Sitting of 12 July 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class II.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Nitro Glycerine *[211].
Second Reading—Parochial Schools (Scotland) [164]; Jamaica Loans* [200]; Cinque Ports Act Amendment* [206].
Committee—Report—Inclosure Awards (County Palatine of Durham)* [44–210].
Considered as amended—Insolvent Debtors and Bankruptcy Repeal * [180].
Third Reading—Sunday and Ragged Schools* [205], and passed.
Withdrawn—Trades Unions,&c. * [68].

POLICE CONSTABLES.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether police constables stationed at Government Departments are paid 1s. extra per day, in order to secure the services of the most respectable men in the force; whether some of the staff of officers required for the Houses of Parliament are excluded from this payment during the Recess, whilst in all other Departments payment has been made since April 1867; whether constables receiving this extra 1s. per day for special services are prohibited from contributing the ordinary amount to the pension fund; and, whether 2s. per diem is deducted from the wages of the police serving in this House in case of sudden illness?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply to the first Question of the hon. Member, that it was the fact that the police constables to whom it referred were selected on account of their being respectable men, and because of the responsible nature of the duties which they had to perform. The allowance was voluntarily paid by the Department in all cases, it being in excess of the ordinary regulated charges for the service of police. In answer to
1664
the second Question, he had to state that some of the officers employed in the Houses of Parliament had been excluded from the allowance during the Recess, owing to the lighter nature of the duties during that period. The number employed was thirty-seven, and out of that number fifteen had received the extra allowance of Is. a day. Those numbers did not include policemen employed on the night watch to prevent fire. The expenses or cost of police employed at the Houses of Parliament was greatly in excess of the sum annually granted by Parliament. The actual cost of the police employed was £3,983 9s., out of which amount Parliament contributed only £429, the balance of £3,554 being paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund. In answer to the third Question, he had to say that, by the regulations, constables received the amount of the extra allowance beyond the ordinary pay of the class to which they belonged only when they performed special duty. They were placed under stoppages for the superannuation fund, calculated on the actual pay of the class to which they belonged, and not upon the extra allowance. 1s. per day only was deducted from the pay of the police who were sick; the 1s. extra allowance was given to the man who actually performed the duty in the place of the sick man. During his illness, he consequently suffered a reduction of 2s.s a day.

EGYPT—SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any negotiations have been or are intended to be entered into with his Royal Highness the Sultan of Turkey, or with His Highness the Viceroy of Egypt, relative to the navigation of the Suez Canal by vessels of the British Naval and Mercantile Marine; if so, the terms upon which British and Foreign vessels are to have the use of it?
MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that he would reply to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member first. The 6th Article, regulating the concession to M. Lesseps, provided for the equality of the tariff for all nations in the navigation of the Suez Canal. No negotiations had been entered into with the Sultan or the Viceroy of Egypt on the subject;

1665
but, as his hon. Friend was aware, the opening of the Suez Canal was a matter of deep interest and importance to many nations, and to none more than our own. It was impossible, therefore, to say that no negotiations would occur on the subject.

IRELAND—RIOT AT PORTADOWN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the loss of life at Portadown on the 1st of July, For what period of time has Mr. Noonan, the officer who gave the order to the constabulary to fire on the people, filled the post of sub-inspector; whether he previously served in the ranks; how long has he been stationed in Ulster; and, of what county is he a native; and, whether it is not the fact that there are three justices of the peace resident in Portadown, or in its immediate vicinity, the house of one of them being close to the scene of bloodshed; and, if so, why the party of police, after returning to their barracks for their rifles, did not communicate with one of them previous to adopting such extreme measures?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that Mr. Noonan had been a sub-inspector for about two and a-half years; he had previously served in the ranks; he was a native of Kerry; and had been employed in Ulster since his promotion to the sub-inspectorship. There were three justices of the peace resident in Portadown; one of them, as he was informed, was a gentleman far advanced in years and infirmities. His information was that Sub-inspector Noonan had taken precisely that course which his hon. Friend appeared to suppose he had not taken. Before leaving the barracks with the armed patrol he did possess the presence and assistance of a magistrate; but, in some way not yet ascertained, the magistrate got separated from him before the unfortunate collision between the police and the people took place. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to make inquiries of him as to further details of the occurrence, inasmuch as the judicial inquiry had not yet ended.
  SIR THOMAS BATESON: As the coroner has adjourned the inquest, in
  1666
  order to attend to duties not connected with the coronership, I beg to ask, without pre-judging the question, Whether it would not be expedient to transfer Sub-inspector Noonan to some other district during the interval until the 3rd August, which is fixed for the resumption of the inquest?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: It is really impossible for me to answer that Question, of which not even notice has been given.

IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF DUNDALK AND LOUTII.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the borough of Dundalk and the county of Louth, with reference to the fact that they are still under Proclamation; and whether, regard being had to their "eminently satisfactory state, both as regards offences against the person and property," Government are prepared to remove the Proclamation?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he felt as deep an interest as his hon. Friend in the county of Louth and the borough of Dundalk, and he had as high an opinion as he (Mr. Callan) could have of the order that prevailed there. He was proud to know that, in common with by far the larger part of Ireland, these places were singularly free from ordinary crime. But the powers conferred on the Executive by a Proclamation under the Peace Preservation Act were of considerable value, though they were moderate, and, as he believed, moderately exercised; and they were not to be lightly removed from any particular district or without the fullest consideration. He was not able to say that it was the present opinion of the Irish Government that the Proclamation should be removed from those particular districts.
MR. CALLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able, during the present Session, to give an answer to the Question?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: My hon. Friend had better put the Question again before the end of the Session.

HONG KONG—GAMBLING HOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the money arising from the licensing of Gambling Houses in Hong Kong has been included as an ordinary source of revenue in the Return of Revenue and Expenditure for 1868; and, whether such appropriation is sanctioned by the Secretary of State?
  MR. MONSELLreplied, that the money arising from the licensing of gambling houses in Hong Kong had been included as an ordinary source of revenue in the Return of Revenue and Expenditure for 1868. Such appropriation would never be sanctioned in future; and a letter had been addressed by Earl Granville to the Governor of Hong Kong, stating that it was the wish of the Government that the surplus gambling fees should be funded as a reserve for carrying out the vigorous efforts which might be made for the suppression of the exercise of the vice of gambling.

OYSTER DREDGING.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that English fishing vessels are at present dredging for oysters within the limits prohibited, from June 16 to August 31, by Article 11 of the late Fishing Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French; and if he will cause inquiries to be made on the subject, with a view of preventing a violation of the Convention on the part of British subjects?
MR. BRIGHTsaid, in reply, that the Convention referred to by the hon. Gentleman had not yet come into operation. According to one of the Articles of the Convention it was not to come into operation until a day to be fixed by the French Government, and as that Government were not yet in a position to fix the day the Convention had not come into force. He had no reason to believe that there had been any violation of the existing Convention.

IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF LONDONDERRY.—QUESTION.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for
1668
Ireland, Whether, considering the long immunity from crime in the City and County of Londonderry, and considering that the Proclamation touching the City was issued before the Government could give any reply in this House as to the cause of it, he is prepared to remove the Proclamation, more especially as the proceedings at the Coroner's Inquest do not appear to implicate the inhabitants of the City in the deaths of those unfortunate men who lost their lives just previous to the Proclamation?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the Government were not fully acquainted with the cause that induced them to proclaim Londonderry, that cause being, mainly, the fact of the possession of a large quantity of arms by an angry and excited population. It would be quite premature for the Government now, after the lapse of only a few weeks, to say that they were prepared to withdraw the Proclamation.

IRELAND—USE OF FIREARMS BY THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.—QUESTION.
MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, any instructions which have been issued to the Irish constabulary with reference to carrying and using their firearms?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, it had not been thought necessary or advisable to issue instructions on the subject in consequence of the unfortunate occurrence at Porta-down. To have done so would have appeared to imply a foregone conclusion as to the conduct of the police, which the Government were not in a position to arrive at. He might add that by the standing regulations of the Irish constabulary force, with which the men, and especially the officers, were perfectly familiar, the most stringent caution is imposed on the use of firearms, as a course to be adopted only under the gravest circumstances, and in the last resort.
MR. VANCEsaid, his question referred to the standing regulations on the subject.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that he should be happy to produce them, if the hon. Member desired it.

ARMY—CRIMEAN PRIZE MONET.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Colonel NORTH,
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the amount of the property taken from the enemy by British Troops during the Crimean War would not, if distributed, have amounted to more than 2s. 6d. per officer, or 6d. per man; and to have given that would have been a mockery rather than a reward.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORD: Sir, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, If it be his intention to take the Telegraphs Bill at two o'clock to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No; and I may take this opportunity to mention that in consequence of the state of business, the Public Business will, during the remainder of the Session on ordinary days, commence at a quarter past four o'clock—when Questions can be asked—instead of half past four o'clock.

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

METROPOLIS—NEW PUBLIC OFFICES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the sums granted for the purchase of the site for the new Public Offices, and to the proposed expenditure for a new Home Office and new Colonial Office, and to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a plan of the land already purchased, and of the land intended to be acquired, with an explanatory statement showing what portion of the land is intended to be built upon, and the amount of money already, and when, and for what purchases expended; and, if the plans and estimates for the new Home Office are prepared; and, if so, the amount of the estimate, and where the plans may be seen? Hon. Members had that day received the Report of the Committee on the New Public
  1670
  Offices Sites Bill, and that, to a certain extent, answered some of his questions; but it disclosed the fact that it was the intention of the First Commissioner to carry out, to a large extent, the Report of 1868. The amount already voted amounted to £147,000, and under the new Bill £700,000 more was contemplated. The evidence brought before the Committee had been of the most meagre character, and not such as to justify the large expenditure that was likely to take place. He thought they ought to have something like a definite plan, and some detailed account of the property that was to be purchased, and of the sum asked for for that purpose.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he had no objection whatever to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. The fact, however, was that the greater part of the information had already been given to the House. If the hon. Member turned to the Paper laid on the table on the 3rd of April, 1865, he would find a complete plan of the Foreign Office, India Office, and the Colonial and Home Offices, and the proposed purchases in King Street. That Paper comprised all the information he was able to give on that part of the subject. In addition, the fullest plans of all the houses and ground proposed to be taken had been deposited according to the requirements of Parliament, and if the hon. Member would turn to the Public Offices Act of 1865, and the similar Act of 1866, he would find attached to those Acts copies of the deposited plans. The hon. Member had mixed up two questions entirely separate. There were two distinct transactions—the purchase of the property for the erection of buildings already decided upon and commenced, which had been completed with the exception of a very small block, and the contemplated purchase of a part of George Street, included in the Bill introduced this Session, which had come from a Select Committee. The site occupied by the India and Foreign Offices, and to be occupied by the Home and Colonial Offices—the purchase of which had been sanctioned by the House—cost £465,000. As regarded the plans for the Home and Colonial Offices, they were not yet in a state to be submitted to the House. When he came into Office he found that Mr. Scott had prepared plans for those Offices. He (Mr. Layard) had submitted

  1671
  them to a Committee, consisting of Sir Charles Trevelyan, Mr. Stevenson, and Mr. Fergusson, and by their assistance he had succeeded in including in the plan several Departments which Mr. Scott had omitted. Mr. Scott had, therefore, to prepare his plans anew, and they were not yet finished. There was no contract yet for the building; only the foundations were laid. When the plans were completed, which he hoped would be shortly, he would have them placed in the Library for the inspection of Members. All he could say was, that the plans had been looked over most carefully by the Committee, and had been sanctioned by the heads of the Home and Colonial Departments. So far, therefore, as regarded the site for which money had been voted, that necessary for the erection of the Foreign, India, Home, and Colonial Offices had been acquired. The other question was entirely distinct—namely, the acquisition of a further site for the erection of other public offices, as recommended by the Commission of 1868. That Commission recommended the acquisition of the whole block of land between Parliament Street, George Street, and the Park. The site thus recommended to be acquired appeared to the Government far more extensive than was necessary, and a Bill for the acquisition of a much more limited area had been referred to a Select Committee, which had passed it. The Bill had been recommitted to the Whole House, and the question of the acquisition of this site or of any fresh property could then be fully discussed. The Bill would not be proceeded with to-night, and probably not this week. As regarded that part of King Street which would still remain after the portion already acquired had been pulled down, of course, when the Home and Colonial Offices were erected, it would no longer be so convenient as a thoroughfare in consequence of its entrance being somewhat impeded by those buildings. The maps were already before the House, and the accounts should be laid on the table in a condensed form.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to know whether any estimate of the amount required for the Home and Colonial Offices would be given before the buildings were commenced?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, there was, of course, a general estimate, and the House might have any particulars it required.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to know what amount of money had been expended in the purchase of the site?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had in his hand a statement of the whole of the expenditure in respect of the public offices. The Foreign Office was already erected, and the account for the offices to be erected on that site was exclusive of the India Office, which was paid for out of Indian revenues. The operation was a prolonged one, having lasted a good many years, but the account up to December 31, 1868, in round numbers stood thus—For the purchase of property, £409,484; preliminary and other expenses, £16,000; for the buildings, £258,000;furnitureandfittings, £15,000; miscellaneous, £6,000. The total was £706,223. Then with regard to the blocks on the south side, there would be required to complete the purchase of the land, £67,000; for buildings and public offices, £407,000; making a total of £1,181,000. The India Office had refunded £86,000; so that the actual expense up to the present time was £1,094,000 to complete the block of buildings as designed, subject to a further and complicated question of £50,000 for property taken in exchange.

FOREIGN OFFICE—UNPAID ATTACHES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to call attention to the employment in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service of unpaid Attaches, and would contrast their position with that of the junior clerks in the Foreign Office. There were ten of these unpaid attaches, who were appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. They must be between twenty-one and twenty-six years of age, and they must serve four years without pay. At the end of that time they were to receive £150 "contingently." Every junior clerk in the Foreign Office, on the other hand, received £100 a year on appointment. The unpaid attaches were subject to many expenses. They were obliged to provide themselves with an expensive uniform, to lodge near the Embassy, which was usually in the most expensive quarter, and they were called upon to contribute to the relief of their fellow countrymen in distress. They were continually being removed from one Embassy to another at a considerable

  1673
  expense; for when it was discovered that an attaché was comfortably settled anywhere, the rule at the Foreign Office seemed to be to remove him as far off as possible, while the clerk lived in London, often in his father's house, and had the great advantage of a club. The Committee of 1861 did much to assist the diplomatic profession, but the class of unpaid attaches still remained, although the most distinguished diplomatists and Ministers, including Lord Kimberley, Sir Andrew Buchanan, Sir John Cramp-ton, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord Malmesbury, Lord Cowley, and Lord Napier, condemned the principle, and agreed that unpaid service was no more desirable in this than in other public Departments. As regarded the prospects of these gentlemen, under ordinary circumstances a man might, perhaps, expect to become a Secretary of Legation at about forty; but it appeared to him that diplomatic pensions depended entirely upon the caprice of the permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and he would mention one instance to show the peculiarity of the system adopted. Mr. A. was named Secretary of Legation in 1852, and retired, in 1867 while Mr. B., who was also appointed Secretary of Legation in 1852, retired in January, 1868. One would naturally have supposed that both these gentlemen would have the same claims upon the Government for a pension; but, in point of fact, though A received a pension, B did not, he being told that it was not usual for a man to enter Parliament on quitting the diplomatic service, notwithstanding that an Act had been passed in 1859, intituled "An Act to remove doubts as to the qualifications of persons holding diplomatic pensions to sit in Parliament." One reason assigned for giving a pension to B was that he was about sixty years of age. He could not see what objection there could be to placing attachés on the same footing as clerks in the Foreign Office. Ten first-class junior clerks received £4,664; nine second-class clerks, £1,605; and six third-class clerks, £688; while even the doorkeeper and the housekeeper received £100 a year each. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask that an attaché should receive a larger salary than was given to a housekeeper and a doorkeeper. The Committee had recommended that the attaché
  1674
  should occasionally exchange their posts with those of clerks in the Foreign Office; but this recommendation, though theoretically good, would not work in practice, because the Foreign Office clerks would be unwilling to accept diplomatic posts, which were for the most part disagreeable. There was a story told that Lord Palmerston, when he handed over the Seals of the Foreign Office, said to his successor, Lord Malmesbury—"You will find, my Lord, that diplomatists are very hard to please; in fact, there are only two courts that are coveted—Paris and Vienna." Having been himself connected with the diplomatic profession, he knew that they were a most efficient corps, and that it was quite a mistake to suppose, as many persons seemed to do, that they were engaged in a continual round of courtly amusements; and he thought a great and rich country like our own. ought to remunerate the attachés for their services.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the unpaid Attaches in the Diplomatic Service are entitled to salaries equal to those now given to the Junior Clerks in the Foreign Office,"—(Mr. William Lowther,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the House could not be justly charged with not taking an interest in the diplomatic service; but, as the whole of the expenditure connected with it was now for the first time shown on the Estimates, and fully under the control of the House, he hoped that more careful consideration would be given to the subject than heretofore. He was unable to support the Motion, because he was of opinion that attaches, who gave their services gratuitously for a time, were not worse off than young surgeons, lawyers, and other professional men, who had to expend large sums of money before they got any return for the outlay. It should also be remembered that an attaché at first could do very little, and he thought there was no hardship in asking a young attaché to serve without pay for a few years while he made the experiment whether or not he was fit for service. The attaché was not entitled to remuner-

  1675
  ation on the same principle as the clerks in the Foreign Office, who were obliged to attend for several hours in each day. The electric telegraph, by enabling persons engaged in negotiations to receive instructions in a very short time from the Government at home, had, in a great degree, changed the character of the diplomatic service, and it was questionable whether it was necessary to maintain such large diplomatic staffs as formerly.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would remind the House that the Diplomatic Pensions Bill, recently passed, contained a provision that no person should receive a pension unless he had served four years without pay in addition to the time for which he received pay.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he regretted that he had not heard the commencement of his hon. Friend's speech, as he was sure, from the hon. Member's experience, that any remarks that fell from him on the subject must be valuable. He understood him to complain that people had an opinion that the diplomatic service was a place for triflers and idlers. He (Mr. Otway) could only say that the sooner those who thought so got rid of that delusion the better. No one could read the Reports sent home from time to time respecting the commercial and political affairs of the different foreign countries without seeing that, whatever it might have been in the past, the diplomatic service must now be composed of able, intelligent, and industrious persons. His hon. Friend drew a comparison between the services of the attaches and those of the clerks in the Foreign Office, and suggested that attaches should receive the same pay as the junior clerks. He should, however, recollect that the clerks in the Foreign Office had no possibility of rising as the attaches had—to the attaches the highest grades in the diplomatic profession were open—while a clerk in the Foreign Office could never rise higher than permanent Under Secretary of State, with a salary of £2,000 a year. That was the highest prize open to him. As to the payment of the attaches, it would be perhaps better that every person serving the Government should receive a salary, whatever his rank; but the salary of a junior clerk in the Foreign Office was only £100 or £110 a year; and of what use would that be to an attaché serving at Paris,
  1676
  Vienna, or St. Petersburgh? [Mr. W. LOWTHER: A great deal.] He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend say so; for he had taken some trouble to ascertain, from various gentlemen filling that position in those capitals, what was the result of their experience as to the expense connected with it, and he was told that an attaché could not live in St. Petersburg, for instance, unless he had an allowance of £600 or £700. It was a mistake, he might add, to suppose that the expense of removal from one place to another was paid by the attaché himself. It fell upon the State, and in the quarterly accounts for every Embassy there was an allowance made for loss by the rate of exchange. It was also a mistake to attribute the assignment of pensions in any way to the permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It was not only that Mr. Hammond was entirely incapable of bringing any injustice to bear in the exercise of any power which he might possess; but he in reality had no such power, inasmuch as the pensions were assigned by Act of Parliament. In principle he himself should not be opposed to granting the junior attaches a moderate annual sum; but if that were granted them it would be impossible to continue to them the advantages which they recently received. Formerly a man entering the diplomatic service acquired no right to a pension until he had been commissioned as secretary of Legation. Now, however, after four years as an unpaid attaché he at once received his commission, and from that moment his time towards his pension began to count. Under those circumstances it would, he thought, be somewhat inopportune to put the public to an expense for the purpose of conferring on those gentlemen what would be hardly a boon, especially seeing that no complaint emanated from them on the subject.
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, that after the explanation of the hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £47,413, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to draw attention to the large amount of salaries paid to Queen's messengers—£23,700. He did not question the ability and intelligence of these gentlemen; in fact they were too good for their work. In former times, and especially in times of war, this expense might have been necessary, but now the railway and the telegraph might advantageously supersede them. He did not propose, however, to abolish them altogether, but to reduce them to the ordinary class of messengers. He thought that £200 a year and their expenses was sufficient. The Austrian and French Embassies used, he understood, at the present day the Post Office and the telegraph to convey communications for the purpose of carrying which messengers were formerly employed. He did not propose to make any Motion now, but he hoped the Under Secretary's attention would be directed to the matter before the next year's Estimates.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he should be glad to hear some explanations as to the changes in the commercial department of the Foreign Office.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he must express his opinion that it was undesirable for clerks receiving salaries in the Foreign Office to act as agents for diplomatists abroad.
MR. CANDLISHasked if there had been investigation at the Foreign Office with the view of reducing the large staff engaged there?
MR. OTWAYsaid, he must admit that he had always thought the salaries of the messengers in the Foreign Office very large; and he was not disposed to quarrel with the assertion that the duties might be discharged for a less sum and by persons in a humbler position in life. He did not say a word against the present messengers. They had nearly all served in the army, and were gentlemen in the true sense of the word, and he believed there was no instance of any despatch entrusted to them having been tampered with. It sometimes happened in the case of illness, that re-
1678
course was had to home service messengers, who were not in the same social position; and it was only fair to say that despatches entrusted to them had always reached their destination safely. The Foreign Office messengers received, in the first instance, a salary of £400 a year, and when travelling, besides expenses, they received an allowance of £1 1s. a day. That was generally looked on as a fair allowance. Since 1863–4 the Vote had been reduced from £10,198 to £9,629. He had been directed by the Secretary of State for the
Foreign Department to make some inquiry into the matter, and when that inquiry was completed it would be his duty to propose a scheme which would ensure a considerable reduction in the rate for foreign messengers. In the meantime it had been found practicable to dispense with the services of one of them. With regard to the commercial department, it had had the advantage of being presided over by a gentleman of great attainments, Mr. Spring Rice, and although he had been recently appointed to the office of Assistant Under Secretary, he would continue his superintendence of the department. Whatever objections might be entertained to agencies, they entailed no charge on the public, although he confessed he had no sympathy with the system. The matter was one purely of voluntary arrangement between certain persons in the diplomatic service and clerks in the Foreign Office, and the Office had no direct control over it. Under the arrangement made by Lord Stanley no clerk in the Foreign Office would, in future, be allowed to accept such an agency. The result would be that all the agencies would fall into the hands of one clerk, and when this came about it would be a serious question whether it was compatible with, proper attention to a public office that a gentleman receiving £800 or £1,000 a year from the public funds should be receiving £4,000 or £5,000 annually for acting as the agent of diplomatists abroad. The great difficulty was that these agencies had been in existence during 100 years, and it therefore became a question of compensation for vested interests, if the agency business was at once put an end to. In his opinion the system was objectionable in principle, and he should be very glad when the present arrangement ceased.
MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that Foreign Office telegrams were sent without any regulations whatever at an enormous expense to the public. Somebody should be made responsible, and no telegram should be sent without being signed, by the responsible person. This would prevent a great waste of public money, for many of the telegrams sent were of little use. As to agents, he thought some of the pensioned clerks should be appointed, the agency business not making any great demand either in regard to time or intellect.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he did not see why bankers should not be employed as agents instead of the clerks at the Foreign Office.
MR. MELLYsaid, he must draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had not given any answer to the questions of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) with reference to the clerks in the Foreign Office.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would be glad to know whether the salaries in the Foreign Office were likely to undergo revision? He observed that the office porter had a salary of £230 a year. Surely this was too much.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he could not hold out any hope of a reduction in the number of clerks at the Foreign Office. He did not think the number was too large to enable them to get through the business satisfactorily. At times a great amount of work was thrown on the office, and as the entire business of the day was disposed of, as a rule, during the day, the clerks were often kept employed long after the hours when they might expect to leave; and, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge of the matter, it would not be possible to do the work satisfactorily, as at present, with a smaller staff. With regard to telegrams, the laying of the Atlantic Cable had made a large addition to the telegraphic expenditure of the Foreign Office, and as telegraphic communication was extended over the world, the charge would, no doubt, be increased. With a view to the interests of the public service, he was inclined to encourage, rather than discourage, the use of the telegraph. The hon. Member for Westmoreland stated that there was an instance of a telegraphic order for turtle being sent,
1680
but then it should be recollected this was a delicate fish, and a good deal might turn on the question of its punctual arrival. He only hoped with an increase of telegraphy there would be some diminution in the expense of the messages. The office porter, whose salary of £230 had been alluded to, had filled the situation of head porter for a considerable time, and had the custody of the building, with very valuable documents within its walls. His length of service and good guardianship of the building deserved some consideration.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was surprised at the smallness rather than the greatness of the sum which the Government paid for their telegrams. He knew more than one private firm in the City which paid something like £5,000 a year for telegrams.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £23,884, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
(3.) £27,413, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office and Departments.
(4.) £68,033, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade and Departments.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that if he had had the honour of a seat in the House when the Bill for abolishing the Office of Vice President of the Board of Trade and substituting that of Parliamentary Secretary was before it, he should have opposed that measure, because he could speak from personal knowledge—having formerly served as Private Secretary to three several Presidents and Vice Presidents—of the public advantage of the old practice of having the President of the Board in one House and the Vice President in the other. He observed that there was an increase of £3,000 in the salaries, &c, of the Board of Trade, a large portion of which was caused by an addition to the senior clerks of the office. There were now twenty senior clerks—a number out of all proportion to the total clerical staff—and it was worth inquiry whether the office had not become top-heavy. He saw a gentleman down in the list as a corresponding clerk in the Railway Department, who was stated in the Estimates to have been appointed for the unusual period of eighteen months only, which seemed to require explanation. The Accountant of the Board of Trade had

1681
claimed his retirement, and he had been succeeded, at a salary of £1,000 a year, by a gentleman in no way connected with the Board of Trade. Now, nothing exercised a more injurious effect on a Department than bringing a stranger out of other professions or some other public Department, and putting him over the heads of deserving clerks, who had a right to look for promotion. The library of the Board of Trade was one of the most valuable collections of works on economical and statistical science in this or any other country. It consisted of upwards of 30,000 volumes, and was of the greatest possible use to the commercial department of the Board of Trade. He understood, however, that when the Board moved over to the building lately occupied by the Foreign Office in Whitehall Gardens, they left their valuable library behind them in a temporary wooden building, where it was exposed to the greatest risk from fire. He was told that the library would either be broken up or retained to form the nucleus of a large library common to all the Public Departments. Now, the value of the special library required by each Department consisted in its easy accessibility to the Department, for if it were necessary to send to a distance for a volume the chances were that it would seldom be consulted. He supposed that the librarian, a gentleman of considerable experience in the commercial business of the office, who received a salary of about £600 a year, would remain with the library, and thus the advantage of consulting him would likewise be in a great measure lost.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the increase referred to was not due to the present Government, but to their predecessors in Office. There had been cases of retirement among the senior clerks, whose places had been filled up as usual from the juniors. An inquiry had, however, been instituted by the President of the Board of Trade into the whole work of the Department, and the Report was now under the consideration of the Treasury. A corresponding clerk had been appointed in connection with the railway accounts. When the accountant resigned, the President of the Board of Trade was exceedingly desirous of filling up the post from the Board of Trade itself, but he could not find anyone sufficiently fit to occupy it, and he ap-
1682
pointed a gentleman who was Accountant to the Privy Council. The library was an exceedingly valuable one, and it was superintended by a librarian, a
sublibrarian and a clerk. The volumes were formerly spread over the whole of the rooms, and it was not thought worth while to remove them to the late Foreign Office, now temporarily occupied by the Board of Trade. The library was, therefore, left in the temporary rooms of the Treasury buildings, where the volumes could be consulted by other Departments. The Board of Trade were now considering whether this might not be treated as a library for the whole of the Public Departments. He had never found any inconvenience himself in sending across the road for any books he might happen to want. His hon. Friend would, he hoped, excuse him for not entering upon the subject of the salary and appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, there was an increase of £3,300 in the Vote under consideration. The House of Commons, no doubt, was responsible for some of these additions, and the increase was mainly caused by the creation of new offices and officials, such as inspectors of factories, alkali works, &c. He suggested that fees should be charged, as in the case of the Joint-Stock Companies Registration Department. Those which were inspected ought, in his opinion, to pay for their inspection.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought the Government ought next Session to take up the question of the general reform of the Public Departments. The duties of some of the Departments, such as the Privy Council Office and the Home Office, had been greatly increased of late; while, on the other hand, the In-closure Commissioners were probably not overburdened with work. It was a defect, too, of the present system that one Office hardly ever knew what another Department was doing.
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), he had to state that the question of making fees and charges reimburse the Exchequer the expense incurred by particular establishments had, to a considerable extent, already engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It would be necessary, however, to examine care-

