Sitting of 22 July 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee Civil SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class IV.
Resolutions [July 19 and 12] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Accounts, &c. Presentation *.
Ordered—First Reading—Volunteer Act (1863) Amendment* [236].
First Reading—Zanzibar (Jurisdiction of Consul) * [237].
Second Reading — Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) * [223]; Militia Pay * [82]; Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* [217]; Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment* [214]; Criminal Lunatics* [172]; Militia (Ireland)* [222].
Committee—Report—Trades Unions (Protection of Funds) * [216]; Railways Abandonment (re-comm.) * [219]; Heritable Rights* [204-234]; Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment (re-comm.)* [182]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [191]; Fisheries (Ireland) * [190]; Nitro Glycerine * [211–235].
Report—Telegraph* [197–233].
Third Reading—Contagious Diseases (Animals) (No. 2) [226]; Courts of Justice Salaries and Funds * [218]; Cinque Ports Act Amendment * [206], and passed.
Withdrawn—Petroleum (re-comm.) * [194]; Poor Law (Scotland) Act (1845) Amendment* [80].

QUESTION.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, With whom the contract for the mosaics in the Central Lobby of the Houses of Parliament was made?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that he had nothing to do with the arrangements as to mere architectural ornaments. These were in the hands of Mr. Barry, who had hitherto employed Signor Salviati in the mosaic work. He believed that with regard to the large pictures no arrangement had yet been made.

IRELAND—12TH OF JULY IN CALEDON.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. VERNERsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have any objection to state on whose application, and for what alleged reasons, a large extra force of Police were billeted in Caledon for the 12th of July; and, whether it is not the fact that the local magistracy had previously expressed a decided opinion that their services were not required?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the Government had received an application from certain Roman Catholic inhabitants of the town of Caledon, asking for an increase in the police force on the then coming 12th of July. It was impossible for the Government to comply with all such applications, and no answer was returned to this; but it was referred to the resident

  449
  magistrate, who was instructed to make arrangements for the preservation of the peace. The resident magistrate ordered a head constable and twenty additional constables to be sent there, and he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) did not think the magistrate was wrong in taking that course, considering that this town contained a mixed population of 300 Roman Catholics and 800 Protestants, and that upon the 12th of July a large number of Orangemen, to the number of 3,000, marched through the town with forty drums and fifes. There was no breach, of the peace; but, in his belief, the resident magistrate used a proper discretion in increasing the police force by this small number. As to any statement made by the local magistrates on the subject, he knew nothing of it.

  INDIA—OPIUM TRADE.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILFEID LAWSONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that, in consequence of the Imperial Chinese Proclamation forbidding the cultivation of the poppy in China, it has been determined to increase the production of opium in the Bengal Presidency?
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, in reply, it had been determined to increase the production of opium in the Bengal Presidency; but that determination was in no way connected with the Chinese Proclamation to which his hon. Friend alluded. The Government of India some time ago proposed to increase the growth of the poppy in Bengal with a view to obtaining a reserve of 10,000 chests of opium, and to offering for sale a fixed quantity of 48,000 chests in each year, exclusive of the opium sold to the retail traders. The object of the Government of India in proposing this was to steady prices, and to mitigate some, at least, of the uncertainties so embarrassing to the Indian financier which arose from fluctuations in the opium market. This proposal of the Government of India was sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council as far back as March last.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the Correspondence on the subject will be laid on the Table before the Indian Financial Statement is introduced?
  MR. GEANT DUFFmade a gesture of assent.

TRAFFIC IN SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will state to the House what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take in regard to the acknowledged evils of the traffic in South Sea Islanders now in active operation in the Polynesian Archipelago?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that a communication was received at the Foreign Office in June, 1868, from the Convener of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, stating, on the authority of some missionaries at the New Hebrides, that a system of kidnapping natives was being carried on in vessels under the British, American, and French flags, and that even in the case of natives who went willingly the contracts made with them were not adhered to, and that they wore detained for longer periods than they were hired for. The missionaries denounced this traffic as—
  "Being no better than slave-trading; alike injurious to those who are taken and those who are left. As those who are taken are of the strongest of the men, the remaining population is composed of the old and infirm, with the women and children; the women, moreover, on losing their husbands, take others, a course which," the missionaries observed, "produces complications and quarrels on the return of the emigrants."
  Her Majesty's consuls and naval officers, who were directed to report on this matter, did not bear out the missionaries in their statements, but it was very probable that abuses did arise connected with this immigration; and at Lord Clarendon's suggestion, therefore, special instructions had been sent to the naval authorities on the station to watch over the operations in progress to procure immigrants, and to prevent anything like the slave trade in disguise. Her Majesty's Consul in the Polynesian Archipelago and in the Sandwich Islands would receive instructions in this sense also. He could assure his hon. Friend, and also the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), who had been in communication with them on the subject, that it would not be neglected in the Foreign Office.

  SOCIETE AGRICOLE ET INDUSTRIELLE D'EGYPTE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a Letter in the city article of "The Times" of July8th, signed by the Chairman of the Committee of Shareholders of the Société Agricole et Industrielle d'Egypte; and, whether the statements therein contained are correct; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are prepared to take, to obtain the fulfilment by the Viceroy of the engagements entered into by him with Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that he did not think it would be convenient to discuss with the writer of that letter whether his statement was correct or not. He would, however, repeat to his hon. Friend the substance of the answer he gave the other day. The contention of the Government had always been that the British shareholders in that society were intitled to the same treatment as that which was meted to the foreign shareholders, and when they were informed that the Viceroy had settled on certain terms with the French shareholders, the Secretary of State had instructed Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt to require that the British shareholders should have the same treatment. The Consul General, in answer to that instruction, informed them that the Viceroy intended that British shareholders should be placed in the same position as French shareholders. The Viceroy having purchased the shares held by two French firms, had consequently purchased those held by two English firms. We have not been informed that he had purchased the shares of all the French holders. Inquiries have, however, been made on this point in Paris, as he should certainly contend that it was only just that British shareholders should be placed in exactly the same position as French.

  UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS.— QUESTION.
  MR. SARTORISsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Solicitor General, Whether, considering that the University Tests Bill will not become Law this Session, the Government would be prepared to
  452
  include a more comprehensive scheme for the extension of our Universities in the general educational measure they intend to bring forward next year?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: In answer, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I need hardly remind the House that my position in relation to the Government is not such that I am able to speak very authoritatively on this matter. Whether the Cabinet has any intentions on this subject, and if so what those intentions may be, I really do not know, and I have not taken upon myself to inquire; but if the hon. Gentleman wishes for any expression of my opinion, I may perhaps be permitted to say that the entire rejection of the wishes of this House by the majority of the other House, in refusing even to consider a Bill which had been sent up after being passed through this House by very large majorities, has certainly freed me from the duty—and I may say has taken away from me the wish—of considering the feelings and prejudices in regard to this measure of the other House of Parliament. And I may add, that if the majority of the House of Lords are unaware that popular and just demands of this kind are in the nature of things—["Oh, oh!"]—
  VISCOUNT SANDON: I beg leave, Sir, to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order in commenting upon the conduct of the other House with regard to a Bill lately brought before it in answering a Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: The rule of this House is that we do not comment upon the debates in the other House, but the public acts of the House of Lords are open to comment.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I was only going to say, Sir, when the noble Viscount interrupted me, that if the majority of the House of Lords are unaware that demands of this kind are in their nature certain to rise if met by contemptuous rejection, they are the only ninety-one persons in England who are so.
  MR. DISRAELI: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether, in answering a Question, an hon. Member may be allowed to debate a public matter? ["Oh, oh!"] I beg to state that I have no objection to the hon. and learned Gentleman having this opinion, and taking a proper mode of communicating it to the House; but if an opinion is expressed, and if we

  453
  are to enter into controversy, it ought to be under circumstances which will allow an answer. Therefore, Sir, I beg to ask your opinion whether, in answering a Question, an hon. Member has a right to enter into an argument such as that which is now being conducted by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it is desirable in answering a Question that as little of controversial matters as possible should be introduced into the answer.

  POLLUTION OF RIVERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the further evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed in 1865 for inquiring into the Pollution of Rivers will be laid before the House during the present Session; if so, whether with or without any further Report; and when it is probable that the Commission will complete its labours?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENreplied that the Rivers Pollution Commission of 1865, having made three Reports, was dissolved in February 1868, and a new Commission appointed in the following April. That Commission would probably complete its first Report very shortly, but scarcely in time to be in the hands of Members during the present Session. This Report would be on the Mersey and Ribble basin, as a cotton manufacturing district, and on the Aire and Calder basin as a woollen manufacturing district. The Commissioners had still much work of an important character to proceed with, and it was not possible at that moment to fix any precise period at which it was probable that their labours would be terminated.

NAVY—COASTGUARDSMEN.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, during the recent cruize of the Fleet in the Channel, it was true that certain Coastguardsmen, in the full enjoyment of health, and in the prime of life, are about to be discharged on pension, by direction of the Admiralty, because their back teeth are too far gone to masticate ship's biscuit; and whether, if this statement be correct, the Admiralty think that the pensioning off of able-bodied men, in the prime of life,
  454
  simply for the loss of their back teeth, is the best way of making Her Majesty's Service attractive to our seafaring population?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, in reply to the noble Lord's inquiry, he had to say that, during the recent cruize of the Reserve Squadron, no coastguardsmen were ordered to be discharged, either from deficiency of back teeth or for any other reason, What he imagined the noble Lord alluded to was this. By the rules of the service, every coastguardsman, unable to serve efficiently at sea, was liable to be discharged; and, considering that the force was our principal reserve, this rule should be strictly enforced. On the occasion of the recent cruize, it was ascertained that some hundreds of coastguardsmen were probably unfit for sea service, and it was ordered that all above a certain age should be surveyed during this summer. One of the conditions for entering the service was that a man should not have lost "so many teeth as would materially interfere with mastication;" and as sailors had to eat hard ship biscuit, he was not prepared, as at present advised, to repeal this regulation. But he found only one case, in which the medical officers recommended that a coastguards man should be discharged solely on this ground; and in that case the recommendation was sent back for re-consideration. In several cases, men had been pronounced "unfit for active service at sea, in consequence of injuries or diseases, coupled with loss of teeth," but not for loss of teeth only. In reply to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, he had to say that the naval service was most popular at the present time, in consequence of the high rate of pay and allowances, and especially the recent great increase in pensions; and he was not prepared to diminish its efficiency by refraining from giving those pensions to men pronounced unfit for service.

