquents, he would not believe that if a Commission issued it would be likely to obtain the names of any more freemen who had been bribed. It was impossible to suppose that the Election Commissioners would be in a better position than the Judge, or that they could, indeed, take so severe and stringent a course as he was enabled to pursue against the delinquents. The object of the Bill was, in fact, not to obtain an additional number of culprits, but to disfranchise the freemen of Dublin. He went to the consideration of this question with no prepossessions in favour of freemen as a body—rather the contrary. But he must say that the freemen of Dublin seemed to him to be favourable specimens of the class. The guilt of no more than fifty-nine had been proved before the Judge out of the whole body, which numbered nearly 3,000, and it was obviously unjust that the offences of the
  1176
  few should be visited on the heads of their innocent brethren. He found that those hon. Members who supported the Bill, however disposed they might be to punish or disfranchise the freemen of Dublin, took a very different view of freemen elsewhere, and invariably had a particular regard and esteem for those freemen of their constituencies who had voted for them. Were the Government, with a majority of some 118 at their back, so afraid of the result of a new election for the City of Dublin, which might, he hoped, be the return of a Conservative Member—that they would not allow the issue of the Writ? He believed the House would have reason deeply to repent this dead set at a small portion of a particular class in one constituency, while they shut their eyes at the practices which prevailed in so many others. The country would say that the House of Commons from party motives had determined to strain the Judge's Report, which did not justify the issuing of a Commission. It would be no imputation on the learned Judge if the House did not act on his Report. It would be better to have an inquiry into the case of freemen generally, than resort to this unconstitutional ex post facto legislation in the case of Dublin, when Bradford, York, and other places had escaped. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  MR. E. WINGFIELD VERNERsaid, he must strongly protest against the Bill, which had evidently been brought forward to disfranchise the freemen of Dublin because three-fourths of them had expressed dislike to the First Lord of the Treasury and the policy he advocated. Anyone who knew the constituency of Dublin would recognize the intolerant hand which guided this action. An attempt was made to cry down the Protestants in that city. Under the plea of religious equality the greatest tyranny was exercised. A number of medical men joined in the cry; and they proceeded to such lengths as to insist that, even in the case of hospitals endowed by Protestants, Protestant doctors ought not to be appointed, because the majority of their patients were Roman Catholics. This Bill was a gross insult to a body which comprised a considerable amount of the intelligence, wealth, and respectability of the constituency. Why had not a similar Bill been introduced

  1177
  for Galway, Youghal, and Bradford? The same Judge (Justice Keogh), out of 449 freemen named fourteen, and mentioned that from eighty to 100 were proved to have asked money for their votes in the case of Galway. There were thus more one-fourth of the electors of Galway who had asked—he did not know whether they had received—money for their votes; while in Dublin, out of 2,700 freemen, only fifteen were named as having been guilty of corrupt practices, and forty-four not named, or about l–46th part of the whole. Yet the Judge did not, in the case of Galway, recommend any inquiry. Why? Was it because Liberal Members had been returned for Galway and the Petition was directed against a Conservative in the case of Dublin? Yet the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. James) the other night preached them a sermon on the purity of election—and almost immediately gave his vote for the impurity of party. This cry about purity was really damaging to the House, and would not gain for it the respect of the country. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Frederick W. Heygate.)
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) had stated he would not go behind the Report of the learned Judge now under consideration, but he could hardly say he had adhered strictly to that course, for he had passed considerable criticism upon the conduct of the Judge on the occasion. But, however that might be, the course he professed to take was certainly not adopted by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment (Mr. E. W. Verner). The hon. Member had in effect charged the learned Judge who tried this case with gross injustice and partiality; he had charged him in the face of the House of Commons with gross judicial corruption. Now, for him (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to defend the conduct of Mr. Justice Keogh would be totally unnecessary; he would only say that he preferred the Report of the learned Judge to the line taken by the hon.
  1178
  Member (Sir Frederick Heygate) and also by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). They had been told that the Government were reverting to the bad precedents of old times, and were re-introducing these angry discussions into the arena of the House of Commons; but they would be indeed guilty of that offence if they were to take it upon themselves to decide upon the merits of such a case when a learned Judge had pronounced upon one side with the authority which his character and position carried with it, and eminent Members of this House pronounced upon the other. Were they to take the decision of this question into their own hands? They proposed to do no such thing, but to refer the question at issue to the proper constitutional tribunal, and they therefore asked the House of Commons simply to appoint a Commission to inquire into the conduct of the Dublin freemen. It had been said that there had been a decision by the House of Lords that the Government were taking an illegal view of this question. Now, there was no judicial decision at all. The question was debated in the House of Lords, and a difference of opinion was expressed by high authorities. That difference had not shaken the opinion of the Government as to the justice and propriety of their interpretation of the Act. Nor did the House of Lords pronounce any judgment upon the merits of the case, or upon the question whether this was a proper subject for further investigation. What the majority there held was that this inquiry did not come technically within the terms of the Act now in force. Supposing that decision to be correct—and he did not admit it to be correct—this was nothing but a casus omissus in the present statute. Could it have been the intention of the statute that such a state of things as that recorded by Mr. Justice Keogh was not a proper subject for inquiry? They were told that the motives of the Government were of a party kind. But if they were to be accused of party motives because they asked for an inquiry into this matter in pursuance of the Report of a Judge, what was to be said of the motives of those who opposed any such inquiry? He denied that the Government and those who acted with them were actuated by party motives. They would have done the same whatever were the class of

  1179
  voters impugned, and He ventured to say, that if right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in the position of responsibility occupied by the Government they would have found it impossible to allow Judge Keogh's Report to pass without some action. The hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Heygate) said that an inquiry ought to have been instituted into the whole subject of freemen everywhere. But it really mattered nothing to the Government what class of voters were impugned by the Judge's Report. The fact of their being freemen was a mere accident; if they had been lodgers or rated occupiers the result would have been the same; and the House had nothing to do with the question of the freeman franchise all over the kingdom. The question before the House simply was whether they would issue a Writ for the City of Dublin in defiance of the Report of Mr. Justice Keogh, or do their duty by instituting an inquiry into the conduct of one important portion of the constituency in pursuance of the Report. In the concluding sentence of his judgment the learned Judge said—
  "It has been proved to me by the most conclusive evidence, direct and circumstantial, that the Freemen of this City have been shown to a great extent to be corrupt voters, and I shall leave the House of Commons to deal with their ease and with the constituency as affected by them."
  This sentence in the judgment completely supported the Report. Were they not to deal with such a case; and if they were to deal with it, was it possible to deal with it in a more moderate or constitutional manner than that now proposed?
  DR. BALLsaid, this was not a Bill to remedy a defect in the law; it was an attempt at ex post facto legislation, and therefore he opposed it. The existing Act directed that an inquiry should be made if the Judge reported that bribery extensively prevailed in the constituency, but, in his opinion, it did not authorize inquiry if the Judge reported that bribery prevailed among a portion of the constituency. The House of Lords had come to the same conclusion, and the Government did not meet the defect in the Act of Parliament, but tried to reach individuals who acted without violating the existing Act. Objection had at all times been very properly raised to the practice of making laws to meet, not a general
  1180
  principle, but a particular case; and it was not fair in this instance to make a special law in order to deal with that which had escaped the grasp of the ordinary law. It was better far that the freemen of Dublin, even had they been trebly guilty, should escape, than that a great principle of legislation should be set aside in order to meet their particular case. What good would come of the Commission? When the Commission, of which he had been the Chairman, sat to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at Galway, although the Report showed that bribery had been practised among the freemen of that borough, no such steps as those now proposed were taken, because it was felt that by so doing they would be practically setting aside the certificate of indemnity which had been given under the Act. No special Act had been passed in the case of Great Yarmouth, which was dealt with in the ordinary way under a Report of the House of Commons. The Report of the Judge did not reveal such an extraordinary amount of corruption existing among the whole constituency as would justify Parliament in taking unusual steps to punish it. Assuming, however, that legislative action were necessary, he had no objection to the Bill in itself, which he regarded as being fairly drawn. He had the utmost confidence in the three gentlemen whose names had been recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for insertion in the Bill.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that if the 2,700 freemen of Dublin had been a constituency of ordinary voters, there was not a lawyer who would say the Commission should not issue. These freemen were a privileged class, and that of itself was a sufficient reason for disfranchising them. A single vote in that House did not matter to the Liberal party; and that fact took the question at issue out of the range of party politics. It had been suggested that it was sought to disfranchise the freemen of Dublin because three-fourths of them were opposed to the policy of the First Minister of the Crown, but he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) knew, from thirty years acquaintance with them, that, for a consideration, three-fourths of them would accept the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. It was notorious in Dublin that on an elec-

  1181
  tion—and he did not profess to be a patriot—the first question put was—How much money will the Tories give for the freemen? and if they gave £2 10 s. a vote, it would take the Liberals £5 to buy them. He would not, however, vote for the disfranchisement of these men without first giving them an opportunity of showing, on this inquiry, that they were as pure as they had been represented to be.
  MR. LOPESsaid, he approached this subject in no party spirit, but with the disposition to consider it on grounds of abstract justice and expediency. He made no imputations, but he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. Henry James) that the Opposition side of the House were quite as willing as the Ministerial supporters to put down bribery; and the late Government brought in and carried one of the most comprehensive measure for the suppression of bribery and corrupt practices that had ever been passed. The simple issue was, whether this was a case calling for special legislation. He had carefully read, the able judgment of the learned Judge who tried the Petition; but it seemed to him that the finding of the learned Judge in one part was inconsistent with the finding in the other, and that the Report differed from the judgment. The Report went to the extent that the learned. Judge had reason to believe that extensive bribery prevailed at the last election amongst the freemen of Dublin. It was worthy of observation that the statute provided two modes of finding for the Judge—one, that extensive bribery prevailed; the other, that he had reasonable cause to believe that bribery extensively prevailed: and as eleven persons only were actually found to have been bribed, the learned Judge had adopted the milder form of finding. It must be presumed they were freemen, though the learned Judge by no means reported that they were. Special legislation should only be resorted to in extreme cases, and he submitted that this was not a case of that description. The precedent of Great Yarmouth had been relied upon in support of this Bill; but it was, he thought, quite distinguishable from the present case. The Report relative to the freemen of Great Yarmouth alleged that ''gross, systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed at the last and previous elections." There was an-
  1182
  other distinction between the two cases. No Act of Parliament had then been passed for the punishment of those who were found guilty of bribery. Now, however, a most cogent and stringent punishment existed for that offence. There were other reasons why the House should not legislate specially against the freemen of Dublin. The margin between the candidates on the poll was so narrow that there was only a difference of 105 between the candidates at the top and bottom of the poll, and it might be supposed that party spirit had prompted this special interference of the Legislature. Then, again, three-fourths of the freemen were Protestants, and was this a desirable time to pass a Bill disfranchising the Protestant freemen of Dublin? The only difference between the measures of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) and that of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Sullivan) was, that the former proposed sudden death to the freemen, and the latter a more protracted but equally certain death, supplemented by a decent interment.
  MR. DENMANsaid, the opposition of the last three speakers against the Bill seemed to rest on widely different grounds. The first charged the learned Judge with having given a corrupt decision, the second opposed it on the ground that it was ex post facto legislalation, and the third told them it was only when corruption had been reported to exist in a large degree they ought to inquire into the subject. One special reason in his (Mr. Denman's) opinion for appointing a Commission was that some of the principal delinquents had managed to be out of the way during the inquiry into the Election Petition, but that that could not happen in the case of a Commission, which might be extended over any length of time. All that was now being done was exactly in the spirit of what had been done before in similar cases. In such matters legislation must of necessity be ex post facto to this extent—that finding a very great piece of corruption had been committed, Parliament set to work to try and prevent corrupt persons in the future destroying the purity of elections in places where such practices had existed. Considering what cogent facts had been reported, nothing could be fairer than the appointment of a Commission, especially

  1183
  as it was said that the allegation of bribery was a gross libel and injustice.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad that no hon. Member on the other side had attempted to carry the number of the persons corrupted in the Dublin constituency beyond a very limited amount. An Act of Parliament had been passed by means of which the dealing with corrupt practices was taken out of the hands of Parliament and placed in the hands of Judges. For some reason or other the learned Judge who tried this case did not bring himself within the four corners of the Act of Parliament, and it was, therefore, said that the House must try the case de novo. The Chief Secretary for Ireland asked the House to take a certain passage in the learned Judge's Report and act upon it; but high legal authority had declared that to make that statement was extra vires of the Judge, and that it was consequently no better than waste paper. If the House wished to legislate on the matter it ought to look on the evidence upon which the Report was founded, and in his opinion the evidence afforded very meagre ground for the conclusion to which the learned Judge came, and he thought it very unwise to bring these matters back again to the floor of the House of Commons. If they did so, they could not escape the suspicion of being actuated by motives other than the love of abstract purity of election; and the evil which would in that case result would be ten thousand times greater than any inconvenience which would be produced by permitting the conduct of these parties, who might be wrong, to pass without inquiry.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, he failed to understand the argument of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), because when a Motion was made for the issue of a Commission of Inquiry, the matter to some extent must be discussed in that House; and the right hon. Gentleman had himself brought back the question upon the floor of the House by saying that the evidence in the case of the Dublin Petition did not warrant the Report of the learned Judge. The right hon. Gentleman stated that no one had ventured to carry the number of the persons corrupted beyond a very limited amount. Now, it so happened that on a previous occasion he (Mr. Sullivan) had stated that it appeared by the
  1184
  Judge's Report that more than 280 of the freemen of Dublin were connected with corrupt practices. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) spoke of the present proceedings as being ex post facto legislation; but that was not the case. It would be ex post facto legislation to constitute acts already done by individuals into bribery, though they had never before been deemed to be acts of bribery; but the object of the present Bill was simply to inquire into corrupt practices as defined by the Legislature, and his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had pointed out that by passing the Act of 1852, the House had not deprived itself of the jurisdiction of instituting an inquiry in such a case as the present. He hoped the House would pass the Bill, for if it were rejected the conclusion would be this—that the conduct of the freemen of Dublin—they being only a part of the constituency—could never be inquired into, and that they might, therefore, be as corrupt as they pleased. Before sitting down he must say he had heard with the deepest regret the statement of the hon. Member for Lisburn (Mr. E. Wingfield Verner), in effect accusing the learned Judge who conducted the inquiry of partiality He was sure the hon. Member for Lisburn would feel, in calmer moments, that he had not done a learned Judge anything like justice who had for the last fourteen years, by the manner in which he had discharged his judicial duties, commanded universal respect.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 126: Majority 120.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

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

PARLIAMENT—MORNING SITTINGS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to call attention, pursuant to notice, to the

  1185
  effect of the present arrangements for Morning Sittings upon the Business of the House. Previous to 1861, ample time had been afforded to private Members for the discussion of those questions which they desired to propose. In that year the House was induced by Lord Palmerston to give up the Thursdays to Government Business, in exchange for the Fridays, when subjects might be introduced by private Members on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, instead of, as before, on the Motion of adjournment from Friday till Monday. That state of things continued, without any great inconvenience to independent Members, until the change which was adopted in the Session before last, at the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who, in proposing that the House should meet for Morning Sittings at two instead of at twelve o'clock, and should sit to seven and re-assemble at nine, instead of sitting till four and re-assembling at six, as in accordance with the previous practice, expressly stated that he had no wish to interfere with the rights of private Members, and that the Government would always undertake to make and to keep a House at nine o'clock. The practical result, however, of the alteration had been that while the Government gained one hour before dinner, during the cream of the day, the time at the disposal of private Members after dinner was shortened. The idea of his right hon. Friend, when the change was made was, that the House when it re-assembled at nine o'clock, and entered upon a discussion, might continue it until two o'clock the next morning; but, on the 8th of last month, when his hon. and learned Friend the Common Serjeant (Mr. T. Chambers) sought to press on his Bill respecting marriage with a deceased wife's sister at half-past twelve o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department immediately objected to its being proceeded with at so late an hour; although on the previous day his Colleague the President of the Poor Law Board had Contended, when his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) protested against his urging forward his Poor Law Bill at a similar hour, that it was by no means too late to go on with the discussion. Now it was quite clear
  1186
  that any person who wished to oppose the progress of a Bill after twelve o'clock had the means of doing so most effectually at his disposal; and, as a matter of fact, private Members could calculate only on having at their command the three hours, from nine till twelve, on those days on which Morning Sittings were held. But there were, independently of that, two other extinguishers put on their privileges. One of these was the practice of "counting out." When the House re-assembled at nine o'clock, there might be a bonâ fide intention on the part of the Government to keep a House; but the good intention was completely frustrated by such Motions as that which had been made on Friday evening last, as soon as the Speaker took the Chair. But he must say that on a recent occasion—when a Motion respecting the Boulogne Harbour stood first on the Paper—he was given to understand that some Members of the Administration had not only connived at, but had actually assisted the efforts that were successfully made to empty the House for a count. It was the duty of the Government, he maintained, not merely to assist in making a "House," but also to set its face against "counts out." Another point to which he wished to call attention was the encroachment as to the period at which Morning Sittings were resorted to. Previous to 1862, they were rarely held before the month of July; and ever since then, with the exception of 1867, they had not commenced until the middle of June. 1867 was exceptional. Morning Sittings commenced that year on the 28th of May. In 1868, they commenced on the 15th of June; but this year they commenced on the 4th of May; and if, in future years this year's precedent were followed, the rights of independent Members would be almost entirely extinguished. They could not expect hon. Members, after sitting five hours, to come down again at nine o'clock for another long sitting, for the sake of the private Motions. The thing was impossible. Human nature could not stand it. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown would take this matter into consideration, and be prepared, next Session, to introduce a new system. He would content himself with having called attention to the matter, and would not move any Resolution on the subject.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he regretted at the time—as he had done ever since—that the suggestion had not been adopted which he threw out two years ago, for preventing Motions to count until 10 or 15 minutes after the Speaker had taken the chair. Some such provision was absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights of independent Members. He considered it to be decidedly unfair, and an abuse of the Standing Order, that the moment the House had re-assembled the Motion for adjournment should be put; but the only way to prevent the practice was by giving 10 or 15 minutes' grace. He must say, in regard to Friday last, that it was generally understood that there would be no House. He did not say that he was told so by any Member of the Government; but the rumour to that effect was very widely diffused. He was not sure that the whole of the time at the Morning Sittings should be at the command of the Government; and it ought also to be remembered that many private Members who had their own affairs to attend to, were greatly inconvenienced by these regular sittings, which left them no alternative but to neglect their own interests or those of their constituents. Morning Sittings used to be resorted to only exceptionally, and for some special measure. They had now become a recognized procedure, and Members were incapable or unwilling to sit as a rule from two in the afternoon until three o'clock the following morning. If any Motion was made for preventing counts being attempted until 10 or 15 minutes after the Speaker was in the Chair he should gladly support it.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought Morning Sittings had become an absolute necessity; and much more business was done when the House sat from 2 to 7 than when it sat from 12 to 4. When there was any subject on the Paper of importance there was no difficulty in getting or keeping a House. When the Evening Sittings were protracted till three o'clock in the morning, it was not surprising that occasionally there should be a "count out" from sheer exhaustion; but "counts out" were no more frequent now than formerly. He hoped the grievance would be remedied, and that the Speaker would give his attention to the subject.
  MR. PEEKsaid, he entirely agreed
  1188
  with the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford). These Morning Sittings, recurring so frequently as they now did, were unquestionably productive of much inconvenience to private Members who had large businesses of their own as well as the public affairs to look after. He hoped some better arrangement would be come to.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he admitted that when the Government were under an implied or actual engagement to keep a House, it would be a virtual failure in. their engagement if Members of the Government took any part in promoting a count out; but he certainly was not aware that any such case had occurred. With respect to last week he might say the case of private Members, as compared with the Government, was not a hard one—private Members having occupied fully three-fourths, and the Government only one-fourth of the time. With regard to Morning Sittings, he thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for London (Mr. Crawford) well deserving consideration; but he would not now presume to give an opinion upon it. The difficulty really lay in this—that with the growing demands of the business of the Empire the House of Commons, which attempted to do, and did more than any legislative assembly that ever sat since the days of Adam, wanted more hours in the day, more days in the week, more weeks in the month, and more months in the year, and until some such device could be adopted perfect satisfaction would not be given. According to the theory of the House there were five days for business, of which three were appropriated to independent Members and only two to the Government. Now, was that a fair division of the time of the House relatively to the respective responsibilities of the Government and independent Members? The Government were charged necessarily with the Votes in Supply, and he thought he put it moderately when he said that nine-tenths of the legislation of the House, looking to numbers and importance, passed through the hands of the Government. If that was so, there must be a discrepancy between the actual results and the time—only two days a week being allowed to the Government and three days to private Members. All who had held Office must

  1189
  admit that the Two o'clock Sittings had eminently contributed to the progress of public business. He was far from wishing that private Members should suffer unduly in consequence of that arrangement. There was a Morning Sitting on Tuesday; and it was rarely that the House broke up before two on the nights when they met at nine o'clock. Probably the Speaker and the Clerk at the table who assisted him were the chief sufferers by that system; but he did not think the time available for the Motions and Bills brought forward by private Members had undergone any very great reduction. When the time absorbed by the Government was spoken of, it should be remembered that the portion of the business of the country which the Government was expected and required to transact was increasing from year to year. Again, in the case of important measures brought forward by private Members, like the University Tests Bill, for example, the Government were called upon to facilitate their discussion; and in the case of others the Government had often to take them into its own hands when they had reached a certain state of ripeness. He did not disguise that to some extent, though he thought to a very limited extent, the time at the disposal of private Members was abridged; but then the only alternative open to them was a somewhat longer Session of Parliament. If hon. Gentlemen were willing that another fortnight should be added, on the average, to each Session, then, no doubt, the Two o'clock Sittings might be given up; and it would not be for the Government to resist such an arrangement. If, as he believed, they had no choice but between comparative inconveniences, he did hope that hon. Members would be disposed to abate something, not only of their personal convenience, but even of their personal convenience when it stood in some connection with public duty, for the sake of their common desire to do what was best on the whole to expedite the enormous mass of business which the House had to transact every Session, without utterly overtaxing the physical as well as the mental strength of its Members.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he thought that the practice of holding Morning Sittings at two o'clock and meeting again at nine might be confined
  1190
  to Tuesdays. Then private Members would be certain of having the Friday for the Questions and Motions which they desired to bring forward. He thought, also, that the Government should introduce the Estimates at an earlier period of the Session than is now done; and if before Easter, or immediately after that date, the House knew that they would have to meet for four hours or so in the morning to discuss the Estimates, he believed the result would be more satisfactory both to the Government and to independent Members. He hoped the First Minister of the Crown would consider that suggestion during the approaching Recess.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that during the last Session of the last Parliament a measure of great importance, and one that was supported by large and constant majorities in that House (the Metropolitan Foreign Cattle Market Bill), happening to be down on the Paper for a Nine o'clock Sitting, was counted out by a Member of the present Government. He should look with some dread on the adoption of Morning Sittings even earlier in the Session than they had commenced this year; the system once begun would never be given up. While admitting that most measures of real importance ought to originate with the Government, he yet thought that private Members, who occasionally attempted to bring forward measures, ought to feel some certainty that they would have a fair chance of carrying them through successfully. He was inclined to support the suggestion of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) in reference to "counting."