1683
fully the provisions of numerous Acts of Parliament before an alteration in the present system could be proposed; but he hoped that during the approaching Recess the whole subject would be thoroughly investigated. In his opinion, when a special service was carried on for the benefit of a particular class, they ought to pay the cost of inspection.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad to hear that this subject was engaging the attention of the Government. His hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) had asked the First Minister of the Crown to review the staff and personnel of the whole of the Public Departments; but to approach this subject in a comprehensive spirit would be to postpone its settlement for a great number of years. In his judgment it would be much more practicable to take each Department by itself and re-organize it from time to time.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £1,921, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.
(6.) £13,265, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that there had been some difficulty in carrying out the Resolution passed last year that the Charity Commissioners should defray their own expenses. There was a large number of charities the objects of which had altogether failed, as well as what might be termed demoralizing charities, and those charities in the City of London and elsewhere, in whose case there was no applicant, such as those for the release of slaves and of debtors in prison; and he should like to see a Bill brought in for the purpose of placing all those charities which were now obsolete or useless in a common fund, out of which the expenses of the Charity Commissioners might be paid. By that means new charities of great advantage to the public might be set on foot.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Chippenham. He might mention that in one case which came under his own observation, there was a certain sum of money left to bind a boy apprentice to a saddler yearly in a parish in which there was none.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £6,694, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
(8.) £13,281, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he must point out the absurdity of having five Commissioners to do work 19–20ths of which was purely mechanical. He did not wish to interfere with existing appointments, but he hoped that as vacancies occurred the Government would see the expediency of not filling them up. One man at the head of the Commission, with assistants, would, he felt satisfied, be amply sufficient to carry on the business.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman might rest assured that new Con-missioners would not be appointed without very careful consideration.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he had made a Motion in the early part of the Session, with reference to the question of having a responsible Minister to deal with agricultural subjects, and an assurance was given by the President of the Board of Trade that the matter should receive the attention of the Government. It was his belief that a good Minister of Agriculture would be able to do the work of the Copyhold Commissioners, and thus save the expense of that Department. He trusted that the Government had not lost sight of the subject, and would give it their careful attention at the earliest opportunity.
MR. BRUCEbegged to assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) that the subject to which he had alluded had not been lost sight of; but, as it would require the re-adjustment of the business of several Departments, it had not been possible to make the necessary changes during the pressure of the Session.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £7,000, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses.
(10.) £25,324, to complete the sum for the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department.
(11.) £28,060, to complete the sum for the General Register Office.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he hoped means would be taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to extend the area over which the vital statistics of large towns were published weekly. If something like a population of 100,000 were the line adopted, many

1685
new elements of social life would be included—Merthyr Tydvil, for instance, with its mining population; Stoke, with its manufacture of pottery; and Sunder-land, with its maritime and shipbuilding interests. The vital statistics of these large industrial populations would be extremely interesting, and their weekly publication would, no doubt, be attended by beneficial results. The additional expense would probably not exceed £100, or £200.
MR. BRUCEadmitted that there was much force in what had been stated by his hon. Friend. The only objection that could be urged against extending the area of the large towns, whose vital statistics were published weekly, was the expense; and he was informed by the Registrar General that such an arrangement would involve some serious addition to the present expenditure. But he would make further inquiry; and if he found that the number of large towns could be increased, with no further addition to the expense than what his hoh. Friend had stated, his suggestion would be adopted.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £3,000, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission.
MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he thought it might be well that the salaries of the Lunacy Commissioners should be placed on the Votes.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it would require an alteration of the law to place these salaries on the Votes. They were now charged on the Consolidated Fund.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £30,550, to complete the sum for the Mint.
(14.) £11,110, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
(15.) £23,669, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to call attention to the great additional expense which was thrown on patentees and inventors in making searches for patents previously granted, owing to the very imperfect indices kept in the Patent Office. Notwithstanding the large balance of £73,000, to which they had contributed, they were often obliged to expend £50 or £60 more than their fees, in order to find out whether their inven-
1686
tions had been anticipated. The staff was too limited.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that some five years ago a Committee was appointed to consider the question of the establishment of a patent museum, &c, and that Committee recommended that there should be associated with the Patent Office, a museum of patented inventions, and that a museum of mechanical inventions should be established on the Government land at South Kensington. A vote of £10,000 was consequently taken. for it on the Estimates at that time, but was not proceeded with, and nothing more had since been heard of it. He should be glad of an explanation on the subject from the Secretary to the Treasury.
MR. AYRTONundertook that the observations of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) should be communicated, to the Attorney General; and after that, they would probably come under the consideration of the Treasury. But, he would remark, in reference to the sum put down, as derived from patents, that only one-half of the sum was derived from fees on granting patents, and the other half consisted of stamp duties on patents. With reference to the establishment of a patent museum, he observed that the Committee referred to were by no means unanimous, with respect to the conclusion they came to; and the Report of the Committee had not, consequently, carried with it any great weight. Nothing had been done with respect to buildings at South Kensington, as the whole of that question had been from time to time postponed.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the stamp duties were paid by the inventors, just as well as the fees on patents.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £13,417, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
(17.) £176,762, to complete the sum for the Poor Law Commission.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he desired to call attention to the internal system of the Poor Law Office, and to the arrangement of the work, which he thought might be altered very much for the better. In 1848 the expenditure for clerks at the Poor Law Board was £7,000, and there was a further sum of £1,800 for contingencies. This year the expenditure for clerks was £15,000,

1687
and for contingencies £2,400. The business, no doubt, had increased, but by no means in the same proportion. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board might say that no Public Department sent out so many letters as the Poor Law Board. Well, it was a disputed question whether they did not write many more letters than were necessary. They were, indeed, so frequent, and often upon such trivial subjects, as to be received, he feared, with a feeling of ridicule. In 1868 upwards of 64,000 letters were sent out by the Poor Law Board, but a large proportion were of a formal nature, and would not have been written by other Departments, but would have been printed or lithographed. A material reduction might thus be made in the number of clerks and others employed. In 1860 the right hon. Gentleman then at the head of the Poor Law Board (Mr. C. P. Villiers) expressed an opinion to the Treasury that the number of clerks might be diminished, and, in 1867, his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), when Secretary to the Treasury, came to a similar conclusion. No doubt an Act was afterwards passed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) which threw a great deal of increased work upon the Department; but although the pressure might be great at the present moment, very much of the work would soon be completed and the pressure would then be considerably diminished. There were now two Secretaries to the Poor Law Board—a permanent Secretary and a Parliamentary Secretary—and two Under Secretaries, one a legal gentleman and one in the office. These had existed from 1848, and having himself filled the office of Parliamentary Secretary, he spoke with some knowledge of the subject when he said that this official and one of the Under Secretaries were doing work which might be performed by one man. In the Committee which sat upstairs a proposal was made—he believed by the hon. Member the present Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton)—that the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Poor Law Board should be abolished. [Mr. AYRTON: I believe I was the hon. Member who prevented it from being done.] It was said that it was necessary that this Office should be retained in case the President of the Board had a seat in the House of
1688
Lords. There was, no doubt, some force in that argument, but it was a very exceptional thing for him to be in the other House, and there would be no real hardship if the office were virtually confined to Members of this House. His own chief (the Earl of Devon) was the only head of the Department who had not been a Member of that House, the Members of which had, as a rule, more experience in the working of the Poor Law than those of the other House. The suggestions he had to make were that nine of the supplementary clerks should be abolished, that two of the senior clerks should be reduced, that one of the chief clerks should be abolished, and that one of the Assistant Secretaries should be abolished and his work done by the Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, these changes could not be immediately made, but he trusted that, as vacancies occurred, the right hon. Gentleman would carry out these recommendations. He knew that a great reform was also suggested—namely, whether the Poor Law Board might not do further useful work in the supervision of the Local Government Office. There were no better inspectors in any public Department than those of the Poor Law Board, and he should be sorry to see any reduction made in either their number or their salaries. He had made these few remarks because he was practically acquainted with the subject, and he begged in conclusion to express his belief that the changes he had suggested would unite economy with increased efficiency.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought that the superintendence of the pauper lunatics might be advantageously transferred to the Poor Law Commissioners.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to express his general concurrence in the remarks of his hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). At the same time he was of opinion that it would be very inexpedient to abolish the office of Parliamentary Secretary, because it ought to be always possible for a Member of the House of Peers to occupy the office either of President or Secretary. It was highly desirable that the House of Lords should be made acquainted with what was going on in matters of such importance, and he was decidedly of opinion that there were many noble Lords as capable

1689
as Members of that House to hold either of the offices he had just referred to. It was remarkable that after the lapse of so many years he should have been the first Parliamentary Secretary who represented the Department in that House. The office had been too much of a sinecure, and this was a circumstance much to be regretted. It was absolutely necessary that in future the Parliamentary Secretary should be considered to have cognizance of all the business of the Department, and qualified, if not required, to answer for it in his place in Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that the precedent set by the late Government would be followed on a future occasion. The reduction of the establishment had been undoubtedly proposed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers); but his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) did not think fit to carry out the reduction to such an extent as had been proposed. He agreed with the remarks of his hon. Friend as to the superfluity of letter writing in the Department, and during his tenure of Office he had done all he could to diminish it. Under existing circumstances the right hon. Gentleman opposite could not be expected to give a pledge of immediate reduction, but if he turned his attention to diminishing the amount of work to be done, no doubt reduction would follow.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he would be glad of an explanation respecting the expenses of some of the inspectors being in some cases merged in their salaries.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who introduced this question supplied, in his own person, a most excellent argument for the retention of the office of Parliamentary Secretary, since but for the existence of that office the hon. Baronet would not have gained that accurate and extended knowledge of Poor Law matters which placed him in a position to contribute so usefully to the debates on that subject. The work of the Poor Law Board was quite as great as that of the Board of Trade, the Committee of Council on Education, and other Departments which had both a chief and a Parliamentary Secretary; and the tendency at present was to an increase rather than to a diminution of that work. He had himself derived valuable assist-
1690
ance from his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. A. Peel); and it would be highly desirable not to abolish the office—at all events, until the whole Poor Law system was changed. As regarded the number of letters written, or the number of persons to whom letters were addressed, he believed the correspondence of the Poor Law Board exceeded that of any other Department. When there were 700 Unions, the correspondence must be very voluminous, and though it might be possible to shorten and simplify the work, the details would always be enormous. But he must state that during the six months he had been in Office he had issued much fewer circulars than his predecessor, who had had a tendency to bombard Boards of Guardians with them. No doubt the Department was susceptible of improvement, and he should hesitate to fill up any vacancies as they occurred without taking into consideration those points which had been submitted by the hon. Baronet to the notice of the Committee. As to the increase of expenditure, he must remind hon. Members that the work to be done by the Poor Law Board had increased enormously. The public demanded more work of it, and the consequence was that if more was to be done, the cost of the machinery for doing the work would be naturally more or less increased. He should, however, turn, his attention with the utmost care to the reduction of expenditure as far as possible. The incidental expenses, he might add, were greatly increased by the very large number of Returns which were moved for by hon. Members. Nothing, however, seemed to annoy a Member so much as the refusal of a Return. That very day he had been asked to give a Return which would cost £200, and would be, he thought, of very little value. In answer to the question which had been put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Elliot), he had to state that a new arrangement had been made with regard to inspectors, the whole salary being, in the case of the later inspectors, merged into one payment. As to the case of the pauper lunatics, the subject, with the exception of the heavy charge made for paupers in county asylums, had not been brought under the notice of the Government, but the entire question should receive consideration. A special knowledge was required to frame

1691
the regulations for pauper lunatics; but he must confess that he had been startled at seeing the sums charged for some of the county asylums.
MR. GILPINsaid, he believed that the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board, instead of being a sinecure, was one of great importance. Speaking with a considerable knowledge of the facts, he could state that only in one instance had that absence on the part of those filling that office, of which complaint was made, occurred; and in that instance the Parliamentary Secretary was also what was technically called a "Whip" of his party. He concurred in the view that in certain portions of the Department expense might be saved; but it should be borne in mind that there was no Department whose efficient working was of greater consequence to the country. It was an important question whether the Poor Law Board should interfere quite as much as it did with Boards of Guardians, and whether some saving might not be effected in that direction. He should be glad if the Board could, consistently with the performance of its other duties, take under its control the pauper lunatic asylums. The cost of their maintenance might, he believed, be very materially reduced by a better system of supervision.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he knew that county rate-payers were dissatisfied with the expense of the lunatic asylums, and he believed that if the expenditure were brought more directly under the review of that House and the action of a responsible Minister great advantage would be the result. With respect to local taxation generally he trusted that the pledge given by the President of the Poor Law Board at the commencement of the Session to consider the subject would produce fruit at no distant period. He did not, however, believe that the investigation of the subject would do much in the way of transferring burthens from the land.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he had visited almost every lunatic asylum in England, and he found they were better managed than those in Ireland, the patients receiving much greater advantages in the way of education and amusements. In the Irish lunatic asylums the average cost per head was £22, and in England £27 or £28; but then it must be re-
1692
membered that in Ireland provisions were cheaper and the rate of wages lower, so that there was very little to complain of with respect to the difference of cost so far as this country was concerned. A considerable saving might, however, he thought, be effected by removing those lunatics who were hopelessly incurable from the asylums to the workhouse.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that the poor rates were becoming a very heavy burden, and there was an impression among some of his constituents that this burden was increased by large official expenditure; but he felt confident that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board would do his best to lessen all charges in his power.
MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he thought it would be extremely difficult to reduce the staff of the Poor Law Department. There were few members of the Government of whom more questions were asked than of those connected with the Poor Law Department; and there were few who gave more satisfactory answers, whether of those now in Office or of their predecessors. He was exceedingly anxious that by some means or other the Poor Law inspectors should become inspectors of pauper lunatic asylums; but looking to the increased price of provisions, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Poor Law Board) would not think that those asylums were managed in an expensive way. In Devon they had never been able to get the weekly cost of maintenance under 8s. a week, and it was now 9s.6d. Having been chairman of the Visiting Committee of the Devon County Asylum for twenty years, he knew it was the opinion of medical men that the poor inmates had no chance of recovering unless their physical strength was well sustained with food. The question of local taxation was a most difficult one; but he was of opinion that some portion of the sum required for pauper lunatic asylums should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that he never intended to imply that the office of Parliamentary Secretary of the Poor Law Board should be abolished, but rather that the Gentleman holding the office should perform a certain amount of office work.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could assure

1693
his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland) that the Government would by no means shrink from the investigation of the subject of local taxation, but would give their earnest attention to it during the Recess, and he trusted that by-and-by they would be able to submit measures dealing with the question.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £14,624, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
MR. MONKsaid, he wished for some explanation of the item £481 charged by the police for watching the Record Office.
MR. ATRTONsaid, the charge was made in respect of the special guardianship of the police, required in consequence of the extreme value of the contents of the Record Office.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) £3,009, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissions.
(20.) £1,684, to complete the sum for the Registrars of Friendly Societies.
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £264,133, 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 Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Public Departments, and for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
MR. SCOTTRFIELDsaid, it was much easier finding fault with this large amount than suggesting a remedy. He had once suggested that if every hon. Member were obliged to pay a small percentage on the cost of the Returns moved for, he might not be so ready in moving for them; but certainly before Returns were granted some estimate of their expense might be made, and it might then be put to Members whether they would insist on their production in view of the expense they would occasion. On one occasion the same Paper appeared in two Returns laid on the table at the same time.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he begged to call attention to the item of £13,285 for the sale of waste paper and Parliamentary Papers, with a view of suggest-
1694
ing a mode of utilizing a portion of them. He wished to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury to the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Papers appointed in 1853, of which Mr. Tuffnell was the Chairman, and Mr. Ewart, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Hume, and other distinguished Members of the House were Members. The Committee reported that all the witnesses, who gave evidence on the subject, were agreed as to the great advantage that would accrue from a general diffusion of Parliamentary Papers, by dispelling ignorance, correcting misrepresentations, and enabling the mass of the people to form for themselves a just opinion upon subjects of legislation, and other important questions of the day. One of the witnesses, the Rev. Dr. Booth, F.R.S., said—
"I think on public grounds the country should know what is done in Parliament; that as Parliament has thrown open to the public what is said in Parliament, it ought also to have the means of access to know what is done in Parliament."
And if this opinion were correct in 1853 it was still more applicable at the present day, when so large an increase had been made in the number of the constituencies. The Committee, after hearing a considerable number of witnesses, recommended that a selection of Parliamentary Papers should be sent to mechanics' institutions, and other popular literary institutions, and in the case of free libraries, established under Mr. Ewart's Act, they recommended that the whole of the Parliamentary Papers should be sent free of charge immediately upon publication. He (Mr. Rylands) regretted that this recommendation of the Committee had never been attended to, as there was really no difficulty in carrying it out, and the cost would be practically nothing. He believed that free public libraries had been established in about forty towns. The actual number was not accurately known, though they would shortly be in possession of the information, as a Return had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines). The Act had to be adopted in the first instance by a majority of the rate-payers at a public meeting, and the Town Council had power to levy a rate in support of a free library and museum not exceeding 1d., in the pound, the manage-

1695
ment and property being vested in public authorities. They, therefore, possessed a permanent character which justified the recommendation of the Parliamentary Papers Committee. In other respects these institutions deserved every assistance, as they were of great use to the working classes in large towns. In Liverpool the Town Council devoted £10,000 a year to its museum and library, and about 1,000,000 volumes were annually issued. Manchester paid £5,000 a year, and its library issued 673,432 volumes annually. Sheffield paid. £1,800 a year, and issued 162,573 volumes. The Birmingham library issued nearly 250,000 volumes annually, and so with the libraries in similar proportions in other large towns. As to other public libraries connected with mechanics' institutions, &c, it was recommended that a Select Committee should sit from year to year to decide to which of them the papers and blue-books should be supplied. He believed that there were many intelligent working men connected with those institutions who would be glad to have an opportunity of seeing Parliamentary Papers, and who would probably make good use of them, by calling the attention of their representatives to many matters of interest. In the case of the Estimates, even, he thought it not unlikely that if the bulky book of the Civil Service Estimates, which they were then discussing, were brought more generally under public notice, the effect would be to lessen many charges in future years. In addition to the ordinary Parliamentary Papers, he (Mr. Rylands) urged that the calendars and historical documents published by the Record Office, and for which considerable sums of public money were voted, should be presented to the free public libraries, established under Mr. Ewart's Act.
MR. O'REILLY DEASEsaid, many of the documents printed by order of Parliament were utterly worthless.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had heard a great deal of the expense incurred by printing the Returns of private Members, and in order to test the matter he had moved for a Return on this subject. He found that out of an expenditure of £413,000 last year for Parliamentary printing, the cost of printing the Returns moved for by private Members did not exceed £4,700. This showed
1696
conclusively that this Vote was not unduly swollen by the Returns moved for by private Members. He trusted the day was far distant when, under the plea of saving public money, they should combine to keep the public in the dark as to the work of Parliament.
MR. PIMsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that the distribution of Parliamentary Papers would supply the most valuable information on political affairs. Some economy might he effected if a larger proportion of blue books were sent to those Members only who expressed a desire to have them. For himself he did not know what to do with so many.
MR. AYRTONsaid, a great deal of misapprehension existed both inside and outside the House with regard to this Vote of £71,750 for Parliamentary printing. The sum included the whole expense of the printing operations of both Houses of Parliament. Those operations were not confined to the mere printing of Returns, but extended to the printing of all documents necessary for the information of the 658 Members of the House of Commons, and the Members—more than 400 in number—of the House of Peers, as to all done the day before, and all to be done on the current day. This required an expensive system of printing to be carried on between two and eight o'clock a.m. The Vote also included printing connected with the proceedings of Committees and Royal Commissions, which was also of a very expensive kind. He was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had obtained the Return, which showed that no less than £4,700 had been spent in. satisfying the demands of hon. Members who moved for the production of Returns. The question of economizing printing under this head had been under the consideration of the Printing Committee during the present Session. As to the circulation of Papers, he might mention that attempts were made every Session to discriminate between Papers which it was probable a great many Members might not desire to see, and those which every Member ought to peruse in order that they might properly discharge their duties in that House. Her Majesty's Government, however, felt great delicacy in withholding Papers from hon. Members. The Printing Committee had been lately considering how

1697
far the system of printing only a limited number of certain Papers might be extended, and in many cases only 250 copies were printed instead of between 600 and 700. One hon. Member had suggested that instead of limiting the circulation of these Papers they ought to be sent all over the country for the information of the working classes; but he could not help thinking that the people had access to so large an amount of instructive literature that they had much better not embark upon the study of Parliamentary Papers which, he thought in many instances, would only be misunderstood. It was far better to leave to periodical publicists the task which they so ably performed of popularizing the information contained in the more interesting of those documents. In conclusion, he assured hon. Members that the Printing Committee would do all it could to keep down the expense of printing within the narrowest limits which were consistent with the legitimate requirements of the House.
MR. MONKsaid, he wished to call attention to the enormous item of £9,870, arising from the sale of waste paper, consisting of the publications of the Record Office. He would suggest that fewer copies of documents should be printed. As to sending the Parliamentary Papers and blue books to mechanics' institutes and free libraries, he had tried the experiment in the city he represented (Gloucester), and he afterwards found that the copies he sent were all covered with dust.
MR. MILLERsaid, he should be glad to know if the printing was done at the lowest cost for which the work could be done. He thought the salaries in the Stationery Office, in some cases, were exorbitant. There was an Examiner of Binding at £450 a year, while a respectable journeyman bookbinder would do the work better. The same system seemed to prevail here which he was ashamed to find in Scotland—of first appointing a big man with a big salary, and then appointing a small man to do the work.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he supposed that when the Secretary of the Treasury spoke of statistics being misleading, he meant the word to apply to his own estimates. Statistics meant a statement of facts, and facts could not be erroneous, He was of opinion that although there
1698
were many Parliamentary Papers, such, for instance, as the Poor Law Returns, which there would be no use in furnishing to the public, Papers such as the Estimates and the Statutes as they were passed, might, with advantage, be supplied to mechanics' institutes and free libraries throughout the country.
MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he had been a member of the Library Committee of the Dublin Society, of which the élite of the working classes were members, and that he found the Parliamentary Papers with which it was supplied were put in places where they could not be got at. He might add that if they could be got at they would not be read, and since he had been a Member of Parliament himself he by no means felt disposed to quarrel with the taste of those who felt no inclination for such reading.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that it made little difference in the expense of supplying a Parliamentary Paper, whether 200 or 500 copies were printed. The great waste was incurred in the printing of matter which was totally useless, seeing that the waste paper which was sold for £13,285 must have cost nearly £52,000 in white sheets. For the first time in his life he found the work of printing in Dublin cheaper than in Edinburgh. The Dublin Gazette cost £285 17 s. 2d., the Edinburgh Gazette cost £1,138 19 s. 10 d. He should like to know from the Secretary of the Treasury how much of the printed work in the case of the Edinburgh Gazette was done in that city, how much of it was contracted for, and what was the date of the contracts. As to sending Parliamentary Papers to the libraries throughout the country, that, he thought would be a useless expense; but if every Member were allowed to send, free by post, the copies which he did not wish to retain, the privilege being limited—say, to those who sent through the post office of the House itself—much benefit might result, because then they might be sent to those who were known to take an interest in the subject to which they related.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must protest against the closing sentence of his hon. Friend's remarks. Of all descriptions of public expenditure, by far the worst, in his opinion, was that which was never brought to account, and which

1699
the House of Commons had no means of ascertaining or criticizing. If they went back to the old system of compelling the Post Office to do a great deal of gratuitous work for the public, they would be taxing the people of this country without their knowing it. Bills were now distributed gratuitously from that House, and when it was taken into account how great was the interest which persons had in those Bills, and how desirable it was that they should be speedily distributed, he was not prepared to offer any objection to that being done. But to send a large mass of Parliamentary Papers through the Post Office free of charge, and thus to impose a heavy tax on the public, was, he felt sure, a proposal to which his hon. Friend would not adhere. Experience had satisfied the heads of the Public Departments that the gratuitous distribution of these Papers was unwise. These Papers were produced and sold, he believed, considerably under cost price, and if they were circulated gratuitously there was no doubt that many would desire to have them, who did not want them, merely because they could get them for nothing, taking no account of the fact that the public money had been expended upon them. The subject was a very fair one for investigation, and before anything was done the matter should be examined by a Committee. He must say a word in defence of the Stationery Department. As far as the arrangements of the House of Commons were concerned, they were better than formerly, but they were still defective, and, in the main, they were accountable for the production of this great mass of waste paper. Justice should be done to the efforts of public servants out-of-doors; and he must say that ever since the Stationery Department was placed under the late Mr. McCulloch it had been, conducted in a spirit of great economy. If there were room for amendment—as he did not deny there might be—he was satisfied that any suggestion proceeding from that House would be met by the Stationery Department in a spirit of sympathy and co-operation.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought that the publications of the Patent Office, would, if distributed, be found very acceptable by persons throughout the country.
MR. MILLERsaid, that unless some satisfactory explanation of the item of
1700
Examiner of Binding were given he would move that his salary, amounting to £450, be struck out.
MR. AYRTONstated that the Examiner of Binding superintended to a very large amount the binding for all the Departments, and the office must necessarily be filled by a person of intelligence and of considerable responsibility. He was not aware of the state of the contracts in Edinburgh; but the officers of the Government had revised the contracts for the printing for this House, and had shown a disposition to retrench.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the Examiner of Binding ought to be a practical man and a most competent person, for a man to do this duty might be obtained for £100 a year. It was melancholy to observe the change in his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton), who, when an independent Member below the Gangway, was most active in picking out these faults in the Estimates, but was now, when in Office, the most ready defender of them.
MR. HUNTsaid, that a similar observation was made in the time of Lord Palmerston, and the noble Lord explained that independent Members, when they came into Office, found that what they had before thought unreasonable and improper was both reasonable and proper.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had endeavoured to show that this salary was not for a workman, but for a master, who had bookbinding to the amount of £39,000 to superintend, and had a very large number of men under him.
MR. SHERLOCKsaid, he thought that the House should turn its attention to large comprehensive items, for to strike at these small items was not the true principle of economy.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he thought, on the other hand, that if they wanted to effect reductions they must look after the small items.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished for further information as to the cost of the paper, binding, and printing.
MR. MILLERmoved that the Vote be reduced by £450, the salary of the Examiner of Binding, and by £500, the salary of the Examiner of Paper, being a total reduction of £950.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £263,185, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