  ARMY—FIELD DAYS AT ALDERSHOT DURING HOT WEATHER. —QUESTION.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that on Monday the 12th instant the troops at Aldershot remained under arms from ten o'clock till between two and three p.m., and that in consequence of the extreme heat of the weather and

  455
  the tightness of their clothing, the plain was literally strewn with men who had fallen out of the ranks in a fainting condition; whether he has any objection to state the number of men in each regiment who fell out upon that occasion; whether any, and if any, what directions have been given to the General Commanding at Aldershot as to the manifest expediency of ordering that field exercise of every description should take place early in the morning during hot weather, and whether it is not the fact that Regimental Medical Officers of the Army have reported that the health and comfort of the soldier would be greatly increased if the wearing of stocks were altogether discontinued?
  MR. CARDWELL: In consequence, Sir, of the Question put to me by my noble Friend I have made inquiries, and have received a Report from Aldershot, from which I find that there was a field day on Monday, the 12th, and the troops remained under arms from ten till two, and a portion of them till half-past two. From the heat of the weather many men —that is 125 out of 8,125—fell out—the greater part of them to obtain water from the water carts that were in attendance. That, however, was not to be attributed to the tightness of the clothing. It is not the case that the plain was literally strewn with men who had fallen out; but it is true that five men were sent to hospital. In no one of the cases have serious consequences followed, and all the men have since returned to their duties. No directions have been given by the Horse Guards to the Lieutenant General commanding at Aldershot, in whose discretion, assisted by the medical officers, the utmost confidence may be placed. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that there is no officer in whom greater confidence may be placed than in Lieutenant General Sir James Scarlett. As to the wearing of the stock, permission has been given to discontinue the wearing of the old one. The new tunic is in course of issue.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of men sent into hospital between the 6th and 16th of July in consequence of the great heat on field days?
  MR. CARDWELL: I shall be happy to give the noble Lord that information if he wishes for it.

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

AFFAIRS OF NEW ZEALAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,VISCOUNT BURY, in rising to call the attention of the House to recent events in New Zealand, and to the Correspondence relative to New Zealand affairs which has lately been laid upon the Table of the House, said, it was not without considerable hesitation and long deliberation that he had decided on bringing the matter before the House, for he feared that in doing so he might provoke the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to commit himself to a certain course of policy which, when the country was roused, as he believed it would be roused, he would be compelled to alter. But having communicated with the right hon. Gentleman he had found in him so great a sympathy with the colonists, that he was sure the most favourable construction would be placed by the right hon. Gentleman on their demands. The state of affairs in that colony was very grave. The last mail had brought the news of fresh disasters. Settlements had been devastated, bodies of fanatics had attacked defenceless settlers, and horrors had occurred unsurpassed in atrocity in servile war or in the Indian Mutiny. We heard of infants eviscerated, and thrown palpitating and bleeding into their mother's laps; they heard of men being slain before the eyes of their wives, of their eyes being torn out and eaten; of women only reserved to pass through a period of horrible outrage, and then suffering death by torture. The colony of New Zealand had been under our rule for forty or fifty years, and the present was not a time to withdraw all protection from that country. The colonists did not ask for the assistance of our soldiers or for a gift of money, but the war which had subsisted for many long years had broken down their resources. In the Northern Island every man capable of bearing arms had been for many years past withdrawn from peaceful occupations. Settlements had been denuded of their male able-bodied population, and they

  457
  now came to the Imperial Parliament, with their resources exhausted and with the number of men available for their defence seriously diminished, to request the guarantee of a loan of money, in order that they might raise troops to protect themselves. The colonists said, and their past conduct justified the utmost confidence that they would honourably and punctually re-pay all they might raise under Imperial guarantee the despatch which had been recently sent by Earl Granville, in answer to that demand, was hardly one that might have been expected from a nobleman so pre-eminently distinguished for everything which could adorn the character of a statesman and a man. Considering all the circumstances of New Zealand, he did not think that this was the time to convey to the settlers that it mattered not to this country whether they were eaten up by the savages or not, and that they wont out to the colony without any consent or sanction on the part of the British Government. The noble Earl could not have looked into the question for himself, but must have accepted the official traditions handed down by his predecessors. He said in his despatch—
  "A number of Englishmen, without any invitation or encouragement from the English Government, took on themselves to form one or more settlements in the islands of New Zealand. The Government of the day considered itself responsible for placing the relations between these British subjects and the natives among whom they settled on a reasonable basis, and for securing order among the settlers. It therefore acquired the islands by treaty from the natives, and established a regular Government in the settlements. The Government was amenable at first to the Home Government, afterwards almost wholly to the settlers. But it was never at any time attempted to make New Zealand tributary to Great Britain, or to direct local affairs in such a way as to produce any political or pecuniary advantage to this country. The colony was governed with a view to the real or supposed advantage of the inhabitants. In one part of the colony, New Plymouth, a great and not unnatural desire existed to acquire part of the neighbouring lands from the natives. The Governor, holding as an Imperial officer the position of protector of native rights, but also anxious to gratify the desires of the colonists, took a step satisfactory to his responsible advisers, to the local Legislature, and apparently to the mass of the colonists, though blamed by some as inconsistent with those duties to the natives which were in some sense Imperial. The result of this step, taken entirely in the interests and with the approval of the colonists, was a war carried on partly at the expense of New Zealand, but principally at the expense of this
  458
  country. And the result of the war is that the leading tribe of the Maories is scattered; that the power of the others is broken, and that large tracts of land to which the Government had no claim, and the settlers no access, except by friendly arrangement with the natives, are confiscated, sold, and occupied by Europeans. If this statement is correct, it follows that the Imperial Government have not transferred to that of the colony any obligation whatever, except that imposed on all of us by natural justice, not to appropriate the property of others; and that all the Imperial expenditure on the colony has been for the benefit of the colonists."
  As a matter of history he disputed many of those assertions, and even if they were true he maintained that it was injudicious, unwise, and unkind to use these expressions. It was often said that the colonization of New Zealand had been injurious to the natives, whom, in their intercourse with them, the colonists treated as the mere scum of the earth. It was also stated, and even in blue books, that it was owing to mismanagement and neglect on the part of the colonists that the Maories had been metamorphosed into rebels against our authority. It was, however, urged by the colonists, and he believed with, truth, that the Home Government had from the first reserved to itself the control of native affairs, and that if they had been mismanaged it was the Homo Government that was responsible. It was, he might add, the way in which the Maori lands were dealt with in the first instance that brought about the first Maori war. If that were so we had no right, when we found ourselves involved in a costly struggle, to say that, because our policy had resulted in disaster, we should hand over to the colonists the management of the native population. What, he would ask, was the history of the colonization of New Zealand? Soon after it was first discovered, runaway whalers, convicts from the neighbouring settlement of Australia, men flying from the law, settled among the natives, and married in many instances the daughters of the native chiefs. In process of time a settlement was formed at a place called Kokoraraika, in the northern part of the North Island. That settlement had gradually become developed into a perfect pandemonium, and had been described as a perfect Alsatia. Soon after missionaries were sent out from this country, who established themselves not far from Tokoraraki, and who endeavoured,

  459
  not without success, to civilize the natives. They acquired a considerable degree of influence among them, purchased from them a large portion of their lands, and in process of time possessed the principal power, so far as Europeans were concerned, in New Zealand. These missionaries at the time thought of colonizing the entire country, but they desired that no other white persons should be sent out except such as were sent out under their authority. They therefore persuaded the Colonial Office to present some thirteen native chiefs with a flag, and to declare them the United Confederacy of the country, and this farce was actually gone through. As time went on the New Zealand Company was established in England, and they determined to get by fair cession from the natives land on which they might plant a settlement. They settled accordingly in the southern part of the North Island, and there established Wellington, which was now the capital. As soon as the missionaries found that there were other people settling on lands which they had reserved for themselves, they resolved that the new settlers should be got rid of, and they invented a very ingenious theory to secure that object. They said that they were the proprietors of the fee simple of the whole land of New Zealand; that no land could be acquired except by purchase from them, and that any one who purchased from a native must prove his title, which, of course, would involve the proving of the native title also. Just at that time the French desired to establish a settlement on the South Pacific, and they fixed on New Zealand for the purpose. When that intelligence reached England Captain Hobson was sent out and directed to negotiate with the thirteen New Zealand chiefs to whom he had referred, for the cession of their sovereignty, with the view to its being transferred to the Crown of this country. The result was the treaty of Waitangi, which had been described as the Magna Charter of the Maories, by which it was agreed that the Maories should be placed in full possession of all the land which they then held; that any one who settled on that land must purchase from the Maories, and that no one should be allowed to make such purchase except the Crown itself. 80,000 Maories—that was about the number on
  460
  the island—were thereupon put in possession of some 80,000 acres of waste land, not one-hundredth part of which they had ever seen. In order to carry out the provisions of the treaty Commissioners were sent out and a native land court was established. The New Zealand Company had meantime acquired some 70,000 acres of land in the vicinity of Wellington, to which they had as good a title as the missionaries had to the land which they had obtained in the neighbourhood of Tokoraraki a few years before. But, owing to the suicidal policy of the missionaries in determining that they should be the only European holders of land, there was for the next few years nothing but disputes between the two European communities in the island—the missionaries and the New Zealand Society. The missionaries were supreme with the Colonial Office, and the New Zealand Company were informed that they must prove their title to the lands which they had purchased before what was called the native land court. The natives, of course, the moment they heard the land was theirs to sell, set up a number of claims. Claimants sprang up for the fee simple of every acre that had been purchased by the company, many of which had, he believed, not been settled to the present day. Such was the history of the land question in New Zealand. The difficulty had arisen from not keeping the land in the possession of the Crown, as in Canada, and establishing the principle that all purchases of land should be made from the Crown. Could any system be imagined more certain to produce land disputes. The claims of the natives were based chiefly on the fact of confiscation and conquest; and the accidental shedding of blood—even the cutting of a man's finger while on the land of another person—had been held in our own land court to be a good title against a European title by purchase. In the Southern Island, near Nelson, a chief said he owned certain land by right of conquest, and murdered the settlers who went out to survey it. In point of fact, he had never been within a hundred miles of the land, but he said his tribe had driven off another tribe, and that, therefore, the land was his; and the Governor actually decided that, although the Queen's magistrates had been slain, the Queen's writ defied, and foul mur-