EXCHEQUER AND AUDIT ACT OF 1866.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he rose to call attention to the difficuties which had attended the carrying out the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866. He did so in consequence of some observations reflecting on the late Government which were made in his unavoidable absence by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish). That hon. Member charged the late Government with gross negligence in the matter—an accusation which, he thought, he should be able in

  1191
  a very few moments to show was wholly unfounded. That Act was passed in 1866, before the change of Government, and the Government of Lord Russell was responsible for it. The name of the present First Minister was on the back of the Bill; but it was principally attended to by the present First Lord of the Admirality. The Government who then had charge of the Bill had under-estimated the time it would require to bring the Act into working order. The present First Lord of the Admiralty—a man of great zeal and great energy, as well as of rather sanguine disposition, had rather hastily come to the conclusion that that Act could be brought into operation within the time limited by it—namely, April, 1867. When he (Mr. Hunt) first came into the Treasury he had hoped to take up that Act and carry it into effect within the time laid down. The difficulties of doing so, however, were so great that it was a very serious question whether a Bill should not be brought in to postpone the operation of the Act; but that proposal had been rejected, as it was thought that by adopting it they would be removing the stimulus to exertion among those appointed to carry the Act into effect. Before 1868 sums to be expended by different Departments were voted in a lump; and, in order to carry out the provisions of the Act, it was necessary that those sums should be separated and placed under the head of the respective Departments to which they were appropriated. Finding it was utterly impossible that the necessary investigation and arrangements could be completed within the stipulated period unless some extraordinary means were adopted, he had appointed a Commission for Public Accounts, under the control of Mr. Vine and Mr. Anderson, who was succeeded by Mr. Foster. The investigation proved very laborious, the accounts of Irish and Scotch Departments having to be examined, and it was only in consequence of extraordinary exertions that he was enabled to get the Estimates framed, so that the provisions of the Act could be complied with in the year 1868–9. When the Estimates for that year were brought forward they presented a very different appearance from those of previous years, a large number of the Votes having been separated and re-classified under sub-heads in a new shape, and on a uniform prin-
  1192
  ciple. This was a necessary step, because it was desirable that the Estimates and the accounts should correspond. This, which entailed labour of no slight magnitude, was performed under his personal superintendence, although such superintendence did not come within his ordinary duties as Secretary to the Treasury, and although he had not the assistance of a Third Lord. Therefore, the task imposed upon him by that Act had entailed no ordinary addition to his duties. He had further to superintend the preparation of a new form of accounts, under which the new audit system was to be carried out. It had required considerable time to effect all these changes, and he quite admitted that the Act had not yet been fully complied with; but he believed that that was owing to no lack of exertion or of zeal, but to the labour entailed by the Act being greater than those who had originally drawn up its provisions had conceived. He thanked the House for having permitted him to make this statement, and the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) for giving him the opportunity of making it. He had thought these few words necessary to justify the conduct of the late Government and of himself personally.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he found some difficulty in following the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), which would doubtless be more satisfactory to the official mind than it was to his. There was an interval of eight or nine months between the passing of the Act and the time when it was to become operative, and it seemed to him that that interval, if it had been properly used, was long enough to make all the necessary arrangements. It was far from his intention to do injustice to the right hon. Gentleman or to any other Member of the House; but he could not dismiss from his recollection the fact that, in the Civil Service Estimates of last year, out of a total of 168 Votes only twenty-two had been subjected to the operation of the Act of 1866. He should be glad if the effect of this discussion should be a more strict application of the Act. He did not cast any imputation upon the Audit Office, because they could not audit accounts that never were submitted to them. With the exception of the Board of Trade, the Office of Works, the

  1193
  Woods and Forests, and one other, none of the Government Departments had submitted their accounts to the Audit Office—not even the Treasury—and the Treasury accounts were still unaudited. Although the work of the Audit Office was not done, the cost of the establishment to the public had not failed to increase. Either the Act should be abolished, and the whole thing voted a sham, or the office and its work should be made a reality. The accounts of the various Departments should be audited by an independent Audit Department, which should be under the direct control of Parliament, and not connected in any way with the Departments whose accounts it had to audit.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he feared that his hon. Friend (Mr. Candlish) was labouring under a misapprehension as to the position and duty of the Auditor General. His hon. Friend said that the Auditor General was nominated by the Crown, and could not, therefore, be independent in the performance of his duty, but must be the servant of the Treasury. True, the Auditor General was appointed by the Crown; but so were the Judges, and no one would assert that they were not independent. There could be no better evidence of the independence of the Auditor General than the language of his Reports, which were made for the purpose of being laid before the House; and in which he canvassed the proceedings of the Treasury and every other Department of the Government in the most independent manner, and with the consciousness of responsibility to that House and the country; and it was to those Reports that his hon. Friend was indebted for the strictures he had made on the audit of public accounts. No doubt the audit to which reference had been made took much more time than had been anticipated. The matter had been referred to a Select Committee, who had endeavoured, but in vain, to make their Report in time for the present discussion. It would, however, be before the House in a few days. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it was for the interest of the public that the provisions of the Act should be carried out to its fullest extent; but it was better, while there was a Committee of Accounts investigating the matter, to wait until the Report was presented. He should be
  1194
  quite prepared to enter into a full discussion of the subject when it was properly before the House.
  MR. J. WHITEsaid, that there was this difference between the Judges and the Auditor General, that the former appointed their own officers, and were subject to no interference on the part of the Executive, while the Act gave the Treasury the power of appointing the officers and clerks of the Auditor General, and of fixing their salaries. The Treasury were also to prescribe the forms of the accounts to be adopted, and even had the power of dispensing with vouchers when they thought proper. The Accountant General could also appeal in certain cases to the Treasury against the Auditor General. He had always been of opinion that the Auditor-General would never be independent until he was appointed by the House, and made his Reports to a Standing Committee of hon. Members. The Auditor General was even dependent on the Treasury to be placed on the superannuation list.

REGINA v. OVEREND, GURNET & Co.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FAWCETT, in rising to call attention to the grave evils which may result to the public from the possibility which had been shown to exist that the Law Officers of the Crown may be retained as Counsel for the Defendants in such a ease as "Regina v. Gurney and others," said, there were one or two points connected with the subject which he regarded as of the greatest importance. It was not his intention to controvert the decision of the other night, which, he believed, was due mainly to the speech of the First Minister of the Crown, the effect of which must for ever dispel the impression that existed out-of-doors, that the votes of Members were not liable to be influenced by speeches delivered in the House. The Attorney General admitted on Thursday evening that in some public cases the Government ought to appear as a prosecutor, but he added that those cases were exceptional; and he went on to observe that whether the Government should appear as a prosecutor or not was a question which was in the main to be decided by two con-

  1195
  siderations. The Government must, the hon. and learned Gentleman contended, in the first place, pay regard to the importance of the case, and, secondly, to the probability or the improbability of obtaining a conviction. Now, with respect to the importance of the case, that was a point on which most men were competent to form an opinion; but as far as the probability or improbability of a conviction was concerned, that was a question which, as the Attorney General had most truly said, could not be determined by laymen, but by competent legal authorities such as the Law Officers of the Crown. That being so, what was the conclusion to be drawn from the doctrines which the hon. and learned Gentleman had laid down; it was that beyond all dispute the advice which the Government ought to be able to derive from the Law Officers of the Crown they might at any moment be deprived of by the circumstance that those Law Officers had been retained for the defence; indeed, that very thing had occurred in the present instance. The Government had been deprived of the able assistance of the Solicitor General, and it would seem to be owing to accident that they had not lost the services of the Attorney General as well; so that, in a matter vitally affecting the public interests, they might have been left without the advice of either of their two Law Officers. That was a danger which, in his opinion, something ought to be done to obviate. Nothing was further from his intention than to censure in the slightest degree the conduct in the matter of his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General). He felt satisfied that he had done nothing more than that which had been done by other Solicitors General before him, and that he had acted entirely in consonance with the practice which now prevailed at the Bar. He alluded to his position with regard to the case of which he was speaking, simply because it afforded a pertinent illustration of our present system as it related to public prosecutions. As a layman, it would be presumptuous in him to say anything as to the wisdom and policy of appointing a public prosecutor; but it must, he thought, be evident that the danger which he had indicated, and the partial danger which had been incurred in the present instance, pointed to the necessity of having something done to prevent a recurrence of
  1196
  such a state of things as that by which public attention was now engaged. He was, he thought, expressing the opinion, not merely of that House, but almost of the whole nation, when he said that the public were most deeply anxious that the trial to which his observations referred should be fair and complete; and it would be a consummation not only unsatisfactory to the country, but discreditable to our system of jurisprudence, that the trial should fall through, a result of which there appeared to be imminent danger. The impression, he might add, seemed to prevail—and that impression had been fostered by some speeches which had been made from the Treasury Bench—that he and others who had taken an interest in the matter had done so on behalf of private shareholders. Now, that was an imputation which he begged altogether to repudiate. He had interested himself in the matter because he believed it to be of the utmost importance that public justice should be vindicated. He cared nothing about the shareholders. They could look after themselves; but he thought it of the greatest moment that persons who were accused of a grave offence, and in whose case a reasonable suspicion of guilt existed, should not be allowed to escape merely because of the inability or otherwise of a private individual to carry on the prosecution. In conclusion, he begged to say that he did not desire to move the Resolution on the subject which stood on the Paper in his name.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was with some reluctance that he was about to break the silence which he had hitherto observed on the subject under the consideration of the House, because he thought it was, as a general rule, unwise that a lawyer should discuss in that House matters in which he happened to be professionally engaged. Since he had the honour of a seat in Parliament he had never done so, and he should not have risen to say a single word that evening but for the persistent conduct with regard to the case in question, which, from some motive or another which he was unable to divine, the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had pursued. His hon. Friend must excuse him for telling him in plain, but he hoped not offensive, language, that it would be just as well that he should, before he interfered in matters of the

  1197
  kind, make himself acquainted with the facts of the case and the first elements of the subject with which he was dealing; because it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman, for want of that knowledge, had wasted the time of the House, and imposed on some of its Members a good deal of unnecessary trouble. It was one of the first rules of the profession to which he had the honour to belong, which, although like other rules—like those of the House of Commons, for instance—they might not be at first sight intelligible to those who did not happen to live under them, yet were in reality the expression of common sense and good feeling and honour, and were necessary to regulate those singularly complicated and delicate relations which existed between the advocate and the client—it was one of the first rules of that profession that a man, whether guilty or innocent, whether the victim of cruel and unjust prejudice or not, had an absolute and indefeasible right to retain the services of the advocate whom he might think qualified to represent him, and to see that, whatever his merits or demerits, justice was done him in the Law Courts of the country. It was because the Bar had not the right to make selections and to form their own opinions on cases that the profession he belonged to was the profession of a gentleman, and one which a man of honour could practise. If the Bar were to identify themselves with their clients and to exercise their own selection and judgment in respect to the cases submitted to them, they would be open to the base and hateful charge of selling their convictions and opinions, which no person with a knowledge of the facts could venture to impute to them now. He confessed that he was speaking with some warmth; but he trusted that the House would excuse him, because the hon. Gentleman had forgotten, or was unaware of one of the plainest and simplest rules which guided the profession he belonged to. In respect to the particular case now before the House, if, after the years they had acted together, the hon. Gentleman had done him the honour to communicate with him, or if he had taken the pains to understand the plainest elements of the case, he would have found that nothing had been done in this matter which was not consistent with common sense, and with the strictest rules of etiquette and honour.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he wished to be allowed to say one word.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member had no right to interrupt unless with the permission of the Solicitor General.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that in September, 1866, he was engaged, as any counsel might have been, to defend Messrs. Gurney, two years and two months before he accepted the office of Solicitor General, and Sir John Karslake was also retained some ten days later, five or six weeks before becoming Solicitor General in the late Administration. They were both engaged by general retainers to defend the Messrs. Gurney in any proceedings in which the Messrs. Gurney might be engaged. A general retainer simply gave the person who delivered it the right to the refusal of the services of the barrister to whom it was delivered, and it gave the barrister no right to force his services on the person retaining him. Some time afterwards, when the Messrs. Gurney got into peril and the matter came before a legal tribunal, the ordinary retainer to defend them was delivered to him. Everyone who delivered an ordinary retainer to a Queen's Counsel knew that he delivered it subject to the right of the Crown to require the Queen's Counsel to appear for the Crown in the particular matter. When, therefore, the ordinary retainer was delivered to him he took the proper precaution that the Government should be consulted, and he held the license of the Queen, under the sign manual, to defend the Messrs. Gurney in the present case. The right of refusal had many times been exercised. On one occasion his learned friend, Mr. Giffard, was retained to defend a man who, in a case before Lord Penzance, was clearly proved to have been guilty of forging a will; but the Crown thought Mr. Giffard's services were of great importance, and refused them to that man, telling him that there were plenty of other Queen's Counsel whom he could employ to defend him at the Old Bailey. Very recently the Attorney General and himself thought it their duty to withhold from a gentleman who wished for the services of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), permission to have them, and for the plain reason that it was a matter in which the Crown was concerned, and the hon. and learned Member,

  1199
  as formerly Law Officer of the Crown, had cognizance of the case. So, too, in the case of Miss Shedden, in the House of Lords, the Attorney General having been formerly her counsel, and knowing her affairs, yet, as by statute he was necessarily a party against her in her appeal, had abstained, as every honourable man in his position would, from appearing in the case at all, though it was conducted in his name, and had left it to be practically conducted by the hon. and learned Member for King's Lynn. These were matters which everyone perfectly understood, and he could not comprehend what the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) would have. Did he mean to say that a barrister ought to refrain from giving his services to a private individual, because he might at some future time, by some personal or political accident, happen to be a Law Officer of the Crown? Or did the hon. Member suppose that the barrister would, on being appointed a Law Officer, immediately go over to the Government with all the information he had acquired in the sacred character of counsel to a private individual? Or did the hon. Gentleman mean to say those barristers only should be selected as Law Officers of the Crown whom no persons would engage in any important case, and that the confidence of the Crown was to be extended only to those whom nobody else would extend confidence to? This question had nothing to do with that of a public prosecutor; and he might say that whenever a public prosecutor should be appointed, it would not be the Attorney General or the Solicitor General who would fill the Office, for they had too much to do already. He repeated that he did not know what motives induced the hon. Member to persist in the course he had pursued, and he would not stop to inquire into them. There were some persons who found a vulgar pleasure in carping at a great profession to which they did not belong, and which they did not understand, but which had in its day done great things for the liberties of Englishmen, and which contained within itself men as pure, as high-principled, and as honourable, as any who carped at and detracted from it. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman wished to teach him his duty, but he would say that he did not desire to be taught by him, and when he did desire it he would let him know and
  1200
  would attend his lectures. In the meantime, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would make himself acquainted with the elements of the subject he ventured to discuss. He did not know whether he intended to cast a censure on the general conduct of the profession. If he did it was because he did not understand it. If, on the other hand, the hon. Gentleman brought forward this matter in order to concentrate public attention on a trial which was almost imminent, and which involved the fortunes and characters of many individuals, he was acting most unjustly and most cruelly. Outside the House he (the Solicitor General) was the paid advocate of the Messrs. Gurney, and, therefore, inside the House he would not say one single word which might convey his opinion about the case; but this he would say, that whatever their merits might be—whether guilty or innocent of the matter now specifically laid to their charge—it would be well for the hon. Gentleman —it would be well for himself, it would be well for most of us—if our lives could show instances of such noble and magnanimous disinterestedness and self-sacrifice as these defendants had displayed.
  MR. FAWCETTbegged to be allowed to explain. He had been most careful not to say a single syllable of censure against the Solicitor General. He said he had simply done what every Solicitor General had done before him, and what he was bound to do by the rules of his profession. He never said a word against the legal profession, for which he had been himself preparing, and for which he had every sympathy. He had called attention to the matter, not to show what his opinion was with reference to the conduct of any person, but with the simple view of exposing what he considered a defect in our system of jurisprudence.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £40,000, to complete the sum for Public Offices Site.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, he entirely agreed with what had been said the other evening by the hon. Member for

  1201
  Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) on this subject. When property was to be acquired by the Government, it was most desirable that its acquisition should be made at once, not piecemeal. In the present instance the original estimate had been £104,000; and the revised estimate now reached £147,000.
  MR. AYRTONexplained that there was an error in the revised estimate. It should be £129,999.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he had put a Notice on the Paper to urge that this Vote should not be proceeded with until the Committee had a little more information in regard to it. A large question was involved which had been before the House for some years. About twelve years ago it was proposed to rebuild the Foreign Office on account of its dilapidated state. A long discussion ensued, and a great many plans were brought forward. A portion of the land on the other side of Parliament Street was purchased, including part of Fludyer Street and Gardiner's Lane. In 1857, a scheme, almost identical with that of last year, was brought forward. That scheme, of which the expense approached £11,000,000 or £12,000,000, for purchasing the whole property from the Horse Guards to Great George Street, and covering it with public offices, was wholly rejected. The plan was so extravagant—it reached to the Thames and comprised a flower garden. In 1865, the late First Commissioner brought forward another Bill for the extension of the purchase of land from Gardiner's Lane, stating that there was no intention of running into the great scheme of eight years before. The whole expense was then limited to £30,000. In 1866, a short Bill was brought in at the end of the Session by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, then Secretary to the Treasury, for a small acquisition of land. He asked for £20,000, and the estimate for the completion of the purchase was £12,000. In 1866 there was another estimate for £84,000, but no plan was laid on the table. In 1867, the sum which appeared in the Estimates was £104,000. But in the interim a new plan had been discovered by accident, and the great scheme of ten or twelve years ago was to be promoted again. Notices were given and plans deposited in the Private Bill Office for purchasing the whole property right down to Great George Street. This scheme, as he had
  1202
  stated, would involve the expenditure of from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000. Persons holding very high positions in the existing Government had gone fully into the question, and said it would be a most unwise thing for any Committee to sanction such a scheme without a full statement of what the expenditure contemplated would be, and until plans were laid on the Table. Unless the House looked carefully at what they were about to do, they would find themselves committed by that Vote and by the measure introduced by the Government to an expenditure equal to what had been incurred for the Abyssinian War. They ought to pause before agreeing to a Vote like that, in the total absence of any plans or estimates. Public Business did not require palaces for its transaction; all that was wanted was good public offices. It might be a fine thing to remove St. Margaret's Church because it obstructed the view, but the question was whether the outlay was prudent and desirable. They had the ground requisite for building the Colonial Office and the Home Office, and he denied the necessity of going further with that scheme before those two new public offices were touched. Parliament had not yet assented to that enormous expenditure, and now was the time for them to make a stand on the matter. The Foreign Office and the Indian Office had taken ten or twelve years to complete. There was an equal time before them to complete the Home and Colonial Offices, and until that was done he hoped the Government would not proceed with that Vote, especially as the Committee had no plans and estimates before them, and were, therefore, entirely in the dark.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the hon. Gentleman had mixed up two things that were entirely distinct. The present Vote was asked to purchase the site for completing the quadrangle, one-half of which only had been erected, that half containing the Foreign and the India Offices. The Act on the subject was passed, in 1865, and unless the property was purchased this year, the notices which had been served would lapse. Last year Parliament voted £10,000 for the foundations of those two buildings. Those foundations were now laid, and the next Vote to the one now under discussion was a further sum to erect those buildings. Therefore, the Vote now asked for was