1701
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment dining the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books For the several Public Departments, and for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. Miller.)
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 110: Majority 75.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,227, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue, Records, and Inrolments."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he wished to call attention to an item in this Vote of £143 15s. for keeping the Queen's Road, better known as Kensington Palace Gardens, private, except for carriages. There was a keeper at either end of the road, and he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had himself seen great inconvenience arise from the manner in which the regulations were enforced. Cabs with fares had entered at one gate—the keeper being away—and had been turned back when they arrived within a few yards of the exit. When the public had been allowed to travel in public cabs across St. James' Park in front of the Royal Palace, and also across Hyde Park, it seemed inconsistent that this exclusiveness should be maintained in Kensington Palace Gardens, in regard to a palace not in the Royal occupation, and to a road partly kept up at the public expense. The truth was that the Woods and. Forests always acted antagonistically to the public advantage, and were always ready to erect barricades against the public. The road was about 100 feet wide, and there was no reason why cabs should not traverse it. If, however, the occupants of the; houses insisted on keeping it private the least they could do was to pay this £143 15 s. 11 d.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that this road was part of the estate of the Crown, and the Woods and Forests were the guardians of the rights of the nation. The mistake was in considering these roads as the property of the inhabitants
1702
of the metropolis. The estate in question was laid out for improvement, and fine mansions were built upon it on certain conditions and with certain advantages, one of which was that the road should be kept private. Other portions of the property of the Crown in various parts of the metropolis were let on building leases on similar terms, and the leaseholders claimed the right of putting up gates and closing the roads against public vehicles in consideration of the large ground-rents they paid. Whenever the Metropolitan Board of Works were able to consider this question, it would be for them to discover whether, and in what manner, they could free these gates, with or without compensation, and consistently with the rights of particular parties. With regard to the form of these accounts, the matter had been before the Committee of Public Accounts, and their Report would be considered by the Government before the next Estimates were framed.
MR. LOCKEsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury was in error if he supposed that these gates were maintained by the proprietors of the houses on the estates of the Crown. He lived among gates in a part of the town sometimes called Belgravia, and he and other occupiers of houses paid £1 1s. a year to the people who looked after these gates. He said with confidence that the Woods and Forests was a Department which was not entitled to the slightest consideration from that House. It was a Department that was leagued against the British public, and which endeavoured to do them all the mischief it possibly could. He had the honour to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on Open Spaces, and it came to their knowledge that the Woods and Forests had let out to different persons the right to dig gravel over Blackheath, which was disfigured by enormous holes in consequence. And how much did the Committee think the Woods and Forests received for damaging and disfiguring this splendid recreation ground? Why, the trumpery sum of £54 a year. Blackheath was a place on which people rode, although, he admitted, it was sometimes on donkeys. That, perhaps, was a reason why so aristocratic a body as the Woods and Forests discountenanced such recreation. The Committee had Mr. Gore before them and asked Mm how he reconciled

1703
it to himself to commit such an infamy. Strong words were, in fact, used to Mr. Gore, but he cared not. He said—
"I care not for the British public at large, or for the British public in particular. My only duty is to exact as much as I possibly can, and when I do so I am upheld by those in high authority."
Mr. Gore now said that no one in a cab should go along this road in Kensington Palace Gardens, and to the power of saying this he joined the power of mulcting the public in the sum of £143 for keeping up the road. This was not a new question, and he commended it to the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury. If the inhabitants of these gardens insisted on having a private road let them pay for it, like the inhabitants of Belgravia.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that without joining in an attack upon the Woods and Forests, he hoped the roadway would be opened, as a great benefit would be thereby conferred on the inhabitants of the district.
MR. KINNATRDsaid, he could endorse what the hon. Member for South-wark had said respecting the Woods and Forests. The Thames Embankment had been vehemently opposed by that Department, which engaged in an expensive and tedious dispute with the Metropolitan Board of Works on the subject. Surely nothing could be more unseemly than the spectacle of two public Departments fighting each other in such a manner.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that there were in the metropolis no fewer than 247 of these private obstructions. He hoped the roadway would be thrown open to the public. The Government must, sooner or later, take up this question of private obstructions.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that two or three years ago he presented to the House the Report of a Committee, which recommended a method of dealing with this question. The recommendation was to the effect that the Metropolitan Board of Works should, at the instance of the local authorities, take immediate measures to free the metropolis from these interruptions of private gates. It was the duty of the Board in accordance with that Report, to communicate with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, in order to free the roads from the gates. If no steps had been taken it must be
1704
owing to the neglect of the local authorities.
SIR PATREICK O'BRIENsaid, it was not the duty of the Committee to enter, on the present occasion, into a discussion of the larger question raised by the Secretary to the Treasury, as to roads upon private property, but to consider that of a road upon Government property, and which was closed to the public. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £143, the sum paid for the maintenance of the gatekeepers.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,084, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue, Records, and Inrolments."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he was dissatisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. This roadway could not be opened until the Government took the matter in hand, and it was idle, therefore, to attempt to throw the odium on the Board of Works, or the local authorities.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the Motion could not be received, as the £143 formed no charge in the Vote under consideration.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that the money ought not to be paid except on the assurance that the roadway would be opened.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chairman if he was out of Order in moving that the Vote be reduced by £143?
THE CHAIRMANruled that it was quite competent for the hon. Baronet to move the reduction of the Vote.
MR. AYRTONsaid, this part of the Crown estates was let on building leases at very high rents, and the sum of £143 was a portion of the expense required to obtain those high rents. Before the gates could be opened it was necessary that the local authorities of the district or of the metropolis should make with the Crown the arrangements requisite for converting that part of the estates of the Crown into a public road.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he did not think the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) would divide the Committee if the Secretary to the Treasury

1705
would give an engagement that the Government would bring their influence to bear upon the mysterious local authority to which he alluded, with the view of inducing it to open the street for the use of the public.
MR. BROGDENsaid, he thought that 25 per cent on the gross rental was a very extravagant sum for the management of the property.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that if there was a proprietary obligation to keep the road closed, the lessees of the houses would have a claim for compensation if it were opened against their consent.
MR. AYRTONsaid, if the local authorities, whether the parish or the Metropolitan Board, would undertake to maintain the road as a public road, there would be no objection.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that even if the Motion for the reduction of the Vote were carried, it would in no way effect the object which the hon. Baronet who made it had in view, but would merely reduce the salaries of the clerks. He might add that the Motion was not needed to induce the Government to look into the matter in the public interest.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, after that promise he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(23.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,722, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and public Buildings."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had to complain that a correspondence which the Secretary to the Treasury had promised some time ago should be laid on the table of the House, relating to the changes which had been made in the establishment of Works and Public Buildings, had not been produced. The Estimate, as it stood, contained on the face of it no explanation of those changes, and he was disposed, under these circumstances, to ask that it should be postponed. From the Estimate it appeared that the expenses of the secretariat had been reduced by £500 a year,
1706
but then there was a new officer called the Surveyor of Works, who was to have £750 a year, so that there was a net increase for the secretariat in reality of £250 a year. Then the salary of the Architect and Surveyor was reduced from £1,000 a year to £750. The architect was Mr. Pennethorne, and it was reported that that gentleman had been dismissed, and that the reduction of salary was connected with his dismissal. He should like to know who was the officer who was to succeed Mr. Pennethorne, and what were to be his duties.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that when he had acceded to his present office, he found that a most valuable public officer, Mr. Austin, the Secretary, having resigned his place, it was absolutely necessary to fill it up without delay. He at the same time found no officer in the Department competent to give the First Commissioner advice on the many questions relating to architecture and estimates which were constantly being brought before him. Mr. Pennethorne was called the architectural adviser of the Office of Works, but he was at the same time an architect engaged in the practice of his art, and therefore he did not feel that it was open to him to give an opinion on the estimates and plans of other architects. He thought it fair, Mr. Austin having resigned, that he should be succeeded by Mr. George Russell, a gentleman who had long filled the office of Assistant Secretary with much ability. A place then remained to be filled, and it seemed to him that it ought to be filled by a gentleman of competent architectural knowledge, who was at the same time not a practising architect, and who could advise the First Commissioner upon the questions connected with public buildings which were constantly brought before him. It was difficult to find such a person, and, indeed, there was but one name which presented itself, and that was that of Mr. Fergusson. He proposed to that gentleman that he should accept the office of Secretary for Works and Buildings, and the House would admit that the salary of £750 was a moderate one for a gentleman of his distinction and reputation. For a short time Mr. Pennethorne would continue in office, as it was thought desirable to retain his services while certain sales and Government works, in which he was directly concerned, were

1707
going on. A reduction of £200 was made in the salary of the Secretary. The Surveyor of Works, Mr. Hunt, who had £1,000 a year, agreed to a reduction of 25 per cent. Other salaries had also been reduced, and now, with the addition of Mr. Fergusson, there was no increase of expense in the staff of the Department.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that Mr. Pennethorne was dismissed because he had private business, and that a Surveyor of Works was appointed who was still to have the power of carrying on private business.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that in the one case an architect had been employed who received a percentage, and in the other case the person employed would only give his professional advice without having to construct any buildings for the Government.
MR. HUNTsaid, that the question put to the right hon. Gentleman had remained unanswered, which was why certain correspondence passing between the Treasury and the First Commissioner of Works had not been produced; and he thought that the Vote should be postponed until the correspondence was produced. The reduction in the Vote appeared to be only nominal, as the travelling expenses had increased.
MR. AYRTONsaid, there were two questions—that of the permanent arrangement and that of the temporary. The former architect and surveyor was in the delicate position of being consulting and advising officer of the Department, while, at the same time, he had the privilege of undertaking works for the Government, on which he was paid by a percentage as in his private practice; therefore, in the latter capacity he came into competition with any architect whom the Government might desire to employ, and could not, consequently, properly revise the operations of a person who might be his competitor. In the new Secretary for Works and Buildings his right hon. Friend would find an officer able to advise him on all operations in his Department. With regard to Mr. Pennethorne, it was necessary to make a special arrangement to the effect that he should complete the works which he had in hand. The Papers were now in readiness for production, and would be presented. They
1708
had not been kept back an hour longer than was necessary, and there was even now wanting one letter to complete the correspondence. He trusted, therefore, the Committee would not think it necessary to postpone the Vote.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he hoped there would be a reduction in the furniture department. One of the charges was for a clerk of the furniture, with a salary of £600 a year; while altogether not less than fifteen persons were employed in that department.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he wished to bear testimony to the great value of Mr. Hunt's services.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he hoped the Government would not object to the postponement of this Vote. The correspondence relative to the change in the office had been promised three months ago, and had not yet been produced. What the Committee desired to know was why a gentleman of Mr. Hunt's qualifications had consented to take a salary of £750 instead of £1,000. Was he to be recouped by any portion of the item in which there was a large increase for travelling and personal expenses?
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he also desired to bear testimony to the eminent character and valuable services of Mr. Hunt. He wished, however, to know whether Mr. Fergusson and Mr. Hunt were to have the privilege of carrying on private business? He did not believe that a more able or more disinterested person existed than Mr. Pennethorne, who was also an old servant of the Government. He wished to know if that gentleman was to leave the service without any retiring pension or allowance.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to ask whether it was not the fact that all estimates and plans for public buildings in Scotland were prepared by one gentleman, Mr. Matheson, at a salary of £925. He could not understand how fifteen persons appointed to examine furniture for the public offices should receive a yearly sum of £4,000.
MR. LAYARDsaid, Mr. Hunt had behaved in the most generous manner. The desire being to make the office more efficient without increasing the expenditure, Mr. Hunt had himself offered to give up 25 per cent of his retaining fee. No part of that reduction would be made

1709
up by allowances for travelling and personal expenses. Mr. Hunt was a most valuable public servant, and had saved the office many thousands of pounds. There was no intention to lay the slightest blame on Mr. Pennethorne, and the only object had been to release him from a disagreeable position. Mr. Fergusson was not a practising architect, and could give an independent opinion on all matters connected with architecture. He could state that during the three or four months Mr. Pergusson had been in office his services had saved many thousands of pounds to the public. With regard to the Scottish business, the salary of £925 did not include travelling expenses. He should use the best exertions he could to reduce the expenditure on furniture, not only in London, but in all the public offices wherever placed. Mr. Austin, it is believed, had saved £50,000 a year by his system of cheeks on the expenditure on furniture, and it was this gentleman who formed the present staff and introduced the present system. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) would not insist on the postponement of the Vote, which would lead to great inconvenience. There had really been no desire to delay the production of the correspondence. As soon as Mr. Pennethorne had finished the works in hand he would receive his pension, and he was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, many Gentlemen round him were not at all satisfied with the explanation relative to furniture. While the item for furniture was £14,000, the cost of examining the furniture accounts was £4,000 a year. He moved to reduce the Vote by half that item—namely, £2,000.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £16,722, 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 31at day of March 1870, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings,"—(Mr. Craufurd.)
MR. AYRTONsaid, that one of the most onerous duties thrown upon the Office of Works was to control and examine the demands for furniture and fittings which were incessantly made from all the other Departments. The sav-
1710
ings resulting from these investigations amounted to many thousands a year.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(24.) £18,000, Foreign and other Secret Services.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to express his gratification at the reduction of £5,000 in this Vote, and assumed that next year would see a further and similar reduction.
Vote agreed to.
(25.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,317, 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 the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue."
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he must object to the item of £217 13s. for Queen's Plates. He viewed with much disapprobation and feelings akin to disgust the system of plunder carried on in connection with races, which led to men ruining themselves by wholesale. This might be of little consequence to Dukes and Earls, who were supposed to be able to take care of themselves, but he much feared that the same system was spreading widely amongst the lower classes, and the House ought not to encourage it. He denied that there was any real pleasure or amusement in this feverish pursuit, and looked upon the allegation of improvement in the breed of horses as a mere pretence to cover a most demoralizing system. He moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £217 13s. for Queen's Plates.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £217 13 s., for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Lush.)
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would beg to ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would state, before the Report was brought up, what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the office of Lord Treasurer and Queen's Remembrancer?
MR. AYRTONreplied in the affirmative.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to know the amount of fees received in the Lord Lyon's Office for patents of heraldry, and why they were not stated in the Estimate?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he could not at present answer the question, but he would make inquiry and state the result.
Question put,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 191: Majority 118.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [BILL 64.]— [Lords.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: I think, Sir, looking at the lateness of the hour, and on the terms of the understanding which we have come to with some of the Scotch Members of this House, I shall content myself on the present occasion with stating very shortly the views of Her Majesty's Government on this Bill sent down to us from '' another place" leaving the general discussion of the details until we go into Committee. At the same time, it is impossible not to acknowledge the very great importance of the measure the second reading of which I have now to move—an importance which, in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—was not in the least exaggerated in the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who introduced it in "another place." We have spent this Session in doing, or in attempting to do, what is termed on this side of the House an act of justice to 5,000,000 of our countrymen in Ireland. But, Sir, I think it will be not less a distinction of this the first Session of the first Reformed Parliament that, while we have disestablished and disendowed the Church of the minority in Ireland, we shall have established and endowed a system of
  1712
  education for the whole of our 3,000,000 countrymen north of the Tweed.
  I propose to confine myself at present to a simple outline of this Bill—to explain the alterations we propose to make upon the Bill as it has been sent down to us from the House of Lords. There are some things, certainly, I need not enlarge upon. I need not in this House, and speaking to Scotch Members, say a word on the importance of the education of the people. We have known it by experience, and are encouraged by that experience to attach to it the importance we do. And, at the same time, I would remind hon. Members that, while we are proposing to reduce pauperism, and are dealing with social questions in order to the removal of crime, what we can do in the way of education will prove of greater importance than anything else we could do, and if we can succeed, therefore, in founding, as we hope to do, a system of education which will thoroughly educate the people, we shall do more to diminish poor rates, to diminish intemperance, and to diminish crime than all the Bills for the direct purpose of such diminution that will be passed by this Parliament. In the second place, Sir, there is no difference of opinion in Scotland on the question that a national system of education is preferable to a denominational one. I need not prove it, because we have experienced the benefit of it. We have a national system of education, and we seek to extend it. The reasons why we are attached to a national system are, in the first place, that denominational efforts will not accomplish the work we seek to do. We may indeed in some special districts so conduct education on the denominational system as to be able to say that the average of education is high; but what is it to the district where the average is low that in some other more favoured quarter the average is high? Our object is to bring education to the door of the people, and we should not have done our duty if we had left any part of the country without the means of education furnished to it. Therefore, what we propose, and are in favour of, is that we shall have a system of national education not dependent upon voluntary effort—not resting on denominational work—not dependent, therefore, upon fitful efforts of individuals, but fixed down by legal provisions, so that it shall not be chance, but certainty,

  1713
  that the education of the people is provided for. But there is another element in the national system to which I attach very great value. It is strongly the view of Scotland that all the people should be, if possible, educated in the same school. All ranks, all religions, should be so educated. That was the old Scotch principle, and therefore, Sir, I need not say more for the purpose of showing that a national system of education is the right one. We have it already, and wish to extend it. The third matter of general topic I think I may exclude, is, that education in the local schools ought not to be confined to the elementary branches. We have been in the habit in our parochial schools of considering them, not as merely elementary schools, but as schools for the whole people of the district in which they are placed. Many men who have risen to eminence since have never received any education except what they received in one of these schools. I believe also that a very large percentage of the students who enter at the Scotch Universities come directly from the parish schools, and I should therefore be very sorry to lose sight of this principle indeed. I hope that, under the measure we have now before us, it may be still further enlarged. These are the general principles of our system—that, wherever an efficient school is required, such a school shall be had. That is a very simple proposition, and I think it is a noble one. It is one that has not yet been accomplished in this country, and, as far as we can see, it is not yet on the eve of accomplishment. If we can accomplish this by this Bill, it appears to me we can afford to disregard a great deal of those minor topics upon which so much difference of opinion exists. We shall have done a great work, and we may trust to other Sessions and other men to carry on the work. In the means by which this object is to be accomplished we do not aim at any theoretical symmetry; we wish to produce a measure such as can be passed into law; and we take it that the Bill I now hold in my hand is the best evidence that it is one thing to start with theoretical views of education, and another thing to pass through both Houses of Parliament a measure which shall accomplish it. I have every reason to say this, for it is now nearly sixteen years since I first had the honour to endeavour
  1714
  to promote education in Scotland. It was not for want of support from the people that we failed, but because we differed upon details of measures of this kind; and if we are now to succeed it will not be by standing stiff upon what we are pleased to call general principles, but by endeavouring to find out the best means we can for overcoming these difficulties. In the earliest Scotch Education Bills we were looked upon as political capitalists, and the Bills did not pass; but alas, Sir, while our Bills are brought in and lost, education stands still, but crime, intemperance, and poverty make rapid strides. I do not suppose there is a Gentleman here who does not know how great is the necessity of something to be done. The Report of the Royal Commission estimates that 90,000 children in Scotland are now destitute of education, and therefore I entreat hon. Members to take this subject in hand, and in no party spirit endeavour to make the best of it. I hope this subject will be approached purely on its own merits apart from all extraneous considerations; that it will be approached simply with a view to do what is best for the educational interests of the country. With that view, the original proposal of Her Majesty's Government was not to introduce any absolutely new system, but rather to adopt and adapt what we have. We found the venerable old system of the parochial schools, and side by side with these—and grown up from the parochial system more or less—a large number of other schools, all doing a great work in the country; and what we proposed to do was, out of the materials which we have, to construct a national system of schools, trusting to time and the operation of of the Bill for its gradual development into a symmetrical and harmonious whole. The means we took to effect this object were simple. We proposed to leave these schools exactly as they were excepting to provide for their inspection. It was proposed to throw the schools on the rates, and we afforded facilities for that being done. It was thought advisable, with the view of making the system general and equal in its operation, that there should be some central authority, and we provided that in the shape of the Board suggested by the Royal Commission. The duties of that Board were to superintend the schools

  1715
  generally, to ascertain what schools were required in order to supply the wants of the country; and, when it was ascertained that these schools were required, there were provisions under which they should be established in harmony with the general system. The Bill was not framed upon any theory of one party or another, but was the offspring of a Royal Commission, composed of all parties, including the Gentleman who held the Office I now have the honour to hold in the Government, and Sir James Fergusson, Under Secretary to the Home Department, and other persons strongly imbued with Conservative as well as Liberal prepossessions; and they all came to be of one mind upon the subject. They were unanimous in regard to most of the provisions of the measure, and there were only three dissentients in respect of its details. The Bill has come down from "another place" altered no doubt in many material points, but still in such a form as to be capable of being made a good working measure. The alterations that have been made relate mainly to the rural schools; the arrangement with respect to the burgh schools is left exactly as it was, in the hands of the Town Council. The result is, that we find for the first time in my experience in this House a concurrence on the part of the other House in a measure—at all events as regards education in the burghs—which would be a most material been to the country. The question now is whether the alterations with respect to the rural districts are of such a nature that we ought on that account to give up the whole Bill. I do not think they are. I was surprised in looking over the Amendments on the Bill to see how few of these involved points of material difference. But I am not going to enter generally into the provisions of the Bill. I promised to explain the alterations which we think necessary on those Amendments. In doing so I shall speak, first, of the central authority; secondly, of the local authority; thirdly, of the question of denominational grants; and lastly, I shall make a few observations with respect to the schoolmasters, and the share of the Privy Council in this process. The central authority, as originally proposed by the Government, was an elective representative body, to which it was proposed to delegate the supervision of the system, but not the
  1716
  command of the funds. The funds to be provided by the Privy Council were left to be managed by the Privy Council, and over these the central authority were to have no power. The central authority was to consist of representatives from the counties, the burghs, the Universities, the schoolmasters, and bodies of that kind. In the House of Lords that has been altered, and it is proposed, as the Bill now stands, that the central authority should be a paid Board, nominated by the Crown. I most carefully considered—and I considered it with a sincere desire to arrive at the conclusion—whether it might not be possible to manage the affairs of education in Scotland by the Privy Council without the intervention of any separate Scottish management, and I came very clearly to the conclusion that that was impossible. The duties which are to be devolved on this Board are duties that must be administered in Scotland. In the first place, it has to be administered geographically and locally, and from local information as to where new schools are required. In the second place, it is under the condition of the Bill a very important judicial tribunal for the trial and suspension and deprivation of schoolmasters for a number of offences. Then the whole system of education in Scotland is so peculiar that no proposition of that kind would be satisfactory or acceptable to the people of Scotland. Accordingly in all the discussions on the subject—in the evidence before the Commission, in the public meetings which have been held, in the debates in "another place," among the deputations that have come to London since the Bill was passed in the other House—there has never been any doubt or hesitation expressed upon the subject that Scotch management was essential to make the Bill effectual. Sir, I know that there are differences of opinion upon this subject. I believe that Boards, as they are called, are unpopular among a certain section of my fellow Members. Whether that view be altogether founded on fact is a question into which it is unnecessary to go; but it is at least certain that the amounts spent by the departments managed by Boards in Scotland are much less compared with the expenditure of similar departments in England and Ireland. But I will not raise any discussion on the subject. Have we not enough of difficulties to

  1717
  contend with on the subject of education? No Education Bill has yet been substantively brought forward for any part of the Kingdom. We have now a chance in Scotland. We have the best chance we have had for the last twenty years. Our difficulties are vanishing away, and even from "another place," where the views entertained on this question are materially different from that which prevail here, we have this year sent down a Bill in a shape in which at least it may be made useful and manageable. We ought, then, not to throw this advantage aside and enter into the discussion of controverted questions and collateral issues not necessary to the adjustment of this matter, however important in themselves. I do not want to anticipate discussion on this matter, but it involves important topics for discussion and inquiry; but surely the consideration of that matter ought not to be thrown across the question of education. I trust, in considering this proposal that I am now about to make, it will be considered entirely apart from these controverted topics and dealt with on its own merits, with this single object in view, and with our eye directed to this one end—how shall we best educate the people of Scotland. What I purpose is this—We feel that a permanent Board nominated by the Government will not be satisfactory. We do not think that the system of election and representation of the present constituencies can be very easily adapted to the purpose, and we propose a temporary Council for three years, with power to the Queen in Council to extend its existence for a longer period. We propose that the Board shall consist of the Law Officers of the Crown for Scotland, for the purpose of advising them on legal questions, of which there may be a good many at starting. We propose that there shall be other five members, who shall be paid in this way—The Chairman shall be paid £500 a year, and the other four members shall be paid three guineas for each attendance up to fifty attendances. Thus, none of these gentlemen will be in a position to make a livelihood out of their position as Commissioners or Members of the Board, and at the same time there will be an inducement to regular attendance which will not reach a very extravagant amount. The expense of such an establishment
  1718
  will certainly be far short of that which many such establishments cost. On the other hand, I believe it will result in a considerable degree of efficiency. I may state that in a matter of such importance, when such extensive powers and authorities are to be given to the Board, it is only right that the House should know, before ultimately deciding on the measure, whom we propose to appoint Commissioners under the Bill; and in that way the public will gain additional confidence if the names of the Commissioners are communicated. That is the proposal which we make with regard to management. There is no doubt that in three years this educational machine will be fairly started, and though some hon. Members may favour a more ideal system of management, I do not think it will be necessary to give up that machine. That, however, is a question which it will be for the country to consider at the time.
  I now come to the question of the local authority, which has been very strangely dealt with in "another place." I confess I cannot altogether understand the views upon which the alterations have been made. The Commissioners came to the conclusion that the parochial schools should remain managed as they are at present, with a power to the heritors to throw them upon the rates if they thought fit. The management of the parochial schools has everything against it but one thing. It is a management which it is impossible to defend, because the management of the school is the heritors who pay £100 rent on the old valuation roll. One would suppose that they were the only heritors who paid for the school, but that is not the case. All the heritors pay, but only those who have £100 a year manage it. That is not the old law of Scotland. It was introduced in 1803. The old law of Scotland gave the voice to every heritor, and it was later on, as I have stated, that the restriction which remains to this day was placed upon it. The old valued rent is not the present valuation roll, and nothing remains of it but one or two of these ancient privileges or restrictions such as the present management of the parochial schools. The minister has also a seat upon the Board. I said that there was only one thing in favour of this system. It is only right to say that that one thing is a very important one. It is that these schools

  1719
  have been exceedingly well managed. The sub-Commissioners who were employed by the Commission to report upon them came to that conclusion, and I have no doubt that the conclusion is a sound one. They found a great deal of efficiency in the Free Church and other schools; but, on the whole, the parochial schools were the best. That, no doubt, arises from the fact that the schools are endowed; but it is only fair to say that these schools are very well managed. The proposition which the Government made was that the transition of the parochial schools should not be compulsory, but that it should be left to the heritors to throw them upon the rates and bring them under more liberal management. In regard to the national schools—the schools that are to be set up by the Board, or to be made over by the heritors or the managers of the denominational schools—we proposed under the Bill to place their whole management in the hands of the rate-payers—that is, in the hands of persons elected by the rate-payers. Now, the action which has been taken upon this proposal in ''another place" is very remarkable. The first part of the compromise has been accepted. The old heritors are left in the management of the parochial schools. But the second part of the compromise has been rejected, and the management of the new schools—liberally constituted, as we thought—has been put under a committee, one-half to be elected by the old heritors, and half by the rate-payers. I venture to say that that is a suggestion which it is utterly impossible to adopt. The proposal is still more preposterous when we consider the way in which the incidence of the taxation of the old parochial schools has been altered. The taxation has been placed upon the new valuation roll, and every proprietor there is to be compelled to pay up his share, and at the same time is to be deprived of a voice in the school for which he is to pay. Now, it became a question what was to be done in regard to that. I do not say that the clause I am going to suggest is one altogether satisfactory to my mind, but you have a choice of difficulties in the matter. The suggestion which I have now to make is, to read the Bill as it originally stood. It was our original proposition, and therefore it is consistent on our part to make it again; and it is consistent, moreover, with
  1720
  the principle of the Bill throughout, which is to leave the schools as we find them until they are thrown for support upon the rates. I am quite aware that there is a considerable feeling in favour of that course, and that there is nothing to be said in favour of the system of management which now exists. In regard to the local committees, what I propose is that two-thirds shall be elected by the rate-payers and one-third by the heritors. I think that will be a fair division, and while it will secure a reasonable amount of the popular element will not exclude the more important heritors from a share in the management of the schools. The third topic is a very important one. I am not going now to dwell upon it; I shall simply state it. The Bill, as it originally stood, provided, on the one hand, for a system of national schools, and dealt, on the other hand, with denominational grants, and prohibited competing schools, aided by the State, from being set up against those to be affected by this Bill. That provision has been altered in the strangest way imaginable, and complete license has been given by the clause as it now stands in the Bill to set up denominational schools in all parts of the country in rivalry to the national system. I think that is a very inconsiderate provision, and it is impossible for us to agree to it. But while it is impossible to allow denominational schools to be set up in rivalry to the national schools, it is another question whether we shall shut the door altogether to denominational grants to denominational schools. I do not in the least evade the question that stares us in the face. There is a very large Catholic population in many parts of Scotland. I myself should like to see Catholic and Protestant sitting upon the same bench. I am very glad to say it is a sight not strange in Scotland; but, at the same time, I am not sanguine enough to expect to see it, or at any rate to see it all at once. Neither can I, in regard to this measure, which I believe to be a great measure intended to embrace the whole population, reconcile it to myself altogether to exclude the possibility of denominational grants, were it only in regard to those of the Catholic religion. But we need not make a special exception, and what I propose to do is this—to restore the Bill to the footing on which it stood before, and leave it open to the