  461
  der committed, this chief had acted in the exercise of his just rights, and therefore must escape without punishment. This massacre was the first instance in which the natives felt that they might set the settlers at defiance, and from that time they had been petted, cosseted, and spoilt by the Home Government, and had come to believe that the settlers belonged to an inferior grade and were not true representatives of England, the missionaries taking pains to confirm them in that belief. Now the Maori theory of colonization was that the European settlers should not be numerous enough to command respect, but should remain in fear of them, should buy their slave girls, their peaches, and their pigs, and otherwise should not dare to call their souls their own; in return supplying the natives with such civilization and such arms as they wanted. The Maories never had any beneficial possession of the soil. They were not a hunting people, for the very good reason that there was not a single quadruped in New Zealand; they were not an agricultural people, for they had only to scratch the rich soil, and a crop came up sufficient to satisfy their simple wants. Living mainly upon fish and roots, it was only in time of war that they traversed the country, and to tell these people that they were lords of the soil was the first cardinal mistake made by this country in settling New Zealand. In 1853 it was determined that the settlers, who had possession of a fringe of land around the North. Island should have responsible and constitutional government; and he contended that the policy of the Imperial Government having been at the root of the land difficulty, the responsibility rested with us at home, and we had no right to withdraw from our position and throw the onus upon the settlers. What were the instructions of Governor Brown? He kept the conduct of native affairs solely in his own hands, and the two departments of Secretary for Native Affairs and Chief Commissioner for the purchase of native land were combined and retained in the hands of the Governor's Secretary. That measure acted injuriously upon the native mind, presenting the Crown to them in the light of a land jobber craving after native land, and leading them to suppose that the Governor was only there to bicker with them about their land.
  462
  Of course, we must now abide by the Treaty of Waitangi, and treat the natives as the possessors of the land, but that was the origin of all our difficulties. It was said that the colonists had always had the control of native affairs. But Governor Brown wrote that the view he had always taken of the relations which ought to exist between himself and his responsible advisers was that, as these gentlemen were responsible to the Assembly, he should be guided by their advice, even when he differed from them, in all matters under the control of that body; but on matters affecting the Queen's prerogative and Imperial interests generally he should receive their advice, but when he differed from them in opinion he should submit their views to the consideration of the Home Government, adhering to his own, until he received an answer from England; and among Imperial objects he included all dealings with the native tribes, more especially in the negotiation for, and purchase of, land. The Colonial Office acquiesced in that view. Mr. Labouchere wrote that, after the best consideration he could give, he approved the principle laid down by Governor Brown; and, in 1859, Lord Carnarvon said that circumstances did not justify the Government in abdicating the responsibility which rested upon them in dealing with the Maori race. When Sir George Grey was in New Zealand he acted well in keeping arms out of the hands of the natives. But Governor Brown relaxed that wise restriction, and allowed arms to be sold to the natives. This has been described as "a momentary infatuation which admitted of no excuse," for the Custom House Returns of 1857 and 1859 showed that there had been imported into the Northern Island, since the relaxation of the restriction, 6,000 stand of aims, and between 30,000 and 40,000 pounds of gunpowder, with shot and caps in proportion, all of which munitions of war were supposed to have found their way into the hands of the natives. Therefore, in the present disturbances, the natives were armed with weapons purchased from the British. When Governor Grey left the colony for the Cape, Colonel Wynyard was charged with the temporary Governorship of New Zealand. Just before Governor Grey left, six provincial Parliaments were established on a small scale. Dur-

  463
  ing his tenure of office the General Assembly was never called together at all, and these six little Parliaments did what they thought right themselves, and when Governor Brown succeeded Colonel Wynyard no concerted action could be agreed upon. Colonel Wynward allowed the idea to grow up that the Government would not interfere in the affairs of the natives. One of the chiefs sold some land to Englishmen. The Governor was informed that the chief's title would be disputed, and that the surveyors would not be allowed to mark out the ground. Colonel Wynyard said the sellers might mark it out themselves, and he would have nothing to do with the matter. The native chief sent out a party to mark the ground, and they were slain, and then the other party retaliated and made war upon the murderers. Among the Maories there were men who had acquired something like civilization, and they were desirous of living in peace with their neighbours; and as they saw that the Governors would not put the law in force in the case of tribal disputes, they determined on an assembly of natives for the purpose of appointing a King to rule over them. Such was the origin of the King movement. It was a wholesome movement, and might have been productive of much good if the Governor had turned it into the right channel, and established a native magistrate subordinate to the paramount authority of the Queen. At the same time with the King movement another movement, called the land movement, grew up. The natives were told that the land in their possession was desired by the Europeans, and they thought what was valuable for Europeans must be also valuable to themselves, and they formed a league for the purpose of preventing the sale of any more land to the Europeans. That proceeding would have been justifiable if confined to the land over which they had acquired a right by the Treaty of Waitangi; but they went beyond that, and declared not only that no man belonging to the confederacy should sell any land to the Europeans, but that no native should part with any portion of his land. These proceedings culminated in the Taranaki war of 1862. The settlers there were confined to a narrow strip of land on the sea shore. Finding the settlement too small for their energies, they wanted to purchase
  464
  other land from the natives, but the sale was prohibited by the land league. Governor Brown, who kept the entire control of native affairs in his hands, went to Taranaki, and attended a meeting at which Zekera, a great chief, said he was willing to part with his land. Governor Brown said he would have the title investigated, and if it was approved of he would purchase the land. The chief then laid a map at the Governor's feet in token that he had surrendered the land; but another chief, whose English name was William King, although he admitted the title, refused to permit the sale, and left the assembly with a considerable show of discourtesy to the Governor. The Governor, having taken counsel with the Secretary for Native Affairs, came to the conclusion that the title was satisfactory, and agreed that the land should be taken possession of, and the first instalment paid down immediately. The Waitara war commenced in consequence of an attack upon a surveying party by the natives, who fell upon them and killed them. Sometimes that war languished, but it never entirely died out. Sometimes large masses of Imperial troops were dispatched against the natives, but in vain. Sometimes there was only an occasional inroad on a border settlement; but from the time when Governor Brown, in the exercise of his discretion as an Imperial officer, without consultation with his native Ministry, bought the Taranaki land, New Zealand had not been free from war, and the disastrous results of the land policy he had endeavoured to describe were felt throughout that unhappy country. On one occasion particularly, in the Wanganui district, to the south of Taranaki, the war broke out with such violence that 6,000 or 7,000 of Her Majesty's troops were despatched, under General Cameron, against the natives; £3,000,000 was raised under an Imperial guarantee; great exertions were made throughout the colony, and it was supposed there would be a dash at the rebels' stronghold, and that at last there would be peace. But then was disclosed a state of affairs truly lamentable. Governor Grey and General Cameron had got to loggerheads; every mail brought home remonstrances from the Governor against the General, and insulting despatches from the General against the Governor. Im-