  1203
  merely to complete the purchase of the site required for those buildings which had been authorized by Act of Parliament. Beyond that there was a scheme for purchasing additional land, with respect to which he had introduced a Bill that had been read the second time, and which would to-morrow be considered in Committee upstairs. When that Bill came from the Select Committee it would be brought before the House, and the House would then have a full opportunity of discussing it on its merits, and he would be prepared to state what land the Government proposed to take. He wholly denied, however, that either he or the noble Lord who preceded him in his office (Lord John Manners) ever contemplated an expenditure like that incurred in the Abyssinian War. He thought, indeed, that the expenditure upon the new Foreign Office had been of a lavish and scandalous character; but the estimates for the new Home and Colonial Offices had been subjected to the strictest examination, and he trusted that in regard to the erection of those two buildings there would be no such just ground of complaint.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he must express himself still dissatisfied. The House ought to be furnished with a plan and an estimate.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that if the foundations of the Home Office and Colonial Office had already been laid, the future line of King Street must now be determined. He should wish to know whether it was proposed to remove the whole of the block of buildings between King Street and Parliament Street?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, it was only contemplated to remove a portion of that block at present. Parliament had always contemplated the eventual removal of the King Street block.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to know how far the present Government intended to adopt the scheme of the Treasury Commission appointed in 1866–7, by which an expenditure of £3,300,000 was contemplated. By that scheme it was proposed to put a stop to the ever-increasing demands for hired offices, where the business of the country was conducted under the greatest inconveniences. The Commission was originally appointed in 1866 by the Government of Lord Russell, and it continued its labours under that of Lord
  1204
  Derby. In 1868, it made its Report to the Treasury, and in accordance with the recommendations in that Report notice was given of the intention of the Government to purchase the block between King Street and Parliament Street, and the announcement of that intention on the part of the Government had been received with satisfaction by both sides of the House. The matter was then left in an advanced stage in the hands of their successors in Office, but up to the present moment he had been unable to ascertain what was the intention of the present Government with respect to the purchase of the King Street block. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) was unable, owing to the late hour, to enter fully into this subject when he moved the second reading of the Public Offices Bill. However, from a map which he had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman, he found that the Government proposed to take only half the property which it had been the intention of the late Government to acquire; but whether that was a permanent or only a temporary arrangement he had been unable to ascertain. The object that the Commission had in view was the continuity of the works, and to avoid anything like a hand-to-hand and bit-by-bit purchase of land for the erection of public buildings. The purpose for which this particular Vote was asked had been sanctioned over and over again by Parliament and by Committees of that House, and he hoped it would now be voted without a division.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to know what it was the Committee were voting? He admitted the necessity for the proposed new building; but was it necessary that £48,000 should be expended in clearing the space in front of the buildings?
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, the sum asked for the purchase of this property appeared to have grown from £30,000 to £147,000.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that the Committee were now asked to vote a sum to complete the buildings that had been already partly erected. In order to finish these buildings it was necessary that a portion of the King Street block should be purchased.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that Sir Charles Wood had stated that the House had formerly rejected the scheme of Lord

  1205
  Llanover to purchase all the buildings between Downing Street and Great George Street, and that the Government were merely seeking to purchase only the amount of property absolutely necessary for the erection of the buildings. The cost of the site, it was added, would be only £30,000, and what he had now to complain of was that the estimate had increased from £30,000 to £147,000. Before the Committee granted money in that reckless way, they ought, he contended, to have some plan before them to show what was actually going to be done.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was not in the slightest degree surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney); because, when he (Mr. Ayrton) sat below the Gangway, no one had commented more freely than he had done on the conduct of successive Governments in obtaining Votes of money from that House. He hoped, however, that such schedules as that which he had caused to be attached to the present Vote would place the House in possession of the actual state of affairs, and that thus a repetition of what he had frequently witnessed during the progress of Committees of Supply would be avoided. The Committee had, no doubt, in the present instance, been led to sanction a very large expenditure, without being conscious on several occasions of what it was doing. Not only, he might add, had an Act been passed for the acquisition of the property in question, but Votes of money had been taken in previous Committees of Supply for the purpose. The gross amount of Votes and re-Votes, up to March, 1868, was £167,000. That money had not been expended, because the compensation to be paid to the owners of different plots of ground had not been ascertained; but the property had been accurately described by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works as being required to complete the surroundings of the new buildings. It might be very fairly said that there was a great want of foresight on the part of the Government of the day in giving an undertaking that the land required for the completion of the buildings would only cost £30,000; but whatever might have been the blunders of the past, we had come to the point that those buildings must be erected, and, being erected at a proper elevation
  1206
  must have a sufficient space around them for the purposes of light and air. He would only say, further, that, in agreeing to the present Vote, the Committee would in no degree be pledging itself to the Bill now before the House for the further extension of the design.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would leave the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampshire (Mr. W. F. Cowper) to settle with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken as to the gross blunder which he seemed to think had been committed in fixing upon the estimate of £30,000. The hon. Gentleman was, however, he thought, wrong in saying that the House would not be committed to the plan of the late Government. In passing the present Vote the Committee would be pledging itself to the project of carrying on King Street in a new line, for the foundations of the new Home Office were to be laid in the middle of that street.
  MR. W. F. COWPERsaid, he thought the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) could scarcely have taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with the facts of the case when he referred to the estimate of £30,000 as being attributable to a gross blunder. It was capable of a very different explanation. The £129,000 embraced two different Votes for land in four streets, the first being only for a sum of £30,000 for land in Charles Street and Gardiner's Lane. An estimate for building, based on a proper contract, ought never to be exceeded, but the cost of the purchase of land depended on the verdict of juries. It might have been convenient if all the money had been voted in one year, but the amount to be so appropriated in each year was limited. It was clear from experience that to buy land rapidly was to buy it expensively. Time was required for negotiation. When the Downing Street site was bought it was at first contemplated that King Street should remain, but this arrangement would have spoilt the plan, and given an inadequate frontage to Parliament Street; and the right thing to do was to bring the front of the new Foreign Office into continuation with the line of the new Treasury building. Trafalgar Square and Parliament Street ought to be united by a broad and wide street worthy of the capital of this great Empire. He understood that the freeholds of the houses required in King Street

  1207
  were bought, and that the leaseholds only remain.
  MR. MONKsaid, he wished to know if the whole of the foundations had been laid. If so, it appeared that the Vote was not required for the site of the Government Offices, but to clear the lands around them. He should like to know what was proposed to be done with the present Home Office and the Board of Trade.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that part of this sum—namely, £13,000, was a re-vote of a sum granted last Session, but which had not been expended. The sum was for the block of buildings in Parliament Street, between Whitehall, King Street, and Charles Street, and the demolition of which had already been authorized by Parliament. The amount really required for the purchase of the remainder of the site was not £48,000, but only £35,000. The money was wanted to buy a few houses in Charles Street, and the block ended by Upper Charles Street, so that the view of the new Offices might not be shut out.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he objected to this bit-by-bit purchase of land for public offices, and thought that the Vote should be postponed until the House could see the Bill. It seemed probable that they would be asked to purchase the houses on the western side of Parliament Street, in order that it might not be a screen to the nobler and handsomer building behind.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, this was a re-enactment of a comedy that had been performed there on many former occasions. Whenever there was a new Ministry there was a new policy with regard to public buildings. He wished to know to what extent the Government were pledged. During the last Ministry an architect was appointed to prepare a design for a public building, and a great scheme was shadowed out. But that scheme fell to the ground, and he did not think that further money should be granted till a distinct policy was arrived at with regard to the public buildings. Dover House had lately been acquired by the Government, and it was desirable it should be known whether it was intended to incorporate Dover House with the Treasury buildings.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he wished to know what would be the cost of the alteration of King Street? He believed that it would
  1208
  amount to a large sum, as the whole of the buildings between King Street and Parliament Street were, as he understood, to be swept away. It occurred to him that keeping the new buildings a little further back, so as not to intrude upon King Street at all, would have saved a very large sum of money.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he thought the House was entitled to know what the expenditure on the surroundings would amount to.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, there was no question before the Committee as to the purchase of Dover House, nor of any land or buildings beyond the block of houses in King Street which he had described. The late Government were prepared to recommend the purchase of the whole site between George Street, Delahay Street, and the Park. There was a plan of the late Government as to the space between George Street and Delahay Street. But bypassing this Vote the Committee would pledge itself to nothing but the completion of that for which money had already been voted. It would be impossible to finish the Home and Colonial Offices without removing the block of buildings between Parliament Street and Upper Charles Street. He was not responsible for this purchase; he found the scheme in progress, and the foundations of the buildings already laid.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would venture to say that no one understood what they were voting the money for, nor could they do so unless a distinct plan were laid before them.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to know whether, as an encroachment had been made on King Street by bringing forward the new buildings, it was intended that there should be a new King Street, and what would be the cost?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought he had already answered that question. The remainder of King Street would remain as at present. The late Government had appointed a Commission which recommended that the remainder of King Street and the block of buildings between that street and Parliament Street should be purchased, and a Bill for carrying out this part of the scheme was now before a Committee. The estimates for that purchase were contained in the Commissioners' Report. The purchase of the whole property between Parliament Street and the Park

  1209
  was estimated at £1,200,000, but there was no intention on the part of the present Government to recommend the House to go to that expense.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had a firm conviction, if the policy of the present Government as he understood it was carried out, in a very few years the country would have to pay a far greater sum than if the proposal of the Commission were adopted. Had the right hon. Gentleman been proposing a new Vote he, no doubt, would have been prepared with a plan, but it was clearly unnecessary to produce plans for a scheme already sanctioned by Parliament.
  MR. W. F. COWPERsaid, the plan in question had been laid before Committees of the House of Commons in 1865 and 1866.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £22,000, to complete the sum for New Home and Colonial Offices.
  (3.) £20,000, to complete the sum for Public Record Repository.
  (4.) £2,435, to complete the sum for Chapter House, Westminster.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to know how it was that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, who formed a very wealthy body, were not left to repair and decorate their own Chapter House?
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, perhaps the hon. Member would be satisfied when he was informed that for 600 years the Dean and Chapter had had nothing whatever to do with the Chapter House, and Parliament everything. For about 300 years the Chapter House had been the House of Commons, and when 300 years ago St. Stephen's Chapel had been converted into a House of Commons the Chapter House was not returned to the Dean and Chapter, but was used as a Record office. The result was that one of the finest buildings in the country had been brought to a state of ruin. A few years ago the nation undertook to restore it, and year after year Parliament had cheerfully voted the money, and now the building was nearly completed. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the reason of the vote being decreased by £2,000. He hoped there was no attempt at cheese-paring or scamping the work.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that he was under the impression that the decrease arose
  1210
  from the fact that the painted windows had not been executed.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he doubted whether the work could be called a "restoration," for he did not think the building had ever been like what it was now.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to know whether this Vote would complete the work?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he expected that it would do so, with the exception of the painted windows, which was a matter for future consideration. The sum of £25,000 had been granted for the restoration, and the present Vote exhausted that sum.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,264, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Expenses connected with the Probate Court and Registries."
  MR. MONKasked on what grounds increased accommodation was required by the Registrar Office?
  MR. LAYARDreplied that he had no personal knowledge of the matter, and that, therefore, the question had. better be put to the Secretary for the Home Office on the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. MONKsaid, as no reply was vouchsafed to the question that had been put he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £238, the additional sum asked for cleaning.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,026, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Expenses connected with the Probate Court and Registries."— (Mr. Monk.)
  MR. W. F. COWPERsaid, that as the Offices of the Registrar would shortly have to be moved to the new Courts of Justice, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum asked for providing additional accommodation for that Office.
  MR. MONKsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. W. F. COWPERmoved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,500.

  1211
  He did so, he said, because he thought it would be unwise to grant money for the erection of a building to contain certain documents before it was decided whether that building would be devoted to such a purpose or not.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,764, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Expenses connected with the Probate Court and Registries."—(Mr. William Cowper.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he should admit the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks as applied to an original outlay under circumstances like the present; but that which the Committee were now invited to do was simply to vote £1,500 for the purpose of completing a work on which £16,500 had already been expended.
  MR. GOLDNEYpointed out that the original estimate was only £11,000, whereas £16,500 had been laid out on the building. The question was whether it would not be the wisest course to pursue not to go further in such an expenditure under all the circumstances of the case?
  MR LOCKEsaid, he was of opinion that as the building was nearly completed, it ought to be finished. If it were not used for this purpose it might be for some other.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the £1,500 were not required to complete the building, but to make an addition to that already completed—an addition which might never be required.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Vote was really for additions to the principal Registry.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought the money already expended would have been thrown away if the further trifling sum of £1,500 were refused for the completion of the building and the rendering it thoroughly useful.
  MR. ALDERMAN-LUSKthought it would be better to complete the building.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the Estimate was not his. He found it prepared by the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Manners), when he came into Office.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, it was necessary some plan should be adopted to stop
  1212
  these increased expenditures over estimates.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 137: Majority 71.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (6.) £19,048, to complete the sum for Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
  (7.) £46,000, to complete the sum for National Gallery Enlargement.
  (8.) £20,000, to complete the sum for University of London (Buildings).
  (9.) £13,000, to complete the sum for Glasgow University.
  (10.) £7,000, to complete the Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he thought the City of Edinburgh should provide for its own museums. In the absence of any statement or explanation he thought that the sum should not be granted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the late Government made an agreement with the Town Council of Edinburgh that if they would widen a street in the neighbourhood of the museum the Government would propose a Vote for increasing it to a certain extent. The Town Council complied with the condition, and the present Vote was, therefore, a matter of good faith.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that if a Government entered into engagements of this kind they took away the option from the House of Commons, which had not been consulted in the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the agreement bound the Government to submit the Vote to this House, and to support it. If one Government did not accept the bargains made by another, within certain limits, people and public bodies would refuse to deal with any Government.
  MR. MONKsaid, the money was not for the Museum, but for widening a street.
  MR. W. H. GREGORYsaid, he thought that when so much public money was spent upon London, they ought not to be too chary in respect to giving money to be expended in the capitals of Edinburgh and Dublin.
  MR. MILLERsaid, that the money asked for was not for widening the street, but for the Industrial Museum attached to the College. The Town

  1213
  Council agreed with the late Government to spend some £50,000 in widening the street.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that when the late Government came into Office the negotiations on this subject were going on, and it was found impossible to enlarge the Museum, unless the miserable street in question was altered.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that the Vote was for the extension of the Industrial Museum, and as they had been liberal in granting money for the British Museum and for the Kensington Museum, they could not refuse some aid to the capital of Scotland.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £54,834, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for erecting a new Building on the site of the wings of Burlington House and for New Buildings for the occupation of various Learned Bodies."
  MR. GOLDNEYasked what amount they were going to spend upon these buildings. It was originally agreed to give accommodation to three learned societies at Burlington House, and the accommodation ought either to be extended to other learned societies or the amount should be reduced. He moved to reduce the Vote by £18,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £36,834, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for erecting a new Building on the site of the wings of Burlington House and for New Buildings for the occupation of various Learned Bodies."—(Mr. Goldney.)
  MR. LAYARDsaid, accommodation had been provided in Burlington House for six learned societies. The question had already been discussed, and the House had decided that these buildings should be erected, and they were now being erected.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. GOLDNEYproposed to reduce the Vote by £6,194, the sum that had been incurred in the purchase of certain chambers in the Albany, the light of which had been interfered with by the new buildings.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that the difficulty was one that could not well have been foreseen by the architect, and had only arisen after the commencement of the building. The claim was so doubtful that it had to be decided by a court of law.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, though the chambers had been purchased they would be either re-sold or re-let, and the ultimate loss would be a very small one.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £48,640, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for erecting a new Building on the site of the wings of Burlington House and for New Buildings for the occupation of various Learned Bodies."—(Mr. Goldney.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 118: Majority 39.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS.—COMMITTEE.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in making the statement he should have to submit to the Committee, and in moving the Resolutions with which it would be his duty to conclude, he should avoid as much as possible everything of a controverted or disputed nature. There would be ample opportunity, if Members were so disposed, to renew the discussion of last Session on the second reading of the Bill. If any hon. Members still thought that the policy which dictated the measure of last year was unwise—if they thought that the arrangement then entered into was an extravagant one—it would be quite competent for them to move the rejection of the Bill on the second reading; and he did not think it incumbent on him at this stage of the proceeding to enter into any argument for or against the measure of last year. He therefore proposed to take up the subject where it was left by the passing of the Act of last year, and inform the House as briefly, but at the

1215
same time as clearly as he could, what had occurred since, and what yet remained to be done to accomplish the transfer of the telegraphs to Government. The effect of the Act of last year was to confirm certain agreements which had been entered into between the Postmaster General and the various telegraph and railway companies interested in the telegraph business throughout the country. Those agreements gave power to the Government to purchase these undertakings, subject to the necessity of introducing a Bill to Parliament this Session to provide the necessary funds. The principal provision of the agreements thus entered into was that a sum amounting to twenty years' purchase of the net profits of the companies up to the 30th of June of last year should be the price paid to the proprietors of these undertakings. There were in several instances other minor provisions by which, in the case of companies that had entered upon new trades or that had not yet commenced those trades, something should be allowed for prospective profits. But the main provision of all those agreements was that of twenty years' purchase of the profits. An engagement was entered into with the House and with the Select Committee which investigated the subject last year, that every possible means should be taken to ascertain that those net profits which were to form the basis of the bargain should actually be the profits they professed to be, and that the plant and other property to be handed over to the Government should be in a proper state of working order and repair. As soon as possible, steps were taken to fulfil that engagement. A Committee was appointed to investigate the accounts of the various companies; the Receiver and Accountant General of the Post Office was the head of that Committee, and he was assisted by gentlemen selected from the Office not only for their general ability, but specially for their knowledge of accounts. It was impossible that one Committee of the same persons should investigate all the accounts; but most elaborate instructions were drawn up for their guidance. Care was taken that they should proceed on a uniform principle, and that the knowledge they acquired by the examination of the accounts of one company should be available in the examin-
1216
ation of the accounts of another. The most experienced engineers whose services could be obtained were employed to examine the state of the various wires, cables, instruments, and plant belonging to the various companies; and, between the Committee which examined the accounts and the engineers who examined the plant, he believed that a fair opportunity was offered and taken advantage of to ascertain that sufficient allowance had been made in the accounts of the companies for depreciation, and that the stock which was about to be taken over was in fair working order. He would inform the Committee what were the amounts claimed by the telegraph companies under the Act, and what were the amounts to be actually paid to them. The whole amount that was claimed by the companies was £7,036,037. The amount that was to be paid to the companies was £5,715,047, showing an abatement of the claims made by the companies of £1,320,990. He should be prepared, if the Committee wished it, to state the exact sums to be paid to each company; but as they would be stated in the Schedule to the Bill he would now content himself with reciting the total. The examination made of the accounts of the companies showed that the trade the Government were about to purchase was a very steadily and rapidly increasing trade. The trade of the various companies was of course growing at different rates; but the examination of the whole showed that it was a steadily increasing trade. Great fault, he believed, had been found with the number of years' purchase that the Bill of last year awarded to those companies. He was not going to enter into any controverted subject; but he might state that investigation showed that the trade of two of the principal companies—the Electric and International and the Magnetic Companies—was growing in the one case at the rate of 18 per cent, and in the other case at 32 per cent per annum. Now, if the trade of the whole of the companies were only growing at the average rate of 10 per cent per annum that trade would, by the 31st of December in this year—the earliest date at which they would probably be able to take over the business—have increased to such an extent that, instead of its being twenty years' purchase on the receipts of 1869, it would be seventeen.