  1721
  Board, having regard to the nature of the population and the suitability of the school to its peculiar wants, to certify to the Privy Council any special school for a special grant—I do not say a denominational grant—but to leave to the Board a discretionary power to certify any particular school as requiring, or being deserving of a grant, because of the existing means of education for the population not being sufficiently available. That will not be limited to the case of Roman Catholics. It will extend to the poorer parishes throughout the whole country. I do not expect it will be largely taken advantage of, but I think it is necessary, in order to make our provision complete; and I should hope, through its operation and the operation of the remaining provisions, we shall be able to reach the very lowest class of society. I should like to go further, and to have a compulsory clause compelling education, but I consider that one thing at a time is enough. It is of no use to compel children to go to school, unless they have a school to go to. It is of no use to deal with the compulsory question until the framework of your schools is complete; but, unquestionably, if the framework of the schools were complete, I should be of opinion, for one, that the time had come when a measure, and a pretty strong measure, of compulsory education would be of the highest benefit to the people of Scotland. I think these are all the topics to which I said I would refer. With reference to the matters relating to the schoolmasters, I do not think they have any reason to complain of the shape which will be given to the Bill by the Amendments I have presented to the House. I think that at this late hour we had better defer any observations on that matter until the Amendments are on the Paper. There will be a good deal more to explain in regard to the finance of the measure—as to which there has been a good deal of misapprehension—which, I think, I can undertake to make perfectly satisfactory, so far as the means of accomplishing the end we propose to ourselves is concerned. I thank the House for the patient attention with which it has listened to my statement.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he thanked his right hon. Friend very heartily for the statement he had just made. It had given great satisfaction to the Scotch Members and to the House, and it would afford particular satisfaction to Scotland generally, for it was a matter of some anxiety to them to know how the Amendments made in the Bill by the House of Lords would be received by the Government in this House. Many of the Amendments proposed by his right hon. Friend on the part of the Government would be found satisfactory. There was, however, one point in the speech of his right hon. Friend, to which he must refer. He spoke of certain ideal notions entertained by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and of the undesirability of getting up a discussion on the central authority on the second reading of the Bill. Though he had been at all times willing to accept advice from his right hon. Friend, he must decline to do so on the present occasion. The central authority was the cardinal feature of this measure; and he did not see how it was possible to take any discussion, however slight, upon the second reading, without touching upon the question of the central authority. The powers to be committed to this central authority were very great; and the interests with which that authority would have to deal, were very considerable; and it therefore behaved Scotch Members especially to see that the central authority was one in which the people of Scotland could justly place confidence. With regard to the Scotch Boards, they were, no doubt, cheap—but there were many things that were cheap, were not good. There was a general feeling of dissatisfaction in Scotland, with regard to these Boards—the public knew nothing about their transactions—they sat with closed doors; and it was felt that they were not operated upon by the public opinion of the day. The Government now proposed a new and most important Board; but on this Board there would be no person directly responsible to this House; and he respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Government that, upon a question of such importance as the education of the people of Scotland, it was desirable that, if not the Chairman, at least some member of that Board should have a seat in this House, and be directly responsible for the management of the Board, and

  1723
  to whom any Member of the House might directly appeal for information on matters connected with its business. With regard, however, to many of the other Amendments which his right hon. Friend proposed to make in this Bill, he would give him his cordial support. With regard to the relief proposed to be given to the heritors, he would remind the House that the assessment was one which, for hundreds of years, had been levied on the heritors, and it was too much to expect that their pockets were to be relieved, and that the burden should be thrown upon the nation at large.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that he most heartily concurred in nearly every word that had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire. He did not believe that this Board would give satisfaction to the people of Scotland—he did not believe it was possible for it to work out the objects for which it was to be appointed; and all previous experience had shown that these Boards, unamenable to public opinion, and, as it were working in the dark, were out of date; to use an expression which was not too strong, the people of Scotland were disgusted with the operation of local secret Boards. It would be most absurd, he thought, to appoint another. As to its being only temporary that was the old story. Every Board was at first appointed on that pretext. The Board of Supervision for the Poor was to be temporary; but it had existed for more than twenty years. The same story held good of the Lunacy Board. Assistant Commissioners were appointed for three years, and then an Act was passed making their office perpetual. Then there was the Board of Fisheries, of the proceedings of which the public knew nothing at all. The members of that Board were most distinguished persons; they were fitted for anything and everything except conducting fisheries. With regard to the proposed local Board, as originally formed, it was not so good as it ought to be, but still it was better than that which was proposed in the Bill as amended in the other House. In reference to the point referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther), who objected to the sum which the heritors had heretofore paid for the schools being put into their pockets by being taken
  1724
  from educational purposes, he heartily concurred in what he had said. There never was a more unjust proposal made to this House than that of relieving the heritors from the payment of £48,000 a year and putting it into their pockets. Why, the old Act of 1696 enacted that in every parish in Scotland there should be a sufficient school provided by them for educating the children of the parish, and it required the heritors to raise a sufficient sum of money annually, in all time coming, to accomplish that purpose. From that time down to the present day the schoolmaster's salary had been uniformly deducted, just as the minister's salary was, in fixing the value of the land when offered for sale, by public advertisement or otherwise. The present heritors never bought that portion of their estates from which this school-rate came; it belonged to the public; and now it was proposed to relieve the heritors from this charge and throw it on the whole body of rate-payers, including owners and occupiers, down to a rental of £4. This would be equivalent to giving these large landowners a present of £48,000 a year. He ventured to say that the only just way in which they could touch that fund would be this—to enact that the heritors should continue to pay £48,000 a year in future, and that whenever more than that sum was required it should be fairly and equally levied on all classes, including heritors, and also owners and occupiers of houses and tenements. He trusted that the House would not touch this fund; and he was certain the people of Scotland would be willing to pay as much more as maybe wanted in supplementing that fund. He agreed with the learned Lord Advocate that the time must come—and he hoped it would come speedily—when a compulsory education Bill would be applied all over the Kingdom; but when that day did come, there must be either very low fees or no fees at all, in order to make the compulsion practically operative in the case of the humbler classes, as was the rule in the United States and in some other countries. He would conclude by saying that he was not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as now proposed.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIR: * I understand it to be the wish of the House that we should not on this occasion discuss the

  1725
  general principles of this Bill, but that the question should be limited to the policy or impolicy of having distinct Commissioners in Scotland to put its powers in action. In other words, is the machinery to be worked in London by a Committee of Council, or by any other organization, directly and without intervention, or are there any circumstances that demand a special body in Scotland to watch over and protect the peculiarities of its education? Now I refuse to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) by introducing into the discussion of this subject the possibility of there being, sooner or later, a Secretary for Scotland. That is an important question in itself, and worthy of the attention of the House. But so, surely, is the subject of education by itself and for itself. The ignorance of the people, and the vice and misery which that ignorance engenders, is a field extensive enough and sad enough for us to traverse, but very ill fitted for playing a tournament upon, by tempting a Lord Advocate to change his purpose, and have a passage at arms with the spectre of a Scotch Secretary. An Education Bill has been presented to us involving immense interests to the people, and I for one shall not divert my gaze from its main object to any subordinate subject whatever. The only issue at present is this—Can we or can we not do without an organization in Scotland—call it a Board or call it a Commission—to promote the educational interests of the people. There is a peculiarity of Scotch education which requires the special consideration and care of any executive body charged with educational administration in Scotland. It separates so completely English elementary schools from those in Scotland, that in this peculiarity rests the justification and necessity for the creation of an educational body outside the ordinary organization of the Committee of Council. It has its origin in 1560, when John Knox and his coadjutors propounded a wonderfully wise scheme of education, embracing elementary and secondary schools, and connecting them with the Universities of the country. Such a comprehensive scheme is now in actual operation, by well-organized systems, in various Continental States, but unfortunately for us, the Government of his day did not fully adopt the wise counsels of the grand old
  1726
  Reformer. The Scottish Privy Council, in fact, characterized the scheme as a "devout imagination." I fear our present Privy Council would do the same if we urged upon it any educational scheme so boldly, widely, and wisely conceived. The object of John Knox's scheme was to have primary schools in every parish, and secondary schools in every town, all intimately associated with the Universities, so that boys of merit might pass upwards when their talents justified the ascent. As early as 1642, we find the General Assembly of the Kirk petitioning Parliament as follows:—
  "That the Parliament would find out means how the children of poor men (being very capable of learning and of good energies) may be trained up as the exigencies and necessity of every place shall require."
  But Parliament did nothing; so the Kirk enjoined on all its presbyteries the "pious work" of finding out boys of "pregnant parts." As soon as one was reported, the session held an inquisition on his mental pregnancy, and sent him, at their expense, either to a burgh school or direct to a University. By this aid, the poorest cottar's son felt, if he had ability, that the national Universities were not beyond his reach. Thus, though John Knox's scheme never became law, its spirit has animated every Scotchman for three centuries, and has led to an unformulated but practical connection between the whole system of lower and higher education. Those who want to know the secret which makes Scotchmen thrive in this country and the colonies should read the seventh chapter of the Fourth Book of Discipline. It was felt by the meanest shepherd or the poorest Highland crofter that education would enable his son to rise in the world. Sir Walter Scott alludes to this national ambition when he makes the father and mother of Dominie Sampson wish to live to see their son "wag his head in the pulpit." Amid all the changes, both social and political, which have passed over Scotland during three centuries, this intimate bond between the lower and higher education of the nation has never been loosened. It is the glory of our system that the deserving poor, if they be endowed with talents, dare to cry "Excelsior." No less than 19 per cent of the students attending the Faculties of Arts in our four Universities are the sons of labourers. They work with

  1727
  their hands in summer to make money for their University studies in winter. In my own limited circle I have numerous friends who have risen in this way. Let me cite two cases by way of illustration. A few weeks since it was my duty, as University Examiner, to recommend a student for the high degree of Doctor in Science. This graduate is the son of a poor Highland crofter, and when a boy went out to herd cattle during the summer from March to October. His wages for seven months were only 25 s., but they were enough to pay his fees at the parish school during winter. It is true that the school was six miles from his father's hut, but a walk of twelve miles, to and fro over a bleak moorland, does not deter a promising Scotch boy from going to school. It did deter, however, some of the farmers' sons in his neighbourhood; so at fourteen my young friend took up a little adventure school to teach these less hardy-lads, and in course of time he made enough to carry him to the burgh school at Perth, where he extended the knowledge of classics and mathematics which he had begun at the parish school. Still working, still teaching, still saving, he fought his way step by step through bursaries and scholarships won by him, till he became a certificated teacher of the first class under the Privy Council, a Master of Arts, a Bachelor of Science in the University of Edinburgh, and, as I have said, a few weeks since it was my privilege to examine him as Doctor in Science. I might quote the instance of two labourers who have lately passed through the Scottish Universities, and obtained the highest honours in the English Universities, but I shall only allude to one other instance—that of Dr. James Henderson, lately a distinguished medical missionary in China, who was footman in the country residence of the Under Secretary for India, but being born near a parish school, took advantage of it. He then went into service in Edinburgh to be near a University, and while still a footman continued his education, graduated in medicine, and then pursued his honourable career in China. Do not suppose that these are isolated cases, and that they are not true illustrations of the secondary education which may be got at our primary schools. The Church long since provided for it by enjoining the heritors to select by prefer-
  1728
  ence Masters of Arts as teachers of parochial schools. And the consequences are now apparent, for one-half of all the Scotch ministers pass directly from these lower schools to the Universities, and no less than 58 per cent of our Scotch physicians and surgeons spring at once from these schools to the higher platform of our Universities. If we include those who have also had the advantage of a secondary burgh school, then from 70 to 80 per cent of Scotch students at the Universities pass through the primary schools. We have nothing like this in England. Neither your professions nor your Universities are fed by the primary schools; nor would ours be if we kept them at the level of "the three R' s." But our teachers have been educated at the Universities, and they rejoice to prepare their pupils for those institutions from which they received so much advantage. This introduction of a higher education into primary schools infuses a life and ambition into them which raises the whole tone of education in the country. An hon. Member on the other side of the House once said that you cannot teach pothooks and Horace in the same school. My reply is that we have the experience of three centuries to show that they can be brought together with great advantage, and that the pothooks may ultimately be used to hang up Horace, or Herodotus, or Euclid, or Molière, in the sight of all aspiring boys. The aim of our Scotch schools has always been, after giving to children "the three R's"—the spoon, the knife, and the fork of education—to give also some sound meat to which they may be applied. This Bill brings us under the Privy Council system and the Revised Code, and you need not be surprised that we are nervously anxious that our scholars should not be deprived of their meat, while the inspectors look to the polish of the implements of education. When Scotland was first examined by the Revised Code, it is true she did not come out so well as England; but this was mainly due to her not having a general system of inspection, and to the different methods of teaching, for in Scotch schools arithmetic is not begun so early as in English schools, and the children do not enter at so tender an age. But the percentage of passes is already greater in all "the three R's," showing that our educational system is adapted to the requirements of

  1729
  the Revised Code. There is, no doubt, a thorough dislike of the Revised Code among the teachers in Scotland, but I believe this is mainly due to the fear that it will lower and alter our whole educational system. The first rule in Schedule A, attached to this Bill, is our Parliamentary security that the Privy Council will consult the wishes of the nation on this important point. For myself, I think the payment by results, which is the foundation of the Revised Code, is right in principle, but then the results should meet the requirements of a nation—especially when they have three centuries of success as evidence in their favour. Scotland does not want a larger Parliamentary grant than she is entitled to by the number of scholars in attendance, but she desires that grant to be distributed in a way suitable to her habits. We are willing to come under any guarantee you choose that as large a percentage of our scholars shall pass "the three R's" as you find by experience can be attained in England under the limited system; but, when this result is achieved, do not cut off the higher education of our national schools. The ladder of education is a long ladder with many steps. In England, the three lowest steps have been selected as sufficient for primary schools. It may be answered that the Committee of Council, through the Department of Science and Art, aid the ascent of twenty steps more, and this is true, but with that incoherence of organization which marks our civil administration, this scheme runs side by side but never touches the other department of primary education. The restriction of education to "the three R's" in primary schools does not exist in Scotland, nor, so far as I am aware, in any other civilized country except England. France, Austria, Prussia, Belgium, and Switzerland encourage primary schools to select from six to eight higher subjects, according to the wants of the localities. So also in Scotland. After our children have learned reading, writing, and arithmetic, they are encouraged to continue at the primary schools in order to apply these elementary branches to higher information. Having taken the evidence of many masters on the subject, I believe I am not far from the mark in saying that in good schools, about one-third of the children study geography, one-fourth grammar and history, and
  1730
  from 5 to 10 per cent modern languages, classics, or science. Hence, only a select few take those subjects which fit them for the Universities. But this is precisely as it should be. Instead of contending for this in my own feeble language, I will quote from the writings of a philosopher whose opinions are always listened to with respect in this House. John Stuart Mill says—
  "The State owes no more than elementary education to the entire body of those who cannot pay for it. But the superior education, which it does not owe to the poorer population, it owes to the élite of them—to those who have earned the preference by labour, and have shown by the results that they have capacity worth securing for the higher department of intellectual work, never supplied in due proportion to the demand."
  This well expresses the sentiments of our old Scotch Reformer. By his counsel the Scotch people have always aimed at a selection of their meritorious poor, and have aided their advance in life. It is this which has impressed upon the Scotch a distinctiveness of character, and which has secured for their country a large measure of prosperity. We are therefore most anxious, as this Bill brings us under the Committee of Council, that the latter should not cut away the upper steps of our educational ladder, in order to bring our Scotch system into uniformity with the English system. We do not doubt the justice of the Privy Council, but we fear the rigour of its uniformity. Hence it is that there has been a universal demand throughout Scotland for an Education Board. There have been many opinions as to what should be its constitution; but every public meeting has expressed a desire for its establishment, as a guardian of the characteristics of our primary schools. The spirit of John Knox, which still animates the Scotch people, demands that the old connection between the lower and higher education of the country should be preserved. Our Universities draw their main strength from the national schools of Scotland, and you must not cut them off from the roots. You will pardon me, as a University Member, for having dwelt so long on this subject; but the Universities of Scotland belong wholly to the people. As the giant Antæus derived his great strength by contact with the earth, so do our Universities derive their vigour from constant contact with the people. Do not let the Committee of Council, by attempt-

  1731
  ing to assimilate Scotch schools to English schools, be the Hercules to lift our Universities above the heads of the people, and by severing us from the source of our strength destroy an educational system which has promoted the prosperity, peace, and tranquillity of Scotland, and of the great kingdom of which she is a part.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate having made some pointed allusions to him in reference to the Committee over which he had had the honour to preside, he could not allow his remarks to pass without some observations, so that the House might not assume that he agreed with what his right hon. Friend had said. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther), and from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). He did not at all agree to the representation made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh University (Dr. Playfair) of the statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire. What the hon. Baronet said was—not that he did not agree to a central authority, or Board, or Commission—but that he could not agree with the central authority proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend (the Lord Advocate). They objected to the central authority proposed in the first draft of the Bill, but ten times more did they object to the proposition—the most extraordinary proposition—made that night by his right non. Friend—the most extraordinary proposition he had ever heard for regulating education or anything else. He referred to the Board of Supervision. So far as the evidence given before his Committee went, it went in a direction directly contrary to that suggested by his right hon. Friend; nor did it seem to him that there was much difference between the constitution of that Board and the proposed new Education Board. What was proposed? There was to be a court of seven members; and who were these seven members to be? The two Law Officers of the Crown, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General. But the Solicitor General was a member of the Board of Supervision, and the evidence was that his hon. and learned Friend was unable to attend the meetings of the Board, and, more-
  1732
  over, apparently, did not consider it his duty so to do. The Lord Advocate was to be a member of the Board. Now, it was almost impossible for him to attend to all the multifarious business to which he had now to attend, and how could he be able to attend and advise the Board? There was to be a paid chairman of the Board, at £500 a year, with four other members, and these four members were to be paid three guineas an attendance up to fifty attendances. No doubt these members would attend, would get their three guineas, and would do nothing more. There were three learned sheriffs on the Board of Supervision, and they had worked uncommonly well. They were paid 150 guineas a year, for about thirty or forty attendances, to conduct all the legal work of the Board of Supervision. What was the practical result of the constitution of this Board? There was one paid chairman, three paid sheriffs, and the evidence was that nobody else attended that Board. But the sheriffs were frequently obliged to go to different parts of the country and attend to their duties, and the result was that the whole management fell into the hands of the chairman. He asked whether that would be a satisfactory system to introduce for the management of education? He objected to these Boards, because they did not sit in public—because they were not responsible—and because there was nobody in that House to answer for their conduct. It might be said that the Lord Advocate practically represented them here; but how could he undertake still further duties by having put upon him this new Board? The central authority was the most material and essential part of this Bill. They wanted a central authority—that that central authority should be a Scotch authority—that it should work in harmony, but not under the dictation, of the Privy Council—all these requirements were essential for the constitution of the Board. The Board should be represented in this House and responsible to this House. It was to be established for the management of the new system of education, and it should not be put upon the same footing as the close Boards in Edinburgh, which his right hon. Friend admitted that the people of Scotland condemn. [The Lord ADVOCATE said he made no such admission.] He entirely agreed

  1733
  with the proposal that there should be a central authority, but it was essential that it should be a central authority that should enjoy the confidence and respect of the country over whose education it was to preside.
  MR. M 'LAGANsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) were, at least, premature—so far as the evidence had gone it certainly did not go the length of condemning the Board of Supervision. The hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) had stated that no Board appointed to superintend education in Scotland could be satisfactory to the people of Scotland.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER: What he had said was that no Board would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland if it had not direct representation in this House to answer for its conduct.
  MR. M'LAGAN: The proposed Board would have representatives in this House—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General would be members of the Board. He would not go further into the question of the constitution of this Board than to say that he was certain the people of Scotland would not submit to have the management of Scotch education under the dictation of a Secretary or Board in London. The Board should be a central Board and a Scotch Board, and what was still better, it should be a Board not sitting in London, but a Board representative of education in Scotland. He agreed with the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh that it would be impossible for us to control and direct education in Scotland by anyone sitting in London, on account of the great difference between education in England and Scotland. At present they had a system of which they might well be proud. It combined elementary with middle-class education. In England the Privy Council took charge only of the elementary branches of education, but he should not like to see the Scotch parochial schools placed under the same control. If they were, the result would be that they would have in Scotland what they had in England—a mere mechanical routine in the schools, instead of that intellectual training which was now given in the Scotch schools. He was in favour of a Secretary of State for Scotland; but if the choice was whether they should
  1734
  have the education of Scotland managed by a local Board in Scotland, or by a Secretary of State in London, he had no hesitation in saying—"Sink the Secretary of State, and let us have our education managed in Scotland by Scotchmen."
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the hon. Members below the Gangway had spoken as if all the Scotch Members agreed with them; but that was not the case. For his part he very much agreed with the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Playfair), whose speech was the most practical that they had heard that night. He regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. M'Lagan) should have introduced this subject of a Scotch Secretary of State. It was a point on which the Scotch Members were anything but unanimous. He thought they would do wisely to confine themselves to the most important point, the education of the people, and not mix it up with other questions, which would only hinder its success.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he was not at all sure, notwithstanding the assurance of the Lord Advocate as to the importance of this Bill, that the people of Scotland would be inclined to regard it as a great measure of national education. He could only say that he had long held the opinion that if they were to have a national system it must be a secular system—that the clergy should have as little as possible to do with it; that they should be restrained, and not allowed to interfere with education until the children were able to understand what religion means. He held, also, that if they were to have a system of education which was to reach the 90,000 children in Scotland the Lord Advocate had told us exist there without education, they must have a compulsory system—and he trusted that if this Bill passed through Committee—which he very much doubted—the Lord Advocate would be prepared to bring in a measure in which the education of the people shall be made compulsory.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, the question of education was of far greater importance than the constitution of the Board, and he would rather have twenty Boards than have this Bill thrown out on the point. However bad the Board might be, they could get rid of it; but if they lost this Bill, it might be a difficult thing

  1735
  to get such another chance of dealing with this question.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. YOUNG)said, he had listened with some surprise to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife-shire, and with still more surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs. The question was that this Bill be now read a second time? Both of these speeches, and especially the latter, were upon an altogether different question—namely, whether certain Boards entrusted with a great variety of business now existing in Edinburgh were satisfactorily discharging their duies. The hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire was perhaps hardly in a position to pronounce an opinion upon the question whether they satisfactorily discharged their duties or not, because he said that their distinguishing feature was that the people of Scotland knew nothing about them. The hon. Member was at least entitled to speak for himself, and if he knew nothing about them he was not in a position to say anything against them. The hon. and learned gentleman the Member for Ayr devoted his speech almost exclusively to a condemnation of the Board of Supervision. He spoke as if there were a general concurrence of opinion adverse to the Board upon all the evidence taken before the Committee appointed by this House to inquire into its operation. He (the Solicitor General) would take leave to say that such was not only not the unanimous opinion, but that it was not the opinion of the majority of the members of that Committee. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs admitted the necessity for a central authority in the Education scheme: but it had not been suggested that the central authority should be in any other form than that of a Board; and if the constitution of the Board proposed in the Bill were unsatisfactory, the proper course was to amend it in Committee. The main criticism, so far as he understood it, of the hon. and learned Member for the Ayr Burghs was that there was no provision made for the Board being directly represented in this House. But one of the proposals of his right hon. Friend (the Lord Advocate) was that the two Law Officers of the Crown, both of whom were in this House, should be members of the Board. He (the Solicitor General)
  1736
  presumed the purpose of having a representative of any Board in this House was that he might be able to answer any inquiry and give explanations with reference to any complaint which might be made in this House relating to the conduct of the Board. Now this Board, if it should be constituted in the manner proposed, would have two members sitting in the House, who, after due inquiries, would be in a position to give satisfactory answers to any such questions as might be put. But all this was matter of detail to be considered in Committee.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading, but at the same time he must complain of the way in which it had been introduced, and the consequent difficulty under which Members found themselves in addressing the House. The right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) had met with compliments, and even with expressions of affection, from below the Gangway, such as, if he (Mr. Dalrymple) were in his position, he should not be at all grateful for, especially as they had been accompanied by expressions of hostility towards some of the Amendments which he proposed to introduce. No one on his own side the House had spoken against the measure—and for himself he (Mr. Dalrymple) desired to give the right hon. Gentleman all the assistance in his power towards passing the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed, for To-morrow.

  NITRO GLYCERINE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit for a limited period the importation and to restrict and regulate the carriage of Nitro Glycerine.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, and Mr. GRAVES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 211.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) * (183); Seamen's Clothing *.
Committee—New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment* (150–184).
Third Reading—Irish Church (182).
Royal Assent—Recorders Deputies [32&33 Vict. c. 23]; Newspapers, Printers, and Reading Rooms [32&33 Vict. c. 24]; Poor Relief (Ireland) Act (1862) Amendment [32&33 Vict. c. 25]; Titles of Religious Congregations Act Extension [32&33 Vict. c. 26]; Inam Lands [32&33 Vict. c. 29]; Beerhouses,&c. [32&33 Vict. c. 27]; Public Parks (Ireland) [32&33 Vict. c. 28]; Park Gate Chapel Marriages,&c. [32&33 Vict. c. 30]; Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Supplemental [32&33 Vict. c. 31]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental [32&33 Vict. c. 70]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [32&33 Vict. c. 71.]

SCHOOL OF MUSKETRY AT HYTHE.

  ADDRESS FOR A REPORT ON SANITARY STATE.
  LORD KINNAIRD, rising to call attention to an outbreak of fever in this establishment, said, he did not deny the importance of schools of musketry, for in view of the astonishing improvements which had been made in small arms, it was necessary that officers and soldiers should be taught to handle them. Having been informed last spring that a serious outbreak of fever had occurred, and believing that such epidemics could generally be accounted for by remediable causes, he paid a visit to Hythe and inspected the drainage of the barracks. He found a large shingly beach between the barracks and the sea, which effectually intercepted the sea breezes, and he observed that all the drainage of the town flowed into a canal belonging to the Government, and ori-
  1594
  ginally constructed for strategic purposes. This canal, which was covered with vegetable matter, ran at the foot of the barracks. The drains from the barracks, which were taken under the residences of the various officers, went into a ditch, from the open part of which refuse eighteen inches in depth had been taken out, so that the condition of that part which was covered might be imagined, and in hot weather with a south wind the stench was very unpleasant. The ditch, moreover, was dry for weeks at a time. The lecture room was a garret seated so as to hold 150 men, and being constantly filled with classes its ventilation was very objectionable. It was but fair to say that the medical officer attributed the outbreak, not to the bad drainage, but to the hot weather and to the officers having consequently thrown off their winter clothing; but it was singular, to say the least, that thirty or forty should have been affected by an attack which very much resembled the jungle fever of India. The officer admitted that the place was, to a certain extent unhealthy, and remarked that officers coming from abroad, and men of weak constitutions, could not stand the two months' drill, which was extremely hard work, being such as would properly require three months. A second school of musketry, situated at Fleetwood, and possessing excellent accommodation, had been abandoned on economical grounds, but it might be doubted whether the cost of conveying regiments from all parts of the three kingdoms to Hythe was less than the expense of a second establishment; and he felt sure that, when the health of the troops was at stake, measures would be taken by the Secretary of State for War and the noble Lord who represented the Department in this House (Lord Northbrook) to guard against another outbreak.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Report on the sanitary state of the School of Musketry at Hythe, the number of officers reported sick between the 1st of March and the 30th of April 1869, and cost of maintaining the establishment of the School of Musketry there for one year.—(The Lord Kinnaird.)
  LORD NORTHBROOKsaid, there was no objection to the production of the Papers, including the Report of Dr. Massy, Deputy Inspector General of Hospitals, whom the Secretary of State for War deputed to investigate an out-

  1595
  break of fever reported by the medical officers as of a bilious nature. His right hon. Friend would be ready to consider any improvements which might be required in the accommodation provided for the officers at Hythe.
  Motion agreed, to.