  465
  perial interests were entirely lost sight of. The money of the colony and the blood of our soldiers were sacrificed to a miserable quarrel between the Governor and the General. General Cameron declined to attack a pah with 5,000 or 6,000 European troops, but the Governor offered to send 200 colonial troops to take the pah. Eventually he did so, and some 200 or 300 colonial soldiers, without any assistance from the Imperial troops, captured the pah after a smart fight. To use European troops to encounter the Maories was like using an hatchet to break an egg. They were not suited to that kind of warfare. Soon after it was determined by the Colonial Office to resign all control over native affairs, and give matters entirely up to the responsible advisers of the Governor of New Zealand. Mr. Weld, formerly Prime Minister in the colony, wrote a Paper describing the state of things in 1864. When the Assembly met the Ministers resigned, after an unseemly altercation with the Governor. England naturally enough was dissatisfied with the lavish expenditure of blood and money; the natives were defeated but not subdued; the colony had neither money nor credit; its debentures were unsaleable; its accounts largely overdrawn; and the Parliament was disorganized. That state of things had arisen from the mismanagement of this country. Then were sown the first seeds of that horrible fanaticism, known as the Hau-hau fanaticism, the latest development of which was to be found in the last mail. The fanatics believed that the Virgin Mary had taken them under her special protection, and made them invulnerable and immortal. They had cannibal rites of the most horrible description, and established a system of communism, in order, as their prophet said, that their descendants might number as many men as there were sands on the sea-shore. The Government had admitted that it was not the settlers or their policy, but that of the Home Government alone, which had landed the colony in such a lamentable condition; and then, when they decided to withdraw their troops—and with them, as the Maories believed, the countenance of the Queen—from the settlers, the Home Government committed a cruel injustice. They had sown the wind and had left the colonists to reap the whirlwind. The colonists lost no time in pro-
  466
  testing against the determination of the Government to abandon all control over the affairs of the colony, and against the imputation that they did not sufficiently defend themselves; and the Legislative Council in their Address to the Governor, transmitted by him to the Home Government, represented that the whole of the ablebodied male population of the Taranaki settlement, over the age of sixteen years, had been for two years and a-half in full military service, and that the taxation amounted to £5 per head per annum on the whole European population of both islands. It was, however, decided that the troops should be withdrawn, and at this moment the last British red-coat was being withdrawn from the colony. He did not believe that the House of Commons would resist the cry of a nation in its direst peril. It was hardly necessary to remind the House of recent events. Some fierce fanatics who had been deported from the shores of New Zealand to the Chatham Islands, and who were kept in safe custody there for a considerable time, seized a vessel and made their escape to New Zealand. They landed at Poverty Bay, and committed atrocities which threw the whole island into a ferment. The Volunteers were called out, and a strong appeal was made to the Home Government to allow a single regiment to remain, not to fight, but to remove the impression among the Maories that the Queen looked with displeasure upon the colonists of the Northern Island. The rebels pointed triumphantly to the withdrawal of the troops, and urged the friendly Maories to show their loyalty to Her Majesty by assisting them to drive the settlers into the sea. That was a result which the British authorities, by their policy, had been unwittingly lending themselves to. Now that the last plea of the colonists for assistance had teen rejected he feared that a general rising of the native tribes would be the result, and then, fatigued and harassed by continual war, the settlers might be unable to withstand the united rush of the natives. He knew it was difficult to reverse a policy, but he thought our colonies ought to be treated as distant parts of this country, and he deplored the spirit in which this question, had been discussed in England. If, however, the hearts of the British people were aroused—if they knew what the New

  467
  Zealand colonists had done to help themselves, he did not believe that they would refuse the helping hand for which the colonists now asked. This was not a question affecting New Zealand alone, for if this country repudiated its obligations to a colony in its direst distress, the colonists would naturally look about for some other country which had sterner ideas of the duty of a parent state to a colony. New Zealand might negotiate with the Australian colonies to form a confederation for mutual protection against external and internal attack, or might claim the protection of such a nation as the United States; and, in the present state of our relations with that country, he would ask whether it would be agreeable to complicate matters by a protectorate asserted by the United States over one of our colonies. He was sure his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would not be unmoved by the tale which he had unfolded. We were now threatened, he believed, with war, and he felt not only for the settlers, but for the Maories, among whom there were friendly tribes who had always shown a leaning towards this country and her civilization. But if by our policy we made it clear that nothing but a war of extermination was to be hoped for, and we announced to the settlers that they must rely on their own strong arms alone, what would be the result? Why, that sympathetic aid would be called in from the neighbouring colony of Australia, whose wild spirits would seek in the confiscation of the native lands the reward of any assistance which they might render. Hitherto we had not confiscated the lands of the native tribes we had conquered. That was a great error, for it caused them to regard us with contempt, and to cease to believe in the power of our arms. As things now stood the Maories were fast dying out. They had diminished from 80,000—which was their number in the days of Captain Cook—to something like 38,000; and if a war of annihilation were now embarked in not a single Maori would, in all probability, be left at the expiration of ten years. That would be the result of the policy which the Aborigines Protection Society had been the means of commencing. He believed, however, that many of the natives might be saved if it were only made known to them that it was the
  468
  wish of our Queen that they should enter into relations of amity and friendship with the settlers. Let the friendly tribes be civilized, but if necessary, let those Hau-hau fanatics, with their weasel-like thirst for blood, be utterly stamped out, and let not all be mixed up in one indiscriminate hotch-potch. Let us adopt the maxim Divide et impera. He would simply, in conclusion, express a hope that aid would be given to the settlers—he could not believe that the British nation would refuse to listen to their prayer. He believed that when the heart of the British people was appealed to, there was but one response which they would give, or which they dared to give.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, every one connected with New Zealand must thank the noble Viscount for the manner in which he had pleaded for the colonists. He had also to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies for the manner in which he had attended to representations which had been made to him on behalf of the colony of New Zealand, although he had not been able to give effect to them. He (Mr. Magniac) believed the value of our trade with New Zealand and the interest which we had in the prosperity of that colony were little understood in this country. The Returns for 1867 showed that the value of the direct imports of British manufactures into it for that year was £2,750,000, while the amount of the imports from Australia was £1,500,000, the total imports into the colony for the year having been about £5,000,000. The exports, he might add, for 1868, gave a total of £4,500,000, of which £4,000,000 came direct to this country, £1,500,000 in the shape of wool, and the remainder in gold. During the last ten years the value of the British manufactures imported into the colony was no less than £17,000,000; and these facts proved, he thought, that we depended to no inconsiderable extent on our trade with it for the comfort and well-being of our manufacturing classes. The settlers whom we were asked to aid were our own blood and sinew, and he believed that the country would recognize the fact that blood was thicker than water, and would be prepared to do their duty by New Zealand, even at the expense of their pockets. Governor Bowen attached the utmost importance to the presence of European troops for

  469
  their effect, not only upon the European mind, but upon the mind of the friendly natives, who had stood by us, regardless of danger to themselves and their families, and certainly deserved consideration at our hands. The effect of British troops upon them was described as something not to be believed, and he was afraid of the effect upon them when the last red-coat left New Zealand. Such a withdrawal, it was justly said, was as though it had been proposed to withdraw British troops from Scotland in 1715 and 1745, from Ireland in 1798, or from British India in 1857. It was alleged that only a certain limited number of natives were in arms against the Queen. No doubt the natives might be divided into three classes—hostile, neutral, and friendly. But the departure of the red-coats would be the signal for the neutral natives at once to throw themselves into the arms of the hostile Maories; the friendly natives would be unable to maintain their ground; and in the district of Wellington, with which he happened to be acquainted, there were already signs that natives, who had been looked upon as the most certain in their loyalty, were now wondering what they were to do. The massacres and outrages which had occurred, and the devastation of settlements, had brought the greatest distress upon many colonists, and he knew numbers of families, previously living in affluence, who were at this moment penniless. But it was said — ''Why do not the colonists depend upon themselves, there being 220,000 colonists against 38,000 natives?" But the natives were concentrated in the Northern Island, while only from 70,000 to 75,000 Europeans were there, of whom from 40,000 to 50,000 were located in the principal towns. Thus between 30,000 and 40,000 Europeans—men, women, and children— were scattered about from one end of the island to the other, some very unused to arms and unfit to fight, while among the natives the women were almost as apt as the men, assisting in the pahs, loading the guns, and even firing them on occasion, and aiming very straight. Again, it had been said that the colonists ought to get somebody to fight for them. That was exactly what they had done. In the course of the last five years this colony of 220,000 had expended no less than £2,750,000 for mi-
  470
  litary purposes, their annual military expenditure being at the rate of nearly £2 per head, whereas the annual military expenditure of this country only amounted to about £1 per head. In a letter which he hold in his hand from an eminent member of the Legislative Assembly, it was stated that the colony was expending more blood and treasure than it could possibly afford. Upon the subject of the quality of the men raised, it was impossible that the colony could be blamed upon that ground, as it was a matter of extreme difficulty to get men at any price to imperil their lives in a country where the services of the common labourer were so valuable. The cost of the common soldier in the colony had been estimated at £150, and, consequently, the expenditure involved by keeping on foot a force of 1,500 was very considerable. The result of the present state of affairs in the colony was that settlers in all districts were leaving in large numbers, the Customs revenues were falling off, and the exports were being reduced. Under these circumstances it was impossible that the colony could support an enormous military expenditure without some extraneous help. If that help were not forthcoming the war would degenerate into an irregular war, to which numbers of wild spirits would be attracted in the hope of appropriating the lands of the natives whom they would exterminate, and the result would be a disgrace, not only to the colony, but to this country. It was impossible for this country to shake off the responsibility imposed by the treaty of Waitangi. Former Governments had not held the views now held by the Colonial Secretary. It had been suggested that the colony should employ friendly natives, under white officers, to fight for them; but the result of all attempts to employ native soldiers had been that no prisoners were taken, all who fell into the hands of the victorious party being massacred without mercy. Did the Goorkas or the Sikhs make any prisoners in their campaigns? It had been also suggested that the colonists should make peace with the natives, but that advice came ill from a Government which had at one time 16,000 soldiers in the colony. He complained bitterly of the Home Government offering for sale in the colony large quantities of surplus gunpowder, notwithstanding the