1217
and a-half years' purchase of the receipts of this year that they would give. It might be interesting to the Committee to know what proportion of that £5,715,000 was due to the purchase of those twenty years' profits, and what was due to other matters. Now £5,220,109 was due to the purchase of those twenty years' profits, while the other provisions only amounted in all to £494,938, or something under £500,000 sterling. As soon as the telegraph companies had been settled with, they proceded to deal with the railway companies interested under the Bill. The agreements with the railway companies were not yet entirely concluded, but two of the most important—the London and North-Western and the Great Western Companies—had been already settled with; and the amounts which were claimed by the other companies and the progress made in the adjustment of their accounts proved conclusively that the claims of the railway companies would to a very great extent assume the form of a charge for rent or way leave, and that £700,000 would be amply sufficient to purchase the whole of the trade of the railways which were doing public telegraphing business. While those two investigations were proceeding, they also took measures to ascertain what amount it would be necessary to spend on the extensions and re-arrangements of the telegraph lines so as to afford the country the whole extent of that accommodation which was promised last year. For that purpose the lines as they would be re-arranged were laid down on the map; the number of new instruments that would be required were computed; the cost of the re-arrangements was computed; the length of line for the extensions which would be necessary was calculated; the post offices in all parts of the kingdom were surveyed; the cost of the alterations of fittings was estimated; and the result was that the whole of the re-arrangements could certainly be effected at a sum under £300,000. He ought also to state that the £300,000 would cover the expense of obtaining the Act of last year and the expense of the preliminary investigations, of the arbitrations with the various companies, and, in fact, all the expense of setting the scheme in operation. They had now arrived at a sum for the telegraph companies of £5,715,000; of
1218
£700,000 for the railway companies; and of £300,000 for extensions and preliminary expenses. That brought the expenses as far as they had got to £6,715,000. There would be, under the monopoly clauses which it was proposed to introduce into the Bill, some few companies with whom it would be necessary to come to arrangements, and who were not dealt with under the Bill of last Session. There were some companies having very small trades indeed which it was not thought necessary to purchase. There were some companies which had got Acts and were in possession of certain patents, but which had never been in possession of some trade at all, but which would undoubtedly put in some claim under the monopoly clauses. They knew in some cases what those claims would be. Some of the claims that would be made were excessive, but still none of them were of any considerable amount; and power would be given by the Bill to deal with them by means of arbitration, which he thought would give them all to which they were entitled. It might confidently be stated, then, that the addition which those dealings would produce to the sum that he had mentioned would be very slight, and that the total expenditure to be incurred before the transfer of the telegraphs to the Government occurred would be covered by the sum of £6,750,000. The Committee would desire to know what was the net revenue which the Government anticipated the country would obtain in return for that expenditure. He would first take the gross revenue and the gross expenditure which they anticipated; and he would offer some explanation of how those gross sums were arrived at. They expected to get a gross revenue of £673,838; the estimate of the expenditure was £359,484, leaving a net profit of £314,354. The interest upon the £6,750,000 which he had stated as the purchase money would, at 4 per cent, be £270,000, or, at 3½ per cent, £236,250, leaving in the one case a surplus of £44,000 a year, and of £78,000 in the other. The Resolutions which he intended to move, and the Bill which would be founded on them, would give power to the Government to raise the necessary funds in any one or all of four different modes—either by Exchequer bills, or Exchequer bonds, or by

1219
the creation of Consolidated Stock, or by the creation of Terminable Annuities. It would not be necessary, seeing that the money would not be immediately required, that he should enter further into any explanation as to the particular one or the several modes which would be adopted. No doubt, if further information on that subject was desired, it would be furnished to the Committee by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he believed they might confidently expect that the money would by one or all of those methods be raised at a rate of interest not exceeding the lower figure he had named—namely 3½ per cent, and that the estimated surplus to which they might look forward, after paying all expenses and interest on capital, would be £78,000. He now proposed to state to the Committee how their estimate of revenue and expenditure had been arrived at. The first and principal item of their revenue was that for inland messages, which they estimated at £514,000 a year. That estimate was arrived at in this way. The number of inland messages for the year ending last December was, within a very few, 6,000,000. The ordinary increase that had been ascertained to exist in every one of these companies up to June 30, which was the date to which these calculations were made, would bring the messages up to 6,250,000. Now, there were two reasons why there would be a very large increase upon these inland messages. The first was the additional facilities that they were going to give to the public for the use of the telegraph, the second was the reduction in the price. As to the additional facilities which were to be given to the public in the use of the telegraph they might be classed under three heads. There would be, in the first place, the creation of offices of deposit, and every letter box and every pillar box would be an office of deposit where messages would be received to be sent to the telegraph office, to be forwarded to their destination. The next facility would be to bring the wires into the money-order office in every town and district, thereby bringing the telegraph into the centre of a population instead of its remaining, as it frequently did at present, in the outskirts. The third facility was the extension in many places of the number of hours dur-
1220
ing which the telegraph would be accessible to the public. With regard to some of these matters they had not had any means of ascertaining the increase. With regard, however, to bringing the telegraph nearer the centre of population, they had been able to form a tolerably accurate estimate. They had the experience, not only of foreign countries, but of telegraph companies in our own country to guide them, and they were consequently able to form a tolerably exact estimate of what would be the result if the telegraph companies extended their wires from the outskirts to the centres of population. They had reason to believe that there would be an increase of 15 per cent following from those facilities. As to the increase following the reduction in price, telegraph messages were now divided into several classes. Some were sent at 6d., others at 1s., others at 2s., at 3s., and at 4s. Those varying prices they now proposed to assimilate to one uniform tariff of 1s. for twenty words. In one case—that of the 6d. messages—there would be a reduction in consequence of the increase of the price to 1s., and this reduction they had estimated at 50 per cent. The number of offices would, however, be so multiplied, and the item of porterage so far reduced, that they did not anticipate the reduction would really be so great. The increase of 15 per cent from the extension of facilities would of course apply to every kind of message: and would further increase the figures he was quoting. The 1s. messages would remain as they were, subject only to the increase of 15 per cent, the 1s. 6d. would be increased by 50 per cent, the 2s. by 100 per cent, the 3s. and 4s. by 103 and 106 per cent respectively. These were not arbitrary estimates. They had been ascertained to be the increase resulting from the reductions in tariffs in this and other countries, and the Government believed it to be an under statement of the increase that might reasonably be expected to follow the reductions they proposed to make. Taking the number of telegrams at 6,250,000, which was supposed to be the annual rate, from June this year the estimated number of messages in the first year would be 8,815,443. As a considerable number of these telegrams would consist of more than twenty words, each telegram had been

1221
estimated as producing 1s. 2d., and at that price these 8,815,443 telegrams would yield a revenue of £514,234. He would have to detain the Committee for a much shorter time on the remaining items of revenue, first in connection with which was £109,577 for Continental and Atlantic messages. That was no estimate, for it was the actual share of the receipts from the Continental and Atlantic messages, which under their agreement they would be entitled to receive. It was the share of the receipts earned last year, and there was no reason to suppose that there would be any diminution in the next twelve months. Then from private wires and instruments they were to receive £25,027, and on the transmission of news £25,000, and in both cases the sums mentioned were less than the receipts which had been earned by the telegraph companies whose business they had taken. These items would give a total of £673,838. The first item of expenditure was £89,371 for the maintenance of land lines. In that item there was but little uncertainty. In one or two cases contracts had already been entered into with companies to maintain the lines at a certain sum per annum, and there was but little doubt that other companies would willingly accept the same terms. For the maintenance of wires on roads and canals, which would be put down in a different way, they had taken the highest rates which existing companies had to pay. Next came the maintenance of inter-insular cables, £2,267. This sum merely related to the maintenance of the cable between England and Ireland, the maintenance of the submarine cable devolving on the Submarine Company. For the maintenance of instruments the estimate was £11,357. That estimate had been arrived at by actually counting the wires and instruments to be maintained at each station and the annual expense of maintaining each instrument having also been ascertained. The next item was for salaries and wages, uniform clothing, travelling expenses, poundage on the sale of stamps, and all other expenses incidental to the commercial branch of the business, and under this heading their estimated expenditure, including compensation for redundant officers of companies, would amount to £191,205. That estimate had not been made roughly, but had been formed
1222
upon a careful inquiry into the circumstances and requirements of every station. It proceeded upon a scheme mapped out and planned for every one of the offices; and though he did not mean to say that the scheme might not have to be altered, he wished to assure the Committee that it was the result of careful inquiry, and not of any guess. For wayleaves, rents, rates, and petty expenses, they had estimated £49,500, the larger part £30,000 having to be paid to the railway companies for wayleaves or rent. All the railway companies had not yet been settled with. They had made arrangements with the London and North-Western Railway Company; and with the others with whom their time did not so soon expire they would probably be able to arrange on more advantageous terms. The last item was £15,784 for the renewal of cables whether inter-insular or continental. That was, no doubt, a very exaggerated estimate. Contrary to the opinion of some of the most experienced engineers, the Government had taken the life of a cable at fifteen years, and estimated that they would have to replace them all at the end of that time. The total of the estimated expenditure was £359,484. It would, no doubt, be observed that the estimate was somewhat less than the estimate of the expenditure given by Mr. Scudamore. This estimate, laid before the Committee last year by Mr. Scudamore, was necessarily framed in a very rough and broad manner; but the estimate which he had just brought under the notice of the Committee was based on calculations made at every point. He might mention, as evidence of its probable accuracy, that the proportion of revenue to the expenditure was as nearly as possible the same as the proportion of revenue to expenditure in the case of the largest company— the Electric and International. He saw no reason why the Government should not be able to keep their expenditure in as favourable proportion to their expenditure as a private company had succeeded in doing. He might also observe that the calculations had been taken six months too soon, and for that reason had been taken rather to the disadvantage of the Government. The estimate of revenue had been made on the six months, ending June 30, in the present year; but the Government would not be able to enter into possession till

1223
the 31st of December, so that the revenue then would no doubt be considerably larger than that for the half-year on which the estimate was based. In the estimate no allowance was made for any increase after the first stimulus, but he thought the Committee would agree with him in thinking there was no reason to suppose that an annual increase in the profits would not arise. It was intended to introduce clauses to give a monopoly of telegraphic business to the Government. The Committee would observe that the Government did not expect this undertaking would be unremunerative. Indeed, he hoped that in time it would be a source of considerable revenue to the Government; but in resolving to enter into this matter the Government had been influenced much more by a regard to the advantage and convenience of the public than by a desire to make profits. It was true that the companies had extended their lines to the largest towns. The Government proposed to extend telegraphic communication to the suburbs of all the large towns, to all the second-rate towns having railway stations, and to places in which at present there were neither telegraph nor railway stations. The Government would serve 3,776 places, instead of 1,882 now served by telegraphs and railways, and they would have 848 branch offices, as compared with 277 existing at present. There was now one telegraph office to every 13,000 of the population; the Government would have one office to every 6,000 of the population. When the Government were giving such great advantages to the public he did not think it too much to ask that they should be protected from the unfair and dangerous competition to which they might be exposed by a company opposing them on some very remunerative line. He did not wish to enter upon any controversial topic on the present occasion. He would lay the estimates on the table and produce any other explanations in a printed form which the House might desire to be furnished with. The noble Marquess then moved the Resolutions.
MR. HUNTthanked the noble Marquess for the clear and able statement in which he had laid the plan of the Government before the Committee. He would not enter into any controversial matters at present; but as the proposal
1224
to give the Government a monopoly was a departure from the scheme of last year, he would reserve his opinion on that point. He perceived also that it was proposed to give them the option of taking cash or Government securities, and he supposed the Government would reserve to itself the right to elect which of these four plans they would adopt.
MR. CRAWFORDalso thanked the noble Marquess for the clear and succinct manner in which he had treated this complicated subject. He wished to know whether, in awarding compensation, individual shareholders in companies would be dealt with by the Government in a direct manner or through the companies. There was some apprehension in the City that a large amount of stock was to be created, but perhaps there was no good ground for that apprehension. He should also be glad to know whether it were intended that the Government monopoly should interfere with the right now possessed by private individuals of communicating between their places of business and their manufactories or warehouses; he believed that any interference with that privilege would be found very inconvenient in many large establishments. He also thought that the increase of the charge from 6d. to 1s. for messages within the bounds of the metropolis would be unpopular, and would check the employment of the telegraph in that important portion of the kingdom. He thought the surplus should be applied, part in paying off the debt to be incurred, and part in reducing the cost of messages. The result of the telegraph being very extensively used would, however, be a reduction in our postal receipts. He wished further to be informed by the noble Marquess how it was proposed to deal with messages sent over sea—whether it would be necessary to resort to the telegraph companies in communication with such places as India or New York, or whether the work would be undertaken at the Government Offices? In conclusion, he had to express his belief that they were all bound to give to the Government every assistance they could towards carrying out that important scheme now that it had been finally adopted.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought the country would be much indebted to the Government for bringing forward the scheme. A reduction in the tariff ought,

1225
however, to be made as soon as circumstances allowed of it. It was only on that understanding that the country would consent to a monopoly.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he hoped that either he or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be allowed to reply fully to the numerous questions of the hon. Member for the City of London on some future occasion. He might, however, say at once that the Government proposed to deal with the companies and not with individual shareholders, and that there was not the remotest intention of interfering with private lines of telegraph used for the transmission of messages, relating solely to the business of the owners. The exceptions to the clause granting a monopoly, would be sufficient to cover any case of that sort. The increased receipts were expected to result from the increased facilities which would be given, and from the reduction of the charges. To the question respecting Indian and foreign telegrams he could not now reply with certainty, but his impression was that messages to India and. all Continental messages would be transmitted in the usual way through the ordinary offices; and he could not help thinking that the facilities afforded for the purpose would lead to a large increase in those messages. In conclusion, he took this opportunity of stating that, if the Resolutions were agreed to, he should to-morrow move the first reading of a Bill founded upon them. The measure would be referred to the Examiners of Private Bills, and he would take an early opportunity of stating when it would come on for a second reading.

(1.) Resolved, That it is expedient to provide for the purchase by the Postmaster General of the Undertakings of Telegraph Companies in the United Kingdom.

(2.) Resolved, That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to raise such monies as shall be required for such purchase by the creation of securities chargeable on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

(3.) Resolved, That the said Commissioners may raise such monies by Terminable Annuities or Exchequer Bills or Exchequer Bonds or Three per Cent Capital Stocks of Annuities, or by either or by all of such modes, provided that the total amount shall not exceed in the whole the sum of seven millions of pounds sterling.

(4.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of monies to be provided by Parliament for the purpose of all expenses which may be incurred in working, maintaining, and extending the Telegraphs so purchased, and for the
1226
issue of any surplus of receipts over payments arising therefrom to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to be applied to the redemption of National Debt.

(5.)Resolved, That it is expedient to amend "The Telegraph Act, 1868."

House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Charity Commissioners * (170); Bishops Resignation * (171).
Second Reading—Companies Clauses Act (1863) Amendment * (147); Poor Law Union Loans * (148).
Committee—Irish Church (109).
Committee—Report—Titles of Religious Congregations Act Extension * (130).
Third Reading—Beerhouses, &c. * (145); Public Parks (Ireland) * (163), and passed.

CONVICTION FOR FURIOUS DRIVING.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, he wished to ask the noble Earl (Earl Granville), Whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been directed to a conviction in the penalty of forty shillings (before Mr. Knox, police magistrate) of Lieutenant-Colonel G. B. Knox for what is called furious riding in Rotten Row; and whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it is expedient to leave the law in its present state, thereby constituting the policeman who happened to be on duty, and whose judgment it is much to be feared had not been matured by a long course of study on the difficult point of pace an ex officio Judge, whose dictum is to be fatal when once it had been given on oath. He wished to say nothing derogatory to the metropolitan police, for the public were much in-debt to them for their general efficiency and discretion, but they were liable occasionally to fall into the mistake of what Talleyrand used to call trop de zéle, and the present case appeared to him an instance in point. On the part of the gentleman who had been fined, he could state that, in his opinion, he was not riding at the rate of more than ten miles an hour, but one policeman had de-
  1106
  scribed the pace as twelve and another as thirteen miles an hour. The time was half-past seven in the morning, so that the complaint preferred against him was rather hypercritical. He was riding a horse, too, which it was rather difficult to manage, and it was well-known that the only way of managing such a horse was to hold hard to his head and make him go for a little distance. Any of their Lordships might be summoned in the same way unless a little more discretion were shown in instituting prosecutions?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must apologize to the noble Earl for having been rather dilatory in communicating with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and for being at present unable to give him information on the exact point which he had brought forward. He remembered that, some years ago, there were very great and very just complaints as to the way in which horses were ridden in the park, and that the police were consequently directed to check it. He had heard very different characters of the horse ridden by Colonel Knox; for, according to one description, it was a lady's horse, and, according to another, it was a great kicker. If the horse was one which could only be managed by holding hard by his head and shoving him along, he must say he thought it would be well if that class of horses were shoved from the Park altogether. As to the hour of the day, he could not quite agree with the noble Earl that that was an argument against there being any danger, for at that time of the day there were many pedestrians in the Park, and also many of the younger members of their Lordships' families. The police, no doubt, were bound to exercise great discretion in the matter, and he would make it his duty to inquire into the facts of the case.

ORDER OF ST. PATRICK.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF PORTARLINGTONsaid, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government, In the event of the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church becoming law, in what manner in conformity with the existing statutes it is proposed to provide successors for the offices of Prelate, Chancellor, and Dean

  1107
  of the Order of St. Patrick, so that the dignity of that Order may be in no way diminished as originally founded by the Sovereign of these kingdoms; and also in what manner, and in what place the ceremonies connected with the installation of the Knights are for the future to be conducted and held? The Order, as their Lordships were aware, was founded in 1783, and was connected with the Established Church, the Archbishop of Armagh being Prelate, the Archbishop of Dublin, Chancellor, and the Dean of St. Patrick, Registrar, just as the Dean of Windsor was connected with the Order of the Garter, and the Dean of the Chapel Royal of Holyrood with that of the Thistle. Now, it was true that the Bill preserved the rank and status of the Irish Prelates during their lives, but the motto of the Order—Quis separabit? would no longer be applicable to the Irish Church as a branch of the United Church, and on the death of the present Prelate and Chancellor the offices would, in the absence of some new provision, be swept away. The investiture of the Knights had usually been accompanied by much pomp and circumstance, the oath being administered by the Prelate, but who would in future discharge that duty? The installation, moreover, had hitherto been held in St. Patrick's Cathedral, but the officers of the disestablished Church might refuse the use of that building, and if Her Majesty should, at any time, go over to Ireland, and should wish to hold a chapter of the Order, where could it be held? He knew of no place except the Curragh of Kildare, and would that be a proper place? He remembered the splendour of the last installation, and the princely magnificence displayed by the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn) who then filled the office of Lord Lieutenant; but, unless the Government were prepared to maintain the dignity and prestige of the Order, that occasion would stand on record as the last ceremony of the kind, and the organist might have appositely played Luther's hymn—
  "What do I see and hear?
  The end of things created."
  He hoped, however, to hear that the Government intended to preserve the Order in all its dignity and prestige.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not intend to follow at great length the
  1108
  speech of my noble Friend, but merely rise to reply to the Question he has put. I may, however, point out one mistake into which he fell. He asked what would happen to the Order and to the motto which belongs to it if the Irish Church were separated from the English Church. Now, I believe that the motto Quis separabit? refers to the three Crowns of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and it cannot possibly refer to the Churches, because the Order of St. Patrick was founded before the Union. This matter has not been overlooked by the Government; but as there did not appear any great urgency in the settlement of the question, and as it was not intimately connected with the important measures now before Parliament, it was decided to reserve it for future consideration.

IRISH CHURCH BILL—(No. 109.)
(The Earl Granville.)
IRISH CHURCH BILL—(No. 109.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDmoved to insert after Clause 28 a new clause, the effect of which was to free Presbyterian churches and manses from debt. The case of the Presbyterians was a rather peculiar one. The Regium Donum, as their Lordships were aware, was first instituted by William III.; but the late Earl Fortescue, when Lord Lieutenant, effected a considerable change, it being arranged that the grant should be increased in proportion to the amount subscribed for the erection of manses and churches. The result was a large increase in the number of these buildings, and it was found inexpedient that the system should be continued. These churches and manses, however, had been built on the faith of that assistance, and the Presbyterians of Ulster, having for a long time been applying to various Governments for an increase of the Regium Donum, and being to a great extent in the position of an Established Church, now asked to be treated in the same way as that in which their Lordships had treated the clergy of the Established Church, and to be relieved from the heavy charges incurred in consequence of the expectations held out by the Government twenty years ago.
  Moved, to insert after Clause 28 the following clause:—
  "The said commissioners shall ascertain the cost incurred since the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight in respect of the erection of churches or meeting-houses and manses by the Protestant non-conforming congregations of Ireland, who wore at that time in receipt of or fulfilling the conditions necessary for obtaining Regium Donum, and shall pay over to trustees to be appointed by the general assembly, or synod, or presbytery, as the case may be, the amount so ascertained."—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the clause was inconsistent both with the proposals of the Government and with the decision of the House late on Friday night. The Government would be glad to make any reasonable concession to so respectable a body as the Presbyterians of Ireland, who had received the Regium Donum, but the proposal of the noble Viscount, that they should be re-paid the sums they had disbursed in erecting these houses, was almost out of the question. One of the conditions of the Regium Donum was that the manses should be built before the grant could be applied to a particular parish. If, therefore, the money had been subscribed, there was clearly no reason for reimbursing; while if it had been borrowed it was rather a fictitious arrangement for the purpose of meeting the conditions on which the Regium Donum was afterwards granted.
  EARL GREYsaid, he understood the facts to be these—An arrangement was made between the Presbyterians and the Government that, under certain circumstances, Presbyterian clergymen, where congregations were formed and manses were built, should be entitled to a certain amount of stipend. The Presbyterians, believing that these stipends were to go on, borrowed money for the erection of these manses. Now, it seemed to him unfair that when debts had been contracted and houses built on the faith of that arrangement, the Government should turn round on the Presbyterians and say—"A great change of policy is about to occur which will entirely put an end to that arrangement, and although you have incurred debts on the faith of our promises, we cannot redeem those promises, and you must struggle with your debts in the best way you can. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) had said that this clause was inconsistent with the decision of the Committee on
  1110
  Friday night. By that decision, most unfortunately as he thought, they decided that, though the vast majority of their Lordships believed it desirable in itself to give something to the Roman Catholics, they were bound to refuse it in deference to what the Government themselves seemed to consider ignorant prejudice on the part of the population. Now, if this was the case—if, in consequence of that unfortunate prejudice, their Lordships could do nothing for the Roman Catholics, he, for one, could not consent to aggravate the mischief of the vote of Friday night. They had already decided for the remission of the charge proposed to be made on the Established Church for their parsonages, and it was harsh to refuse anything to the Presbyterians, but after the decision of Friday they would only aggravate the evil by adopting the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not intend to re-open the discussion of Friday night, but the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had not appeared to understood the argument of his noble Friend (Earl Granville). The Regium Donum was given to Presbyterian ministers on condition that any minister who might claim the grant had a congregation of not less than twelve families or fifty souls, and that there existed a church and house with an assured income of £50. That manses had been allowed to reckon towards that income, and it was obvious that the grant being only made on certain conditions it would be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill—the compensation of vested interests, that compliance with those conditions should be a ground for compensation.
  Motion (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 29 (Enactment with respect to private endowments).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have placed on the Paper three Amendments in this clause, all bearing on the subject of private endowments, and I think I may say that they all appear to me to be consistent with the principle of the Bill. That principle I understand to be this—that while the Establishment, in the ordinary sense of the word, is to cease in Ireland, and while great changes are to be made with regard to the endowments, very jealous