IRISH CHURCH BILL—(No. 182.)
(The Earl Granville.)
IRISH CHURCH BILL—(No. 182.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Earl Granville.)
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, after the labour and patient attention your Lordships have bestowed in Committee upon the details of this Bill—labour that I fully admit has materially mitigated the amount of wrong and injustice that would have been inflicted upon the Church in Ireland under the Bill as it came up from the House of Commons—some apology, I feel, is due to your Lordships for my now rising to move its rejection. I beg to say, then, that I should not have presumed to take such a step but under a sense, a very painful sense, of duty that must be paramount to all other considerations. But, my Lords, there are, apart from the general impolicy and injustice of the measure, objections to the passing of this Bill that, though frequently adverted to in the course of these debates, have never been answered, though they are of that nature that they certainly ought not to have been left unanswered—I mean the terms and conditions of the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland so far as they relate to the maintenance of the Established religion, and the Coronation Oath so far as it relates to the same subject. Objections such as these so materially enhance the responsibilities of the House in dealing with the question of disestablishing the Church that explanation, if it can be given, ought not to be withheld. With reference to the Coronation Oath, I think it cannot be denied that ever since the period of the Revolution until the present year it has been the wont of Parliament and of the Ministers of the Crown to respect the obligations that the Oath imposes upon the Sovereign of this realm. Why, my Lords, is this
  1596
  practice now to be departed from? It is a fact in history that about the time of the Union the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was deferred from the most opportune period for its enactment, owing to the conscientious objection of George III. to taking a step that he thought might imperil the Church. However exaggerated those apprehensions were then considered, may it not be said that circumstances at this day unhappily appear in a great measure to justify them? But when such statesmen as Pitt and Castle-reagh respected them, earnest though they were in advocating the cause of the Roman Catholics, how can we consider ourselves at liberty—however expedient the measure before the House might otherwise appear to be—to advise Her Majesty to give her Royal Assent to a Bill of no such doubtful effect upon the interests of the Church; but so plainly and directly at variance as this is with all that in the most solemn manner before God, and in presence of her people, she has promised to do with respect to the maintenance of the Protestant Reformed religion as by law established? Unless, my Lords, it can be satisfactorily shown that the objects and provisions of this Bill are in perfect harmony with the engagements so solemnly accepted by the Sovereign at her coronation, I must feel it my duty, if on no other ground, to vote and protest against the passing of the Bill. Let me further urge it upon your Lordships that some consideration is due to the feelings of the public in this matter. It is said, indeed, that the constituencies have unmistakably pronounced for the overthrow of the Church in Ireland; and, in deference to that supposed verdict of the country, many of your Lordships, contrary, I believe, to your better judgment, voted for the second reading of the Bill. I do not deny that the result of a General Election should have considerable weight with this House; but those results are not always to be relied upon as an index of public opinion. A party cry, suddenly got up and skilfully directed, may, as it has done at the late General Election, give to the wildest and most revolutionary views the appearance of acceptance by the country; but such views, even when advocated by the Ministers of the Crown, must not be mistaken for that well-matured public judgment upon great questions of policy

  1597
  which this House is bound to respect. Confining myself to the one question of the Coronation Oath, I would ask, were the constituencies informed how their Sovereign was bound by the express terms of that Oath to maintain the Church that their leaders were denouncing? Most certainly that fact never was put before them. The abstract question of the justice or injustice of maintaining in Ireland a Church Establishment for a communion to which a minority only, and that a small minority, of the Irish people belonged, was, no doubt, placed before them, and, probably, with the colouring, exaggeration, and misrepresentation that have invariably characterized ex parte statements against the Church; and upon this abstract question they may have pronounced; but a loyal and a truth-loving people would never have desired that their beloved Sovereign should be placed in the dilemma in which she will be placed if this Bill should be submitted to her for her Royal Assent. At nearly every public meeting on the Church question that has been held since the nature of this measure has been understood, either in speeches or in resolutions, the Coronation Oath has been invoked as a sure and insuperable safeguard for the maintenance of the Protestant Church, now the object of attack; and as this confidence springs from sentiments of the truest loyalty to the Crown, as well as of attachment to the religion of the country, it ought not to be disregarded. I trust, therefore, that some authoritative explanation maybe afforded by Her Majesty's Ministers to justify, if possible, the proposition of a measure so directly at variance with the sworn engagements of the Sovereign. The other objection to this Bill that I wish specially to call your Lordships' notice to is the terms and conditions of the Act of Union. Referring to the Fifth Article of the Union, which regards the establishment of the National Church, the words at the close of it appear to take it out of the competence of Parliament to dissolve the union then effected between the Churches of England and Ireland, without dissolving also the Union between the two countries. The Treaty of Union was a treaty or agreement between two independent nations, and any violation of the settlement then made of the Established religion would, unques-
  1598
  tionably—from the terms in which it is couched—be a violation of the agreement then come to, and of the fundamental condition upon which that Union of the two countries was based. By referring to the Journals of the House, your Lordships may learn exactly under what circumstances the proposal of the Union came from the English Parliament, and the motives and terms both of its acceptance by the Parliament of Ireland, and of its proposal by the Parliament of Great Britain. England was at the time engaged in a tremendous struggle against the greatest military power that the world had ever known. She consequently had need of all the resources she could command, and of all the strength that could be obtained by a concentration of her power. In consequence, the Houses of Parliament consulted and agreed to recommend certain propositions for a Union with Ireland. These propositions were laid before the King in the month of April, 1799, accompanied with an Address, in the course of which the chief object of the proposed Union is sot forth in these words—
  "We entertain a firm persuasion that a complete and entire union between Great Britain and Ireland, founded on equal and liberal principles, must afford fresh means of opposing, at all times, an effectual resistance to the destructive projects of our foreign and domestic enemies, and must tend to confirm and augment the stability, power, and resources of the Empire."
  The King having communicated the propositions of his Parliament of Great Britain to his Parliament in Ireland, they were there in turn considered, and, with important amendments regarding the Established religion, returned to him in the month of March of the following year, 1800, along with an Address terminating with the following words:—
  "We offer them [the amended propositions], in the full conviction that by uniting ourselves with your Majesty's subjects of Great Britain under one Parliament and under one government, we shall most effectually provide for the improvement of our commerce, the security of our religion, and the preservation of our liberties."
  The King was thus informed of the motives, as well of the Irish Parliament as of the British Parliament in agreeing to the Union. England sought to strengthen herself against the foreign foe. Ireland consented to the Union in the belief that it would secure the Established religion; and with this view the proposition of England for the Fifth Article of Union, to the effect—

  1599
  "That the Churches of that part of Great Britain called England, and that part of Great Britain called Scotland, and of Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, shall be preserved as now by law established,"
  Was amended, and as amended, was ratified by Act of Parliament, being made the 5th Article of the Act of Union. It was therein agreed that the Church of England and Ireland should be thenceforth united into one Church, and—
  "That the continuance and preservation of the said United Church as the Established Church of that part of the United Kingdom called England and Ireland shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental Article and condition of the union."
  The Parliament of Ireland thus made a conditional surrender of its independence; and so well understood was this, that when, some years afterwards, the coronation of George IV. took place, the Oath of the Sovereign was so modified to its present form as to be a practical and most solemn ratification of the condition upon which the Union was based. I do not question the power of Parliament to act as it is doing; but power may be abused. Nobody questioned the power of Bonaparte to put to death the 4,000 captives who had surrendered to him as prisoners of war after a brave defence of the fortress of Jaffa. He had the power, and he exercised it, of committing a cold-blooded massacre of those whose lives had been secured by every claim of right, and by every obligation of good faith and of honour. His own countrymen and greatest admirers all admit that an indelible stain has thus been left upon the character of that otherwise great man. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has likewise the power, but also the responsibility, of doing wrong. As it can ignore the sworn obligations of the Sovereign, so it can ignore good faith in the keeping of treaties. And if this measure be carried out it will, I conceive, leave abiding upon the character of the British Parliament the reproach of dishonour in violating the condition upon the faith of which alone Ireland consented to surrender her independence. And now, my Lords, before I sit down, let me add one word more in deprecation of this measure. It has been incautiously, but very justly, admitted by Her Majesty's Ministers to
  1600
  be a Bill of Pains and Penalties against the Irish branch of the Established Church. What is the crime for which the Irish Church is to be punished, stripped of its property, and cut off as unworthy any longer to exist? Why is the Protestant population to be deprived of the means hitherto enjoyed and guaranteed to them by the laws of the land, and by the Oath of the Sovereign, for public worship? Why is the tithe rent-charge to be left still a burden upon the land after the maintenance of the ministry of the Gospel and the worship of Almighty God, to which alone it can legitimately be applied, have been discontinued? Why is Ireland to be deprived of the benefits henceforth reserved exclusively for Great Britain, of having Christianity upheld in purity of doctrine—the Word of God as the foundation of her moral government? And when you say you are doing justice to Ireland, how do you justify—even if the robbery of the property of the Church were legitimate—the abstraction from that Irish fund of means for relieving the Imperial Exchequer of an annual payment to Maynooth College and to the Presbyterian body of about £80,000 a year? Is such the nature of your justice and liberality?—is that to be your message of peace to Ireland?—and are you going to advise the Queen so to treat her poor Irish subjects? Again, I ask—What has been the offence of the Irish branch of the Established Church—that is to say, of the Irish Church as it has existed since it came under your jurisdiction at the time of the Union, as part and parcel of the Church of England? What has it done to incur the proposed penalties, or even to merit censure? Take, first, the laity of the Church. Have they been disloyal or disaffected?—has even a single Protestant been known to have taken part in the Fenian conspiracy, or in any confederacy whatever against the laws and constitution of the country? Have they not, on the contrary, been among the most loyal of the Queen's subjects, the most zealous friends of the Union? Have they in any way wronged or oppressed their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects? Have they not rather courted association with them in the free enjoyment of that constitutional liberty that became the common right of all after the passing

  1601
  of the Belief Bill? And are they not, moreover, at this time the most peaceable, industrious, and enterprizing of the Irish people? The Protestant laity must be acquitted of having, upon any ground whatsoever, incurred the penalties with which you are about to visit them. What, then, is the case of the clergy? Have they been unfaithful to their mission of upholding the pure doctrines of the Gospel? Have they lent themselves to those Ritualistic practices that, in this country, have to so great an extent bridged the way over from the Reformed Church to the Church of Rome? If so, they have no claim upon the sympathy of a Protestant people. Have they been uncharitable, either in act or language, towards the Roman Catholics among whom they dwell? Have they been political agitators—leaders of mobs at elections? Have they countenanced crime, immorality, dishonesty, or the infringement of any laws, human or divine? If so, they have been unfaithful to their mission as a Christian ministry, and have justly incurred the condemnation of the country. But what is the fact? They have been eminently faithful in teaching and exemplifying a practical Christianity, as ministers of God's Word, alike in the pulpit, in the sick chamber, in the parochial walk; and in the school-room they have consistently maintained that sacred character, but especially in the work of education. When the Government discarded the Bible from the National school-room, they, with self-denying faithfulness, established and maintained out of their small means a system of Scriptural education of which thousands of poor Roman Catholics as well as Protestants to this day avail themselves, and without which the light to fruth must have become nearly extinct among the poorer classes in Ireland. They are not politically a powerful body; privation, persecution, and misrepresentation are trials that have in a large measure befallen them. But they are not a body to be looked down upon. Mr. Gladstone himself, no longer ago than last year, described them as—"a clergy claiming and well earning the name of an able, zealous, and pious clergy." Many of your Lordships who have not been in Ireland, I am sure, are aware that among the most eminent preachers of
  1602
  the Gospel in this country are Irish clergymen; and, not to look beyond the walls of this House, I may ask your Lordships whether the natives of my country, who occupy seats upon the Episcopal Bench, may not compare, at least upon equal terms, with their English Brethren, or with the lay Peers with whom they are associated? I will close my notice of the Irish Protestant clergy with a testimony which is more important, as it regards their usefulness among the poor in their own country—it is from an eye-witness, who cannot be charged with any partiality towards the Church. The witness I call was known in the last Parliament where he gave his evidence, as the Earl of Clarendon. Now he is known as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for which Office, I believe, no man is better fitted. His words were, addressing this House in the last Session of Parliament—
  "I have not lived so long in Ireland without having learnt to appreciate the signal virtues of the Irish clergy…. I know there are exceptions; but still the conduct of the Protestant clergy of Ireland, as a body, is most exemplary; to the extent of their small means they are very charitable; they are not distrusted by their Catholic neighbours; and their removal from the parishes in which they labour would give cause for much regret."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 2086.]
  It only remains for me now to give to your Lordships, with reference to what Her Majesty's Ministers have rightly designated as a Bill of Pains and Penalties brought against the Irish Established Church, the verdict of that Church's acquittal from the lips of Mr. Gladstone himself. These are his words—
  "It is in my opinion an exaggeration to make the Irish Established Church, in its present form, responsible for the great grievances of ascendancy, and of national estrangement in Ireland."
  It is asked then—What is the cause of all the evils of Ireland? I answer, from the proofs I have given—and also by Mr. Gladstone's own verdict—it is not the Irish Church. Perhaps it may be said it is the land. Well, if so, let the land question be well looked into. The landlords do not shrink from inquiry, and if wrong be found let the proper remedy be applied; but I believe that the cause of Ireland's evils is misgovernment. For the last half-century, especially since the Reform Bill, she has been constantly the battle-field of English parties contending for the mastery, and the interests of the country have

  1603
  been ever postponed to those of party. There has never been for any lengthened period a systematic endeavour to govern her upon the principles and in the spirit of the Constitution. Divided in religion, her religious differences, which ought to have been assuaged through the healing influences of the Belief Bill, have been constantly kept alive. The Protestant Church, which should have received countenance and encouragement in its mission of peace, has been constantly made to serve the ends of party—made the object of unmerited attack, and foul disparagement—chiefly within the walls of Parliament. Your Lordships are—most of you—familiar with the epithets, "unjust," "offensive," so unfairly levelled against it, and must have noticed how, even in the course of these debates, as if to widen the breach between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the Established Church has been denounced as a "badge of conquest," thereby harrowing up in the Roman Catholic mind every feeling of bitterness that the recollections of the civil war and bloody conflicts that resulted in the dethronement of James II. and the triumph of King William are wont to awaken. If the Government really desires to benefit Ireland, let them try the experiment of leaving her alone for a few years, to be governed under the existing laws, but with justice and impartiality. Let them give legitimate encouragement to develop the material resources of the country through the industry of its inhabitants. Let them cease to meddle with the affairs of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Churches. We have suffered too much from such meddling. It has been too much the wont of the Government to bid for political support at the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Of that body I will say nothing in disparagement. It consists of men of high order of ability, and exemplary in their faithfulness and devotion to the interests of their Church. But it is no part of the duty of a British Government to lay themselves out to advance the ecclesiastical power of Rome, and it has been of serious detriment to the best interests of Ireland. In courting the political support of the hierarchy, you have eliminated from your National schools the Bible, the corner stone of the Reformed faith; you have established a great seminary for the dissemination of Roman Catholic
  1604
  doctrine, and the establishment of Roman Catholic influence over the whole land. Your policy has been one of continual progress in that direction. You have proposed endowments for the Roman Catholic clergy; they have refused them. You have proposed seats in the House of Lords for Roman Catholic Prelates, and ere you had time to consider the proposition it was spurned by their accredited agent in this House. And soon your policy, I fear, is about to culminate in the final overthrow and extinction of the Protestant Church in Ireland. Truly it must be an edifying spectacle for all Christendom to behold Protestant England, so long the head of the Protestant nations of the world, now an abject courtier of Rome, and trampling upon her own Protestant institutions.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months. ")—(The Earl of Clancarty.)
  LORD LURGANsaid, though he had been for some time a Member of their Lordships' House, yet as he had never until then ventured to address them, he begged for their Lordships' kind indulgence whilst he made a few observations upon the Bill then before them. He wished, as an Irishman, to be allowed to express his grateful thanks to both sides of the House for the careful attention they had given to the subject, and the earnest desire they had shown to consult the wishes of the people of Ireland. While differing as to the means, he felt sure that they all aimed at the good of the country, and he believed the Irish people were grateful to both Houses for the disposition which they had manifested to listen to their wishes, and, as far as they were reasonable, to comply with them. An Irishman and an Episcopalian, he lived in a district in which there were between 6,000 and 7,000 members of the Established Church, and worshipped in a church where the average attendance was from 700 to 900, forming a congregation not to be surpassed in respectability or intelligence by any congregation in any part of the United Kingdom similarly circumstanced. Their spiritual wants were most satisfactorily ministered to by an estimable rector, who had lately been appointed archdeacon of the town, assisted by intelligent and self-denying curates; and

  1605
  he might be asked what more he could desire? While appreciating, however, the facilities afforded him of worshipping in a church supported by the State, he was bound to remember the first principles of Christianity, which inculcated the doing to others as we would be done by, and he could not forget that enormous numbers of his countrymen held different religious opinions. To determine whether the Irish Church should be continued in its present position, he must go beyond the precincts of his own parish or the limits of Ulster, and must ascertain the feeling of the majority of the people. Now, as an almost continuous resident in Ireland for fourteen out of the last sixteen years, he was bound to say that the current of public opinion had been distinctly in the direction of the present measure, and that there had been an unmistakable feeling that things could not continue on their present footing. He must go further, and say that the unfortunate disturbances which had occurred in the North of Ireland had been almost entirely due to disputes about Protestant ascendancy. The State had at different times endeavoured to legislate to put an end to those disturbances. Hence the temporary Party Processions Act in 1833 or 1834. After that came the unhappy conflict at Dolly's-brae, in the county of Down, in 1845, when a permanent Act was passed to prevent party processions. Next followed an unfortunate affair in the county of Armagh, which led to the Party Emblems Act being put in force, the object of which was to prevent the exhibition of party flags and emblems on church towers. The Act had been repealed, and now what was the consequence? On that very day, the 12th of July, on the towers of numerous churches in his neighbourhood in the North of Ireland, there were to be seen flags floating, which he knew to be a great cause of irritation to those who were not members of the Established Church. He was aware that some of their Lordships had a feeling that if that Bill became law, the Protestant religion would gradually die out and be supplanted by Roman Catholicism. He could quite understand and appreciate that consideration; but it appeared to him to be quite irrelevant on the present occasion. The simple question at issue was whether the Bill now before them for a third reading
  1606
  was necessary, whether it was just, and whether it would promote the objects which it professed to seek. To his mind, it clearly would promote those objects; and he, for one, certainly had no fear of the ultimate effect of the measure on the fate of Protestantism. The Protestants of Ireland were an active and energetic body; they were also the richer portion of the community; and he could not bear for a moment to think that the stigma ought to be applied to them that they could not do for their Church what the poorer portion of the community—the Roman Catholics—had long done for theirs—namely, support it for themselves. If, however, his anticipations in that respect should unfortunately not be realized, might they not count on their friends of the sister Church in England—many of whom grieved so deeply because the tie between the two Churches was about to be broken—might they not count, in their hour of need and adversity, on those friends not confining their sympathy to mere empty words, but coming forward with generous contributions to help the disestablished communion through its temporary difficulties? He wished to advert for a moment to the Amendment moved the other night by the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland). He did not know whether their Lordships had yet decided on the proper term to apply to that form of legislation. He would for the present simply call it a gratuitous giving away of money to those who had not desired it; and in making that remark he disclaimed the least wish in any way to disparage the noble Duke's proposal, which had commended itself to so many of their Lordships whose opinions were entitled to the highest respect. But he objected to the principle of that Amendment on these three grounds. He objected to it in the first place—and in this he was perhaps singular—because he was opposed to any of the funds of the disestablished and disendowed Church going to any religious body, and would wish, if he had his own way in that matter, that they should be devoted to secular purposes in Ireland. He objected to it also because the been was not desired on the part of those to whom it was proposed to be given. There was an old adage that "what is worth having is worth asking for;" and they in Ireland

  1607
  were not generally backward or shy in making known their wishes. Their Lordships might, therefore, take it for granted that had that remedy of glebe-houses and ten acres of land been regarded as a panacea for all their ills, their Lordships would have heard it put forward in a clear and emphatic manner, either by the people themselves or by their representatives in "another place." Not only, however, had there been no manifestations in favour of that principle, but he might say there had been a clear and emphatic pronouncement against it. The noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) who spoke on the subject the other night for his own religionists, the Roman Catholics, had since written to The Times to explain that the feelings he had expressed on that occasion were the feelings of the National Association. But it should be remembered that among the members of that Association were Bishops, priests, and laymen of the Roman Catholic Church, whose opinions were entitled to great respect. Then, what were the feelings of the Presbyterians? Why, at a meeting of their General Assembly, held not very long ago—the very largest General Assembly, he believed, which they had ever held, both of ministers and elders (or representatives of the laity)—the Presbyterians agreed that in the event of any proposal being made by statesmen inconsistent with the testimony which that Church had uniformly borne against the endowment of error, the Committee be instructed as heretofore to maintain such testimony unimpaired, and to offer to any proposal of such a kind a most strenuous opposition. Then what did the Episcopal Church in Ireland say to the proposal? At the conference of its clergy and laity, held in April last, a resolution was moved by a certain Mr. Hamilton—a gentleman of the North of Ireland—distinctly repudiating what was commonly known as the "levelling up" system. Several influential gentlemen, opposed to Mr. Hamilton's resolution, moved the previous question, but that resolution was adopted by a large majority as the opinion of the Conference. Under those circumstances, he ventured to hope that their Lordships would not refuse to give due consideration to the feelings of the country on that subject, and that the Government would adhere in that House, and in "another place,"
  1608
  strictly to the principles of the Bill. It was true that by giving way they might gain some temporary and lukewarm support, but they would shock and diminish the confidence of their genuine and sincere supporters, who, like himself, believed that this Bill would do incalculable good in Ireland. He ventured also to think the day was not so very far distant, perhaps, when it would be an admitted fact that the promoter of that Bill, in bringing it under the consideration of Parliament, had proved himself to be an honest, manly, and prescient statesman.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: As upon the second reading of this Bill I had an opportunity of expressing my opinions at considerable length, I will trespass only for a very short time on your Lordships at present. On the second reading having expressed, as I felt it my duty to do, my decided opposition to the main principles of the Bill, I have, through the discussions in Committee, confined myself almost exclusively to giving a silent vote in favour of those Amendments which appeared to me calculated, in some degree, to mitigate and soften the severity and harshness of the measure. But, my Lords, my objection is not to details; it is to the whole principle of the Bill, which is founded upon disestablishment and disendowment. I object to both. Your Lordships in this House may have introduced Amendments to mitigate, in some degree, the pressure on the clergy, though hardly at all upon the laity; but you have introduced none which interfere with the main principles and object of the Bill. As for disestablishment, it remains immediate and entire; as for disendowment, it remains not immediate but near in the future. Now, setting aside that provision for the temporary interests of individuals, which Her Majesty's Government from the first stated it was their intention to respect—after providing for these temporary interests, there remains to the Church at the outside a sum not exceeding £3,000,000, even if your Lordships' Amendments should be adopted in their entirety by the House of Commons—a sum which would yield for the Protestant population of Ireland an annual income not greater than that which is possessed in their private capacity by many Members of your Lordships' House, and by many outside these walls. The whole amount that these £3,000,000, accord-

  1609
  ing to the ordinary calculations of interest, would yield to the clergy as a body would not be more than £90,000 or £100,000; and when it is said that £9,000,000 will be left to the Church according to some, £ 11,000,000 according to others, and three-fifths of its entire income, according to the First Minister of the Crown, I believe, with the exception of personal interests, no such thing would be left to the Church according to the Bill as introduced by the Government, and little or nothing by the Bill as amended by your Lordships' House, except a miserable pittance wholly insufficient for the well-being of the Church or the high and holy purposes which the Church has to fulfil. I said I was not going to argue the subject now, nor will I enter with the noble Lord (Lord Lurgan) into the question of concurrent endowment, which he called throwing the money away, by giving it to those who did not ask for it. Had not the noble Lord been so long in waiting, I think that discussion on that point might have been postponed until raised by the Amendment of the noble Earl behind me (Earl Stanhope). I abstain, therefore, altogether from discussing the policy of concurrent endowment, or throwing away the money. But I did not rise to argue on the principle of the Bill, but simply for the purpose of saying that, as my objections extend not merely to the details, but to the principle, they have not been in the slightest degree removed by the alterations made by your Lordships' House, even if they should be acceded to by the House of Commons. If, therefore, my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Clancarty) perseveres in dividing the House on the third reading, feeling as I do entirely opposed to the Bill both in its principles and details, and desirous of solemnly recording my protest against the whole principle of the measure, I shall feel compelled to vote in favour of the Amendment of my noble Friend. At the same time, if he will allow me to offer the advice of a very sincere Friend, I would recommend him not to go to a division; because, in the first place, it would give a very erroneous impression to the public of the disposition and character of your Lordships' House; and, in the next place, it would be very difficult for those noble Lords who supported the second reading, with the view of introducing
  1610
  Amendments, to join him in opposing the third reading. Therefore, while entirely agreeing with my noble Friend in the objections he takes to the measure, and desirous of seeing it rejected, and rejected by the country as well as by Parliament, I think it would be impolitic for him, on the present occasion, to risk a division. I should much prefer that this Bill, with the Amendments introduced by your Lordships, should be sent down to the House of Commons, and if there Her Majesty's Government take upon themselves to reject the very moderate and reasonable Amendments which have been introduced, and especially if your Lordships remain firm, as I trust you will,—if they refuse the fair and reasonable terms which your Lordships' offer, and if the Bill which the Government profess such a desire to pass be lost, the responsibility will rest with them and not your Lordships' House.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, if the Bill had remained as it was upon the passing the second reading in that House, believing it to be a just, wise, and beneficial measure, he would have voted for the third reading without any misgiving whatever. He could not add that he would vote for it with those feelings of delight with which many were enabled to support it. It was a painful process to separate man and wife, or to cut off a man's limb, though it might be just and beneficial. He wished he could say that he felt no misgiving as to the results which the measure was expected to produce. Looking to the next great question of the land, and to the history of Ireland for the last forty years, he could not feel any very confident anticipations as to the effect of the measure in promoting peace and satisfaction among the Irish people, No anticipations of that kind could have been stronger than were entertained, in 1829, on the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and yet not many in that House could say that those anticipations had been realized. Now a few
  words as to the disposal of the surplus. He said on a former occasion that he entirely approved the principle of concurrent endowment, and at that time he trusted to see something of the kind embodied in this measure. But he could not think there was any sacrilege in the way in which it was proposed to dispose of the surplus. Sacrilege was a