  471
  remonstrances of the Colonial Government, who represented the danger of its falling into the hands of the natives. The noble Viscount who had brought this question before the House had stated that the colony did not ask for men, although a very modest request had been made within the last month to the Home Government that they would permit the only regiment that was still in New Zealand to remain there until the result of the present crisis of the war was known in this country. That request had, however, not been acceded to. As the noble Viscount said, a guarantee, under perfectly unexceptionable conditions, was asked for; but that request was not acceded to. Under these circumstances gentlemen who took the deepest interest in the colony made up their minds to ask for nothing more, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and ultimately of this House. He trusted, however, that means would be found to give the colony some small aid. The lives of 10,000 English men, women, and children, to say nothing of the natives, were dependent on the manner in which this question was dealt with.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that, after the eloquent speech of the noble Viscount the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury), he would not enter at any length into the history of the evils which had brought the colony of New Zealand into its present condition, but he might say that he had received communications which corroborated every statement of the noble Viscount. During the last few years it had been the policy to leave the colony to itself, but in that time horrors had been perpetrated in New Zealand which people in this country would hardly realize. In December last a despatch from the Governor of New Zealand warned the Government against the fatal step of withdrawing the Imperial troops, stating that a number of friendly natives had waited upon him, and complained that they were being abandoned to the Queen's enemies. He feared that if Her Majesty's Government persisted in its present policy they would desert the English cause. Letters, which he had received, stated that unless some assistance were afforded to the colonists they would be unable to cope with the evils surrounding them, and it was suggested that Go-
  472
  vernment aid might be given in opening up roads throughout the country for the troops. He trusted that the general appeal which had been made to the Government would induce them to do something for a colony which afforded excellent openings for emigrants from this country.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought it would be evident to anyone who knew the difficulty of guarding a large extent of coast that it must be impossible to keep gunpowder and arms out of the hands of the native population of New Zealand, especially as many of the Maories possessed ships, and performed considerable voyages. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) had stated that there never had been a period of positive tranquillity in the province, but when he (Sir Charles Dilke) was there, in 1866, perfect tranquillity prevailed, and the Governor made a peaceful progress through the island, and was received by the chiefs of the now hostile tribes on the east coast. Though he dissented from the conclusions to which the noble Viscount had come, he admitted that our early dealings with the Maories were not what they might have been. The despatches of Lord Carnarvon showed that the policy of the present Government was adopted at the Colonial Office a long time ago, and the Duke of Buckingham, in a despatch last year, while deploring the fresh disturbances which had arisen, stated that the Government did not feel at liberty to assume the control of native affairs or undertake the duty of defending the colony from native disburbances. With regard to the proposal for leaving the 18th Eegiment in New Zealand, it had been refused in the most emphatic way by the colonists themselves. The hon. Member who had just spoken said it was the policy of the Imperial Government to leave the country alone. That had, in fact, always been the policy of the colony itself, which had asserted its independence in even a defiant manner. He, like other hon. Members, had received many letters from the colony on this subject; and it was rather curious to find that, although intended to tell strongly against the Colonial Office, when closely examined they told very strongly in faxour of the Colonial Office. The Colonial Government had never observed those stipulations which the Home Government

  473
  had prescribed. "Whatever might be said now, it was clear that the colony had assumed an attitude of self-reliance. That had invariably been the tone of Mr. Stafford, the able Prime Minister. There had been a suggestion that the North Island of New Zealand should be abandoned; but, before such an idea was seriously entertained, it would be well to remember the present proportions of the population, as between the whites and the natives. The population of the whites had been understated that evening, while that of the hostile Maories had been overstated. According to Sir George Bowen's showing there were now in the North Island only 38,000 Maories. of whom only about 3,000 or 4,000 were absolutely hostile, and 16,000 were friendly. In 1851, there were about 58,000 whites and 56,000 Maories; but, in 1867, the number of whites was 227,000, exclusive of the diggers, who were very numerous, and he (Sir Charles Dilke) believed that, at present, the white population was not fewer than 280,000. Nothing could be more preposterous than the notion that that large body of English settlers would be willing to give up so prosperous and fertile an island to a mere handful, comparatively speaking, of hostile natives. What, then, was to be done? The colonists would not accept troops except on conditions of local control, which the Colonial Office could not possibly assent to. Purely local troops must be maintained from purely local resources. With regard to a loan, it seemed to him a very lame conclusion of all that had been said on this subject that they should be asked to guarantee a loan of £1,500,000. The credit of New Zealand had greatly improved of late years, and the colonists need not look to the mother country for financial assistance. He had been informed that in 1863 the colony issued a 6 per cent at 83, and it fell to 60, but that now she could issue one at a price between 90 and 100. This surely was not the time when England should resume the oft-condemned policy of guarantees. As respected the future he would suggest that the prohibition of settlement in disturbed districts should be strictly enforced; that honours should be conferred on leading friendly natives as a means of securing their attachment, and welding them into a homogeneous
  474
  force—the practice of sending swords and badges should be continued and extended—and that the Imperial Government should give encouragement to the native-King movement. Thousands of natives, extremely friendly to the British Government, were also passionately attached to that movement. At this moment there was no sign that the native- King flag was likely to be raised against this country, and he saw no reason why it should not be recognized, to the extent of reserving a certain portion of the North Island for the natives, in which the writs of, the Colonial Government should not be allowed to run, but reserving the suzerainty of the Home Government.
  MR. E. N. FOWLERsaid, however much hon. Members who had listened to the debate might differ on other points, there was one point on which there could be no difference of opinion, and that was that the House was greatly indebted to the noble Viscount for the exhaustive and eloquent speech in which he had brought the question forward. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) had attributed the present troubles of New Zealand in a great measure to the Aborigines Protection Society. Now he (Mr. Fowler) had been a member of that society for nineteen years, and he denied that the society had any such power for good or for evil as that attributed to it. To hear some people talk one would think it a powerful organization like the Anti-Corn Law League of former days. But what was it? It consisted of a number of gentlemen who took an interest in colonial questions, and who made it their business to seek the redress of the grievances of the natives when grievances wore proved to exist. Their proceedings consisted, in a great measure, of representations addressed to the Secretary of State, and to the authorities in the colonies, and their object was to do as as much good as possible to the natives. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who had long filled the Office of Colonial Secretary with advantage to the country and with honour to himself, as to whether they had ever encouraged them to any course of factious opposition to the Government? The Maories were not the despicable race that the noble Viscount appeared to believe. The conduct of the Hau-haus

  475
  had been such as must be reprobated in the strongest terms, but this must be put down to the successive wars and difficulties of New Zealand during twenty years. The progress made by the Maories in social elevation had been described in encouraging terms by Sir George Grey, Sir William Martin, and other authorities; and for this we were very much indebted to the labours of those devoted men who went forth among them as missionaries. Ten years ago Sir William Martin, Chief Justice of New Zealand, drew a picture of the natives of that colony which did honour to their race. He said they were an industrious and intelligent race, that they grew a large portion of the corn produced in the colony, bought mills and vessels, accumulated considerable sums of money by a system of co-operative labour, readily gave land for schools, and took steps of their own accord to repress drunkenness and immorality. That was their state ten years ago; but unhappy contests with regard to the land afterwards sprang up, and led the Maories into the commission of acts which could not be defended. They were, however, the original possessors of the soil; they had seen it taken away from them, and their feelings might be supposed to be those of the Gaels, as described by Sir Walter Scott—
  "The stranger came with iron hand,
  And from our fathers left the land."
  The description which Sir George Bowen gave of his tour throughout the Northern Island was very favourable to the natives; he compared the present state of the Northern Island to that of the Highlands of Scotland 130 years ago. The same progress might be expected, and he trusted that the native race of New Zealand would one day take their place among the foremost races of the world. The affair of Taranaki, of which the noble Viscount had given an account, was very differently represented by Archdeacon Hadfield, in the pamphlet published by him. He distinctly stated that the war had nothing to do with the land league; that the natives did not kill the surveying party, but merely drove them away. In further contradiction of the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury), he declared that in the war in Taranaki the land had been bought with the sanction of the Colonial Ministry, and that Sir George Grey, on his appointment, had
  476
  ordered an inquiry which resulted in the restoration of the land to William King, the chief with whom we had gone to war. With respect to Te Kooti, the present chief of the rebel Maories, it must be admitted that his conduct was utterly indefensible, and that, in fact, he was now a miscreant; but it must not be forgotten that formerly he was a loyal subject of the Queen, and that he was unjustly arrested and sent to imprisonment. It appeared that when he was serving under the British Government he went into the rebel camp for the purpose of persuading his brother, who was fighting against the British army, to come over to the loyal party. This circumstance coming to the knowledge of the authorities, he was placed under arrest, and sent to Chatham Island, from which place he subsequently made his escape. This unjust treatment was the primary cause of Te Kooti's rebellious conduct. Allusion had been made to the services of Sir George Grey. All must respect the character of that distinguished man. The services which had been rendered by Sir George Grey, when Governor of the colony, entitled him to the best thanks of this country, and he only regretted that any differences should have arisen between him and the Government of this country to prevent his continuing to hold that office. The noble Earl the present Secretary for the Colonies also deserved the approval of the public for the despatch in which he reprobated the offer of prize money for the heads of rebels taken in war. Had the debate not already occupied considerable time he should have called the attention of the Government at length to a Paper by Mr. Manning, which had been presented to the House, in which, at page 61, he laid down the importance of the action of the native land courts in promoting the civilization of New Zealand; but he should now content himself with expressing a hope that the recommendations contained in that Paper would receive due attention at the hands of the Government and of the authorities in New Zealand. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) had referred to the native-King movement, and he agreed with all the remarks that had fallen from the hon. Baronet on that point. Had that movement been met by the British Government in a friendly instead of a hostile