  1111
  care is to be exercised with reference to private interests. Now the private interests of those at present in possession of any of the revenues of the Irish Church have been secured by the Amendment which your Lordships adopted as to the terms of commutation, such terms being given as will enable the Governing Body to attend to the private claims of each of those persons who have a life interest in the present revenues of the Church. Your Lordships adopted the term of fourteen years for the Established Church as well as for Maynooth, as the best way of securing those vested interests and as analogous to the liberal treatment adopted in the case of Canada, which has so often been alluded to in these debates. Another class of vested interests which your Lordships have already considered is that of the private interests of the clergy in the houses which many of them have erected, partly out of their own personal resources and partly out of building charges; the Committee being of opinion that the clergy would not have erected these houses if they had thought they were to be taken away the moment they themselves had ceased to live. Having thus, in perfect consistency with the principle of the Bill, secured the private interests of those at present in receipt of money or in the possession of houses in connection with the Church, we now come to another class of private interests to which we may properly apply that name, since they relate to private persons who, in past times, have left benefactions for the maintenance of the Established Church. And when I say for the maintenance of the Established Church I mean for the maintenance of that which, at the time of those benefactions, was the Established Church, for it would take a great deal to persuade me that those persons were so lightly attached to their Protestant faith as to leave the money merely to any Church which, in such a country as Ireland, might happen from time to time to be established. I hope and expect that the Government will not see any difficulty in acceding, at all events, to the first of my Amendments. Your Lordships are wisely jealous with respect to all such private endowments, of which there are many both in England and in Ireland. It is difficult, perhaps, even with the assistance of the Board established for the purpose, to ascertain exactly what are
  1112
  the endowments of the Roman Catholic body in Ireland, which are vested in private trustees, but no one can doubt that they are very considerable; and, I believe, the Roman Catholics would be extremely jealous of any interference with the private endowments of other bodies, which might, in time, lead to interference with their own. I have no information in this matter as to the Presbyterians of Ireland, but I know, with tolerable certainty, as to the great Presbyterian body of which the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) spoke some nights ago, that during its brief existence it has acquired very considerable endowments. Now, I am quite sure that it is not the intention of Parliament jealously to guard the private endowments of the Roman Catholic body and of the Presbyterian bodies, and to be reckless in its way of dealing with the private endowments of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Many sacrifices have been made by private members of that Church in order to confer private endowments on the body to which they belonged. It was stated, in the course of the recent debate that a Bishop of the Established Church in Ireland had left a large property to his family, though, whether, like some other Bishops, he had had the good fortune to succeed to a large fortune before he left it, I am not able to say. A list, however, has been published by Dr. Todd, of private endowments which, within his own cognizance, have been made to the Protestant Episcopal Church in Ireland. The list of these private endowments ends with the munificent bequest of the most rev. Primate who lately presided over the see of Armagh (Archbishop Beresford), a Bishop whose memory, I believe, will be long revered in Ireland as a most generous, noble, and kind-hearted man, and who, having himself succeeded to an ample fortune, was able to leave very large sums to the Church of which he was an ornament. The list, concluding with that most rev. Primate, goes back to a series of his predecessors, many of whom left large sums to the Church of which they were the heads. Primate Robinson left £1,000, which, with a bequest of Primate Boulter, at present amounts to £38,700, and has been kept separate in the accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I will not go through the list of benefactors, but fol-

  1113
  lowing them up we come to various Archbishops, and at last to the name of Archbishop Bramhall, who, in 1662, bequeathed £500 to the Church. Proceeding a little further we come to a gift of the same Bishop Bramhall, who secured for the Church a sum of money so large that in those days the interest was calculated at £30,000 a year. The same man, I say, in the year 1662, left the sum of £500, and are Her Majesty's Government about to respect the small sum left in 1662 and say that a totally different principle is to be applied to the far larger sum left at an earlier period? The very same man, a member of the very same Church, using the very same Liturgy, left both sums, and where is the difference between the two cases except this very important difference, that the one is a sum of £500, and the other produces £30,000 a year? If we had nothing to do with justice and were influenced only by motives of expediency, it might be well to draw the line at 1660; but I am sure that it is justice that has guided the course of Her Majesty's Government with respect to private endowments, and I cannot believe that the mere amount of the endowment makes such an extraordinary difference between the one case and the other. I do not know what is the reason why the year 1660 has been adopted, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not insist upon that year. We are told that the Church was in an unsettled condition before that time. We know it was not unsettled with respect to its Articles. There were, it is true, in Ireland, as in England, separate Articles answering to what were called the Lambeth Articles, but they were not the Articles of the Church of Ireland any more than they were the real Articles of the Church of England. Allow me to read a very succinct account of the matter which has been placed in my hands. The English Liturgy was established in Ireland by the Irish Act of Uniformity, 2 Elizabeth, c. 2, passed in the year 1560. If you look to the Acts of Parliament, you will find it there. I believe there can be no doubt that until within the last two or three years the Irish clergy subscribed to the Articles on the strength of a canon, passed in the year 1634, answering to our Canon of Subscription of the year 1604. Up to and even in the time when I myself with the most
  1114
  rev. Primate who presides over the Province of Armagh recommended to Her Majesty's Government that there should be an alteration in the subscription, all the clergy subscribed a canon of these same Thirty-nine Articles, according to the canon, and the date of that canon is, as I have said, 1634. It may be said that here and there Presbyterian ministers occupied livings in Ireland; but the answer is that here and there Presbyterian ministers occupied livings in England, and between the two cases there was no difference. There has been placed in my hands a reference to a work well known among Presbyterians in Ireland; it is Reid's History of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the first volume. That work, written by a Presbyterian, and highly respected as an authority, states that in the midst of the troubles in 1642 there arrived the regiment of Argyll and three other regiments from Scotland. Each of them had its Presbyterian chaplain, and the four chaplains of these regiments appear to have taken counsel together and. to have established alterations; and, in the year 1642, they held the first synod of Presbyterians in Ireland. That was during the very same time that the Presbyterian system was for a period the dominant system in England. But before 1660 Bishop Bramhall had collected the large sum of money which I have mentioned for the support of the Church of which he was a Bishop. Now, I am quite aware that the sources from which Bishop Bramhall obtained that money are said. to be somewhat doubtful. Your Lordships know that one of the most learned lawyers of the day contended that it is a very dangerous principle when a bequest has been made 250 years ago to consider what was the right of the original donor to the possession of the money. However that may be, it appears to me, on examining the matter, that there is no doubt this was a subscription collected by Bishop Bramhall for a particular purpose, well known to those who were subscribers, and made over to the Church of which he was a Prelate. It was a sort of Bishop of Derry's fund which he collected for the benefit of the Irish Church. Now, if it is said that the fact that the Sovereign having had anything to do with the money or any portion of the money takes it out of the range of private en-

  1115
  dowments, I may be allowed to road these words of the First Minister of the Crown—
  "It may have been given by a public character, but, though given by persons holding a public position, its having been given in a private capacity evidently constitutes it a private endowment,"
  Now, my Lords, in that very able argument to which I before referred, it is stated, not with reference to this gift of Bishop Bramhall, but to other matters, that the Sovereign was entitled to distribute this money as he pleased, and that it was maintained in Parliament at a subsequent period that there was no necessity for considering what the Sovereign had given, because it was his private property. It would be as difficult to prove that money belonging to the Sovereign having been given to the then Bishop of Derry, would invalidate Bishop Bramnhall's gift as that the fact of Her Majesty the Queen having munificently subscribed £3,000 to that fund which bears the name of the Bishop of London's Fund would invalidate the private character of that fund. But our Sovereigns, and Her Majesty not less than her predecessors, have been munificent in their contributions on various occasions. The funds collected by the Colonial Bishops bear with reference to one of those sees the name of Her Majesty as donor; does that take it out of the category of private endowments? Looking to the fact that a large portion of the money which Bishop Bramhall collected came from private resources, that Archbishop Laud, who was not likely to give money to a Presbyterian Church, and was certainly not a Roman Catholic, though many think he went too far in that direction, was a large contributor, apparently from his private means, I claim that this money given to Bishop Bramhall, as Bishop of Derry, belongs to the Church quite as much as the money which was afterwards left by Archbishop Bramhall when Archbishop of Armagh. It seems almost wrong after having placed this on the ground of justice and of legality, to resort to a lower argument. But some one who succeeds me may place this matter on the ground of expediency. My Lords, the persons at present in the enjoyment of these sums are the Protestants of Ulster. Your Lordships have no doubt looked to the Report of the Commissioners as to the number of Protestant
  1116
  and Episcopalian inhabitants of those parishes in Ulster. Your Lordships are probably familiar with the fact that, looking to the united diocese of Down, Connor, and Dromore, there are eleven parishes in Belfast with an aggregate Protestant population of 24,534; that of the remaining 133 one has a population of 5,000, one of between 4,000 and 5,000, six between 3,000 and 4,000, nine between 2,000 and 3,000, and seventeen between 1,000 and 2,000. I will not weary your Lordships by going through the whole list. The point which I wish to establish is that the Protestant population and the Episcopalian population of these parishes is so numerous that in point of policy, independently of justice, they have a claim to the benefit of that which the members of their own communion left them in former days. I should be very glad if something could be done such as was indicated by the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford). It would be a great mistake to think there is any feeling on the part of the Episcopalian body of Ireland against the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland. The two bodies go hand in hand; they hold the essentials of the same faith, and if we looked to matters of policy they are the strength not only of that part of Ireland but of Ireland altogether. The industry of Ireland owes much to them, and while we are considering how we are to keep our Irish fellow-countrymen attached subjects of the British Throne, it will surely be a most unwise, as I maintain also a most unjust, policy, to deprive them, living as they do in such large numbers as I have described in Ulster, of that means of carrying on their worship which funds, left distinctly to them, have secured for them. Although it may be true that when the Protestants are crowded together in towns they may supply their wants, yet it must be remembered that in many places the population though large, is poor and scattered, and therefore I feel confident your Lordships will not consent to deprive them of that which seems to be so justly their own. I am sure Her Majesty's Government will agree with me that it will be a very dangerous thing to shake the faith which all people in the United Kingdom at present have in the security of private endowments.
  Amendment moved, line 42, to leave out ("year one thousand six hundred and sixty") and insert ("second year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth.")—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) has rested his case for carrying back the period for the ascertainment of gifts of private endowment to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, in the first place, upon the passing of the 2nd of Elizabeth—the Statute of Uniformity. And then he selected two cases which I may safely say are the only two of the slightest importance as to the question whether you select 1660 or the 2nd of Elizabeth, the case of Archbishop Bramhall and the case of the Ulster grant by James I. If these two instances were put aside it would be a matter almost immaterial which of the two dates you take, except that you may, by selecting the earlier, occasion a very considerable expense by inquiring into minor endowments, an expense which would not be justified by the result. I will first consider the proposition with reference to the conditions of the statute of Elizabeth, and see how far it holds good that that Act fixes the period at which it is to be supposed various persons gave money intended for the support of the Reformed Anglican branch of the Church Catholic instead of the Roman Church. I had occasion on the second reading to point out that the Act of the 2nd of Elizabeth was not intended to exclude any portion of the great Irish nation from the benefit of religious instruction. It was an Act which contemplated religious instruction to the whole Irish nation, and in proof of that I cited one clause of the Act. The Celtic population were Roman Catholic in every sense of the word, and does it exclude them from the benefits of religious instruction? So far from that, it expressly enacts that, whereas they did not understand English, they shall continue to go on with Latin because they understand it better. We may smile at that singular notion, but can anything more conclusively show that the Act expressly included them as participators in the means devoted to public worship? Besides this, Queen Elizabeth fined and imprisoned everybody who did not go to church, clearly showing again, although
  1118
  we may smile at this means also, that she intended the whole nation should benefit. Therefore, any grant made at the time of Elizabeth was made for the whole country. Then comes Archbishop Bramhall's case, which may give rise to a very considerable amount of discussion before the Commissioners if the Amendment be adopted; and I confess the evidence, as far as I have been able together it from reading upon the subject, largely preponderates in favour of the view that Archbishop Bramhall gave nothing, or next to nothing, to the Irish Church. It is true Archbishop Bramhall obtained a large amount of money for the Irish Church, but as to how he obtained it the different biographers of Bramhall and Strafford disagree. Strafford's admirers say he procured the money, and they name this identical sum of £30,000 a year. Then Sir George Ratcliffe, Wentworth's intimate friend and constant aid in Ireland as a Privy Councillor, gives Wentworth the credit of restoring the £30,000 per annum. ''He got restored to the Church lands and tithes, sacrilegiously interverted, above £30,000 in yearly value." But I believe this is as mythical as any representation that has been made. What really happened in Ireland is this—Laud sent Bramhall to Ireland before he was made Bishop to inquire into the state of things there, Laud being advised that improper proceedings were occurring among the Anglican Bishops. Bramhall reported accordingly, and in his first letter to Laud, relating to the state of things in Dublin, he says, if I quote him correctly—
  "I will first speak of offences in high places. And what do I find in Dublin? The parish church turned into the Lord Deputy's stable; the Cathedral vaults into wine vaults, where people get wine and also tobacco."
  And so he goes on describing enormities of that kind. He afterwards speaks of improprieties committed by the Bishops in the management of their sees, such as granting leases at small fines, insinuating that there was some private consideration passing between the Bishops and the lessees; and he represents the whole of the sees as in the state of complete devastation in consequence of those acts. Then it appears that, with the assistance of Strafford, he was able to squeeze compensation out of several peo-

  1119
  ple, and obtained very large sums of money, from which I believe this sum of £30,000 a year will be found to have come. But the whole transaction is one of considerable doubt, the investigation of which would not repay the Irish Church. I will not anticipate a proposition which my noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville) may make upon this subject, but I will now deal with the case of the Ulster lands. If ever there was a public fund it is the Ulster lands, which are public property upon every conceivable ground. These lands were obtained by the blood of the English in putting down a rebellion there, in the course of which three counties were forfeited; and James had at his disposal 833,000 acres of confiscated land, the disposal of which the most rev. Primate compares to a grant made by Her Majesty out of her private purse.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had not addressed himself to that part of the question.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The most rev. Primate objects to my answering this argument because he has not come to it. I will content myself by resting my answer upon the broad foundation that the lands were won by English blood, and that James sold the greater part of them to the City of London, and used the proceeds as ordinary revenue. Something was said about the Presbyterians, and I must join with the most rev. Primate in offering a tribute of respect to them; but was it always the case that the Episcopal Bench respected the Presbyterians in the North of Ireland? You will find —if you go to Mant's Ecclesiastical History of the Irish, Church, the last edition of which was published in 1841—a series of lamentations on the part of that right rev. Prelate, who was Bishop of Down and Connor, at the introduction of the Irish Presbyterians by James, which he regarded as the greatest conceivable calamity, and he praised the Test and Corporation Acts. The most rev. Primate has alluded to the number of the Protestants in the North of Ireland; but if we divide them into seventeenths, the most convenient for our purpose, we find that 9–17ths represent the Roman Catholics, 5–17ths the Presbyterians, and 3–17ths the Episcopalians; so that in this part of Ireland, where the Roman Catholics are least numerous, they out-
  1120
  number the Presbyterians and Anglicans put together. I demur, therefore, to that being the period to be fixed upon as the period for marking when there was a special allocation of the funds to special purposes. I say that in 1660 you had got rid of the Articles of Usher, which clearly did effect an entire separation in principle between the English branch and the Irish branch of the Church. I do not believe that time is of the slightest importance. I do not believe that those who introduced the Bill have the least reason for desiring to alter it in any other respect; but if you say that the definition shall include property given by the Crown, by private individuals, and by the means described, it signifies little what date may be fixed.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH: My Lords, it seems to me that the argument, as far as it has gone, is somewhat analogous to that afterwards to be raised upon the question of the Ulster grants; but I shall keep myself strictly to the question of the first Amendment moved by the most rev. Primate—namely, the substitution of the date 1560 for 1660. It seems to me, however, that a good deal of undue stress has been laid upon the amount the Irish Church would receive from Archbishop Bramhall's gifts. The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) insisted upon the large amount and value of these gifts, and the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down insisted upon their small value; but really the question at issue is not whether the gifts be large or small, but whether the date 1560, which would include those gifts, or the date 1660, which would exclude them, is in itself the proper date to be agreed upon—a question quite independent of the amount to be received or lost by fixing the date. If by fixing the date at 1560 the Irish Church gets very little from Archbishop Bramhall's gifts, so much the worse for the Church; if by fixing the date at 1660 it gets a great deal, so much the better for the Irish Church; but we have no right to consider the worse or the better in the case; what we have to do is on historical and legal grounds to decide which of the two dates is a just and righteous date to fix. I entirely set aside the question of the amount of Archbishop Bramhall's gifts. Upon the same principle I deride the objection of

  1121
  the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) as to the expense of the litigation that might be incurred on the part of the Irish Anglicans or Churchmen—it is difficult to find a correct definition for the members of the Irish Church — in establishing their rights under this grant. If it is difficult for them to prove their rights, if it involves expensive litigation, so much the worse for them; if it is easy, so much the better for them; and I think I can assure the noble and learned Lord that Irish Churchmen will be willing to take the chance of litigation which he desires to spare them, and that they will be perfectly willing to take what they can get. I set aside, then, as not properly speaking ad rem, those two questions as to the amount of Archbishop Bramhall's gifts, and as to the expense which might be incurred in proving claims to them. I now come to what I shall be excused for saying is the only real argument in the speech of the noble and learned Lord against the Amendment. There is not the slightest doubt that when Elizabeth passed her Act of 1560 establishing conformity for the Irish Church, she intended that Act to be one for the benefit of the whole nation. We say that the Irish Church is a benefit to the whole nation—but I will not press that argument now; but it is clear from the terms of the Act that Elizabeth intended the benefit of religious instruction to be conferred according to a particular form, which form is defined in that Act of Uniformity, and which form she thought of such great importance that she actually—as the noble and learned Lord has taken care to remind us, unfortunately for his argument—insisted upon imprisoning those who would not go to the churches where the services were conducted according to the Act of Uniformity. It is equally clear that the fact of Elizabeth having intended to benefit the whole nation does not at all touch the real question in dispute, which is not for whose benefit she intended the instruction to be given, but through whose lips and according to what formularies that instruction was to be conveyed; and, further, the fact that these ecclesiastical gifts, whatever they may be worth, were designed by Elizabeth for the benefit of the entire nation seems to me to be a strange reason for excluding from that benefit the entire
  1122
  nation, and for taking them entirely away from every religious denomination in the nation. It strikes me that this is a fair answer to the argument of the noble and learned Lord. He laid stress upon certain Articles drawn up by Archbishop Usher—I think 105 in number—and which he says had the effect of creating almost a severance between the two Churches, so as to make them distinct Churches in England and Ireland; and so, insisting upon as much distinction between them as between Presbyterianism and Anglicanism, he implied as a consequence that Presbyterians might have as good a right to these endowments as Anglicans. What is the fact as to these Articles of Usher? They were never signed by a single clergyman; they were never enforced by the Irish Parliament; they were passed by the Irish Convocation, a body whose acts had no legal validity, no more than those of the English Convocation at this moment. They were never accepted by the Irish Parliament; they were never binding on the Irish clergy; and the duration of these marvellous Articles, that are to effect this complete transformation of the rights of property, was simply nineteen years. They simply came from the study of Archbishop Usher, and, for anything I know, they have gone back to his waste-paper basket; and yet they are to deprive the Church of Ireland of grants of property which I believe to be strictly and legally her due. The only other argument I wish to notice is one dwelt upon more in the speech of the First Minister of the Crown than in this House, although it has been touched upon by the noble and learned Lord. It is said that between 1560 and 1660 Presbyterians were admitted to benefices in the Anglican Church, as it then existed, without requiring re-ordination; and this fact is supposed to prove so complete a fusion between the Presbyterian and the Anglican bodies that one has no more right than the other to these endowments. I exceedingly regret that I cannot accept this fact, and the inference drawn from it, because if I could do so there would be absolutely an end to this Bill altogether. If ordained Presbyterians could hold Irish Church revenues without re-ordination—and the fact proves that there was no practical difference between the two Churches—then I have another fact.