  1611
  question solely of principle and depended in no respect on degree, and it should be remembered that some centuries ago B great proportion of the land of this country—some good authorities said one-half—was applied to sacred uses. Now, it would be a reductio ad ahsurdum to say that the property so appropriated should remain devoted for ever to pious and sacred uses. But still, as tending to make the measure more acceptable, he did think it would be a good thing that the property of the disendowed Church should be applied as nearly as possible, on the principle of cy près, to the purposes to which it had been applied hitherto. He held that to object to give any part of the surplus to the Roman Catholics was the essence of bigotry. But last year it was universally agreed that that was inadmissible. It was understood ex concesso that it should not be given to the Presbyterians nor to the Roman Catholics, and it remained to be considered what was to be done with the surplus. He wished to say now that no part of the Bill appeared to him more satisfactory than the application it proposed of the surplus to temporal works of mercy. Those objects which had been called "luxuries of the poor" seemed to him as nearly as possible connected with the direct services of religion to which the funds had been formerly applied. The suggestion that they should be so applied was first made by a distinguished dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church, Archbishop Manning, in a pamphlet addressed, if he mistook not, to the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey). In that pamphlet Dr. Manning said—"The Roman Catholics do not want it; they will not take it; give it to the poor." Upon seeing the proposal he wrote to Archbishop Manning, asking him to put the matter more in detail than he had done. He could not discover any evidence of a change of opinion in the country upon the subject; and though he himself should still have much preferred that the funds should be equally divided among the different religious bodies, and the least instalment in that direction would be acceptable to him, yet as this principle of concurrent endowment was to be given up, he fully concurred in the appropriation of the surplus to the pious uses specified by the Bill as it stood.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he could not admit the right of their Lordships to adopt the principle upon which the Bill was founded. He should divide with the noble Earl who had moved that the Bill be read three months hence, because that course would be tantamount to kicking the Bill out of the House. If their Lordships met simply as a debating society for the purpose of making eloquent displays he would have been the first to award them his meed of praise; but eloquence was one thing and honour another; and he would say—Cease the House! Perish England! rather than the line of honour should be departed from, and the interests of religion and truth sacrificed. How was it possible their Lordships could dispose of the oath they had taken under the 19th chap. of the 29th of the Queen? Was this to follow the Coronation Oath and the Treaty of the Act of Union? Were their Lordships going to relieve themselves from taxation by purloining the property of the Church? If their Lordships received a proposal from Mr. Gladstone to establish Mahommedanism as the most approved religion, would they discuss it with the same energy and display the same eloquence over it as they had exhibited with reference to this Bill? There was no distinction between the principle of the two questions; they both rested upon the broad basis of religious equality. By the same rule as prompted the supporters of this Bill to rob the Protestant Church others equally regardless of honour might rob the Roman Catholic Church. He must remark that the debate on the second reading was almost entirely monopolized by noble Lords residing in that part of the United Kingdom called England; he protested in the strongest manner against such noble Lords monopolizing to themselves the privilege of governing Ireland, and teaching Irishmen what were and what were not their interests. He maintained that the Bill was a robbery of the people, and, notwithstanding all arguments to the contrary, it could end only in injury and discouragement to the people. It was immaterial what course was taken by the House below; it was their Lordships' duty to stand round the Throne, and in every way to support Her Majesty in maintaining the oath she took at her coronation.
  THE BISHOP OF TUAMsaid, that if the noble Earl should divide the House it would afford him the greatest possible satisfaction to vote with him. The most important question which the Bill involved was that of disestablishment. With respect to that question he could not forget that in the only Christian country where an. attempt had been made to disconnect religion from the State—namely, France, during the Revolution—the most disastrous consequences had followed. He wished, therefore, however vain it was, to protest against disestablishment. Furthermore, he desired to protest against Government taking away property from the Church which clearly and legally belonged to that Church. It was given to the Church by the pledge of the national faith, upon the condition that she should teach the Reformed religion to the people of Ireland; and she had most faithfully discharged her part of the obligation. The most grievous injustice would be
  committed by the Bill, for the vested rights of the laity had been entirely overlooked. And not only would gross injustice be perpetrated in this
  direction, but the cheeseparing which had occurred would do great injustice to the poor incumbents. An attempt had been made in Committee to get better terms for these incumbents, but it failed. He hoped, however, that Government would yet take their undoubted claims into consideration, and do something to relieve them from what would otherwise be a very unfortunate position. Out of the 1,500 clergymen belonging to the Irish Church no less than 681 were men in the receipt of very small salaries. In his own diocese, for example, about one-third of the incumbents had only £100 a year, and a large number only £200. Now, the average area of the parishes was upwards of 34,000 acres, and considering the physical exertion thus required from the clergymen, the necessity they were under of keeping a horse, and the various other claims upon their pecuniary resources, it would be seen that they were in a very poor condition, and could have very little left for the education of their children. He himself knew of the case of one clergyman whose parish was almost as large as the whole county of Dublin, whose income was only £170 per annum, and who, though he was a most earnest and painstaking minister, and
  1614
  had been in the ministry for a period of twenty-seven years, was only able to provide, on a very limited scale, for the wants of his family. That clergyman had always looked forward to preferment to rescue him from his difficulties; but all prospect of this had been most effectually cut off by the Bill. That being so, and seeing that the giving of further compensation to the poorer incumbents would not be opposed to the principles upon which the Bill was framed, he hoped that the Government would seriously take the matter into its consideration.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that looking to the position the House had already taken on this question, as was shown by the votes recorded on the second reading, he felt that no practical result would be obtained by dividing the House now, and therefore, in deference to the appeal of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  The original Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that a number of Peers wished to record a Protest against the third reading of the Bill, and, according to the Order of the House, such a Protest should be entered before two o'clock to-morrow. As this was an important question, and many noble Lords were desirous of appending their names to the Protest, he asked that the time for entering a Protest might be extended to two o'clock on Thursday.
  EARL GRANVILLE, on the part of the Government, assented to the request.
  THE EARL OF DEVON, in rising to move an Amendment to strike out from Clause 13 the words which gave the Irish Prelates the right to retain their seats in the House of Lords, said: My Lords, I shall only trouble you for a few moments with respect to the Amendment which stands upon the Paper in my name. But before addressing myself more immediately to the question in hand, perhaps I may be permitted to express the reluctance which I feel in dealing with a matter which in one aspect, at

  1615
  least, assumes something of a personal character, more especially towards a right rev. Prelate for whom I entertain feelings of the greatest respect. I have also to regret that in bringing forward my Amendment I should have the misfortune to differ very considerably from a number of those with whom, under ordinary circumstances, I generally act most cordially. But I feel that the question which I am about to bring under your Lordships' notice is one which makes it incumbent upon me to set aside all private considerations and deal with this matter solely upon public grounds. My Amendment proposes to deal with Clause 13, and it seeks to omit from that clause the words which were inserted during the Committee upon the Bill on the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) and the object of which is to secure to the existing Prelates of the Irish Church the right to be summoned to, and sit in, the House of Lords after the passing of the measure which we are now discussing. The Amendment in favour of this proposal was accepted by the noble Earl the Leader of the Government in this House, and your Lordships had consequently no opportunity of expressing your opinion upon the matter. Had such an opportunity been available I should have felt it my duty to vote against the proposition of the noble Earl. Not having been able to do so I have thought it right to give your Lordships another opportunity of expressing your opinion, more especially as I think it not improbable that many of your Lordships may agree with the course which I now see fit to pursue. So far as the disestablishment of the Irish Church is concerned, your Lordships, I may say, have practically recognized, it, both because you carried the second reading of the Bill, and because none of the many Amendments which have been moved had any reference whatever to the question of disestablishment. I am not therefore, I think, wrong in assuming that your Lordships, however reluctantly, have accepted the principle of disestablishment. That being so, it is, in my estimation, a very strong reason why the right rev. Prelates should not continue any longer to retain seats which they have hitherto held only in consequence of their Church being established. Another reason in favour of the change I am advocating is the fact
  1616
  of these Irish Bishops sitting only by rotation, and according to a different system to that upon which the other occupants of the Episcopal Bench sit. That appears to me to be a proof that those seats cannot be considered to be permanent, and that, when the Church is disestablished, they should no longer be retained. It will be seen at once how inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill, and how inconvenient as a precedent it would be that there should sit in your Lordships' House the representatives of a religious community whose connection with the State is no longer recognized by law. Another strong reason why your Lordships should accept my Amendment is, that by conceding the privilege given by the words which I propose to strike out to the representatives of the Established Church we shall be regarded as perpetuating the principle of what is called ascendancy, which the Bill professes to do its utmost to abolish. I have still another reason to urge. Your Lordships have passed many important Amendments, with most of which I cordially concur; but it is idle for us to conceal from ourselves that these Amendments, in many respects, run counter to the spirit of the Bill as it was sent up to us. These Amendments will undergo a most searching, if not a hostile criticism in the other House of Parliament, and I believe that the particular Amendment, which I am now seeking to remove from the Bill, is very likely to prevent the other House from accepting some of the others. The consideration of the whole of the Amendments will, I hope, result in a fair, temperate, and judicious compromise. I still entertain the hope that the judgment and moderation of Parliament on both sides will result in such a modification of the Amendments as will be found to be within the scope of the principle of the Bill. I confess, my Lords, that I still have hopes of this question being settled, and I think the step I am now taking is one in this direction.
  Amendment moved, in line 5, to leave out from ("Church") to ("shall") in line 6.—(The Earl of Devon.)
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that having been unable on a former occasion, through the forms of the House, to address their Lordships upon the Amend-

  1617
  ment he had proposed upon this clause, he wished to point out that it was entirely free from the objections which the noble Earl (the Earl of Devon) had raised to the Amendment which he now asked their Lordships to omit from the clause. The noble Earl had stated that as the principle of the Bill involved the disestablishment of the Irish Church, the Bishops of that Church should not be permitted to retain their seats in their Lordships' House. He had no objection whatever to the omission of the words objected to by the noble Earl, provided the Amendment which he (Lord Redesdale) had given notice of was substituted for them. He had no wish that the Archbishops and Bishops of the Irish Church should sit in that House as such, but he objected to a disfranchising clause being sent to this House from the Commons, under which certain of its Members were to be deprived of their seats. Their Lordships should not allow any of their Members to be deprived of their seats from no fault of their own, and, therefore, he proposed to substitute for the words which the noble Earl had moved to omit an Amendment under which the present Archbishops and Bishops of the Irish Church would be permitted to retain their seats during life, being personally summoned to successive Parliaments in the same order and precedence as they had been before, but providing, as would be necessary, that such summons should not confer any hereditary right of peerage. He wished that it should be clearly understood that he looked upon the question as one affecting the rights and privileges of their Lordships' House, and not as one connected with the disestablishment of the Irish Church.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, that no doubt it was competent to Parliament to maintain the right of the Irish Bishops to seats in their Lordships' House; but if those right rev. Prelates continued to sit in that House after the passing of this Bill it was impossible they could sit as Bishops, because their bishoprics would have been destroyed. When their baronies were destroyed, as they would be by this Bill, they could no longer sit there as they had been accustomed to sit. Whatever position they would have in their Lordships' House would be one of a new kind—one not hitherto known to the Constitution.
  1618
  Their Lordships bad been asked whether they would disfranchise the Irish Bishops. What was the franchise of those right rev. Prelates in that House? The franchise of each of them was his barony, and that barony being destroyed by this Bill, the Bishops' franchise was destroyed with it. What was now proposed would be a legislative phenomenon. It was proposed to give a rotary, a revolving, and intermittent right to a number of learned, pious, and erudite individuals to sit in that House; but, as regarded certain of those Prelates, that right would hereafter become a fixed one. A given number of them were to have seats during the lives of the existing Bishops; as long as there remained a sufficient number of them that right would be enjoyed by rotation; but, inasmuch as vacancies could not be filled up by other Bishops, and inasmuch as the common enemy would do his work among Bishops as well as among other mortals, the intermittent right would ultimately become, by a sort of tontine, a fixed one for certain individuals. That would be an extension of the privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed. Of course, everyone would like to go as far as possible in preserving the rights and privileges and social advantages of individuals; but, it must be remembered, that no great change could be effected without a certain amount of personal loss and inconvenience which were beyond compensation, and he thought their Lordships ought to consider this matter well before they refused to restore the clause to its original shape.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OP CANTERBURYsaid, it would be ridiculous in him to attempt to argue the legal question with the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down; but he thought justice required that the seats of the Irish Bishops should be preserved, and if justice did require it the noble and learned Lords in the House ought to be able to devise a mode of removing any legal objections to what was proposed. It seemed to him that the argument of the noble and learned Lord contained a fallacy. The barony of each Bishop was dissolved by the 13th clause; but it was dissolved with the condition that as long as the existing Bishops lived they should have seats by rotation in their Lordships' House. With regard to the privilege itself, it might or might not be a

  1619
  great one; but by words in the clause certain other rights and privileges connected with the barony were secured to those who at present enjoyed them. If the argument of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance) were a good one all these other rights and privileges were destroyed with the barony, and it was an anomaly to introduce words to preserve them. Those Bishops might be called Bishops of the disestablished Church, but they had been appointed to their high office by the Sovereign of this realm, and therefore they were in quite a different position from that which would be occupied by their successors. He thought that justice and common sense required that the existing Bishops of the Irish Church should be left in possession of the seats they had hitherto enjoyed in their Lordships' House.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he believed it would be contrary to all the principles of the Constitution to deprive those Prelates of the right to sit in that House.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had consented to the introduction of the words by which the Irish Bishops would be still entitled to sit in their Lordships' House. His noble Friend had expressed a desire to hear the opinions of noble Lords upon the subject, which he described as one of no great importance, and finding that the clause as it stood was not warmly supported, his noble Friend had not called for a division; but when the Question as to the insertion of the words was put the Members of the Government present said, "Not content." Things were not in the same condition now. The Motion now before their Lordships had
  been moved by a noble Earl on the Opposition side of the House, and one who was known to be friendly towards the Irish Bishops. As had been so well pointed out by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance), if the Irish Bishops continued to sit in their Lordships' House after the passing of this Bill they would sit there on a tenure such as had never given any other person a seat in that House. They would not sit as Bishops, but as rotary life Peers, though their Lordships had within the last few days rejected a Bill which would have authorized the creation of life Peers. If an English Bishop resigned his see he
  1620
  did not retain his seat in their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: But the new Bishop sits in his place.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON: No doubt the new Bishop sat, but he sat as a Spiritual Peer and in right of the barony attached to his see. The course which their Lordships had taken before on this question deserved re-consideration, because it established an anomaly hitherto unheard of in the tenure of seats in this House. The Prelates sitting here would sit, not as Spiritual Peers, but as Temporal Peers, owing to the circumstances that they were once Spiritual Peers of the Irish Church. He did not think the claims of justice required that the clause should pass, and for his own part he hoped it would not become law.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he hoped their Lordships would adhere to the Amendment which, after full deliberation, they had adopted on a former evening. The whole of this Bill was a novelty, and an anomaly greater than any that ever was before known in this country, and it was rather strange, therefore, that the whole of the argument of the noble Earl (Earl de Grey and Ripon) was that this provision in the Bill was full of anomaly. No doubt the Government were not pledged on this question; but in Committee when the clause was altered, though the Leader of the House said "Not content," he offered no strenuous opposition—indeed no opposition at all—to the Amendment. Very likely after the Bill became law, if it did become law, the Irish Prelates might be little inclined to continue to sit here. But, unless the desire came from themselves, it was the duty of the House, in accordance with the whole principle on which the Bill was founded, to maintain during the lives of the Irish Bishops the rights and privileges which they now possessed. He did not agree with his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Penzance) as to the tenure even of the Bishops of the English Church—namely, that they sat by virtue of their baronies. But that never was true with regard to the Irish Bishops, who sat in this House under an express Parliamentary provision, and not by virtue of any writ summoning them as holding a barony. It was said that the Church was to be disestablished and that the necessary consequences of

  1621
  disestablishment was that the Bishops should no longer sit here. But there was a fallacy in this argument, for the majority of the House had resolved, not on an absolute disestablishment, but to disestablish the Irish Church, preserving all rights, privileges, and advantages belonging to the present holders of offices in the Church. That being so, the simple question they had to ask was, whether the privilege of being summoned to a seat in this House was one of the advantages which at present attached to the Prelates of the Church of Ireland? He did not mean to say that they sat here for their own benefit or advantage, or to support their own views. They sat to discharge a great public trust; but it was at the same time one of the advantages—and by no means an inconsiderable advantage—of their position as Prelates of the Church; and this position was entirely altered if, without their consent, their right of sitting here was taken away. He did not believe that any irritation would ensue "elsewhere" if the clause were retained. If new Prelates were thereby introduced, it might be objected to; but he did not believe that any person could feel irritation because this House resolved to pie-serve to life holders their present interests; and until he heard from the Irish Bishops that they wished to be relieved from Parliamentary duties, he should support the clause in its present form.
  THE EARL of CARNARVONsaid, he did not think the question was of that first-class importance which belonged to another question presently to be considered; but he was anxious to state in a few words the point of view from which it struck him. It was perfectly true, as the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had argued, that the Bill saved existing rights, but it saved them by granting compensation, and it happened, unfortunately, that the right now under discussion did not admit of a money compensation. He objected to the clause as it stood, because the House had, rightly or wrongly, accepted the principle of disestablishment, and because, if there was one outward visible sign of Establishment, it was the presence of Prelates in this House. If, therefore, the Irish Bishops were maintained here, what was it but saying in so many words that
  1622
  after the substance was gone their Lordships would insist on retaining the shadow? Again, he thought that in the interests of the Church it would be a great mistake to insist on retaining the Bishops in this House. If the Bill provided for their appearance here, it indirectly put a moral pressure upon them to be present. But for the next few years there would be numberless questions in Ireland with regard to the future of the Irish Church, and it would be the height of inconsistency and imprudence to induce these Prelates to quit the sphere of duty which was specially marked out for them—to remove them from a spot where their counsels might be of invaluable assistance, and ask them, the heads of the Irish Church, to come over and sit in this House where they no longer had functions to discharge, where they represented no one, and could not even be said to represent the Church which was disestablished.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to direct their Lordships' attention to the point as to how far it would be consistent with the customs and privileges of their Lordships' House that the singular anomaly now contained in the Bill, and which the noble Earl's Amendment would get rid of, should be established for the first time. The first clause of the Bill disestablished the Church—finally, completely, and utterly disestablished it—and another clause dissolved these ecclesiastical corporations. Now, as to the precise position of the Prelates in this House, with respect to which there had been much discussion"; the better opinion was that of Chief Justice Hale, who said they were not here simply upon their consecration, or by virtue of their baronies, or by prescription, because the Prelates of the four sees created by Henry VIII. were at once summoned to that House, but by custom and usage of Parliament in virtue of their incorporation and dignity. That incorporation they had put an end to, and there could, therefore, be nothing more singular than the kind of peerage established by the Bill as it now stood. It could not be said that those Peers would be Peers Spiritual, nor that, on any ordinary principle, they were Peers Temporal. Indeed, he did not know how anybody was to describe that species of peerage. He had hoped that those right rev. Prelates, when all their political and

  1623
  temporal functions had gone, when the only result of their sitting there would be to withdraw them from their dioceses, where they had the high spiritual function of building up the disestablished Church in Ireland to perform, would have thought it a serious grievance to any man in their position to be distracted—as the late Archbishop Whately, although, under different circumstances, complained that he was distracted—by being called away from his diocese to sit in that House.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?—their Lordships divided:—Contents 82; Not-Contents 108: Majority 26.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Ely, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Ailsa, M.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Cairns, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Churston, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Bantry, K.

  Colchester, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Colville of Culroas, L. [Teller.]

  Cadogan, E.

  Derby, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Denman, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  De Saumarez, L.

  Digby, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Kellie, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Grinstead, L.(E. Enniskillen.)

  Morton, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Nelson, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Headley, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Saltoun, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Gough, V.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Sinclair, L.

  Melville, V.

  Sondes, L.

  1624

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Cleveland, D.

  Devonshire, D.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath)

  Saint Albans, D.

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

  Sutherland, D.

  Wellington, D.

  Clermont, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Bath, M.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Delamere, L.

  Normanby, M.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Winchester, M.

  De Tabley, L.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Foley, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Cottenham, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard)

  Cowley, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Harris, L.

  De Grey. E.

  Hatherton, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Keane, L.

  Devon, E. [Teller]

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Ducie, E.

  Durham, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Granville, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Grey, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Lucan, E.

  Monson, L.

  Minto, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Morley, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Russell, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Penzance, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Petre, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

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

  Eversley, V.

  Romilly, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Hood, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Seaton, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Suffield, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll)

  Bateman, L.

  Belper, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Templemore, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL STANHOPE, in moving an Amendment in Clause 28 (Enactments with respect to ecclesiastical residences), said—My Lords, in moving the addition to the clause which I am about to propose, I am anxious to explain that I do so not solely on my own responsibility, but in concert with and at the request of some of the most eminent Members of your Lordships' House. But although I am acting in part at the request of others, I must add that I never rose with a clearer conviction that the course I advocate is a just and right one. I am calling on your Lordships to affirm the policy planned by Mr. Pitt, and since his time more or less explicitly avowed by almost every statesman of eminence in this country. That policy was first stated by Mr. Pitt in his well-known letter to the King, of January, 1801, the immediate precursor of his retirement from Office. In that letter he stated that it would be most desirable that the Roman Catholic priest of Ireland should receive some part of his provision from the public funds. But did Mr. Pitt say that this involved any sacrifice of principle, any renunciation of our Protestant views? On the contrary, he recommended it "as a most important additional security, of which the effect would continually increase." And herein I may say in passing lies, I think, one main merit of this proposal at the present time. Its effect would not be instant or immediate, but it would go on increasing for the public good from month to month and from year to year. But, my Lords, not only is the proposal of Mr. Pitt to the King well worthy attention, but its reception also by the King. You are aware that George the Third steadily opposed all concessions of civil rights to the Roman Catholics, and sooner than yield those claims he sacrificed his Minister, and I believe would have sacrificed his Crown. But he stated then that, wholly as he abhorred the concession of civil rights to the Roman Catholics, he fully and unreservedly admitted that some provision should be made for their clergy. Surely that is a circumstance of no slight moment, considering how highly the opinions of George the Third are still esteemed and valued by persons professing high Protestant tenets. I will not detain the House by going through all the phases of this question, from the time of Mr.
  1626
  Pitt to the present; but I may observe that in Ireland there have been from time to time indications on the part of Protestants of a conciliatory and far-sighted spirit towards their Roman Catholic brethren. The Dean of Westminster, in a very able pamphlet, gives this remarkable fact, that when the first Roman Catholic chapel was founded in the town of Derry, the Protestants Bishop of that place was one of the principal subscribers. He also quoted some words of Dr. Law, Bishop of Elphin, spoken in 1790, which are especially deserving your attention—
  "Since," he said, "I am unable to make the peasants about me good Protestants, I wish to make them good Catholics, good citizens—good anything. I have therefore circulated among them some of the best of their own authors."
  I say that is the spirit in which we ought to legislate in respect to Ireland. In the progress of this measure we have been sometimes met by the assertion that this proposal would not accord with the wishes of the Roman Catholic Prelates in Ireland, but I rejoice that very recently the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Denbigh) took occasion to remove an erroneous impression which in a moment of misconception he had created, and it now appears that nobody at all entitled to speak the sentiments of the Roman Catholic Prelates has declared against the proposal which I have now the honour to submit. But, even if such an opinion had been given, I must confess that I never looked upon this question as one of treaty or compact with the Roman Catholics. In the first place, it is a question which concerns the Roman Catholic laity fully as much as the Roman Catholic clergy, since it is obvious that if we are allowed to provide in any manner for the Roman Catholic clergy from public sources, it proportionately lessens the weight upon the Roman Catholic laity. But, above all, I think the merit of the proposal lies in this, that it is absolutely without pledge or condition. They may leave it alone, but if they take it, it is free from every sort of condition except this—to keep in repair the houses you are to build for them, and in like manner to keep in cultivation the lands you may annex to their dwellings. But, besides, I must say that I think in Ireland, of all countries, you cannot expect at the outset an immediate indication on the part of the Roman Catholics of a readiness to

  1627
  accept overtures of this kind. And here I would remind you of the words of a very eminent man whose loss we all, on more than one trying occasion, have had reason to deplore. Sir George Lewis has said—
  "In Ireland, far more than in England, improvement and civilization must proceed from above: they will not rise spontaneously from the inward workings of the community."
  These, I think, are wise words. Depend upon it if you wish to do good in Ireland, you must take the initiative; yours must be the hand to impel, and not the foot to follow. I will certainly not deny that in Ulster a large majority of Protestants are opposed to any concessions to the Roman Catholics, but I must say, as coming within my own knowledge from communications I have received, that this feeling has been greatly lesened from the desire of the Presbyterians to avail themselves of the same stipulations, because it has been manifest that if they desire to have this been they must be prepared to extend it to the Roman Catholics. But, as regards the other three provinces of Ireland, though, as was truly said, we are not to expect any initiatory proceeding from them, there is, as I believe, a general wish that this proposal should receive your approbation. Now, the real question is this—is Ireland to be governed according to the wishes of the Irish people, or according to the wishes of the Scotch Presbyterians and English Nonconformists? In the former case, I call upon you to accept the present proposal. In the latter you may, no doubt, be disposed to reject it. Now, I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the feelings of Scotch Presbyterians and English Dissenters even when it seems to me that there is little of reason on their side. The Presbyterians and Nonconformists who argue the point make it out in a manner quite satisfactory to themselves. They say—" Protestant principles are sound and true; those of the Roman Catholics are erroneous, and the State is to blame if it does the least thing or contributes in the smallest degree to the maintenance of erroneous principles instead of sound ones." But there is a fallacy which underlies this argument, which is, that you have not the choice of instructing the people between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant faith, because the people will not receive Pro-
  1628
  testant instruction, and the choice is between Catholic instruction and none at all. My Lords, it is instructive to view how foreign nations contemplate our acts, and I dare say many of your Lordships have read in The Times of this morning a very able letter, signed only with an initial, which gives an account of a striking essay bearing on the question now before us in the Revue des deux Mondes. As I had recently read that essay it is probable I should have referred your Lordships to it even had that notice not appeared in The Times this morning. The essay, written by M. Emile de Laveleye, a writer of great eminence, discusses the principle which should regulate the position of a clergy, and states that there are three systems which might be adopted with regard to them. In the first place the priests might be left entirely dependent on the free-will offerings of their flocks as in Ireland; secondly, a salary might be given them by the State, as in France; and, thirdly, a sufficient demesne might be set apart in each parish for the benefit of the priest. After discussing these three systems, M. de Laveleye declares that the first two have not been sufficiently successful for adoption, and gives his decided adhesion to the third. The true system, he says, would be to incorporate the congregations of each parish, vesting in them a limited demesne as glebe. This I know to be also the wish of many practical men among ourselves most conversant for many years with Irish affairs. Now, before I say a word to show how the plan I advocate would be a benefit to the Roman Catholic priests, I wish you to see how greatly it would benefit the disestablished Church. It was strikingly shown in the evidence brought before the Church Commission that in many parishes in Ireland the Protestant clergy are unprovided with parsonage houses and glebes. The diocese of Down and Connor, which is beyond all question the most populous as far as Protestants are concerned, has more than fifty parishes in which there are no glebes; the next diocese in order of importance as regards Protestant population is the diocese of Armagh, and that has more than twenty parishes without glebes. Surely, then, when the Church is disestablished and placed upon the same footing as the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches, it will not