  477
  spirit, the colony might have been preserved from many of the evils which had now to be deplored. He was glad to observe that Sir George Bowen gave a somewhat qualified approval to the movement, and believed that it might be made compatible with the sovereignty of the Queen. The noble Viscount had wound up his speech by advocating what might almost be described as a policy of extermination. If such a policy were to be adopted, it would be a disgrace to our civilization and to Christianity. He rejoiced to believe that it received no support from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that, instead of attempting to exterminate the natives, he was anxious to bring them within the pale of civilization. Whatever might be said of other races in our colonies, he thought it must be admitted that the Maories were a race of people capable of civilization, and it would be a disgrace to this country if they were not civilized, as such a result would be entirely owing to our own mismanagement. The policy of Sir George Bowen was exactly contrary to that of the noble Viscount, being founded on the belief that the Maories could be governed upon the same principles as the natives of India were. In conclusion, he trusted that this country would always pursue a firm and reasonable, instead of an exterminating, policy towards the noble and manly race with whom the colonists in New Zealand were now at war.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he felt bound, at the outset of the observations which he was about to make, to express his gratitude to his noble Friend who had introduced the subject under discussion to the notice of the House, as well as to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniae) for the manner in which they had spoken of him personally. He could assure them, speaking on behalf of the Government, that he approached that subject with the deepest pain, and that he sympathized no less than his noble Friend in the sufferings of the colonists which he had so eloquently described, while he had no less anxiety to do everything to redress those sufferings which justice and policy would allow. On the other hand he was satisfied his noble Friend would admit that it would not be right in such a matter as that with which the House was dealing, to act on the impulse of feeling or under the influence which might be produced
  478
  by mere panic. It was the duty of the Government fairly and fully to consider what the relations of this country were to the colonists, as well as those of both to the Maories, and decide the question accordingly. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) had referred to the present condition of New Zealand, and there could be no doubt that the statements which he had made were perfectly accurate. The number of Maories now in the North Island was certainly not more than 35,000 or 36,000; and of those 10,000 wore cut off from the rest by the isthmus on which Auckland stood, and they were, and had for many years been, friendly to this country. Of the remainder, a very large proportion were friendly also, while those who were neutral were powerful and numerous. He was sure the House would listen with interest to the statements in a letter referring to the subject, which had been received by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, within the last few days, from a connection of his in New Zealand. The letter was not written for the purpose of publication, nor was it dressed up in order to advocate any particular view. It was written by a man of considerable eminence, Mr. Seymour, who was for some time Superintendent of Marlborough, and who it was also right to state, possessed property to a considerable extent in Now Zealand, not only in the Southern but also in the Northern Island. Now, the statement of that gentleman, who, there could be no doubt, was a competent authority on the subject on which he wrote, would, he thought, give some relief to the mind of his noble Friend. Mr. Seymour said—
  "There is no war of races, and I do not think it will ever turn to one. For the natives may be divided into three bodies—friendly, neutral, and hostile. I think the friendly are the most numerous, and they have been giving us great help, and, what is more, have been suffering with us too. The neutrals are also a large body, who some years back under their king retired into a comparatively small district lying on the west coast round about Kawhia harbour. These then surrounded themselves with imaginary lines termed Aukati,' past which no European was to come; if any ventured, they were warned back; if they persisted, their foolhardiness generally resulted in the loss of their clothes, &c.; but in no case was personal violence offered that I ever heard of, or their lives placed in danger. These Kingites, then, still maintain this attitude of strict neutrality. These two classes embrace most of the native population; the hostile are few in num-

  479
  ber, but from the cause above are capable of doing vast mischief. I do not think masses of British troops would be of any service to us. The British soldier cannot, or rather, is not allowed to fight or even to be trained to that mode of fighting which only can be useful here. Our self-reliant policy was and is still best, and undoubtedly most likely to succeed. Our fault was the common fault of the British—that of being unprepared."
  Now, that was a letter which, in his opinion, was very much calculated to alter the judgment of those who took such a gloomy view of the state of affairs in New Zealand as he had heard expressed by some hon. Gentlemen that evening. The noble Lord (Viscount Bury) said that the evils existing in New Zealand had been caused by the Home Government. Now, they had been reminded in the course of the debate that successive Governments had deliberately adopted and carried out that very policy towards New Zealand which the noble Lord now Condemned, and they had likewise been reminded, with great truth, of the great importance of that colony to England. There was hardly a Gentleman in that House who had not a friend or a relative in New Zealand, and it represented the different classes of which English society was composed probably more completely than any other colony. It seemed to him therefore absurd to suppose that successive Governments should have deliberately adopted a policy hostile to the best interests of such a colony. After all, every suggestion that was made, whether for troops or for guarantees, amounted n some way or other to this—that the tax-payers of this country ought to be called on to contribute towards the internal affairs of New Zealand; but he maintained that the taxpayers of England had no more to say to the internal affairs of New Zealand than the tax-payers of New Zealand had to say to the internal affairs of England. The noble Viscount had spoken of the way in which they had governed New Zealand; but if a Government conscientiously did its best in regard to a colony, it was idle to contend that on account of possible mistakes which it might have made—for no Government was infallible —it was to be called on to pay some contribution or to acknowledge that it had contracted some debt towards the colony. In 1854, when responsible government was adopted in New Zealand, the Legislative Assembly addressed the
  480
  Governor, congratulating him on the progress of the colony and on the good relations which existed between the two races inhabiting it. Native affairs had up to that time been carefully excluded from the control of the colonists; but the colonists afterwards began to seek some control over those affairs. In 1858 or 1859 a demand was made that the Native Minister should be responsible to the Governor in Council—that was to say, to the Government which had the confidence of the colony. When that demand was sent home by Governor Gore Brown, it was objected to by Lord Carnarvon, who felt that there were certain obligations on our part towards the natives which he could not be sure would be properly discharged if that concession were made to the colony. A remarkable correspondence passed between Sir George Lewis—who acted as Secretary of State for the Colonies during the Duke of Newcastle's absence in Canada — and Mr. Richmond, a distinguished colonist of New Zealand. Mr. Richmond made the demand on the Imperial Government that 5,000 troops, involving an expense of about £150,000 a year, should be maintained for the defence of the outlying settlements. Sir George Lewis replied that wise government and prudent conduct on the part of the settlers would, in his opinion, do far more than an increased military force to maintain on a satisfactory footing the relations between the Europeans and the natives; and he pointed out that the outlying settlements were in a position in which it would be utterly impossible for this country to protect them. Such were the views of the Home Government on that subject; and therefore those who went to those outlying settlements were given to understand that they went on their own responsibility; they knew the dangers to which they would be exposed, and that it was utterly impossible for any Government to shield them from such risks. Mr. "Weld himself had recognized that no amount of British troops could possibly protect the settlers in those districts. Therefore the settlers were fairly warned from the very first by the Government of this country. In 1861, when Sir George Grey returned to New Zealand, he found the colonists possessed with the idea that it was absolutely essential they should have the control over native affairs in the same

  481
  way as they had over their own. Sir George Grey, indeed, found this feeling to be so strong that he took on himself the responsibility of giving effect to it without waiting for the decision of the Secretary of State, and he wrote a despatch home explaining his conduct. To that despatch the Duke of Newcastle, on May 26, 1862, replied, sanctioning the placing of the natives under the control of the Assembly, stating that he could not disguise from himself that the endeavour to keep the management of the natives under the control of the Home Government had failed, and that it could only be mischievous to retain a shadow of responsibility when the beneficial exercise of power had become impossible. He therefore acceded to the demand of the colonists. It was true that when his despatch reached New Zealand the Colonial Government declined to accept the been they had sought, for the simple reason that they wanted to have the power, but did not desire to pay the expenses to which it would render them liable. But in a subsequent despatch of great ability, dated February 24, 1863, the Duke of Newcastle explained his view of the whole of the transactions which had occurred, and refused to withdraw the gift he had made to the colonists, telling them distinctly that what they had asked for and obtained they must keep, and that with it they must bear a considerable portion, at all events, of the expenditure for their own defence, and the Legislature of New Zealand, relying upon the cordial co-operation of the Imperial Government for the future, cheerfully, by a unanimous vote, accepted the responsibility thus placed on the colonists. The Imperial Government gave its assistance with no niggardly hand; 10,000 Imperial troops with 6,000 colonial troops, took the field, aided by a fleet of steamers and gunboats, but these great forces were paralyzed by the system of double government, which, to quote Mr. Weld's words, was "the root of half the misfortunes that occurred;" and, in November, 1864, the colony was nearly prostrate. The natives, as my noble Friend has said, quoting Mr. Weld's words, "were defeated but not subdued." Taranaki had not been reconquered; escaped prisoners occupied a fortified position within sight of Auckland; the colony had neither
  482
  money nor credit. Then it was that the Government of Mr. Weld was formed. The system of double government had broken down—Mr. Weld refused to take Office unless it were abandoned. The principles upon which his Government was formed are clearly laid down in a Memorandum he submitted to the Governor in November, 1864. After expressing his opinion that double government had resulted in evil to both races of Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand, he recognized the right of the Home Government to interfere as long as the colony received the aid of British troops, but said he was prepared to accept the alternative, and would recommend the Assembly to ask for the entire withdrawal of British troops, and also to ask the Home Government to issue such instructions as would enable the Governor to be guided by the recommendations of his constitutional advisers, except only upon such matters as concerned the Imperial interests and the Prerogative of the Crown. That reservation would have been sufficient to prevent a war of extermination between the two races, because Her Majesty's Government could not be absolved from the obligations of the treaty of Waitangi, and the rights of the natives were secured under that treaty. With that limitation, however, a demand was made by Mr. Weld for absolute and entire self-government. He required that the whole of the land forces should be withdrawn from New Zealand with the least possible delay, and had since stated distinctly, having before his eyes the present lamentable state of things, that in his opinion it was due, in part at all events, to the fact that his demand had not been entirely acceded to at once — was due, therefore, not to the removal of the troops, but to the delay in their removal. Mr. Weld insisted not only upon getting rid of the Imperial troops, but upon keeping up a sufficient colonial force, and, with the assistance of Major Atkinson, succeeded to a great extent in effecting this object; but he was turned out of Office. Mr. Stafford became Prime Minister, and, unfortunately, the colony was left without sufficient defence against the inevitable results of the system of confiscation that was carried on. Mr. Weld had recommended that 1,500 colonial troops should be kept on foot, armed and trained with special reference to the