  1123
  At this moment any Roman Catholic priest may be instituted to any benefice in Ireland without re-ordination, and a priest might have been so instituted at any time during the history of the Irish Church. Therefore, if the argument goes to prove that the Presbyterian and the Anglican were practically one Church, then by a parity of reasoning the possibility of the Roman Catholic priesthood obtaining benefices without re-ordination goes to prove that the two Churches are really identical, and that there is no injury done to the Roman Catholic Church by the Protestant Church possessing endowments, when it is not possible to distinguish one from the other. If the argument is good for anything, it seems to me to come to this startling proposition—that the Irish Church in 1560, and up to within nineteen years of 1660, was a body so distinct as to be recognizable in history and law; that it was capable of doing and having committed in its behalf a great wrong—namely, the conveying to it of certain endowments which belonged to the entire nation; that, therefore, in this 19th century, the present Church is to be sorely punished for the wrong done by that Church between 1560 and the commencement of that nineteen years; and yet, when you come to these nineteen years, this body, so distinct for all purposes of punishment and suffering, becomes so confused a body that it is utterly incapable of holding any property whatsoever.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) has obtained a reputation for eloquence distinguished by readiness in getting rid of the rubbish and going to the kernel of the matter; but I will confine myself to the rubbish which he got rid of rather than address myself to Ms arguments. I think there is some slight inaccuracy in the historical account which the right rev. Prelate gave of Archbishop Usher's desk and. waste-paper basket, because, unless my memory fails me, the Resolutions that he referred to were proposed in Convocation. I do not think, either, that I have any occasion to grapple with the argument that the possible admission of Roman Catholic priests removes any grievance under which they might otherwise labour. It seems to me, however, that there is considerable importance in the points which
  1124
  have been raised as to the amount of money which might or might not accrue to the Irish Church under the Motion of the right rev. Prelate, as to the difficulty of proving these grants, and as to the amount of litigation which might possibly ensue. With regard to the amount, I cannot help thinking—and it is not from any pretence to any historical or legal knowledge which is not open to all your Lordships—that there is great truth in what the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said, that very little money would be found to accrue to the Irish Church after these long and difficult inquiries had been concluded. But, whichever way you take it, this appears to me to be a very extraordinary Amendment for this House to send down to "another place." But now I come to the real point to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention. I have said that it is not likely that the Irish Church—unless you adopt some mode of establishing claims hitherto not devised—should gain much advantage from the change proposed. If I mistake not, even if they obtain all that it is now proposed to include by these Amendments, the reversions which they claim will not amount to more than £300,000. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) suggested the other day what he thought would have been of immense advantage to the Church—that, instead of entering into these questions which must lead to endless litigation, it would be better for them to accept a sum of money. The noble Earl stated that he was informed that what we proposed to give the Church in the shape of private benefactions did not amount to more than £6,000 a year. The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) fixed the sum at £8,000 a year, and, taking the larger sum, that would really represent a sum of £200,000. Again, it has been stated that the value of a reversion of the whole sum claimed by the present Amendment would not amount to much more than £300,000. That would give a sum of £500,000, which is exactly the amount, though it is not in the Bill, which Mr. Gladstone stated would be the amount of the private benefactions. Now, it appears to me that this sum, representing, as it does, exactly what was stated to the House of Commons—representing, as it does, the sum which the House of

  1125
  Commons was ready to grant—representing, as it does, exactly the sum at which the most rev. Primate values these two sets of benefactions—it would be, I think, an arrangement valuable in itself; one to which the other House of Parliament could not, upon principle, object, and which would have the inestimable advantage of clearing the ground, and at once closing the matter without either impoverishing the new Church Body, or without materially lessening what will accrue to the State. I must make an apology to your Lordships for rising so soon in the discussion. The other evening I made a proposal which I thought highly advantageous to the Church. I made it rather late in the debate; but I did not receive the slightest answer to the proposal which I had made on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) it is true, with his usual courtesy, expressed a hope that I did not feel hurt by his not giving any answer to that proposal. The Committee immediately proceeded to a division, and one right rev. Prelate asked me, while the House was dividing, why I had not made the offer earlier in the evening, as it was one which many would have been delighted to accept. I have, therefore, taken the opportunity of making this proposal to your Lordships at this early period in the discussion, and I think it is one which the right rev. Bench would do wisely in accepting.
  EARL GREY: Do I correctly understand my noble Friend? Does he mean that he would give a lump sum of £500,000 to the disendowed Church as compensation for all these claims?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes, but reserving the question of the glebes. To the Amendment to be proposed upon the latter subject the Government will offer the most strenuous opposition.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, he would remind their Lordships that Queen Elizabeth could never have intended that her endowments should be shared in by the whole of the Irish population, inasmuch as she regarded the Roman Catholics as not under her control, or subject to the protection of her laws.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, there was a case in which certain parishes could prove, under the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, their claim to rent charges which had been devoted to their
  1126
  spiritual instruction, and he wished to know how their rights would be affected by the arrangement now proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Granville)?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he considered that it was a very inconvenient practice for Ministers to come down and make entirely new proposals at the very last moment. He would venture to suggest to the noble Earl (Earl Granville) that it would be better for the present to defer this matter so that the proposal might receive consideration. There was an important principle involved. Some of them were unwilling to admit that, because there had been a very slight alteration in the doctrine and practice of the Church, there had been a break in its continuity; but, if the noble Earl would allow the date of 1560 to be inserted, and the £500,000 to be offered as a composition for the whole period, the difficulty would be removed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) would remember that, among the great number of Amendments placed upon the Paper, it was impossible for the Government to know which were likely to be supported by the House. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) had refused to furnish the Government—as he had a perfect right to do—with the information, and it was, therefore, impossible for them to be prepared with counter proposals. In one instance he had actually prepared a proposal, but was obliged to allow it to remain in his pocket, in consequence of the course which the Committee had pursued with regard to other Amendments. As he understood their Lordships were inclined to consider his proposal in a favourable light, he would not object to a postponement; but he certainly thought that the last proposal of the noble Marquess was not a very wise one, or at all in unison with his general desire to assume a conciliatory position towards the other House. He would, however, consent to omit the date altogether. It would be extremely unwise to adopt any course which, without being attended by any advantage, could only have the effect of irritating the House of Commons.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, he thought that it was of the utmost importance that a date should be fixed. He found it stated in the work of Fleury,

  1127
  the Roman Catholic historian, that about the year 1570, the Protestants adopted all kinds of expedients to extend their influence in Ireland; that their progress had surpassed all their expectations, and that they already saw themselves masters of the greater part of the kingdom.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would suggest that if the clause were to be postponed it would be better not to continue this discussion.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had expressed a wish that their Lordships should not take any step which would cause irritation in the mind of the House of Commons. He should be sorry that anything done by their Lordships should have that effect, and he was quite sure that nothing done by their Lordships was intended to have that effect; but he doubted very much whether the House of Commons was in that sensitive state of mind which was always suggested from the Government Benches. It certainly would appear from certain postprandial utterances of one of Her Majesty's Ministers that some Members of the Cabinet did not manifest that perfect equanimity of mind which their Lordships had the pleasure of seeing always displayed by the noble Earl the Leader of the Government in their Lordships' House. He (Lord Cairns) was, however, perfectly ready to admit that, if the proposal of the noble Earl was to be considered, they ought not now to do anything in the way of amending the clause which would make it appear that they had rejected the proposal. He did not think it would be a convenient course to postpone the clause, for they were now approaching the consideration of an alteration in the other portion of it. It would be better to leave out the date; if this were done Her Majesty's Government might be informed on the bringing up of the Report, whether their' offer had been accepted: if the offer were accepted words might be inserted directing the Commissioners to pay over to the Church Body £500,000 in lieu of all endowments since the Reformation. Such words would not pledge Parliament to any particular date. In reference to what the noble Earl had said respecting his offer the other night of another Amendment of which no notice had been taken, he must remind the
  1128
  noble Earl that his offer on that previous occasion was made at the close of the debate, and it did not appear to him that the Amendment so offered by the noble Earl would have met the exigencies of the case. The noble Earl said he had several other Amendments in his pocket. He would suggest to the noble Earl whether, as notice had been given of the various Amendments of private Members, it would not be advisable for the noble Earl to put his offers on the Paper.
  THE ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he was ready to do whatever the House desired in the matter. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had appealed to the right rev. Bench as if they were the solicitors or the attorneys of the Irish Church. He should be rather ashamed if the right rev. Bench were dragged into a mere money calculation. They looked to the date from far higher interests. But as the calculations of the First Minister of the Crown in respect of the amount of the endowments before 1660 was disputed by other authorities, he thought that the parties on either side ought to look into the matter with the view of coming to an agreement on that point. He wished in his own name—and, he thought he might venture to add in the name of the Irish Church also—to thank the noble Earl (Earl Granville) for the conciliatory manner in which he had dealt with this point, and, likewise, with the question of life interests. He trusted their Lordships might regard that circumstance as an indication that the Government wished to treat this whole matter in a spirit of conciliation. He would withdraw his Amendment for the present.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment made, line 9, leave out ("one") and insert ("two.")
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYthen moved the third of the Amendments which stood in his name. The whole difficulty in this case was whether the grant of the Ulster glebes came from the Crown, being the private property of the Sovereign, or whether they came from the Crown, being public property. It was the opinion of Sir Roundell Palmer—a very high authority upon such a subject—that they were given by King

  1129
  James out of landed property which had been confiscated to the Sovereign, in the same way as other portions of the same land granted to private individuals, whose descendants enjoyed them at the present day. The question of these Ulster glebes had come before Lord Langdale in the Rolls Court, and on that occasion Sir William Follett laid down the state of the case. What he now wished to direct the attention of their Lordships to was this point—that if the King had no right to grant the Ulster glebes, he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) did not know what right he had to grant the property now enjoyed by the Irish Society. How would the Irish Society be affected by a Parliamentary decision that James had no right to grant these Ulster glebes? Their Lordship would see that this question was an important one in respect of other property besides the glebes.
  Amendment moved, at the end of the clause to add—
  "When any real property becoming vested in the commissioners consists of lands which have been appropriated or granted as the glebe or glebe land of any benefice, by or in pursuance of any royal grant or letters patent since the second year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the commissioners shall, on the application of the said representative body, made within six months after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, by order vest such property in such representative body, subject to any life interest subsisting therein."—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, he must object to the Amendment which he regarded as contrary to the principle of the Bill, and, indeed, calculated to stultify it. The proposal of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) amounted, in effect, to this—that we should proceed to re-endow the Established Church with a sum calculated at very nearly £1,000,000, and at all events, over £900,000. With what show of consistency could noble Lords, who wished for religious equality in Ireland, by means of concurrent endowment, leave the Catholics and Presbyterians in the position assigned to them by the Bill, while they gave to the Episcopal Church, besides the property already secured to it, the considerable sum he had named? These grants were put upon the footing of private endowments. Now, he would not enter into any historical disquisition as to the circumstances under which the grants were
  1130
  made. It was sufficient to remind their Lordships that, up to the end of the reign of Elizabeth, Ulster had been less subjected to English rule than any other part of Ireland. Until then the native chiefs had succeeded in maintaining almost a semi-independence, and at last endeavoured to throw off the yoke altogether. In this attempt, however, they were defeated, and, on their overthrow, King James was enabled to make his famous experiment of colonizing the North of Ireland with settlers from England and Scotland. When making this settlement James was also solicitous to reduce to order the ecclesiastical affairs of the district, which were in such a state of confusion that it was found impossible even to identify the ecclesiastical possessions of the ancient Irish Church. Persons of authority were, therefore, sent over to ascertain what was and what was not ecclesiastical property; and as soon as they had reported, the King made a re-grant of such lands as were declared to be the legitimate possessions of the Church. Such a title, however, did not place these grants to the Church in Ulster in any respect on the footing of private grants; and, so far, this was admitted by the most rev. Primate, who did not propose to deal with Bishops' lands. As to the Ulster glebes, as they were technically called, he (Lord Dufferin) maintained they must follow the destination of other ecclesiastical property. It was not upon technical or antiquarian grounds that this question ought to be argued. These endowments were handed to the Church by the King in his public capacity. They were intended to promote a great public benefit; they became the same sort of property and subject to the same incidents as property possessed by the Church in other provinces. Great stress had been laid upon the claims of colonists in Ulster, whose ancestors were attracted to that enterprize by the grant of these endowments. No doubt, the fact that the Church was constituted on a favourable footing did prove a certain attraction to the emigrants who passed over from Great Britain. But if that argument were good for anything, it might be urged with equal force by the descendants of all who have ever emigrated at any time to any part of Ireland, as all were attracted in an equal degree by the prospect of having the offices of their Church performed by

  1131
  an established body which received the support of the Government. Their Lordships should remember that a majority of the population of Ulster were Roman Catholics. The large manufacturing industry had attracted Roman Catholic residents, and even when King James was founding his colony in Ulster he took special care to leave a certain proportion of the Roman Catholics in each district. Inasmuch, therefore, as the population was so intermixed, and their mutual interests were so inter-dependent, he submitted that it would be extremely unwise to deal with that province in an exceptional manner, as any such exceptional dealing would be regarded by the majority of the population as an act of great injustice.
  THE BISHOP OF DERRYsaid, that as an Ulsterman and an Ulster Bishop he found it impossible to remain content with recording a silent vote on a matter with reference to which he felt so deeply. He wished, in the first place, to consider the equity of the claim, and in the second place, the policy of granting it. The first equitable principle upon which the claim to the Ulster glebes was based was this:—Speaking merely as a layman, and therefore subject to correction, it seemed to him that it was within the King's competence to grant these lands. There were repeated references to the plan in charters, letters, and other documents, and the argument made use of by the King was that he waived his own private right and his own personal advantage in consideration of the great object of the public good. But King James did not speak in this matter merely ex cathedrâ, merely as a King. He was constantly in communication with one whose name would have the greatest weight both within and without those walls—he meant Lord Bacon. From the 10th or 11th volume of the last edition of his works it will appear that however complicated the title might be and undoubtedly was in individual cases, he thought it remained beyond all practical doubt that the reduction of the long rebellion in Ulster left a vast tract of land legitimately at the disposal of the monarch. He (the Bishop of Derry) happened the other day to have studied a few chapters written by Lord Macaulay, a great authority with noble Lords behind him, and in the 23rd chapter of his history he argued the rights of the Crown with re-
  1132
  ference to the grant of lands, and what was his doctrine? Macaulay maintained that such grants, however unreasonable they might seem in themselves, however profligate in some cases, however un-unworthy favourites, were yet for a long worthily disposed of—given to minions or series of ages held valid. For instance, in the year 1696, when the King proposed to grant an enormous estate in Denbighshire to Portland, and the House of Commons remonstrated, they did not found their remonstrance on the ground that the Crown had not the right to make the grant, but simply that it was impolitic to do so. Macaulay said that in order to get rid of this Crown grant it would have been necessary to pass a retrospective statute, which, he added, would have been simply robbery, and the words which followed were substantially these—that such an act of robbery must have made all property utterly insecure; and that it was utterly unworthy of statesmen for a moment to indulge in the dream that any machinery which made property insecure was likely to make society prosperous. The second ground of equity was one on which a simple layman might feel mare competent to argue the case—namely, the improvement which had been wrought in those lands. It was easy to show by a whole host of contemporary authorities that the land in Ulster was at the time in a most miserable condition. Caulfield, writing in 1610, in an account of the escheated lands in Tyrone, said they were so poor that no rent was paid for them. There were three ideas which had been imported by Englishmen into Ireland, and which the Irish people would never be satisfied until they got rid of—the notion of landlord, the notion of tenant, and the notion of rent. In a very remarkable passage of his writings Dean Swift stated that James I. had been one of the greatest benefactors of the Church by the grant of those lands which he made in Ulster, and he mentioned that there were persons living in his time who remembered the land in such a very miserable and wretched condition that its value was only about 2d. an acre. The Government found fault with those who opposed their policy for not making sufficient distinction between the clergy and the laity; and in dealing with private interests they had shown fairness and tenderness. But what about those colonists who had come over to

  1133
  Ireland? If, for purposes of public policy, it was considered necessary to deprive the Church of the glebes, would it not be their duty to pay the descendants of the colonists the difference between the value of those glebe lands as they are and what they were when their predecessors came first into possession? There was a third reason why the Church had an equitable claim to the glebe lands. It could not be said that the plantation, in Ulster had utterly, or in a great measure, failed to fulfil the purposes for which it was intended. Plantations in those days meant more than market gardening or the sowing of potatoes, flax, or onions. It meant the plantation of glebes, with civilized Protestant men, and with those churches, free schools, and other institutions which they had enjoyed at home. It was a matter of great importance to discriminate between that which was primary and that which was secondary. Now the primary objects were, according to the expostulatory letter of James I., of the 6th of December, 1612, the safety of the country and the planting of civilization and religion; and in the charter they were stated to be to rescue Ulster from superstition, rebellion, poverty, and calamity, and to establish religion, obedience, strength, and prosperity. The hum of industry now rose from the busy and prosperous cities of Ulster; and among the causes which had given them that prosperity to Ulster, some place, at least, might be assigned to those glebes which had sometimes been the homes of genius, not seldom the abode of sanctity, and in almost all cases the centres of civilization. He belonged to a school of theology that had little sympathy either with high Anglicanism or with rigid Calvinism; and he though it hard that because their fathers had eaten the sour grapes of Calvinism, therefore the children's teeth were to be set on edge. He had sometimes been tempted to think that the existence of those articles was a proof of the identity between the Church of Ireland and the Church of England at that time; and in the depth of his episcopal heart, which, of course, was filled with all wickedness, he could not help thinking that this introduction of Calvinism was a mere pretext, while the possession of the glebe lands was the solid but profane reality. He must say, however, that the Episcopalians had got on
  1134
  very well with the Presbyterians of Ulster, and he had little doubt they would be able to do so in the future. The Presbyterians were a hardy, industrious, loyal, and religious race, but supposing that they had any right to these Ulster lands, which he did not admit, what was done by this Bill? Were they committing an injury upon the Episcopalians in order that they might do an act of justice to the Presbyterians? Not at all; but they committed one act of injustice upon the Presbyterians, and then they committed another upon the Episcopalians, and in the new algebra of disestablishment and disendowment two acts of injustice made one magnificent act of justice. Then they were told that if this act of justice were granted to the Episcopalians, there must be another to other denominations. He would not enter upon that question at present; but the claim now made was either just or unjust. It it were unjust, then in Heaven's name let them have no more of it; but if it were just, legal, and moral the argument that they were not to have these just rights because of other denominations, reminded him of Samuel Johnson's definition of envy—pain felt or malignity experienced at any happiness enjoyed or distress experienced by another. He would only say a very few words on the policy of the Amendment; but he wished, with all respect to the noble Lord behind him (Lord Dufferin), to state that this question of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, however it might be regarded in England, was looked upon in the North of Ireland with very peculiar feelings indeed; in fact, he could hardly use exaggerated language upon this point. The measure was hated and detested by all Protestants, except a handful of Presbyterian ministers, who had learnt certain newfangled notions in consequence of their connection with Scotland. As a matter of fact he could assure their Lordships that in hundreds and thousands of peasants' homes prayer ascended daily to the just God that the measure might be defeated. He was convinced that noble Lords on the Government Bench were anxious to do what was right and just, and he therefore besought them not to treat the North of Ireland with a kind of Sangradoism, prescribing bleeding and hot water for all its ills. He appealed to their Lord-

  1135
  ships to send a message of peace to Ulster by accepting the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. This was a dark and heavy time for the Bishops and clergy of the Church which was so soon to be disestablished and disendowed. It was a thing to make a man's heart sink, his hand to tremble, and his knees to be very weak for a time when he saw the pinnacles of that ancient Church shattered to some extent by the storm which raged around them. But they looked with eyes suffused with tears, and straining through the mist, to discern the Church of the future. He trusted they could see her dim outline, not so grand or so beautiful, perhaps, as the former Church; but they hoped to see a fuller and richer light streaming upon her from the presence of her Lord; and it would give them great satisfaction if they could see below that supernatural light the rise of the star of peace upon their unhappy country. He believed that the adoption of this measure would be a message of peace; and for all these reasons—because the King had a right to grant these lands, because the improvements on those lands had been made by the clergy, because the Church had not failed in her mission, because the Amendment was just, because the Bill was an eminent departure from justice, and because it was an equal departure from policy, he entreated their Lordships to adopt this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, that in consequence of his personal connection with the Bill he had hitherto abstained from taking part in these discussions; but having a strong opinion on the subject of this Amendment, he trusted their Lordships would not think he was guilty of any impropriety if he ventured to make a few remarks upon it. It appeared to him that this Amendment, if adopted and combined with other Amendments that had been sanctioned by their Lordships, would nullify to a great extent the purpose of the Bill, and eliminate the principal means by which that object was to be attained. The purpose and object of the Bill was to introduce religious equality by disestablishing the Anglican Church in Ireland, and by withdrawing from the Church its endowments, so far as those endowments were given to her as an Establishment. He prayed their Lordships' attention to the effect of the Amendments which they had already sanctioned. By the Amend-
  1136
  ment moved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) fourteen years' purchase of the tithe rent-charge was secured to the Church Body. Now, by a return obtained by the noble Marquess on the cross-Benches (the Marquess of Clanricarde) it appeared that the sales of impropriate tithes in the Landed Estates Court produced on an average eighteen years' purchase; so that if property was worth only what it would fetch in the market, then the Irish Church would lose only four years' purchase of the tithe rent-charge. By the Amendment which was moved by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) the glebe houses and surrounding lands were secured to the Church. And by this Amendment of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) the entire glebe lands, amounting to £950,000 in value, were also secured to her. If all these Amendments were cumulatively adopted he did not see that any disendowment of the Church would take place at all. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Derry) had rested his support of the Amendment on the right of King James to make the grants. He had never heard the King's competency to make the grants called in question at all; but the question was in what character and on what ground did he make them. The right rev. Prelate had himself stated that ground when he said the grants were made in furtherance of a political object and for a public purpose; that object and purpose being Protestant ascendancy. But when that policy and purpose were abandoned by the State—and by statesmen on both sides of the House—it followed that the grant which was the consequences of that policy and purpose was also reversed. Another ground on which the right rev. Prelate had urged the Amendment was the improvement that had been made in the glebes by the Church. Now, if those improvements had been effected by the Church as a corporation there might be some reason in the argument. But that was not so; they were effected by the successive incumbents, who were but life tenants, and these improvements gave them no more title to the lands than would be the case in any other life tenancy. The third ground on which the right rev. Prelate relied was the plantation of Ulster, which he said was a plantation of morality and religion. But that only brought them back to

  1137
  the policy of Protestant ascendancy, which was now abandoned by common consent of all parties. The right rev. Prelate talked of the strong feeling that had sprung up in Ulster. He (Viscount Monck) would be the last man to say a word against the Protestants there—all his associations were connected with them—but it must be remembered that even in Ulster all the Protestants taken together still formed only a minority of the population. The right rev. Prelate talked of sending a message of peace to Ulster; he (Viscount Monck) was for sending a message of peace to Ireland; and that would be done, not by adopting the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate, but by accepting the Bill as it stood. If he were asked to state in a single sentence what had been the great mistake of the government of Ireland during the last 100 years since the relaxation of the penal code, he should say it was the refusal to give practical effect to the logical result of adopted principles. The state of things that existed at the time the penal code was in operation was a logical consequence of that code; the code had been abolished, and the principles which dictated it had been disavowed, but the policy which suggested this disavowal tad not been logically followed; hence all the misgovernment of Ireland which followed. For these reasons he hoped their Lordships would not accede to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, but would pass the clause in the form in which it was presented by the Government.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he regretted that he had been unable conscientiously to vote on the questions which had been submitted of late. He was ready to go as far as most men in the way of giving perfect equality. Indeed, equality was necessary; but it might have been established in a form other than that proposed by the Bill, and one which he could not but think would, in the end, have been productive of better results. He feared that Amendments such as the present would create ill-feeling in Ireland. He lived on habits of intimacy with his Roman Catholic neighbours, but he was sorry to say that a feeling had sprung up in the country which had never existed before, and. which he could only express by the word hatred. Both among the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians there had sprung up that feeling towards the Established Church
  1138
  which he could only express in Scripture language—they would have no peace so long as Mordecai sat at the king's gate. The Moderator of the General Assembly of Ulster, had, only the other week, sent a letter to the papers, declaring that there would be no peace in Ireland as long as the Established Church enjoyed any advantages which the other Churches did not. But that was not the way in which grave questions of this kind could be settled. He, for one, would be ready to give to the Roman Catholic Prelates that social status which they did not at present enjoy, without depriving the Protestants of theirs. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees (Lord Redesdale) said he saw no danger in Roman Catholic Prelates sitting in the House of Lords, to speak for the wants and wishes of the Roman Catholic population, and he was sure if that noble Lord did not nobody else would. He (Lord Dunsany) believed that the admission of those Prelates to that House would be attended with great benefit to all parties. He did not deny that if all the Amendments which were proposed in favour of the Irish Protestant Church were carried, they would interfere very materially with the principle of the Bill. But, admitting that to be the case, could not the Government, without loss of credit or strength, withdraw the Bill and introduce a greatly improved measure next year founded upon well ascertained public opinion. It was no disparagement, even to Mr. Gladstone, to say that he might be wiser in 1870 than in 1869.
  EARL GREY: The question before us has been described as one of justice or injustice, and we have been invited to reject the Amendment of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) if we deem it unjust. I am bound to admit the argument urged by the Government that this grant of Ulster glebes was made by the King in a representative capacity, because we knew in those days many things were done by the Royal Prerogative which would in our day be accomplished by Act of Parliament. And I have always been of opinion that the property of the Church must be regarded as a public property held for certain great public objects, with which therefore Parliament is at liberty to deal. I cannot, then, admit the argument put forward by the most rev. Primate based upon the