  1629
  be undesirable to remedy this defect by applying to it the new footing of equality. Supposing these parishes to be as I have stated, and as I believe them to be, with hundreds and thousands of Protestants, without residences for their clergy, surely we are, upon that footing of equality, entitled to ask that out of the surplus these residences shall be provided. As to the other point—the giving of residences to the priests—I submit to your Lordships that it has always been held to be most desirable if possible to connect the Roman Catholic clergy with the land of Ireland, and thus establish a kinder feeling than now prevails in many cases between the priests and Irish proprietors. I listened with the greatest interest to the remarkable speech delivered the other night by my noble Friend (Lord Taunton), who, I regret to say, is prevented from remaining here this evening through indisposition. Your Lordships will remember what a touching picture he drew of the scenes he witnessed during the time of the famine of 1846, when he acted as Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of that day. He described how Protestant and Roman Catholic clergymen were admitted side by side into his office to plead with a common voice for their suffering parishioners; and we must all agree that it would be well if that unanimity were not confined merely to periods of calamity and destitution, but could be as it were continuous, and that Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy were always found working hand in hand for the improvement of the condition of the people of Ireland. How can this be done? Surely you cannot expect this desirable state of things to follow unless you put the two bodies on a position of absolute equality. It cannot follow if, after this attempt at reform, the Protestant clergyman after the spiritual labours of the day is seen to retire to a comfortable house, and the Romish priest, in many cases, has to betake himself only to a mud cabin. Can you expect equality of feeling and common action to result from such a state of things? My Lords, the Bill as it now stands merely demolishes the old system, and I call upon you to re-model what you destroy. Do not be content with the demolition the Bill will bring about, but strive to lay the foundation of another system which will be acceptable to many
  1630
  on this side of the House, as the best substitute for a system they would, had the choice been theirs, prefer to retain intact. Now, my Lords, I will call your attention to the course taken by the late Sir Robert Peel on two memorable occasions resembling this. The contrast will not weigh heavily in the estimation of some of your Lordships, who owe no special allegiance to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, but, perhaps, there are some of the present Ministers who stand in a different relation to him. In 1828, when the Roman Catholic question was at issue, Sir Robert Peel came to the conclusion, contrary, to his supporters, that it was necessary for the public welfare, if not for public safety, and even to avert a possible war, that concessions should be made to the Roman Catholics. He was aware that concession was unpopular with the greater part of his supporters and the majority of the constituencies that returned high Protestant Members but he thought it was nobler to do what he considered to be a benefit to his country than to study how he might most surely retain power in his own hands. Perseverance carried him through the immediate question, but not the results of that question in the minds of his followers; and, in the ensuing year, he was expelled from Office. Again, in 1845, Sir Robert Peel came to the conclusion that the feeling that had arisen against maintaining an artificial price of corn must be allowed to prevail, and in opposition to his party he carried a measure which he believed was for the welfare of his country, and again, for the last time, he was expelled from Office. But here we have Ministers preferring the preservation of their power to a measure which, according to their own avowal, would be for the welfare of their country. The noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies told us he was distinctly in favour personally of giving glebes to the Roman Catholics. Another noble Lord (the Lord Privy Seal), in the course of his speech, indicated a precisely similar opinion. In the abstract he approved the policy I advocate; but he declined to support it, on the ground that, under present circumstances, it was inconsistent with the popular voice. I cannot but think, my Lords, that, when these different systems of dealing with public questions come to be estimated in future years the verdict

  1631
  of history will be that the Government of this day have acted directly in the teeth of the example set them by Sir Robert Peel; that they refused to do that which they were convinced was, in the abstract, right, rather than run the least risk of sacrificing power; that they set themselves to catch the passing breeze, and listened on which side the wind might happen to blow. I still maintain that it is our bound en duty to do that which is best for the public interests, regardless of the loss of popularity or power. I cannot but think how different from the conduct of the Government would have been that of Sir Robert Peel under similar circumstances. The debate on this question commenced this evening at a later hour than I had anticipated, and there may be other Peers desirous of expressing their sentiments, and I shall, therefore, abstain from trespassing at greater length on your Lordships' time. The measure, as you have framed it, has thus far brought no peace whatever either to Roman Catholics or Protestants. On the side of the former it has raised many unreasonable expectations, which you will find it impossible to satisfy; and. on the latter it has created most bitter heartburnings, which it will be hard at once or ever to appease. Even now, on this 12th of July—that day so often fraught with bitterness in Ulster—we are waiting with suspense and anxiety news of what may be the effect of the irritation and asperity of feeling produced in Ireland. I say the Bill has not brought peace, but a sword. It is for your Lordships to consider whether the provision I propose will not be the harbinger of peace. I can scarcely describe the importance I attach to it. This is the last time it can be brought forward in this House, and if—as I am not without some grounds for hoping—the other House should be inclined to accept it, your Lordships may, by passing it, be enabled in far distant years to look back with complacent satisfaction to the course you had courageously pursued, and may give the Irish people down to the latest generations cause to honour and to bless your memory.
  Moved to insert, in page 17, line 2, after ("therein")—
  (Church body to certify that the residences are required.)
  "Provided always, that the said church body
  1632
  shall, in their application for any such residences, certify that the same are required as such for the archbishops, bishops, or clergymen, as the case may be, of the said church."
  (Commissioners to annex glebe lands to the residences.)
  "And in any case, where any such residence and curtilage shall be so Tested in the said body, the said commissioners shall upon their application also vest in them such lands, or such portion of such lands hitherto enjoyed with such residence, as may be suitably annexed thereto hereafter as glebe lands."
  (Lands not to exceed 30 acres for bishop or 10 acres for clergyman; but the quantity may be varied according to convenience or injury by severance. The commissioners, subject to approval of Lord Lieutenant, to provide suitable houses and glebe lands.)
  "Provided that such land shall not exceed thirty acres in the case of any archbishop or bishop, or ten acres in the case of any other clergyman of the said church.
  "But the said commissioners shall have power to vary the said quantities of land, where necessary for its convenient occupation, or where loss or injury might result from its severance.
  "And the said commissioners shall also (subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council) out of the proceeds of the property by this Act vested in them, provide suitable houses of residence with lands of accommodation annexed thereto as glebe lands, for the following ecclesiastical persons:"
  (1.) (For clergy of disestablished church where none is provided.)
  "(1.) For any archbishop, bishop, or other clergyman of the said church, in any case where a suitable house of residence and glebe lands shall not under the foregoing provisions have been vested in the said church body for the use of any such archbishop, bishop, or other clergyman of the said church."
  (2.) (For Roman Catholic prelates and clergy.)
  "(2.) For any archbishop, bishop, parish priest, or other clergyman of the Roman Catholic church who shall have spiritual charge ot any separate parochial or other territorial district, according to the regulations of the said church."
  (3.) (For Presbyterian church.)
  "(3.) For any clergyman or minister of the Presbyterian church, who shall have spiritual charge of any separate territorial district, according to the regulations of such church."
  (Quantity not to exceed 30 acres for prelate or 10 acres for other clergyman.)
  "Provided always, that the land so to be annexed shall not exceed thirty acres in the case of any archbishop or bishop, or ten acres in the case of any other clergyman or minister of any of the said several churches."
  (Commissioners may purchase or build houses and purchase or assign lands.)
  "And the said commissioners shall have power to provide the said houses either by purchase or by defraying the expenses of their erection, and the said lands either by purchase or by assignment of the lands vested in them by this Act."
  (Lord lieutenant in Council to declare persons to hold houses and lands in trust for Roman Catholic and Presbyterian clergy.)

  1633
  "And the said Lord Lieutenant in Council shall, by proper rules, declare and define the persons in whom the said houses and land shall be vested for the use of the archbishops, bishops, and other clergy of the said Roman Catholic church and for the clergy of the said Presbyterian church."
  (Houses and lands to be vested in such persons in trust for residence and accommodation without power of alienation, and with obligation to maintain in proper repair and condition.)
  "And the said Commissioners shall by order vest the said houses and lands in the said persons, upon trust for the said purposes of residence and accommodation, without power of alienation, or of use for any other purpose, and subject to the perpetual obligation to maintain the said houses in proper repair and the said lands in proper condition."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  LORD HOUGHTON: My Lords, during these long debates one aspect of the Bill has been present to my mind which appears to have escaped remark. The Bill has been designated as revolutionary, and assuredly it is in its great historical aspects and in the fact that it deals with a question exercising great power over the minds of men and influencing the destinies of a nation. At the same time I do not think there is another instance of an important measure that will have so little practical result as this. Let me put the case in a plain practical way, and I think your Lordships will see it has a strong bearing upon the question under consideration. Revolutionary as this measure is, it most honestly and carefully respects the vested rights of every individual, with the single exception of the right of the Irish Prelates to seats in this House, with respect to which your Lordships have been unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion. With that exception, from the Primate downwards, there is not one minister of the Church of Ireland who will be any the worse for the measure. Your Lordships, there- fore, will not give the Catholic Prelates the pleasure and gratification of having an equal rank in ordinary society with the Bishops of the Protestant Church; so that when the Archbishop of Dublin and Cardinal Cullen come together the former will preserve the precedence hitherto accorded to him. It would have been easy to have arranged that point by allowing precedence according to seniority. The Protestant clergyman, with a congregation consisting of the policeman and clerk, their wives, and three or four others in a parish contain-
  1634
  ing 1,000 Roman Catholics, will retain his church, his house, and all the privileges of his position for the remainder of his life, and he may be a man of twenty-five. The practical effect of this will be that through the whole of Ireland the change effected will be very small. No doubt, to the thoughtful Roman Catholic there will be the satisfaction that as the Prelates, and clergymen, and curates disappear, so will the ascendancy of a hostile Church, which ultimately will be left in all the nakedness of voluntaryism. But what is your object? What do you want to do now? You want to neutralize the Fenian spirit; you want to give immediate satisfaction, not only to the Prelate in his chamber, but also to the peasant in his cottage; you want to bring about a change in the relations of England and Ireland. That you will not affect by this Bill. All relations will remain exactly the same as they are now, with the result inevitably produced by the clergymen of the Church of Ireland in the remote parts of the country losing the political and conventual status which has hitherto invested them with a certain dignity. Therefore, it seems to me, unless you do something like that which is proposed by this Amendment, you will really have done nothing for the peace of Ireland. For the practical effect we wish to produce it would be far better to pass this provision than all the rest of the Bill. I would call upon those who oppose this Amendment to consider whether, by passing it, they will not invest the Bill, in the eyes of the Irish peasant, with a remedial and practical character, and whether they will not do more than they can by any other means to satisfy an imaginative people that they want to establish now and in the future religious equality in Ireland. Nothing can be more various than the opinions attributed to the Roman Catholics in reference to this proposition. At one time the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland would have been perfectly ready to accept a State endowment. But there has gradually grown up in the Catholic Church a spirit which has its dignified side, and of which. I do not wish to speak with disrespect. Recently it has been the policy of that Church to separate itself from the States with which she has been connected. The spirit which has given rise to that policy is manifested in Ireland, but not more

  1635
  there than in other countries. In France the Catholic Church has shown that spirit, and recently there has been a still more signal instance of its effects in the action of that Church towards the Court of Austria. No doubt, therefore, there would be a great disinclination on the part of the Court of Home that the priests of Ireland should come into any connection with the Government of this country which would carry with it the slightest taint of interference with their independence. My Lords, some time ago, I held communications on this subject with some of the highest Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, it would be indecorous on my part to go into details; but I may say that I left the Court of Rome with the full conviction that the free and unconditional grant of houses and lands to the Irish priests would not be unwelcome to the highest authorities of that Church. Owing to the circumstances in which that country had been placed, the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland have been placed in a position of absolute submission to episcopal authority. There is less independence among them than among the clergy of any other part of Europe. That may have ecclesiastical advantages, but certainly it has social disadvantages. Again, the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland are not taken as we could wish them to be from the upper and the middle classes of the country, but almost entirely from the peasantry. Then the Irish priest is not a person of sufficient education or social position to render him comfortable in the society of Protestants or of the upper classes of his own religion. That may be said without meaning disrespect to either side. It would be a great advantage to Ireland to improve that state of things, and I think Sir Robert Peel had quite as much difficulty in passing the Maynooth measure as the Government would have in carrying such a scheme as the one now suggested. They would have to encounter the ill-will of the Nonconformists; but I believe that for support of such a policy they might with confidence appeal to the intelligence of a large majority of the House of Commons.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I think we are engaged in one of the most disagreeable tasks that this House has ever been engaged in. The measure is disagreeable to noble Lords opposite,
  1636
  and I think Members of the Liberal party must be ashamed of it. I do not think this measure is entirely agreeable to anybody, though it obtains the partial approbation of the different sects whose prejudices have been appealed to. It pleases the Nonconformists in their hatred of religious Establishments; it pleases the Presbyterians in their hatred of Episcopacy; it pleases the Roman Catholics by offering them the destruction of the Church of Ireland; and it pleases Protestants generally by doing as little justice as possible to the Roman Catholics. It is not, therefore, in any sense a Liberal measure. We are told that the country has made up its mind—that the country is determined to have the measure as it came to this House. Whose fault is that? If Mr. Gladstone had only used one-half the ability he has spent in denouncing the Church of Ireland in explaining to the people the real state of the case, I think the result would have been very different. If he had told them to look at what we have been doing for the last thirty years; how we have been educating the priests of Ireland, and doing it with the public money; how we have been teaching the priest the best way to oppose the Protestant religion, and then when he has been so taught letting him live in a hovel—would anyone say that when we have taught the priest and intrusted him with the instruction of the people we ought not to give him some moderate means of living? Such a gift as that now proposed would be one not to the priests, but to the people of Ireland, who have the greatest reverence for their clergy. If there be any man who more than another is responsible for the misfortune of this Irish Church question, I say that man is Mr. Gladstone. He it was who said that the Irish Church ought to be upheld in the sacred cause of truth; that it must be supported because its mission was divine. It was on account of those sentiments Oxford received him with delight. But, like Coriolanus, he returned to destroy that which he had before upheld. I think, however, that as he has changed his opinion he ought to make allowance for those who were convinced by his former arguments. I confess that I was not among the number. I regarded those arguments as vain, and I think many of his present arguments are vain also.

  1637
  He runs from one extreme to the other. With him there appears to be no halting-place between the torrid and the frigid zones. At one time he laid down that we ought to support the Irish Church on the ground that she taught the truth. Now he advocates the voluntary system in Ireland. The voluntary system has its advantages—it has enormous advantages; but I ask any statesman knowing the condition of Europe, and seeing what are the religious opinions moving in different countries, whether this is a moment at which it is right to take away from Ireland an educated clergy? I think that would not be a statesmanlike proceeding, but a most unwarrantable, dangerous, and mischievous course. My Lords, I do not want to again go over a question of which we have heard so much already. We are told that this is a statesmanlike measure. My Lords, a statesmanlike measure does not destroy everything. It constructs something; but this measure constructs nothing at all. Is it a statesmanlike policy that destroys everything and leaves nothing? I You are asked to take away the endowments of the Church in order to give them to lunatic asylums—to take away the educated clergy and to apply their incomes with old nurses. It is impossible that this Bill can be called the measure of a statesman—it does very well to speak about it at public meetings, because it is just the sort of thing to answer for that purpose, but when it comes to be examined and criticized it is pulled to pieces on every side. I own I should have wished to have seen a measure upon this subject brought in which would have settled the question in the course of the present year, but this measure, if carried without the provision for the appropriation of the surplus, will keep the matter open for the rest of my natural life. Then there is this unfortunate Church Body, which is to lie upon the operating table for the next ten years, while the three judges, sitting like Rhadamanthus, Minos, and Æacus, condemn with stern severity. In attempting to put a little generosity into the Bill—which very much wanted it, for it was a most niggardly measure—we have gone a little too far on one side. It was a little too strong to give the disestablished Church those Ulster glebes as being private endowments because they had been originally granted by the Sovereign. The
  1638
  proper view to have taken of those glebes was, that when the purposes for which they were granted ceased, they should have reverted to the Sovereign. I do not, therefore, see how the disestablished Church is to keep these glebes; but, on the other hand, I should have wished to have dealt generously with the Church, with the Roman Catholics, and with the Presbyterians. I have voted in favour of this Amendment before, and I shall have great pleasure in doing so again.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Somerset) puts the Bill to a very fair test when he asks whether or not it is a statesmanlike measure? He says that the Bill as it now stands is likely to keep the question alive for his natural life. That is just the difference between the measure as introduced by Mr. Gladstone and the Government in the other House—which, whatever its merits or its demerits, would have been a final one, and would have satisfied the true interests of the nation—and the measure as it now stands, after having been so altered and disfigured in this House that its friends would scarcely know it again. And after the Bill has been thus changed the noble Duke turns round and says—"See what an unstatesmanlike measure this is." The noble Duke forgets that this measure belongs, not to Mr. Gladstone, but to this House. The noble Duke, in his eagerness to damage the Bill, forgets whose Bill he is damaging. And now let us look at this statesmanlike clause proposed by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope) which the noble Duke behind me is supporting. Recollect, we require not a mere abstract proposition, fit to form the subject of discussion at a debating club, but a clause that will work practically. Now, in the first place, this clause bears upon its face the mark of having been prepared by those who have not communicated with those bodies with which it proposes to deal, and who are utterly in the dark as to the wishes upon the subject of the Roman Catholics, the Presbyterians, and the Church Body. It proceeds to say—
  "And the said commissioners shall also (subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Council) out of the proceeds of the property by this Act vested in them, provide suitable houses of residence with lands of accommodation annexed thereto as glebe lands, for the following ecclesiastical persons … (3.) For any

  1639
  clergyman or minister of the Presbyterian Church, who shall have spiritual charge of any separate territorial district, according to the regulations of such church;"
  And then it goes on to say—
  "And the said Lord Lieutenant in Council shall, by proper rules, declare and define the persons in whom the said houses and land shall be vested for the use of the archbishops, bishops, and other clergy of the said Roman Catholic church and for the clergy of the said Presbyterian church."
  My Lords, there is no such thing as a clergyman or minister of the Presbyterian Church having spiritual charge of any separate territorial district, neither is there one Presbyterian Church in Ireland. The Presbyterian body in that country is split up into many portions. First of all there is that portion of the Presbyterian Church which is represented by the General Assembly; then there is the Secession Synod, the two Synods of Antrim, the Synod of Munster, the Remonstrant Synod, and other Synods; and in order to provide for the ministers of all these bodies separate grants of glebes would have to be made. Then, as regards the feelings of the Roman Catholics upon this question. The noble Earl has referred to the plan proposed by Mr. Pitt, but under that scheme the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church were to enter into an arrangement with the State, under which certain provision was to be made for that Church, whereas the clause proposes that the Lord Lieutenant in Council shall declare and define the persons in whom the said houses and land shall be vested for the use of the Archbishops, Bishops, and other clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, the noble Earl who proposes this clause should have known that the great difficulty in the way of concurrent endowment has been that it has never been possible to devise a plan by which the Government could put themselves in communication with the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. If it is the object of the clause to make the Roman Catholic Bishops their own trustees, why does it not say so plainly? But if its object is to make a body of Roman Catholics lay trustees, with interests differing from those of the Roman Catholics Bishops, it will most signally fail. It is rather too much to require the Lord Lieutenant in Council to make delicate arrangements which Parliament declines to make for itself. The noble
  1640
  Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope) has asked whether we are to be guided in this matter by the opinion of Scotland or by that of Ireland. But I say you have no right to assume that there is an opinion in Ireland in favour of the proposal now under discussion. You are bound to accept as the opinion of the people that which has been expressed by their representatives in Parliament and by their ecclesiastical bodies, and in every case they have declared that they will not accept a scheme of this kind. The subject has been so often discussed that one should speak very shortly upon it, and therefore I will merely address one further observation to your Lordships with "reference to it. The noble Earl opposite has claimed me as being a supporter of the principle of the clause in consequence of an observation which fell from me the other night. I admit that I have sometimes hoped that some scheme of this kind might be adopted, but I distinctly stated last year when the Suspensory Bill was under discussion, that under the circumstances, and taking into consideration the feelings of the great body of the people, it would be impossible that such a scheme could be adopted. I must also confess that I should not like to see Mr. Gladstone, after opposing the scheme of levelling up, and after having taken the vote of the country upon it, turn round now and advocate an opposite policy, and therefore, my Lords, I feel bound to oppose this proposal.
  THE EARL OF GRANARDadmitted that the Amendment was expressed in a generous spirit towards Irish Roman Catholics, and that the residences of many of the priests were quite inadequate; but in most parts of Ireland this evil had been removed, to a great extent, by the generosity of the people. To that generosity he preferred to trust for a further remedy; and believing, as he did, that fresh State endowment was contrary to the spirit of the age, he could not hesitate to record his protest against the Amendment. In 1795 Burke advised the Catholic hierarchy to trust to God's good providence rather than to State endowments, and he believed that this sentiment still prevailed not only among the Catholic hierarchy, but the Catholic population of Ireland. The Bishops who met in Dublin on the 3d October, 1867, had resolved that, notwithstanding the right and claim of their Church to

  1641
  the revenues of which she had been unjustly deprived, they would not accept endowments from the State out of the property of the Established Church, nor, indeed, any State endowment whatever. These resolutions had never been rescinded, and were the last manifesto of the Catholic hierarchy on this subject. No one, therefore, had a right to say that the Catholic hierarchy were ready to accept endowment from the State. Moreover, the resolutions to which he had referred were in perfect accordance with the Bill now before the House, and, on the part of his co-religionists he denied authoritatively any disposition among the Prelates of his Church to accept houses or glebes for the use of the clergy. Considering these resolutions, and the immense amount of support given to the Bill by the Nonconformists on the understanding that no part of the Church property should be applied to religious purposes, it was impossible for an Irish Roman Catholic to vote for the Amendment unless at the expense of his consistency—he had almost said of his good faith. The Catholics of Ireland had demanded the disestablishment and disendowment of the State Church, and political and social equality in place of the political and religious ascendancy which had been so well described by an eminent Protestant divine, the Rev. Dr. Brady. The Bill of the Government fulfilled these conditions, and, therefore, in common gratitude, as well as from conviction, he was bound to vote with the Government on the present occasion.
  THE DUKE OF LEINSTER: My Lords, I merely wish to state a fact which is within my own knowledge. Some years ago I built a house in the town of Athy, and gave it to the priest, who accepted it, and was most thankful for it. Since that time I have had some Scotch tenants, who built a Presbyterian Church. I gave them the land, and assisted them to build a manse. They accepted that assistance most gratefully. Strange to say, there was no residence for the Protestant clergy. I bought a residence for them, made it over to them, and am happy to say that the three denominations are all living now in perfect peace and tranquillity.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that, having voted for the Amendment on a former occasion, he had been charged with something like a breach of faith
  1642
  for so doing. A noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh) had given the impression the other evening that he represented the Irish Catholic Peers on this subject. All he could say was that he was by no means represented by the noble Earl (the Earl of Denbigh), however much he might respect him. When the Bill passed a second reading he was sanguine enough to imagine that their Lordships had sanctioned the great principle of religious equality as applied to Ireland. But the present state of the Bill had woefully disappointed the hopes of his co-religionists. So far from being a measure of disendowment, it had now become a measure for the re-endowment of the Protestant Church, and the Amendments introduced by their Lordships into the Bill had given that Church several millions more than was contemplated in the Bill as originally presented to them. It was rather hard, therefore, to believe, that the principle of religious equality was maintained in the Bill. He was one of those who wished on principle that this measure should have been carried out on the principle of levelling up. However, he was quite aware that, owing to the state of feeling in England, such a plan was perfectly impracticable, and therefore there was no use in wasting words in its favour. But as far as the proposal of giving glebe houses and a few acres of land to the Roman Catholic clergy was concerned, that could hardly be fairly said to come under the name of concurrent endowment. Everyone who knew the state of many parishes, particularly in the South and West of Ireland, must feel that it would be a great been if the priests of those parishes could receive a sufficient sum to build them decent dwellings. There was no doubt that this would place the priests in a social position which was much to be desired, particularly when we remembered that the Protestant clergy would retain their glebe houses. He should be most sorry if, by the possession of these houses, the priests became less dependent on their congregations and aroused any jealousy among their people. But this argument which had been used against the plan now proposed did not seem to him to be of any weight. A far more important argument was that the Catholic Prelates had made no move towards asking for any endowment, but had rather repudiated any payment out

  1643
  of the revenues of the Protestant Church. He asked their Lordships to remember, however, that the one great object of the Catholic clergy was religious equality, and they would, give up anything rather than risk that great object; and they thought they would come before the public in a more dignified manner if they put forward no demand on their own behalf. In arguing against the efficacy of the voluntary system, a noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had, on a former occasion, quoted an instance in which a Catholic Bishop had imposed a tax of 5s. in the pound on the members of his Church throughout his diocese in order to erect a church. He did not know to what diocese the noble Earl alluded, but this must be taken as a very extreme case. Another case had come under his own observation which, he thought, was far better calculated to convey the feelings of the people. Some years ago, in the city of Limerick, a large church had been commenced, and the late Bishop, Dr. Ryan, thought the opportunity a good one for making it the cathedral of his diocese. There was no pressure employed, and he obtained the sum of nearly £9,000 from the poor people of the diocese. That was a noble and creditable act, and one worthy of any country or any diocese. He could not but think that the language which had been used as to
  the Roman Catholic priesthood wringing contributions from the poorest of the Irish people was not just or fair. It was no exaggeration to say that there was no country in Europe where contributions were given for religious objects more willingly or with less pressure than was done by the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. He thanked a noble Lord (Lord Taunton), who spoke on a recent occasion, for the earnest, impressive, and, he believed, most just eulogy he had pronounced upon the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy during the period of the famine in Ireland. He alluded to the noble Lord who was at the time Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he thanked the noble Lord, not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, for that well-merited tribute. He would also call to their Lordships' recollection the conduct of the Irish Roman Catholic clergy at the time of the attempted rising in 1848, when he had it on the authority of no
  1644
  less a person than the leader of that movement that it was the conduct of the priests which crushed all his hopes. Their Lordships were also well aware of the decided course taken by the Roman Catholic clergy against the Fenian movement. That clergy had always been found on the side of law and order; and it would be, he thought, a poor return to make to them when they were striving, aided by the voice of the people of England, to obtain religious equality for their country if they were now to be disappointed of its realization. He knew that he had no claim as a humble Member of that House to make this appeal, but he made it with all possible earnestness, simply as one who had lived all his life in Ireland, and who knew pretty well the feeling of the Irish Roman Catholics. What he wished to state to their Lordships was this—that they might be perfectly certain they never would remove the discontent which existed in that country, nor ever obtain the confidence of the Irish people in British rule and in the British Parliament, until they laid the foundation for it by a real bonâ fide measure of perfect religious equality. They never would remove the discontent of the people of Ireland until they succeeded in inspiring confidence in the justice of British rule in the minds of the religious teachers of that people—those teachers in whom it was natural that the people should confide as their guides, not only in matters purely spiritual, but in all those concerns which affected the social and material improvement and prosperity of their country. And he did not think any measure that could be adopted would be more calculated to produce that effect than for Parliament to let that clergy and their people both see that it was determined to carry out fully this great principle. He might, indeed, quote the concluding words of a Petition which he had recently presented to their Lordships, and say that if that Bill were passed in its integrity their Lordships would deserve the lasting gratitude of the Irish people by establishing among them the principle of religious equality, the true source of peace, prosperity, and contentment.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, there are so many of your Lordships, especially those who are connected with Ireland, in favour of the Amend-