  483
  nature of the services required. This policy was not adhered to by Ms successor, and there were nothing but raw and undisciplined recruits to suppress the recent rising, notwithstanding the repeated and energetic warnings against confiscation by his right hon. Friend the present Secretary for War. Confiscation was carried on, and, at the same time, the colonial military force was not kept up. Allusion had been made to the natives who escaped from the Chatham Islands. Now he believed—though his information was not official—that these prisoners were sent to the Chatham Islands for two years. They behaved well while there, but finding they were not released when the time expired they made their escape, and it must always be remembered that, with the exception of one person who lost his life in the scuffle, they inflicted no injury upon anybody. When they landed, however, it was attempted to re-capture them, and, as the House knew, the result of that attempt was lamentable. At the other side of the island—of this, again, there is no official information—in the course of the campaign under General Chute, some horses had been taken away from the Maories. They were re-taken by the natives, two of whom were seized as hostages for their return. The result was an encounter in which two or three people lost their lives, and he believed that the rising upon the east coast was precipitated by this circumstance. He thought he had clearly shown that the demand for the removal of the troops was made by the colonists themselves; that it was insisted upon by them in the strongest manner; that after Mr. Weld went out of Office they omitted to take the precautions which common sense suggested for their own protection; and that it was on account of the absence of precautions that these lamentable events had occurred. Under these circumstances was it quite reasonable that the colonists should come to this country and ask us to assist them? It was obvious that the reason why the colonists had not hitherto provided for their own defence was that, as long as British troops remained in the island, they looked to them for protection, and imagined that they would be extricated from any difficulty by the assistance of the mother country. That was the opinion of Mr. Weld., who had re-stated it in an able pam-
  484
  phlet which he had written within the last few months. He therefore said deliberately that in his opinion it would be a cruel gift to the colonists to thrust them back upon the old system, which entirely broke down under their hands—and to lead them to depend upon the mother country instead of upon themselves. He hoped therefore that the House would approve of the conduct of the Government in refusing to leave the British troops in New Zealand. Then came the question raised by his noble Friend with regard to the guarantee. His noble Friend spoke of the heavy taxation which pressed upon New Zealand, but he had not taken into account the difference in the incidence of taxation in this country and in New Zealand. In his financial statement made in September, 1865, the Colonial Treasurer said—
  "I must be allowed, while admitting the weight of the burdens laid upon the shoulders of the people of this colony, to deprecate the exaggeration with which this subject has been treated in many quarters, and which appears to me calculated to excite unnecessary discontent within the colony, as well as seriously to injure its position in the estimation of persons at a distance. The positive as well as the comparative weight of the taxation of New Zealand has been frequently over-stated. The sum per head paid for duties of Customs, which constitutes four-fifths of the public revenue, amounts, it is true, to £3 11 s.; but of this sum no less than £2 1s. 8d. is paid on spirits, wine, beer, and tobacco, which are generally considered fair subjects for the operations of the tax-gatherer—Again, although the amount of taxes paid by each individual in New Zealand is considerably higher than in Great Britain, being £4 10s. (including provision for many local services) in the former, as compared to £3 0s. 1d. (including local taxation) in the latter; yet, when it is considered that the average earnings of the labouring classes in the colony are, as a rule, more than twice as large as in the mother country, it will be found that, testing the weight of taxation by the proportion which that taxation consumes of the earnings of each adult, the position of the colonist will compare favourably with that of the tax-payer in the United Kingdom. With regard to this question of taxation generally, it has, in many of the discussions on this subject which have taken place throughout the colony, been somewhat hastily assumed that heavy taxation, if not incompatible with, is at least rarely coincident with national prosperity. I think this is a very false and mischievous impression. A reference to the statistics of the principal countries of Europe will show that, so far from this opinion being true, countries like Turkey and Russia, where the taxation is 8s. 1d. and 16 s. 1d. per head respectively, are those which are far from being the most prosperous or wealthy; while the State in which—with the well-known exception of the United States—taxation is the highest—namely, the kingdom of Holland,

  485
  where the general taxation is £2 11 s. 3d. per head, is admittedly one of the most flourishing."
  This showed that statements which had been made with regard to the comparative taxation of the inhabitants of the colony and the people of this country were founded in error. He would not, however, rest his objection to the claim which had been put forward solely upon that consideration. It appeared to him that the worst of all governments was that of one race over another when the dominant race was supported and assisted by a superior power behind it, because such a government led to abuse and to the undue exercise of power. Upon that ground alone it appeared to Mm that the Government would be consulting far more the interests of both the colonists and the natives of New Zealand by leaving the Colonial Government to exercise the power they already possessed without any assistance from this country. The noble Lord had stated that this country had made a rush to take possession of the colony before France could take possession of it; but if the noble Lord would refer to Lord Normanby's letter to Captain Hobson he would find that the then Government of this country, much against their inclination, were compelled to take possession of the island in consequence of the course adopted by the Now Zealand Company. He fully admitted the value of many of the suggestions that had been made in the course of the do-bate, and he would take care that they should be laid before the Colonial Government for their consideration. One suggestion had been made over and over again to the Colonial Government by the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Office, and that was that steps should be taken to prevent settling upon the outlying districts where no protection whatever could be extended to the colonists. Warning after warning had been given on this subject by successive Secretaries of State. He was satisfied that so long as such settlements were dotted along the coast, they would be liable to such attacks as those which had occurred. In conclusion, he must express his deliberate opinion that the worst been that this country could grant to the colony would be the assistance that was now asked for on its behalf. If the Government were to yield to this application, the same vicious
  486
  circle would be entered upon that led to the state of affairs that existed in 1864, when the condition of the colony was far more desperate than it was at present, and the colonists would be deprived of that spirit of self-reliance which he was happy to see animated them now. Her Majesty's Government were ready and anxious to give the colony any assistance in their power. They had instructed the commanders of Her Majesty's ships in that quarter of the globe to protect the colonists in the event of any sudden disasters occurring. They were ready to aid them to procure officers, non-commissioned officers, and trained policemen; but, on the other hand, he must state most distinctly that all such assistance must be limited by the principles which he had endeavoured to lay down in the remarks he had just addressed to the House. Her Majesty's Government fully appreciated the importance of the colony and the position it was likely to occupy in the future history of the world; and, while willing to aid it within the rules he had laid down, they must decline to give them that which would prove, in their opinion, a fatal gift—stifling their energy and bringing back the lamentable state of things from which they had only just escaped.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the extraordinary nature of the blue book upon this subject, part of which was merely a record of quarrels between the last Governor of New Zealand and the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's forces in the colony. A more amusing part contained a number of despatches from the present Governor of the colony, who, with many poems and quotations from Sir Walter Scott's novels, endeavoured to establish a parallel between the wars of the Maories and those of the Highlanders. For his part, he should rather compare the Maories with the Fenians in Ireland, because their cry was—" New Zealand for the New Zealanders." The whole of the documents contained in the blue book were a record of the vicious result of colonial affairs being undertaken by the Home Government, and he trusted that no steps would be taken calculated to restore a policy so pregnant with disaster. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) had drawn a fearful picture, but he had offered no remedy, nor had he heard any valid one suggested in the

  487
  course of the debate. The stories of the horrible massacres which had occurred in New Zealand were certainly harrowing, but still they ought calmly to consider what was the proper remedy for the existing state of things and not follow the first impulse of sympathy to do what must increase the evil. The noble Viscount seemed to imply that there had been a wretched feeling of parsimony on the part of the people of this country, which had deterred them from assisting their fellow-countrymen in New Zealand; but the truth was, that this country had, on the contrary, by its desire to act on the highest principles of humanity towards the natives, and to discharge its duty towards the colonists, been too long led into profuse and mischievous expenditure both of blood and money. It had also been implied that the course of abstinence and caution recently taken indicated a readiness to abandon New Zealand. To his mind it appeared to show a precisely opposite inclination. Within the last few months a line of policy had been for the first time fully pursued which would cement the only possible lasting relations between the colony and this country, The noble Viscount said that as the Imperial policy had been to blame in producing the wars, it was the duty of the country to undertake to settle them; but upon that point he took issue with the noble Viscount. The way in which the affairs of New Zealand and the land and the native questions had become complicated was by the mistakes of Crown policy; but that circumstance gave the inhabitants of New Zealand no claim upon the British tax-payers, for the Government of New Zealand was their Government; and, bad as it was, it was honestly conducted in the best supposed principles of the day in their interest, and not in ours. He rejoiced with the noble Viscount that the old system of government was gone. That double government, one half administered by the colonists, and the other half by the Crown for the native races was sure to be full of mischief, and early in 1861 the Duke of Newcastle found that it was impossible to go on with it. The old Downing Street government was bad enough, and when that was exploded the attempt still to reserve the native half of local government was worse. That being the case it was absolutely necessary to make all
  488
  things square with a better state of things. The transition must be painful but the result would be beneficial, and to return to the old state of things, which bred the mischief, would be insane. First of all, it had been necessary to settle accounts with the old system; and the part taken by this country in wiping off old scores was most liberal and generous, though it was, unfortunately, not so taken by the colonists. The English Government were willing to forego all claims, and to let bygones be bygones, but the colonists carped at every item, set up counter-claims, and considered that all the expenses incurred for the Imperial troops sent out to fight their own battles, even to the horses and baggage lost in the service, ought to be charged to the mother country. When the new system of the policy and means of conducting it being left to the colonists was inaugurated, the colonists were told that they might retain the 18th Regiment, if they were willing to pay for it at the Australian rate of pay. Soldiers cost this country £100 a man, and they were offered at £40 a man, but the colonists would not accept them anyhow, except on the indefensible terms that the regiment was to fight for them gratuitously, and was also to be under their entire control. The Imperial troops were consequently withdrawn, as it was impossible to keep them in New Zealand serving colonial policy, and so that the Crown would have no control over them, but only have to call on our English subjects to pay for them whatever they might do. The war was renewed and it was quite clear that the colonists had not had time, or had not used it, to perfect a system of self-defence. The fact was, there were in that country, as in this, two parties in the Parliament — they were the self-relying party and the party who wished to go back to the old system. The self-relying party were strong enough to get the principle of self-defence carried by resolution, but were not able to obtain the means of carrying out the principle by the necessary measures of defence. The resolution to discard the English troops together with the absence of any substituted force was the cause of the horrible massacres which had occurred. He thought the speech of the noble Viscount rather contradictory in some parts, especially where, after arguing on the ground of colonial help-