  1139
  ground of strict justice. I should be glad if I could support this Amendment on the ground of policy. I have always affirmed that it is a matter of great public importance that the present Established Church should not, after its disestablishment, be left in a state of entire impoverishment, and that it is desirable we should not recognize the voluntary principle in the manner which this Bill proposes to do. This is most desirable for the interests of our own Church, because I am persuaded that by so recognizing the justice of what is called the voluntary principle in Ireland, we give instruction which will be used against ourselves. The effect of the course we are taking will be to unite all parties in Ireland—the Protestants who will be deprived of their property, and the Roman Catholics to whom we refuse to give anything, and we shall unite with them the numerically small but politically most powerful party represented in this country by the Liberation Society, who honestly tell us that this measure is a step towards an attack upon our own Church. I hold it to be most impolitic that we should settle this question in such a manner as to strengthen that party, and I cannot but hold that we are proceeding in that direction when we go so near to the total impoverishment of the Protestant Church. I should on that ground have been most anxious to accept the Amendment of the most rev. Prelate, and to vote for the proposition which he has made with regard to the Ulster grant; but that course is for me rendered totally impossible by what has already occurred in this House. My noble Friend who spoke first on behalf of the Government (Lord Dufferin), and the noble Viscount with spoke very lately (viscount Monck) have both referred to the decision of Friday night as bearing on this subject. The decision of Friday night has, indeed, a most important bearing on this question. The proposition of the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland) to grant houses and a moderate amount of glebe land to the clergy of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches was supported by a very great majority of the independent Members of this House, who have not lately been in Office, and especially by those independent Peers who are connected with Ireland and who have most stake in the country. Those whose judgment and experience entitle their opinion
  1140
  to the greatest weight were by an enormous majority in favour of the proposition. Those who supported the proposition of the noble Duke showed, with a power of reasoning, which has seldom been equalled, the great advantage which would be derived from the adoption of that proposal. I would refer especially to the speech of a noble Lord, a former Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Athlumney), who declared that the Amendment would be a measure of peace and conciliation to Ireland, and that the Bill without that Amendment would be a measure of a contrary character. How were these arguments met on behalf of the Government, and by the leaders of the Opposition? There was hardly one who ventured to argue the case upon its own. merits. Some Members of the Government distinctly admitted that, in their judgment, an arrangement of this question, founded upon the principle embodied in the Amendment, would be the best, and that it was the one which they should prefer; but they said that, unfortunately, so large a proportion of the inhabitants of England and Scotland were of a contrary way of thinking that, in deference to what they believed to be ignorant prejudice and mistaken views, they thought it their duty to refuse to be parties to a measure for applying Irish property in the manner best calculated to promote the welfare of Ireland. We saw what to me was the painful spectacle of a Minister of the Crown, in terms not to be mistaken, putting his resistence to the Amendments entirely upon deference to opinions which he considered to be a mistake. He said the verdict of the country was pronounced upon the question. That way of arguing the question involves a considerable alteration of what has hitherto been the practice under the Constitution. Is it to be the rule in future that the decision of great questions is to be taken out of the domain of Parliament, that Parliament is to cease to be a deliberative assembly, that it is to be converted into a mere meeting of delegates to register decisions arrived at out-of-doors, and that such questions are to be decided by excited multitudes in front of hustings and at election meetings? Are we to throw over the notion that we were formerly taught to entertain that it was the duty of honourable and high-minded men to refuse to make themselves in-

  1141
  struments of a policy of which they did not approve? Is it in future to be a sufficient excuse for a Minister of the Crown advocating a measure which he cannot defend upon grounds of justice and expediency, that the nation has pronounced a verdict which it is our duty to give effect to? In future are success, and success only, and the maintenance of a Government in Office, to be the objects to be kept in view, and not the deliberate consideration of the welfare of the nation? If your Lordships will seriously consider this you will see that it involves a very great innovation. Let me further call attention to the effect which the rejection of a measure upon this ground must have upon the minds of the Irish people. If they are to be told—"It would be greatly to your benefit that the clergy should have glebes and houses provided by the State, but it cannot be, because a certain proportion of the people of England and Scotland say they can be no parties to the endowment of error," when the Roman Catholics have gained their immediate object of pulling down the Church, and when they calmly consider the real grounds upon which the proposal was rejected, in what light will the matter present itself to them? Will it appear to them that this measure has been brought forward with respect for religious freedom and for the rights of conscience? Will it appear to them that it is a measure founded upon ideas of Christian charity and benevolence? Or will it appear to them that those who have used them as instruments to overthrow the English Church in Ireland do not intend to act towards the Roman Catholics in that spirit of equality and fairness which they have a right to expect? Is this or is it not likely to be the impression produced upon the people of Ireland? Is not the course proposed likely to convince them that they have not been equally treated? I therefore regret the vote of Friday night as a most disastrous vote—disastrous alike to England and Ireland, and calculated to strengthen the impression of injustice.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I rise to Order. I put it to your Lordships whether upon the successive clauses of this Bill we are to discuss matters which have been already decided.
  EARL GREY: The decision come to the other night bears directly and imme-
  1142
  diately upon the clause now before us, and that which otherwise would have been expedient has ceased to be so. If the noble Earl were more acquainted with the practice of the House he would not, under these circumstances, call a speaker to Order. The effect of the division the other evening was to refuse glebes to the Roman Catholics, and I have now endeavoured to show that this was a great mistake, in order to support my argument that in the face of that decision it would be unjust and unwise to adopt the Motion now before us, and thus to preserve, for the benefit of the Protestant religion, a much larger amount of glebe lands than was asked for in the case of the Roman Catholics. Though I believe that the proposal might have been agreed to with advantage if the House had come to a different decision on Friday evening, I think, under the present circumstances, its only effect would be to increase the ill effects which I foresee are likely to ensue from that vote. I trust that the question will not be allowed to remain where it is, but that some noble Lord will afford the Committee an opportunity of re-considering the vote at which they arrived the other evening, though I cannot entertain any very great hope that the attempt will be successful. Under these circumstances, therefore, I must refuse that concurrence to the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate which, under other circumstances, I should have willingly given to it. I will only add that by the forms of the House I am aware that it was impossible to avoid dividing the question of the grants to the Protestant, the Presbyterian, and the Roman Catholic Churches. I, however, supported the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord for the relief of the present Established Church the other evening, in the hope that the subsequent one, intended to confer corresponding advantages on the other Churches, would be carried also. But as that Amendment was rejected, it is only right that this should be rejected also, or that the Committee should, at some future period, have the opportunity afforded of rescinding the vote at which they arrived the other evening.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I did not like to interrupt the remarks of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), although they wandered so wide of the clause now under discussion that the

  1143
  rebuke which he administered to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) was scarcely called for. I was anxious it should not be said we were desirous of stifling discussion, and I therefore remained silent while the noble Earl took us so severely to task for our conduct on what I shall call concurrent endowment. The noble Earl said that, by the course the Government had adopted, Members of Parliament were not allowed to support their own opinions, but were reduced to the character of delegates. If my noble Friend founds what he has said upon any remarks of mine, I utterly deny the interpretation he has placed upon them. What I said on Friday night was, that in 1866, 1867, and 1868, the question was before the country, and that at that time public opinion was not favourable to the proposal so much approved by my noble Friend and by Earl Russell. As to the conduct of the present Government, what I said was that when we went to the country last year we considered what our course should be, and we came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to propose any scheme of concurrent endowment; and we came to this conclusion openly and before the face of the country, upon grounds, as my noble Friend put it, of justice and expediency. We thought justice required that this measure should pass, and we thought that expediency required it should be so framed so as to meet with a ready acceptance both with Parliament and with the country. We thought, too, that these results could not have been attained if we had adopted the scheme which my noble Friend favours. I am glad that my noble Friend agrees with us as to the advisability of adopting this clause, which we defend on the ground that these grants to Ulster were, to a great extent, re-grants of land which formerly belonged to the Church, and also upon the ground that these grants were made for the general good of the country, and not for the special benefit of any particular portion of the community. I may, perhaps, allude to the argument employed by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Derry), at an earlier period of the evening, when he said that the improvements effected in these lands by the Church constituted a strong claim for the retention of these lands. But the improvements referred to by the right rev. Prelate are generally due to
  1144
  the money and labour not of the clergy, but of the tenants who occupy these glebe lands. I cannot help thinking, too, that when the right rev. Prelate in his eloquent address referred to the great services of the Protestants of Ulster, and to their industry and intelligence, he overlooked the fact that a very large portion of the Protestants of Ulster are not members of the Episcopal Church, but are Presbyterians. I hope your Lordships will not agree to the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNS: I think my noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) who a short time ago interrupted the remarks of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) was perfectly warranted in making the suggestion he did, for the greater portion of the last two speeches to which we have listened has been devoted to the discussion of matters perfectly foreign to the clause. The Committee has been favoured with a retrospect of our proceedings, consisting, as was natural, of a lament on one side and a triumph on the other, over the division which the Committee arrived at on the last night of the debate. Now, the proposal before us is to take out of the general mass of the property of the Church, for the benefit of the Representative Body, those particular glebes which were annexed to benefices in consequence of any Royal grants or letters patent since the second year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I dwell upon this because both my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) have fallen into the error of regarding these glebes as being for the most part re-grants of land granted to the Church before the Reformation, and, therefore, pre-Reformation grants. This would be true if the grants claimed were all grants made to bishoprics in Ulster, because it would be perfectly right to say that during the fifty or 100 years that preceded the reign of James I. the property of the Bishops and the sees in Ulster had been diverted. I also desire to remind your Lordships of the amount of property involved in this Amendment. It has been differently stated, but the glebe lands do not exceed 100,000 acres; and would yield, I believe, about £40,000 a year. The noble Viscount (Viscount Monck) said that the noble Earl below the Gangway (the Earl of Carnarvon) had secured, by his Amendment the

  1145
  other evening, fourteen years' purchase for the holders of the tithe rent-charge. He said—
  "Now, by a return obtained by the noble Marquess on the cross-Benches (the Marquess of Clanricarde) it appeared that the sales of impropriate tithes in the Landed Estates Court produced on an average eighteen years' purchase; so that if property was worth only what it would fetch in the market, then the Irish Church would lose only four years' purchase of the tithe rent-charge."
  That was said by one of the Commissioners under the Bill; but is the noble Lord aware of the scheme of the Government? It compensates the holders of tithe rent-charge on the value of their own lives, and upon the average they will receive something like thirteen years' purchase. The difference between thirteen and fourteen years' purchase represents the value of the additional work which the Church Body will have to do. But does the noble Viscount think the sales to which he refers are sales of impropriate rent-charge. This may be sold; but tithe rent-charge cannot be sold. Again, the noble Viscount will find in the Bill that those Irish landlords who are fortunate enough to have enough of money to purchase their tithe rent-charge will be allowed to do so not at eighteen years but at twenty-two and a-half years' purchase. The complaint is, therefore, not between eighteen and fourteen years, but between twenty-two and a-half and thirteen years' purchase. My Lords, a good deal has been said by the noble Earl on the cross-Benches, respecting grounds of policy and expediency; but I put this question on the broad grounds of justice. If it is not a question of justice the Amendment ought to fall. On the ground of justice it ought to be supported if it is to be supported at all. The question is not one of re-endowment of the Church; it is one of absolute right, and I put it on the same footing as that on which both sides are agreed in putting the private endowments, though there is a difference as to the date at which our recognition of the latter ought to commence. The grant of those glebe lands was part and parcel of a scheme for a territorial settlement of Ulster. English and Scotch settlers were invited to go over to the North of Ireland, not to establish a Protestant ascendancy, but to establish a Protestant population. As an inducement to such settlers, for every 2,000 acres taken and colonized by the
  1146
  settlers, sixty acres were given by way of glebe for the maintenance of a Protestant clergyman. Remember that at the time of which I am speaking the whole of those lands were in the hands of the King, to do whatever he liked with. He was under no control in that respect, and he not only had the right, but he exercised it. He made grant after grant to individuals. The colonists who went over from England and Scotland would have had a provision for their religion if they had remained in their own country, but unless those grants were made to them they would have had no such provision in Ireland. A contract was entered into with those colonists at that time. Is it for the present generation to break that contract? In his history Sir James Macintosh considers what is the proper course to be taken by a State when it puts an end to a religious establishment and resumes possession of the property. He says—
  "What could Governments do morally and righteously? What is it right for them to do? What would they be enjoined to do by a just superior if such a personage could be found among their fellow-men? "
  My Lords, we have no superior among us, but there is one in the United States. There the Parliamentary power is controlled by the Supreme Court. What we are going through now was experienced in the State of Virginia with regard to the Church of England. In 1606 the Church was established in that State, and James I. made a grant of glebes; and in the reign of Charles II., in 1660, a law was passed providing moans for the maintenance of ministers of the Established Church. In 1740, an Act was passed which provided a salary of 1,6001b. of tobacco for the clergyman of every parish, and that in every parish a good and convenient glebe of 200 acres should be purchased by the vestry, and the charge of the same should be met by all titheable property in the said parish. In 1784 the Church was disestablished in Virginia. In 1798 an Act was passed by the State of Virginia, the Preamble of which is as follows:—
  "Whereas the Constitution of the State of Virginia hath pronounced the Government of the King of England to have been totally dissolved by the Revolution; hath substituted in place of the Civil Government so dissolved a new Civil Government, and hath in the Bill of Rights excepted from the powers given to the substituted Government the power of reviving any species of ecclesiastical or Church Govern-

  1147
  ment in lieu of that so dissolved by referring the subject of religion to conscience; and whereas the several Acts presently recited do admit the Church established under the Regal Government to have continued so subsequently to the Constitution; have bestowed property upon the Church; have asserted a legislative right to establish any religious sect; and have incorporated religious sects, all of which is inconsistent with the principles of the Constitution and of religious freedom, and manifestly tends to the re-establishment of a National Church."
  The Act of 1801 has the following Preamble:—
  "Whereas the General Assembly on the 24th of January, 1799, by a law of that date repealed all the laws relative to the late Protestant Episcopal Church, and declared a true exposition of the Bill of Bights and Constitution respecting the same to be contained in the Act entitled 'An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,' thereby recognizing the principle that all property formerly belonging to the said Church of every description devolved on the good people of this Commonwealth on the dissolution of the British Government here in the same degree in which the right and interest of the said Church was derived therein from them. And although the General Assembly possesses the right of authorizing a sale of all such property indiscriminately, yet being desirous to reconcile all the good people of this Commonwealth, it is deemed inexpedient at this time to disturb the possession of the present incumbents."
  The Act proceeded to direct the overseers of the poor within each county wherein any glebe land was vacant, or should become so by the death or removal of any incumbent, to sell all such lands and every other property incident thereto, and to appropriate the money arising there from to secular purposes. Now, can anything tally more exactly up to that point with what is occurring now? In pursuance of this law, the municipality of Alexandria sold the glebe lands. I must remark that the limit of the Parliamentary power of the various States is as follows:—
  "No State shall pass any Bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts."
  The question came under the consideration of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the result was a decision which was received as a leading authority in all parts of that country. The Court held that the Legislature had perfect power to destroy the Establishment, to take away all public right of patronage and cure of souls, and all compulsory legislation for the support of the Church, but that it had no right whatever to take away the glebe lands which were acquired under the circumstances
  1148
  I have mentioned. The following extracts from Mr. Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States will give a general idea of the extent to which this prohibition of laws impairing the obligation of contracts operates as a protection to what are known in this country as the vested interests of individuals or corporate bodies—
  "It has been already stated that a grant is a contract within the meaning of the Constitution, as much as an unexecuted agreement. The prohibition, therefore, equally reaches all interferences with private grants and private conveyances, of whatever nature they may be. But it has been made a question whether it applies in the same extent to contracts and grants of a. State created directly by law, or made by some authorized agent in pursuance of a law. It has been suggested that in such cases it is to be deemed an act of the legislative power; and that all laws are repealable by the same authority which enacted them. But it has been decided upon solemn argument that contracts and grants made by a State are not less within the reach of the prohibition than contracts and grants of private persons; that the question is not whether such contracts or grants are made directly by law in the form of legislation, or in any other form, but whether they exist at all. … And grants of land, once voluntarily made by a State by a special law, or under general laws, when once perfected are equally as incapable of being resumed by a subsequent law as those founded on a valuable consideration. Thus, if a State grant glebe lands or other lands to parishes, towns, or private persons gratuitously, they constitute irrevocable executed contracts. And it may be laid down as a general principle that whenever a law is in its own nature a contract, and absolute rights have vested under it, a repeal of that law cannot divest those rights or annihilate or impair the title so acquired. [Theodore Sedgwick, in his Statutory Law, p. 625, states the principle thus—'That a Legislature can no more withdraw its grant than a donor his gift when delivered, is now to be considered perfectly well settled.] A grant (as has been already stated) amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert it."
  This was the rule adopted in the United States, which neither in their constitution nor in the doctrines of their law had ever been accused of too great leniency to endowments or establishments. The Legislature of Virginia had attempted to do what their Lordships were now asked to do in reference to these glebe lands; but they were controlled and prevented from doing it by the Supreme Court, upon the ground that the sacredness of grants would have been violated by the statute. Again, what was done in the ease of Canada, which was referred to by the First Minister of the Crown as the great precedent for this

  1149
  Bill? The Church was disestablished in Canada, and the property called the "Clergy Reserves," in which no particular localities had any interest whatever, were taken by the State; but the rectories created for the purpose of endowing particular localities were allowed to remain intact, and were regarded as property which was in no way to be disturbed. With regard to the case immediately under discussion, of the glebes and glebe lands in Ulster, I do not base it on the interests of the life holders, but on the broad and general ground that there would be a breach of the contract made with the settlers who colonized the country on the faith of these grants being made if those grants were resumed by Parliament.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will not enter into a lengthened examination of the authorities cited by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) because if I did so the result would be a species of argument like those which are often heard at the bar of this House, though not in a political debate. I will content myself with remarking that the Supreme Court of the United States sit, as your Lordships are aware, as judges in reference to the action of single States, and the quotation laid before your Lordships by my noble and learned Friend amounts only to this—that the Supreme Court decided that the State Legislature of Virginia had not sovereign power to do what it did. No one, however, can question the constitutional right of the three Estates of this Realm to pass any measure they may deem beneficial for the interests of the United Kingdom. The proposal of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) is to give £40,000 a year in round numbers, £1,000,000 to the Episcopalian Church in Ulster. The Roman Catholics, who form more than half the population of the province, are to have none of it. The Presbyterians, who are as five to three compared with the Episcopalians, are to have none of it. It is simply to be handed over to the 300,000 or 400,000 members of the Episcopal Church in Ulster. It has been said that this was the case of a private grant, but the terms of the grant of King Charles I. show the contrary. It is clear that this grant is made for Imperial interests, and the King reserves to himself a right to resume the grant if these interests are not regarded. But King James invited
  1150
  settlers from Scotland as well as from England. It is true that the Episcopal Church was at that time in Scotland. But the bulk of the people there, were Presbyterians, as their descendants are now. The King also allowed a certain number of the best affected Irish Catholics to settle on the land, and Catholics now formed the bulk of the population of Ulster. Are these Presbyterians and Catholics not to be remembered in dealing with this property? My Lords, I do not think it needs a lengthened argument to show that these glebes come within the purview of the Bill. The speech of my noble and learned Friend was really a speech against the second reading of the Bill, and it therefore is really unnecessary to discuss the points which he raised. But before sitting down I should like to take notice of the repeated and extraordinary expressions made use of by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) as to the want of honour and right mindedness on the part of those who occupy these (the Ministerial) Benches on the subject of concurrent endowment. The noble Earl is not now present, but in his absence I may say that I give him credit for honour, high-mindedness, and integrity in the highest degree; but I must deny his right to constitute himself the judge of my honour, right-mindedness, and integrity, or that of the occupants of this Bench. What is the argument of the noble Earl? Because some of us have said that a certain course would have been desirable if there had been a common concurrence respecting it on the part of all the nation, the noble Earl declares that we are, therefore, lacking in honour and high-mindedness, for adopting as practical men the plan which the nation desires. Now, I have been brought up in a school of politicians which thinks that the will of the nation has a great deal to do with every great question of legislation. That will we have ascertained in the proper constitutional manner by an appeal to the constituencies, and he is unfit for a statesman who is not instructed by the expression of that will. A statesman is not to be dictated to by it; he is not to do—God forbid that he should!—one thing which he thinks is wrong because the nation has spoken; but if the thing be not wrong—if it be a mere choice between two things, one of which he may think better than the other, though he may think both good, I say that, as a wise

  1151
  Minister, he will be guided by seeing what is practicable and what is not practicable. The noble Earl has said—"You legislate for Ireland by the votes of the English and the Scotch.'' But he forgets that we have as great a majority in favour of our measure in Ireland as we have in England. Why, therefore, are we to thrust upon the nation, with a doctrinaire perversity, that which the nation has clearly declined to have. To adopt what we think right for the nation, independent of the will of the nation, is government upon paternal principles: and I think the time for such government has gone by. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Derry) spoke of the despair, the dismay, the pain, and the anguish which the proposal of the Government has occasioned in Ulster. I only beg to remind him, in reply, that the town which gives its name to his see has returned to Parliament a Gentleman favourable to our measure.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYsaid, they were told that Church property was national property, and that all Churches and sects were to be placed on a footing of equality. In limine he demurred to the assertion that Church property was national property; it was public property, which the nation held in trust for the furtherance of great public interests. However, it had been determined that this property should be treated as national, and at the bottom of all the arguments which had been urged this evening against the Amendment was the feeling that if these glebe lands were retained by the Protestant Church in Ulster there would not be religious equality. Now, it must be remembered that unestablished Churches always acquired a considerable amount of property. Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and other Dissenting sects in Ireland owned considerable property, and no one knew the amount of it. But everybody knew perfectly well what the property of the Established Church was. In appropriating that, therefore, you left to other sects their private property. True, you gave to individual members of the Established Church compensation for private interests, and you left the churches and the parsonage houses, from which he believed the Roman Catholics themselves would be sorry to see the ministers of the Church ejected. But this was all. Roman Catholics and Presbyterians had a great deal more than this,
  1152
  and therefore you would not have religious equality unless you gave the Established Church something else. He regretted greatly that the House had decided against the grant of glebe houses to Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, because that would have prevented the appearance of inequality; but he maintained that the grant of these Ulster glebes to the Church would, for the reasons he had stated, be a much nearer approach to religious equality. The noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had stated that he should be ashamed of his religion if he did not think it could make its way even when stripped of its endowments. It was very easy to say that; but it was hard to let a Church grow up in the midst of a nation, under the protection of the Government, and then when it was no longer an infant Church, like the Apostolic Church, suddenly to turn it out upon the world. You might compare this to the case of a father who sent a young man out to the colonies at twenty and gave him £100. The young man in the full vigour of life might make his way and do well; but if the same youth grew up at home in peace and prosperity, and perhaps in luxury, and then at fifty were turned out to make a fortune for himself, it was not likely he would succeed. No doubt there was such a thing as Apostolic poverty, but noble Lords, who referred to it, might remember that it was poverty of the laity, as much as of the clergy. It was of the laity that we read that they sold their possessions and brought them to the feet of the Apostles. St. Paul, who set a noble example of poverty, continually advocated this principle, that as those who served the altar lived by the altar, so they who preached the Gospel should live by the Gospel. He drew a complete parallel between the maintenance of the Levites under the Law and that of the clergy under the Gospel: which proves plainly enough that though Apostolic poverty was the fittest condition for clergy and laity alike in the infant Church, it was never contemplated by the Apostles as the normal condition of settled Churches in the midst of wealthy communities. To strip the Church naked and turn it out into the world by the side of other Churches largely endowed and highly organized would be to place it in so trying a position that it would require something like a miracle to have it maintain itself.
  On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 105; Not-Contents 55: Majority 50.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  London, Bp,

  Dublin, Archp.