  1645
  ment of the noble Earl, that I desire to say that, taken in itself, I not only see no objection to it, in itself, but so far from it have supported a similar proposal on a former occasion. Indeed, in this Bill, such as it is, it is the only green spot upon which the eye can dwell. The rest is mere ruin and destruction; this pretends at least to construct something; to extract something for her out of a mass of pure negation. But, at the same time, there are difficulties at present which interpose fatal obstacles in the way of this proposal. In the first place, what is it that has induced you to go into Committee on this Bill at all? The great majority of your Lordships were opposed to it root and branch; not only to its details, but to its principle. I did my best to induce your Lordships not to yield to the public current, but to carry out boldly the opinions you entertained. Your Lordships did not agree with that view; you thought you were bound to bow to the opinion of the country and go into Committee on the Bill. You went into Committee at all for no other reason. Now, nothing is more clear than that if it had not been stated to the constituencies that endowment of any kind to the Roman Catholic Church was entirely out of the question, we should not have had to go into Committee at all, for we should have never had this Bill. If there was one point more than another upon which Conservative seats were lost, and the present majority of the House of Commons was formed, it was the pledge that when the property of the Irish Church was taken away there should not be an atom of endowment to the Roman Catholic Church. If, then, pressure was put upon your Lordships to go into Committee on account of the current of public opinion, then, I say, it would be to go directly contrary to that which alone induced you to go into Committee at all to accept this Amendment of the noble Earl's; to pick out that one matter which the House of Commons and the country are most distinctly pledged against; to say the least of it, a most extraordinary course of action, most fatal to your own policy. If, indeed, we had had encouragement that this proposal would be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, your Lordships might have considered that it would be well to make some public sacrifice of
  1646
  standing with the country for the purpose of settling a great question. But we have no encouragement of that kind. There is another point to which my noble Friend opposite (the Lord Privy Seal) has alluded, which has always struck me as a great practical difficulty. How are you to carry the proposition out? On all former occasions, when the question has been brought forward, it has been carried out after negotiation and arrangement. But here you are going simply to create a property and invest it in trustees. But for whose benefit? You will say for that of the parish priest? Who is he in the eye of the law? There may be a difference between the clergyman and his Bishop—there is an appeal to the Archbishop, and from thence to the Pope. Are you to wait for a decision from Rome before you can settle to whom the house is to belong which you are going to give before you put in motion the sheriff's officer or an action for ejectment? There are practical difficulties of this kind, in dealing with a body whose law you do not recognize, and know nothing about, which it would be extremely difficult to overcome. And observe this. One of the Amendments carried in this House keeps the surplus over—and if public opinion and public feeling should change, there would then be the time to deal with the question, and to make the necessary arrangements with the authorities. So far as you have gone already, you have in no case gone against the public feeling, deference to which led you into Committee. With all your Amendments you have indeed in no point exceeded these limits, within which the language of the promoters of the Bill during the elections authorized you to act. In this point alone would you step aside to set yourself in direct opposition both to the Government and the country. Under these circumstances, still entertaining a desire that there should be a recognition of the Roman Catholic clergy, and believing that it would be a wise measure to place them in decent houses, though with great reluctance, I shall feel bound to vote against the Amendment.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it has been said that, with respect to disestablishment, the House decided that question on the second reading. But with regard to disendowment, the ques-

  1647
  tion arises how are you to give equality; for that, it is generally admitted, ought to be the principle, and the people of England and the people of Scotland who voted for the Liberal candidates did so, I believe, with a feeling of generosity towards Ireland, and a wish that the religion of the great majority of the people should be on an equality with that of the other sects in that country. Now, I was speaking to a gentleman, a few days ago, who thinks that the Catholic clergy are very ill provided with dwellings, and he told me that in the South of Ireland he went to see an old parish priest eight-five years of age, and he found it impossible that any carriage could get near the hovel in which the old priest lived. He got out of his carriage, went over stepping stones across the brook, and got into a miserable hovel where this parish priest was lying in bed. But, he said, if he asked where the clergyman of the Established Church lived, with perhaps not fifty parishioners in his charge, he would be taken to a good comfortable home. Was that justice or equality? Would the people of Ireland so consider it if they learned that their clergymen had been left in that condition while the Protestant clergy had their houses and the lands preserved to them by the House of Commons and augmented by the House of Lords? Much had been said with regard to the attitude the Roman Church may assume if this Amendment were carried. Now, no doubt it was the notion of Mr. Pitt and many others to give a salary to every Roman Catholic priest in order to make him in some manner dependent upon the Government, and that is what the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland most justly resent; but our proposal differs greatly from this. We propose to give the priest his glebe house once for all, and to have no control over him whatever, and upon this the Irish priesthood has very properly refrained from making any declaration. To the original principle of the Bill—disestablishment and disendowment—the priesthood gave their adhesion, but upon a question of immediate benefit to themselves, good taste obliges them to be silent. If your Lordships agree to the Amendment of my noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) you will be contributing to that equality for the promotion of which the Bill was introduced.
  LORD WESTBURY: My Lords, we have been told this evening by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) that we have voted for the second reading of this Bill in deference to public opinion, and that that public opinion was unanimous in its declaration against concurrent endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy; and we are assured that we are going in direct defiance of public opinion in supporting this Amendment. With great deference to the noble Earl who made those observations, I, for one—and I think I speak on behalf of many noble Lords—did not vote for the second reading of this Bill out of any deference to public opinion. I am not one to disregard public opinion when it is pronounced upon matters which it is competent and has been called upon to discuss, but I do not think it understood the question in a manner to dictate to legislators. It pronounced that there was a great evil to be redressed, and it left to you, my Lords, and to the other House of Parliament, to decide what should be the manner of that redress. I voted for the second reading because I felt the Irish Church, as at present constituted, to be a great evil; I voted for the second reading in the hope of converting this wanton Bill of destruction into a measure of beneficent reform. We have, therefore, with perfect consistency pursued the course we designated for ourselves. There was another point raised by the noble Earl, which may be disposed of in a few words. He tells you there will be great difficulty in carrying out the Amendment before us, because you will have to recognize the Archbishops and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and in directing the enjoyment of this property be guided by their rules, with which you are not cognizant. My Lords, there is no difficulty at all about this. The ownership of these houses will remain in the hands of the trustees who are appointed, the trustees will regulate the enjoyment of the property according to law; the law is compelled repeatedly to inquire what are the doctrines held among certain religious communities, and to regulate the enjoyment of property dedicated to those communities according to the construction which courts of justice put upon the deeds conveying that property. We have been frequently told by the authors of the Bill and those

  1649
  who approve of it that it is intended as a measure of peace and religious equality. Those are gracious words, indicating a gracious intention; and surely they would lead to the conclusion that, whereas the only fault of the Irish Church was its monopolizing property which was dedicated originally to, and ought to have been applied for, the universal extension of our common Christianity, the spirit of peace and religious equality would have dictated to Her Majesty's Government some more universal and comprehensive scheme of distributing the surplus, and that they would have shrunk from making "ducks and drakes" of it, and indulging in the wantonness of fancy in order to get rid of the income of the Church. I have again and again entreated your Lordships to rise to an occasion that demands the exercise of legislative power and wisdom, to awaken to a sense of the great duty upon you, and accomplish the great object of peace and religious equality and religious justice by distributing the surplus in a manner equal to the demands and equal to the necessities of the several religious bodies in Ireland. I am sorry to say the plea so made has been in vain, and the historian will record in melancholy accents the fact that a great occasion for uniting these two nations together, and restoring peace and tranquillity, was lost through the bigotry of one party, and a want of high spirit on the other to guide the people of this country to measures superior to the feeling that declaims against concurrent endowment, and pronounces it to be a sin to give anything to relieve the necessities and supply the wants of Roman Catholic Christianity, although it is the religion upon which nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world depend for their salvation. These are the terms on which we may expect people in a future age to speak of us when they compare what we have done with what we might have done. It is very seldom, indeed, that the advocate of any cause has the power of calling two such witnesses as I have the power of calling to-night. The two noble Lords who have spoken on my right and left hand have settled for ever the question whether these endowments would or would not be accepted with gratitude by the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. One ounce of fact is worth pounds of argu-
  1650
  ment; and that ounce of fact the noble Duke (the Duke of Leinster) has supplied. He told you that he had given equal boons to Protestant, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic clergymen, that they were received with gratitude by all, and that all live in happy concord by reason of their being placed upon an equality. I ask, then, whether the Roman Catholic clergy will not willingly accept these endowments. I am sure your Lordships will receive the testimony of Peers who speak from their own knowledge, and who can vouch from their experience for the conclusions they offer to you. I press most warmly upon you the acceptance of the noble Earl's (Earl Stanhope's) Amendment. Although I have the greatest respect for the Roman Catholic clergy, and believe that without them you will never pacify, much less conciliate, Ireland, yet I must confess I have the greater love for the Protestant clergy of that country, and the greater concern for their welfare. By an overwhelming majority your Lordships have accepted the proposals of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), and. have conferred on the Episcopalian clergy a small portion of that which undoubtedly is their own; and, for one, I cannot with. any countenance send this Bill down again to the Commons, ostensibly in the spirit in which it was sent, as a message of peace and religious equality, with that exceptional benefit given to the Protestant Episcopalian clergy, unless it were supplemented, equipoised, and balanced by equal benefits for the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian clergy. If the one is an act of justice, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the other is an equal act of justice; and if you yield the one you are bound to yield the other. Then how shall we return the Bill? It will be returned with a large surplus, indeed, rent away from the Episcopalian Church, but it will be returned with the endowment of the Protestant clergy, in a great measure equalled and balanced by corresponding benefits for the clergy of all other persuasions. Then, my Lords, I should hope there will be no collision between the two Houses; we may then have a well-grounded hope that as we have done the Bill, with regard to its spirit, as little injury as possible, the other House may defer to your Lordships' opi-

  1651
  nion, and may believe that you have taken a wiser measure of the true extent to which the principle of the Bill ought to be carried out, and that there will then be unanimity between the two Houses, instead of there being opposition. I entreat your Lordships, as you love justice, as you would be beneficent, as you would countenance that which you have already done for your own clergy, to give at the same time a corresponding measure of benefit to the clergy of other persuasions; I entreat you, in the interests of your own measure, to lay aside all notion about your having no right to pronounce an opinion in favour of the Roman Catholic religion. Why, you fling damnation round Europe when you condemn the Roman Catholics and pronounce that great religion to be an error which you would sin in giving anything to. I trust your Lordships will rise superior to that. This is only a little matter; it is only a modicum of what your Lordships ought to do, and if your Lordships have a thought for religion, humanity, peace, and charity you will accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I will trespass on your Lordships' attention only for a few moments. I rise more for the purpose of protesting in the name of Her Majesty's Government against this Amendment being carried than to argue a question, which has been agued at almost every stage of the Bill. It was discussed on the second reading, on going into Committee, upon the Amendment in Committee—which was rejected by a large majority—upon the Report, upon the third reading to-day; and now again it is discussed on the Amendment of my noble Friend. I cannot say how painful it is to me to vote against some of my best personal and political friends, for whose intellect I have the greatest respect, and with whose political feelings and opinions I entirely sympathize. If it were not for that I am not sure I should not find great cause for rejoicing in the discussion which has taken place on this Amendment. I sympathize in a great degree with all the liberal feelings which have been expressed with regard to Roman Catholics and which hitherto have not met with any general acceptance in this House. I rejoice that I have heard from the opposite side of the House sentiments which I never
  1652
  heard before from that quarter; and I rejoice because they will facilitate in the future the spread of religious toleration. This discussion has done one great good; it has cleared away very much indeed; it has proved conclusively that it is impossible to go half-way, and that your Lordships and the country must decide whether you will adopt the scheme of disestablishment and disendowment proposed by the Government, or whether you will adopt a scheme for supporting all other denominations in Ireland. I really have heard sentiments in which I cannot say how much I concur. I heard the noble Earl who moved this Amendment state, amid cheers from those around him, that it was the duty of the Legislature to legislate for Ireland according to the wishes of the Irish, and not merely according to the wishes of the English and Scotch. I agree thoroughly in that. But I am obliged to differ from the noble Earl in regard to what the public expression of opinion in Ireland has been, whether it comes from the Irish Church, from the Presbyterian body, or from the Romanists themselves. I have really nothing to add, except that my Colleagues and I, in framing our plan of dealing with the Irish Church, followed the method which I believe all great statesmen have always adopted, which was to combine the support of those who have one object in view, in order to enable us to carry a measure which it was almost impossible for a Government to have brought forward a short time ago. I can add nothing to that. We can only adhere to the resolution which we declared to the country that it was our intention to act upon; and I must leave the case as it has been stated by my Colleagues and myself. The common sense of your Lordships cannot deny that the feeling of the constituencies at the elections was most indisputably opposed to anything in the shape of levelling up or concurrent endowment, or whatever other term you may choose to apply to it. It would be presumptuous in me to put myself on the level with the noble and learned Lord who spoke last, but I have not yet been taught to believe that this nation is incompetent to form an opinion upon an important question such as the Irish Church and the best mode of removing so great an anomaly. My Lords, I really believe that this Amendment

  1653
  —if your Lordships carry it to-night—will absolutely have no effect whatever but to create a certain amount of embarrassment. I am as certain that there is no more chance of this Amendment being adopted in "another place," or, as I believe, by the constituencies who send the Members to that "other place," as I am of any other subject which is reasonably open to discussion. Upon these grounds I implore your Lordships not to reverse the decision to which you came the other day, when rejecting a proposal similar to the present. Before I sit down let me say that, while owing allegiance to my Colleagues in Her Majesty's Government, I am also sensible that I owe allegiance to the honour and credit of your Lordships' House. We have been exhorted this evening to be statesmanlike, to rise to the occasion, to lead the public mind, and to show what is right in relation to the equality of the clergy of all denominations. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Stanhope) said he rose with the sanction, and even at the request, of some of the most eminent Members of your Lordships' House to propose this Amendment. Have your Lordships considered what figure you will cut in sending down this Amendment as the perfection of statesmanship, and as the work of the most eminent Members of your Lordships' House? My noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal said you ought not to devolve upon the Lord Lieutenant the most difficult duty of all, without laying down any principles at all to guide him in dealing with the Roman Catholic clergy. You say that the object is to attain religious equality; but my noble Friend has pointed out that under the words of the third section of this Amendment not a single church or glebe will go to the Presbyterians at all, inasmuch as their arrangements are made with reference to congregations, and not with regard to the spiritual charge of any separate territorial district. This Amendment therefore, so carefully considered, and which is represented as the last result of your legislative wisdom, would have the effect of depriving the Presbyterians of any advantage whatever, while giving the most liberal terms to the clergy of the Established Church, curates as well as incumbents. You leave glebes and manses to about 2,000 clergy charged with the spiritual care of 700,000 of the people of Ireland, while
  1654
  to the clergy superintending the religion of 4,500,000—the large majority of the people of Ireland—you offer in the whole some 1,200 houses and glebes—for that is about the number of those clergy having territorial cures. You throw £2,000,000 or so into the coffers of the Irish Church, and give the others a small pittance. And this, it is contended, is a statesmanlike proceeding, in a spirit of true equality. Can your Lordships really wish that such a proposal should go down to the other House as illustrative of the spirit of your legislative enactments?
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I shall trouble your Lordships with very few words in reply, and they shall be simply in answer to the statement just adduced by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). I am informed by those who are thoroughly well acquainted with the part of the country of which we are speaking, that the noble Earl is entirely inaccurate when he states that the arrangements of the Presbyterian clergy are made without reference to territorial districts. A similar statement was made by the Lord Privy Seal, and I am told that the noble Lord, the Privy Seal, although for some time Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and likely therefore to be well informed, was misled by the ecclesiastical arrangements of the Wesleyan body, which he has ascribed throughout to the Presbyterians. Then, with regard to the last clause of the Amendment, the arguments of the noble Earl are a mere repetition of what was said by the Lord Privy Seal. I am blamed for not having pointed out the exact course which the Lord Lieutenant should adopt. There is no inaccuracy of mime, but there is a difference of opinion between us. I stated before that, in my judgment, it was one great advantage of the proposition that it did not insist upon any negotiation with the Roman Catholic clergy; it places them in a perfectly independent position, free to accept or to reject the offer made to them, untrammelled and unpledged in any way whatever. I can assure your Lordships that I did not venture to bring forward this Motion without the fullest consultation with those who have spent their lives in the country and who know it, to say the very least, as well as the noble Earl opposite It is therefore with the fullest confidence that I re-

  1655
  commend it to the adoption of your Lordships.
  LORD CAIRNS: I ask permission to say a very few words before your Lordships go to a division. On a former occasion I felt it my duty to state fully the view which I took upon the question, and I shall now do so very briefly indeed. I do not intend to go into any criticism of the terms of the Amendment proposed to us; but I cannot help thinking it unfortunate that upon the third reading of the Bill we should have this Amendment in substitution for a proposal not essentially different from that upon which we formerly voted. I am not disposed to accept this as anything more than an expression of opinion in favour of a principle which has been variously described by the terms concurrent or indiscriminate endowment. If I were to go into any criticism of the terms of the Amendment, nothing, I am sure, would be easier than to show that the proposal is utterly and entirely unworkable and impracticable, and that the Amendment is framed in entire forget-fulness of the state of things in Ireland, and of the position of the various denominations. The question, however, is not one of words, but of substance. I stated before, as I venture to state again, notwithstanding the able arguments which have been advanced in this House, that the system of indiscriminate endowment is one which it would be an unfortunate thing for the State to adopt. So far from being favourable to the condition of Ireland, I believe it would be eminently unsuited to that country. And although this has been described as a very small measure, and a measure quite apart from endowment, depend upon it the country will never believe, when you give, rightly or wrongly, houses and lands to the clergy of various denominations, that you are doing anything else but permanently endowing the religions to which those clergymen belong. That being so, let us remember the feeling of the country, not merely of England and Scotland, but of Ireland as well. No one can deny that the feeling of the people in England and Scotland is opposed to any scheme of the kind. We know very well what the feeling of the Protestant population of Ireland is; but what is the feeling of the Roman Catholic population? On this subject we were favoured with distinct expres-
  1656
  sions of opinion by my noble Friend who sits below the Gangway (Earl Denbigh). My noble Friend, on the first occasion when this question was mooted, said that if the proposal were made as an act of justice towards the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he believed they would accept it. On the last evening of the discussion my noble Friend retracted that statement, and said he believed they would not accept it; but since then my noble Friend has retracted his retractation, and, professing to speak in the interests of the Roman Catholic clergy, has contradicted the statement which he previously made. A noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Granard), however, has asserted that nothing could be more inconsistent with the position of the Roman Catholics than to accept a measure of this kind; while another noble Lord (the Earl of Dunraven) speaking with the same interests at hand, has once more qualified that denial. We have, therefore, three retractations and two denials; and I own I am in a perfect chaos of bewilderment as to whether the Roman Catholic clergy will or will not accept the offer if it be made them. Turning from that point, I cannot but remember that in the other House of Parliament not a single proposition was made on behalf of the Roman Catholic Members, or those who represent Roman Catholic constituencies, to have a scheme of this kind adopted. I shall not follow in their prophecies some noble Lords who think that a great change has come over the opinions of the country, and that the change will proceed until the concurrent endowment principle is universally accepted. But, my Lords, I think that nothing would be so well calculated to prevent such a result as your Lordships doing anything which would seem to force it on the country. The Amendment by which I think your Lordships have most wisely preserved the surplus from being carelessly and foolishly dissipated will allow the country time to consider what would be the best mode of disposing of the money; and I think that even noble Lords who are of opinion that the appropriation now proposed would be a wise one—an opinion in which I confess I do not share—ought to be anxious that the surplus should not be disposed of till after the question has received full consideration.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he felt bound to make an apology for having hastily made a statement the other evening which he found afterwards he could not substantiate. He had made that statement under the erroneous supposition that the meeting to which he referred was a meeting of the Irish Roman Catholic Prelates. He had never intended to represent Irish feeling. Indeed, he thought he must be a very rash Englishman who would venture to represent Irish feeling, but he spoke in the name of other Peers besides himself. He and they had voted against the Amendment because they had been assured by the Government that it would prevent the success of the Bill, and they believed the feeling of the country was against concurrent endowment. Since then the public organs had expressed sympathy with the idea, and if the Amendment were carried he thought their Lordships would find there was more sympathy with it than they expected. With regard to the expression of Irish feeling by the National Association, and also, in former times, by the Irish Roman Catholic Prelates, he could understand and appreciate the sentiments that would prevent the Irish Bishops and clergy from putting themselves forward and asking for glebes; but if England, through a sense of justice, made the offer without any conditions the case would be different. To mark his sense of the kind intentions of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) he would vote for the Amendment.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 121; Not-Contents 114: Majority 7.

  CONTENTS.

  Cambridge, D.

  Brownlow, E.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  York, Archp.

  Cawdor, E.

  Cowley, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Cowper, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  De La Warr, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Denbigh, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Devon, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Essex, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Bath, M.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Fortescue, E.

  Winchester, M.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Amherst, E.

  Grey, E. [Teller]

  Annesley, E.

  Harrington, E.

  Bantry, E.

  Home, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Ilcheter, E.

  1658

  Lichfield, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Lucan, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Digby, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dun-more.)

  Minto, E.

  Morton, E.

  Dunsandle and Clan-conal, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Ebury, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Powis, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Gardner, L.

  Romney, E.

  Hastings, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Hatherton. L.

  Russell, E.

  Headley, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

  Houghton, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Keane, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Westmoreland, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Halifax, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Hood, V.

  Leinster, V, (D. Linester.)

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Melville, V.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Northwick, L.

  Ely, Bp.

  Overstone, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Lichfield. Bp,

  Romilly, L.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Rochester, Bp.

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

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Belper, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Stratheden, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Strathnairn. L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Templemore, L,

  Crewe, L.

  Vernon, L

  Delamere, L.

  Westbury, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Bandon, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Cadogan, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Chichester, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ailsa, M.

  De Grey, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Derby, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Ducie, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Durham, E.

  Normanby, M.

  Effingham, E.

  Granville, E.

  Hare wood, E.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  1659

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Ennis- killen.)

  Kellie, E.

  Harris, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Hartismere, L.(L. Henniker.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Londesborough, L.

  Morley, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Monson, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clan-carty.)

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Petre, L.

  Gough, V.

  Ponsonby L. (E. Bess-borough.) [Teller.]

  Hawarden, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Raglan, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Norwich, Bp.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Tuam, &c, Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Audley, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Barrogill, L. (E. Caithness.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Cairns, L.

  Camoys, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Long-ford.)

  Carrington, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Sondes, L.

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

  Southampton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  De Mauley, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Suffield, L.

  De Tabley, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Dunboyne, L.

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Fitzhardinge, L.

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gos-ford.)

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Wrottesley, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OP DUBLIN THE ARCHBISHOP OP DUBLIN moved the following Amendment:—After Clause 24 insert the following clause:—
  "In case of any such commutation as hereinbefore provided it shall be lawful for the commissioners, at the desire of the holder of any archbishopric, bishopric, benefice, or cathedral preferment, to exclude from such commutation any house or land reserved to such holder by this Act which shall be in his actual occupation."
  Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT GOUGH VISCOUNT GOUGH moved the following Amendment:—At end of Clause 28, add—
  ("Provided always, that where any such ecclesiastical residence is so vested in the said representative body by order as aforesaid, such representative body shall have the like rights, powers, and remedies for recovering any sums due for dilapidations, and from the same persons, as the successor of any archbishop, bishop, or incumbent would have had if this Act had not been passed.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKmoved the following Amendment:—Clause 33. Amend the clause so that it may stand as follows:—
  "The commissioners may, at any time after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one, sell any rent-charge in lieu of tithes vested in them under this Act to the owner of the land charged therewith in consideration of the sum herein-after named; and upon any such sale being so made, the commissioners shall by order declare the rent-charge to be merged in the land out of which it issued, and the same shall merge and be extinguished accordingly.
  "If the owner elects to pay the purchase money for the same in full at once in consideration of a sum equal to twenty-two and a half times the amount of such rent-charge, 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.
  "If the owner applies for the benefit of payment by instalments as hereinafter provided, in consideration of a sum equal to twenty-two and a half times the annual amount of such rent-charge (without such deduction for poor rates).
  "And the commissioners may, in such case, by order, declare his purchase money or any part thereof to be payable by instalments, and the land out of which such rentcharge issued to be accordingly charged as from a day to be mentioned in such order for fifty-two years thence next ensuing, with an annual sum calculated at the rate of four pounds nine shillings per centum on the purchase money, 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 from the tithe rent-charge payable by him, or for such less number of years as may be agreed upon at an equivalent annual sum, so as to discharge the principal and interest in such less number of years. The annual sum charged by such order shall have priority over all charges and incumbrances, except quit or crown rents, and shall be payable by the same persons, and be recoverable in the same manner, and be subject to the same charges, if any, as the rentcharge in lieu of tithes heretofore payable out of the same lands.
  "'Owner' for the purposes of this section shall mean the person for the time being liable to pay rent-charge in lieu of tithes under the provisions of the Act of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and nine."
  LORD NORTHBROOK, on the part of the Government, objected to the Amendment.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  On Question, That the Bill do pass? objected to; on Question, qagreed to; Bill passed accordingly, and sent to the Commons.

PROTESTS.
Against the Third Reading of the Bill.
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because since 1835 no consent has ever been given in this House to the principle of the "Appropriation Clause" carried in the House of Commons by a Committee of the Whole House in 1835.
"2. Because on the Second Reading of this Bill it was assumed that the principle of it was agreed to, whereas by the exclusion of speeches by The Right Reverend The Lord Bishop of London and of Lord Lytton a full discussion of that principle was prevented.
"3. Because in this House any question faulty in principle may as fairly be opposed on the Third Reading as on any other stage of a Bill.
"DENMAN."
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because this Bill, for the first time since the foundation of the British Monarchy, introduces, so far as Ireland is concerned, the principle, unrecognized in any other country in Europe, of an entire severance of the State from the support of any and every form of religious worship.
"2. Because the adoption of this principle with regard to Ireland cannot but give great encouragement to the designs of those who desire its extension to every part of the United Kingdom.
"3. Because it is a violent stretch of the power of Parliament to resume a grant made by itself in perpetuity; still more to confiscate property held by long prescription, and by a title independent of Parliament.
"4. Because if this principle be well founded as regards private property, it is still more so with regard to that which has been solemnly set apart for the purposes of religion and the service of Almighty God.
"5. Because the legislation attempted in this Bill tends to shake confidence in all property, and especially in that which rests upon a Parliamentary title heretofore considered as the most unassailable of all.
"6. Because it is impossible to place a Church, disestablished and disendowed, and bound together only by the tie of a voluntary association, on a footing of equality with the perfect organization of the Church of Rome, whereby, especially in Ireland, the laity are made completely subservient to the priesthood, the priests to the bishops, and the bishops themselves are subject to the uncontrolled authority of a foreign potentate.
"7. Because this Bill will be felt as a grievous injustice by the Protestants of Ireland, who, through their Irish Parliament, surrendered their political independence by a treaty the fundamental condition of which was the greater security of the Protestant Establishment.
"8. Because while this measure will tend to alienate those who have hitherto been the firmest supporters of the British Throne and British connexion, so far from conciliating, much less satisfying, it will only stimulate to fresh demands that large portion of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland which looks forward to ulterior and very different objects, and, above all, to ultimate emancipation from the control of the British Legislature.

"DERBY.

SILCHESTER.

HARROWBY.

COLVILLE OF CULROSS.

MARLBOROUGH, for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 Reasons.

EXETER.

ABERGAVENNY.

MALMESBURY.

STRATHALLAN.

CHELMSFORD

WESTMEATH.

DE ROS.

DE VESCI.

GRINSTEAD.

ELLENBOROCGH.

WALSINGHAM.

REDESDALE.

FORESTER.

CLEMENTS.

DENMAN.

BANDON.

CLANCARTY

CHARLES B. TUAM.

G. A. LICHFIELD.

SALTOUN.

BRODRICK.

HARTISMERE.

STEWART OF GARLIES.

MANCHESTER.

MANSFIELD.

CLARINA.

CAIRNS, for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 Reasons.

KELLIE.

LAUDERDALE

DARTMOUTH.

TEMPLETOWN.

HAWARDEN.

FITZWALTER.

BANTRY.

NORTHUMBERLAND.

ABERCORN.

CHURSTON.

MELVILLE

LEVEN AND MELVILLE.

AMHERST.

SONDES.

TANKERVILLE.

KILMAINE.

GOUGH.

COLCHESTER.

C. J. GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.

TREDEGAR

O'NEILL.

BEAUCHAMP, for 1,2, 3, and 4 Rea-sons.

BROOKE AND

WARWICK.

WYNFORD.

PITT R. RIVERS.

GRAHAM.

E. H. ELY."

DIGBY.

Against the Passing of the Bill.
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because free discussion was again pre" vented on this stage of the Bill by the refusal o clamorous Members of the House of Lords to hear Lord Dunboyne, one of the Representative Peers for Ireland.
"2. Because the exclusion of the bishops, who are appointed by the Crown with a view to aid the counsels of Her Majesty during their lives, is an interference with the Constitution of the House of Lords, and with Her Majesty's Prerogative, and is likely to injure the Protestant clergy and laity of Ireland.
"DENMAN."

SEAMEN'S CLOTHING BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to the protection of Seamen's Clothing and Property—Was presented by The Earl of CAMPERDOWN; read 1a.
House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.