  Peterborough, Bp:

  St. David's, Bp.

  Beaufort, D.

  Tuam, &c, Bp.

  Manchester, D.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bolton, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Cairns, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Churston, L.

  Bath, M.

  Clarina, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Clermont, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Annesley, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Denman, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Grinstead, L.(E. Enniskillen.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Hartismere, L.(L. Henniker.)

  Morton, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Headley, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Powis, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Rosse, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)

  Gough, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Saltoun, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Scarsdale, L.

  Hood, V.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Melville, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sinclair, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Templemore, L.

  Deny and Raphoe, Bp.

  Walsingham, L.

  Ely, Bp.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  Lichfield, Bp,

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Norfolk, D.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Wellington, D.

  Cleveland, D.

  1154

  Lansdowne, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Airlie, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Albemarle, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Essex, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Granville, E.

  Monson, L.

  Grey, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Morley, E.

  Ponsonby L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Spencer, E

  Stradbroke, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Halifax, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur.)

  Torrington, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Ashburton, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Belper, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Camoys, L.

  Carew, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Taunton, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Enactments with respect to mixed endowments) agreed to.
  Clause 31 (Moveable chattels belonging to sees or churches) agreed to.
  [Management of property by Commissioners.]
  Clause 32 (Limitation of right to purchase fee simple in consideration of perpetual rent) agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Sale of tithe rent-charge to owners of land).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK, in rising to move in page 17, lines 19 and 20, after ("rentcharge") to insert—
  ("Less such sum in the pound as such owner shall be ascertained by the commissioners to have been, on an average of five years preceding the passing of this Act entitled to deduct for poor rates.")
  said, that the alteration he proposed would not make much difference in the amount of the surplus; but, at the same time, it was desirable that the clause should be so amended as to be freed from an error in the computation. The clause as it stood entitled the Commissioners to effect a sale of the tithe rent-charge at twenty-two and a-half years' purchase upon its nominal amount, without taking into consideration any deduction from it.

  1155
  Now, he proposed that the amount of poor rates paid on an average during five years before the passing of the Act should be deducted, and he might claim the support of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Monck), who had stated that the clear market value was only eighteen years' purchase.
  Amendment moved, line 19, after ("rent-charge") to insert—
  ("Less such sum in the pound as such owner shall be ascertained by the commissioners to have been on an average of five years preceding the passing of this Act entitled to deduct for poor rates.")—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, that the precise words of the noble Earl's Amendment were inserted in the latter part of the clause. Was it necessary to re-insert them? The matter had been argued at length in the other House, and the compromise eventually agreed to was approved by the Royal Commissioners.
  LORD CAIRNSobserved that the clause provided for those who wished to purchase at twenty-two and a-half years' purchase, and for those who applied to let the charge lapse by the financial operations of the Government; but no course was defined for those cases in which the landlord, either from being a minor or other cause, did not apply, but simply remained quiescent. How would he be put in motion?
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, the question would be considered by the Government.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that he must press his Amendment, the explanation of the noble Lord. (Lord Northbrook) being unsatisfactory.
  EARL GREYsaid, he thought it would have been more straight forward if the Government had introduced a clause stating in express terms that, at the end of fifty-two years, the tithe rent-charge would wholly cease. At present, the Bill offered the tithe rent-charge at a price which no man in his senses would pay; and, in default of his accepting the offer, made a nominal loan to him, and caused the charge to lapse at the end of fifty-two years. But why should property, valuable for public purposes, be given to the Irish landlords fifty-two years hence? The difficulties of the country would be far less then than now; and if it were deemed advisable to give any-
  1156
  thing to the landlords, by all means let it be given now, when it would be of some service. He was utterly unable to understand any principle which could justify abolishing, after a certain number of years, a public charge upon the land of Ireland.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid, that many persons had purchased land in Ireland, subject to that charge, and he could not see the justice of giving it up. They would not only have to bear that charge during their lifetime, but to support their Church as well. How could this be reconciled with the principle of justice, upon which the Government professed to found their Bill?
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, the arrangement was somewhat difficult to understand; but it was to be observed that the Irish Church Commissioners distinctly recommended in their Report that this tithe rent-charge should be commuted—that it appeared to them that it would be expedient to empower owners to redeem on fair terms; and acting upon their recommendation, the Government had devised a financial scheme which would work satisfactorily to all the three parties concerned. First, the Exchequer lent money at 3½ per cent, which, considering the state of the money market, and that the Exchequer borrowed at the rate of 3 per cent, was not an unfair rate. Next, the new Commissioners would, no doubt, receive a capital of £9,250,000, in consequence of the arrangement. The Church fund would suffer in no way. Then, as to the landlords; they could buy up their tithe rent-charge at once, or find themselves relieved of it at the end of fifty-two years; and the arrangement was not a bad one for them. The gross rent-charge was £405,000, which gave about £9,250,000 at twenty-two and a-half years' purchase. The interest upon that was £320,000, at 3½ per cent; and, as the arrangement was made at 4½, there would be about 1 per cent put by to replace capital, for which fifty-two years would be sufficient.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he could not understand how the present landlords would benefit when they had to pay their tithe rent-charge and support their Church as well.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was delighted to find that his argument on introducing the Bill directed against the

  1157
  charge that the Government had endeavoured to bribe the landlords by this proposal was quite unnecessary; it seemed now that the clause was of no value at all to the landlords, but rather the reverse.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, as between landlords and lunatics, he preferred the landlords. He had been trying to think of a phrase that would not wound the susceptibilities of those on the Ministerial Bench, and he would say that this was not a frank-speaking Bill. It was full of conjuring tricks. Noble Lords desired, and he thought rightly, to give some grant to Maynooth, but instead of doing so in a straightforward manner the Bill estimated the value of the life interests in bricks and mortar. They desired to give compensation for the Regium Donum, and their plan was to take Regium Donum and Maynooth together, and calculate the life interests in the whole. It was wished that the landlords of Ireland should be dealt with liberally and justly; but the Bill contained, instead of a plain and simple provision, an extraordinary puzzle which would be without a parallel in the statute book. There were contradictions between parts of the Bill and the professions of the Government. They professed to be animated by a desire to do the best they could for the Irish Church; but the Bill was one of the most penurious and exacting Bills ever devised. If the Government had come forward boldly and allowed their clauses to represent their principles distinctly, without attempting to work round to those principles by the extraordinary devices of which this clause was a sample, they would have commended their proposals much more to thinking men out-of, doors and to the Members of their Lordships' House.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 91; Not-Contents 64: Majority 27.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Commissioners may purchase surrender or assignment of lease), agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Power of commissioners to sell their property).
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that to a certain degree the clause anticipated the question which it was understood was
  1158
  reserved for next year; one portion of it declaring that the Commissioners shall in the first instance offer to sell the fee simple of the land to the lessee or tenant. He thought their Lordships ought not to pass without some notice a clause involving a principle so important as that of giving the sanction of the Government to the sale of property for the purpose of creating small holdings. It appeared to introduce into the Bill a matter which was entirely alien to its principle, and one which had apparently been introduced with some ulterior object.
  EARL GRANVILLEentirely denied the interpretation that the noble Lord had put upon the clause. The clause was in perfect conformity with the principle of the Bill. Its object was merely to give the right of pre-emption to the actual lessees.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the Commissioners could, if they desired, name a price sufficiently high to exclude all possibility of the land being purchased by the lessees.
  Clause agreed to with an Amendment.
  Clause 36 (Orders of commissioners operating as conveyance or mortgage to be liable to same stamp duty as conveyances or mortgages)
  Clause 37 (Payment of money into bank)
  Clause 38 (Accounts of capital and revenues)
  Agreed to.
  [Regium Donum and College of Maynooth.]
  Clause 39 (Compensation to non-conforming ministers).
  THE EARL OF COURTOWN, who had placed on the Paper an Amendment to strike out this clause, said that he would not press his Motion, as he had reason to believe that it would not receive their Lordships' support. He desired, however, to enter his solemn protest against the application of an Irish fund to the relief of Imperial taxation; and though he thought that those who derived benefit from the Regium Donum and the Maynooth Grant ought to be compensated fully and freely, he could not help thinking that the nation was exhibiting its generosity at the expense of what was Irish money. He accepted the decision which had been arrived at as the decision of the majority of one House of Parliament, but not as the decision of

  1159
  the country, before whom the subject had never been fully laid.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Commutation of annuities of nonconformist ministers and professors at Belfast) agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Repeal of Maynooth Acts. Compensation on the cessation of certain annual sums).
  Amendments made.
  LORD FITZWALTER LORD FITZWALTER moved "to disagree to the said clause as amended," which he believed to be repulsive to the feelings of the people of England and Scotland.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY, in supporting the Motion, said, he considered that there was no proper connection between the disendowment of Maynooth and the disendowment of the Protestant Church. Maynooth was a College established and endowed in permanence, no longer ago than 1845, with the deliberate assent of both Houses of Parliament, and it had thenceforth been constituted as the Royal College of Maynooth—one of the institutions of the country. He had strongly objected to and contended against the Bill for its establishment; but he saw no reason or justification for now disturbing it after its having been so deliberately established upon the good faith of Parliament. If the present House of, Commons wished to disendow that establishment, it was for them to provide out of funds legitimately at their disposal for such compensation as they might consider the collegiate body entitled to; but it was only adding insult to the injury already done to the Protestant Church in Ireland to take from the Church Body the funds required for the future capitalized endowment of an institution expressly designed for the teaching of doctrines the most opposed to those of the Reformed faith. The establishment of Maynooth had been undoubtedly the admission of the principle of endowing the Roman Catholic Church in antagonism to the national Protestant Establishment; but the concession had been made. He considered that the College had conferred no benefit upon the country. It had sent forth as teachers of the people a clergy generally narrow-minded, intolerant, and imbued with Ultramontane principles; whereas previously the priests of Ireland, for the most part
  1160
  educated abroad, came into the country with more enlarged views, and were better members of society. The Roman Catholic clergy had gradually come to be fully recognized in their parochial functions as parish priests; he would, therefore, consider it a very salutary exchange for the country, though it might be more costly, if in lieu of any endowment for Maynooth College, grants of glebe houses and gardens should be made, as proposed lately in Committee, for the residences of parish priests; but he conceived that there was nothing in the anti-Church movement to justify the abstractions from the funds of the Irish Church, for the purpose of relieving the Imperial Exchequer from a pecuniary burden that was imposed upon it by the deliberate vote of the Imperial Parliament.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he had always opposed the Maynooth Grant during the many years he sat in the House of Commons. It had signally failed to attain the object with which it was conceded by Parliament—the conciliation of the Roman Catholics. He could not see why the compensation for an annual amount which had been paid out of the Consolidated Fund should be paid out of the funds of the Irish Church.
  LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, certain pledges were given, in the course of last year, by those who now form Her Majesty's Government, which, I think, were very clearly understood by the country. One of those pledges was that no part of the property of the Irish Church should be used for the endowment of any other denomination, or for the payment of the teachers of any other denomination. Another of those pledges was that the property of the Irish Church should not be applied for any other than Irish uses. In my opinion, neither of those pledges has been observed. That a portion of the funds of the Irish Church is to be applied to the payment of the teachers of another denomination is clear, and it is equally manifest that a portion of those funds is to be applied to purposes which are not Irish. The grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum have both been paid out of Imperial funds. If compensation is to be given for them it also ought to be paid out of Imperial funds. I am not, however, prepared to vote for striking out

  1161
  the clauses relating to Maynooth and the Regium Donum. I think we are all agreed that, whatever may have been the policy of granting an annual sum to Maynooth, full compensation ought to be given for that grant. We are also agreed that compensation ought to be given for the Regium Donum. A good deal has been said in the course of these debates about liberality. Now, my Lords, I should be the last man to say that any want of liberality should be shown towards Maynooth or towards those who have been in receipt of the Regium Donum. The question, then, is whether the compensation should be given out of the funds of the Irish Church or out of Imperial funds. The Bill says that it shall be paid out of the funds of the Irish Church. If we strike that out, the consequence must be that we throw the charge on the Consolidated Fund. But the House of Commons, having fully considered the question, resolved to throw it on the funds of the Church. It appears to me that by adopting the Amendment we should be departing, if not from the letter, certainly from the spirit of our practice, because we should be doing what would be tantamount to throwing a charge on the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, though I think there has been a grave—without meaning any offence to noble Lords opposite, I will say a gross—violation of pledges in this matter, I am not prepared to vote against these clauses.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I wish to say that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) is entirely mistaken when he says there has been a violation of pledges made by those who are now Members of Her Majesty's Government. If the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to refer to the discussions which took place in the House of Commons last year, he will find that on two, if not on three, separate occasions my right hon. Friend who is now at the head of the Government was asked what was to become of the Maynooth Grant, and that, on those occasions, he announced that the grant must cease to be borne by the Consolidated Fund.
  EARL GREYsaid, he entirely dissented from the doctrine laid down by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns). Charges imposed on the Consolidated Fund continued to be borne by that fund until they were put an end to by
  1162
  both Houses; but, according to the noble and learned Lord, they ceased when the House of Commons said they were to cease. To take the grant from Maynooth was a shabby proceeding, and another shabby proceeding was to charge the compensation on the funds of the Irish Church. This charge ought to be an Imperial one.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had been misunderstood by the noble Earl. The Regium Donum never had been charged on the Consolidated Fund. The Maynooth Grant had been; but the compensation for both, if not paid out of the property of the Irish Church, must be provided for in the Estimates. It was, therefore, he had said that it would not be within the spirit of the practice of their Lordships' House to oppose the decision of the House of Commons on this matter, when, by doing so, their Lordships would be throwing a charge on the Estimates. He did not see how the explanation of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) applied to promises made in Lancashire and other places as to the disposal of the property of the Irish Church.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he did not object to the compensation to Maynooth, but he did object to its payment out of the funds of the Irish Church as a monstrous proposition. They were told that the House of Commons had refused to compensate Maynooth out of the Consolidated Fund. He was quite sure that, if applied to, the country would decide that out of the Consolidated Fund the compensation ought to be paid. If his noble Friend who proposed the Amendment went to a division he should support him.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he thought the Amendments their Lordships had made relating to the Irish Church itself would sufficiently tax the attention of the other House of Parliament, and if their Lordships were to strike out this clause relating to Maynooth they would render it impossible for the Roman Catholic Members in the House of Commons to acquiesce in those Amendments. In the interest of the Irish Church itself he trusted the clause would be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he had long been of opinion that Maynooth was unjustly treated by public opinion. No doubt the principles of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy, when Maynooth

  1163
  was founded, were more Gallican—less Ultramontane—than they were now; and the difference had been attributed to Maynooth; but this was not just. The Irish Roman Catholic clergy had shared in the general change of principles which had come over their brethren in all countries; they had not escaped the contagion. But this was not due to Maynooth, but to causes common to them all, and even now if there was any tinge of Gallican principles to be found in Ireland it was to be found in Maynooth. He thought if that institution were broken up matters would be worse in Ireland than they were. Maynooth possessed a body of learned men; at their head was Dr. Russell, a learned Roman Catholic, a gentleman, and a scholar—a man who was well acquainted with the history of his own Church, and who would not make its principles bend to the politics of the day. It was desirable for Ireland that there should be such a body of learned men assembled in one large and well-endowed institution. Liberal opinions stood a better chance of obtaining ground in such an institution than in small and obscure episcopal seminaries scattered over the country, in which education for the Roman Catholic priesthood would otherwise be carried on. Maynooth had never been popular with the Ultramontane party. He should be sorry to see anything done in this Bill which would jeopardize a proper compensation being given to the College.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, the clause contained provisions relating to the Presbyterian Widows' and Orphans' Fund, which would be lost if the clause were struck out, This he considered unjust after the House had passed the clauses relating to compensation to the recipients of the Regium Donum. He therefore hoped the noble Lord (Lord Fitzwalter) would not persist in his opposition to the clause.
  On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents, 146; Not-Contents, 22; Majority, 124.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Remission of debt to trustess of Maynooth)
  Clause 43 (Regulations as to appeal).
  Clause 44 (Possession to be given up of 24, Upper Merrion Street)
  Agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he should withdraw a new clause of which he had given notice—
  "In the event of the formation and incorporation of the representative body hereinbefore mentioned, the commissioners shall pay over to the same the sum of £200,000 to provide for the payment of servants and agents, and other expenses connected with the constitution of the said body and the management of the affairs and property thereof."
  After the announcement of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) earlier in the evening, with regard to the grant of £500,000, he did not think it would be fair to press this clause.
  Clause 45 (Compensation to Ecclesiastical Commissioners and their officers).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN moved an Amendment, securing to the Secretary, the Treasurer, and Solicitor of the Commission, "such an annual sum for their respective lives as shall be equivalent to their present annual emoluments."
  EARL GRANVLLLEsaid, he must object to the Amendment, which was unnecessary. These gentlemen were all on salaries, and at this moment had a right to superannuation.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he hoped that his noble Friend would consider this, which was really a hard case.
  Motion (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 46 (Compensation to vicars-general and other officers by annuities equal to their average income for the three years ending 1st January, 1869.
  THE EARL OF BANDON THE EARL OF BANDON moved in page 24, line 9, after ("registrar") to insert ("or deputy registrar, who, for twenty-five years before the passing of this Act, shall have performed all the duties of registrar.")
  THE BISHOP OF TUAMsaid, he should support the Amendment. He would urge upon Her Majesty's Government the duty of taking such cases into their consideration.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that there was a provision in the clause securing compensation to deputy-registrars who should for five years before the passing of the Act have discharged the office of registrars.
  EARL NELSONsaid, he trusted, that the claim of the diocesan architects would be also taken into consideration. As diocesan architects they received no salary; but as a perquisite of the office

  1165
  they were appointed upon Commissions to examine into the condition of glebe-houses, and their fees for that duty amounted, in some cases, to £100 or £150 a year. All he asked was that compensation, not an annual salary, should be given them.
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, that although diocesan architects were a very worthy set of men, to whom the Church was under great obligations, yet it would be impossible to compensate them in the manner proposed. In fact, they had no recognized status to justify compensation.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that these gentlemen had, if not a vested, an equitable interest, which ought not to be overlooked.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
  Clauses 49 to 59 [Dealings with Property]
  Clauses 60 to 65 [Power of Commissioners to raise money]
  Clause 66 (Rules as to arbitration)
  Clause 67 (Regulations as to vacancies).
  Agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House to be again in Committee To-morrow.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the Charitable Trusts Act—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a (No. 170.)

  BISHOPS RESIGNATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the relief of Archbishops and Bishops when incapacitated by infirmity—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a (No. 171.)
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.