  489
  lessness, he described the taking by a few colonial troops of the pah at Taranaki "which General Cameron, at the head of the English forces, had refused to attack. That alone showed what the whole colony might do if they were left to control their own policy and meet it themselves. He fully admitted, with the noble Viscount, that the principle upon which our dealings with New Zealand was to be regulated ought to be closely watched, because we must apply the same rule to our dealings with all our other colonies. It, therefore, ought to be made clear that we had no intention of taking a retrogressive step It was an entire mistake to suppose, as had been suggested, that the colonists would be willing to look out for another country to which to attach themselves, if they were not undertaken for by their English fellow-subjects. They would find no other country so foolish to take them on such terms; but they did not wish it. They were as much bound to the mother country as the mother country was to them—an attachment founded upon affection and strengthened by commercial considerations. But they must be content to live like Englishmen if they wished to be identified with them. They must find their own means of defence. If they had no men to spare for fighting, they must hire men, they must, as had been said, look to Australia for troops; and he did not know that they could do anything better. He would only, in conclusion, express his hope that the Government would give its hearty support to the self-reliant party in the colony, for the principles that guided that party were those that it would be for the best interest of the colony and of the Empire to uphold.
  MR. R. TORRENSsaid, he attributed the origin of the wars in New Zealand not to the colonists grasping at the lands of the natives, but to the readiness with which land purchased from the natives had been surrendered whenever the slightest colourable pretence of a defect in title had been shown. Cases had come within his own knowledge in which land had been paid for twice or three times, because some chief had trumped up some absurd claim to it, and the result was that when these preposterous attempts were resisted the colonists were attacked, their cattle stolen, and their wives and children murdered. So far as the land
  490
  question was connected at all with the recent disturbances it was connected with them in that manner. He contended that the attempt to re-take the Chatham Island prisoners was perfectly justifiable on the part of the colonists, but that alone was not the cause of the Hau-hau rebellion, and of the subsequent atrocities. There was no doubt such atrocities would give rise to desire to exterminate the Maories, but that feeling had been repressed in the colony. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles Adderley) in thinking that a self-reliant policy ought to be encouraged by us. It was wholly indefensible that the tax-payers of Great Britain should be called upon to contribute 1s. towards the expenses of our colonial governments. He agreed that the pampering policy which had been acted upon with regard to the colony was unwise; but was it judicious to inaugurate a new policy at a juncture when the colony was suffering under such deep depression? In the Northern Island production was altogether stopped, and they were overburdened with taxation. The colonists however, did not ask for either money or soldiers, but only that the credit of this country should be pledged on their behalf to the extent of £1,500,000. He regretted that the Government were indisposed to grant this. He thought there was a great inconsistency in the couduct of the Government with respect to this matter. They refused the guarantee of the country to loans for such colonies as New Zealand, yet they had no hesitation in giving guarantees to any amount of loans for Canada. He admitted the importance of the Canadas, but it was surely of equal importance that New Zealand should be protected, where the settlers were struggling for their lives. With regard to the King movement, nothing could be more unwise than to encourage it. The system of native kingship arose in this way— When the British Government took possession of the island they abrogated the Maori laws, and established the British law. But with the law they established no means to enforce it; there were neither courts of law nor police magistrates, so that the natives were compelled to elect a king of their own. But if the Maori King were recognized and an imperium in invperio established, it would lead to a conflict of races of which no man could

  491
  see the end. Everything should be done to induce the two races to amalgamate, and the Maories should be encouraged to take part in the government of the country, and should be treated as the settlers. He thought the Imperial Government had not gone far enough in giving independence to the colonies. The colonies had independent Legislatures for managing their own affairs, but no representative Congress like that of the States of America to which they could send their representatives, and at which they could discuss colonial subjects. The colonies had no representatives in that House, nor could they send diplomatic representatives to this country. If the colonies had the privilege of sending to this country persons as ambassadors or chargés d'affaires to represent their views to the Government of this country, that single concession would do much to bring about a better state of things.
  MR. DIGBYsaid, he wished to offer a few remarks on this question. He was aware that he spoke in the presence of several colonists, but he did not yield to any of them in the interest he took in the colony. When this country undertook to wield Imperial power over New Zealand the people were placed under Imperial protection. That was the rule in all colonizing countries. Greece and Rome always undertook the duty of protecting the people over whom their power was stretched. When New Zealand was established as a British colony in 1840, it was as much for the protection of the native interests as for those of the colonists. But the policy that had been pursued was not always wise; he believed the Land Act, which was passed early in the settlement, was the cause of all their present troubles. Under that Act the Government purchased land at a small cost and retailed it again at a large profit. The natives soon found that their interests suffered by that arrangement, and they asked to have ground-titles to their land. But our Government refused to treat with them except as to their tribal interest, and that was the great cause of the present disturbances. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion had stated that it was impossible the Maori race could survive, and that they were not amenable to civilization. In opposition to that he would quote the authority of Mr. Swainson, the late Attorney General
  492
  of New Zealand, who declared, that they were a brave and warlike race, and in every way amenable to civilization. The proof of this was to be found in the fact that there was, at the present moment, a large native population who were devoted to Imperial interests and obedient to the law. The political condition of the native race was greatly attributable to our own neglect. For five years native feuds prevailed, and our rule existed only in name. It was only at the end of that time that they proceeded to elect a King in order to give them laws that they could obey; but it was impossible that this country could allow this dual government to go on. He hoped the House would excuse him for making these few remarks on a subject in which he took so deep an interest.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, no one had offered any satisfactory explanation as to the cause of these chronic wars in New Zealand. He thought the Government ought to promise that there should be early next Session a full inquiry into the condition and circumstances of the settlements. The particular cause of the rebellion was not hard to discover. It was to be found in the Virgin Mary of the Hau-haus. The Hau-hau movement was, beyond doubt, inaugurated by the Jesuits, and the same cause had led to a great development of Fenianism, which he believed to be strong in New Zealand. That admitted, it would explain everything. Where Jesuit action was at work, it was only years after the disaster was accomplished that the whole conspiracy was laid bare, and sometimes it was not fully unfolded for centuries afterwards. For these reasons he hoped the House would consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the origin and causes of the movement. He had had a conversation with two gentlemen who had recently returned from New Zealand, one of whom had resided there for ten years. Within the last two years a Roman Catholic chapel had been established near his residence, and ever since that time nothing but dissension and difficulty had existed. He believed that five Roman Catholic priests had been detected in communication with the rebels. In a dispatch of Sir George Grey, dated July 1846, addressed to Lord Stanley, he spoke of the proceedings of Dr. Pompalier and the Roman Catholic missionaries at the

  493
  Bay of Islands but exonerated him from all blame. This very Dr. Pompalier took over thirty Jesuit priests in 1862, who were in direct communication with the rebels. He wished to point out that this French Roman Catholic Bishop had thought himself entitled to assume a position of neutrality in the rebellions of the natives; and he would ask whether there was not fair ground for inquiry as to whether that neutrality had not degenerated into secret complicity with the rebels?

  ARMY—COMMITTEES ON NEW ARMS.
  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, it would be admitted that, looking to our colonies abroad, it was absolutely necessary not only that our small Army should be furnished with the best weapon we could place in their hands, but also that their ammunition should be the best this country could manufacture. He wished to direct attention to the two points comprised in the Question he had put on the Paper; and first, with regard to the Committee which might or might not at present be sitting at the War Office. He understood from his right hon. Friend (the Secretary of State for War) the other night, that the Committee to which he alluded had been broken up, and was no longer to exist. That Committee had been composed of most distinguished men—Lord Spencer, Colonel Fletcher, and other gentlemen of equal ability and uprightness. He did not east any blame upon that Committee, but he did upon the orders which had latterly been given to them. A Committee to inquire into the arms of this country ought to be perfectly free and unfettered, and it ought to be a judicial and in no way a constructive Committee. Now the Committee to which he had just referred was, he believed, as free as most Committees of that kind could possibly be, and he certainly had no fault whatever to find with it. But, in future, we ought to have a Committee on which we could thoroughly rely, composed of scientific persons totally unconnected with the trade, including one or two scientific Members of Parliament. He had brought this question forward, because at the recent meeting at Wimbledon there had been in competition with the Henry-Martini rifle one or two other
  494
  weapons, which had been proved to be nearly, if not quite, as good. The Duke of Cambridge's prize was not won with that rifle. He trusted therefore that his right hon. Friend would consent to the appointment of a Committee to decide what arm was the best for the service— giving all arms that might be brought forward a fair and impartial trial. An arm for our service ought to be tried not only in this country, but in India, in Canada, and on board ship; and he might here mention that a manufacturer had authorized him to state that he was perfectly prepared to send at his own cost to India, or any other country which the right hon. Gentleman might name, 200 stand of arms and 200 or more rounds of ammunition for each arm, in order that the weapon might have a fair trial. Mr. Westley Richards' gun, he might remark, was nearly a pound lighter than the Henry-Martini. As to ammunition, he had heard that the old Boxer ammunition was used, and certainly the country had amply paid for it, because the gallant gentleman having been allowed to patent that ammunition, received from the country a very large reward for it, besides obtaining a royalty on it from the trade. He had been informed, however, that that ammunition had signally failed in the East Indies, in consequence of galvanic action having taken place between the metals used. Surely, in the general interests of the service and of the general public, the matter ought to be thrown open to the trade; and, in order that this might be done, it was necessary to appoint a tribunal in which implicit trust could be placed. If such a system as he now suggested had been adopted throughout, we should not have spent so enormous a sum of money without arriving at any satisfactory result. In the event of the Government coming boldly forward when they wanted a new arm, and offering even £30,000 for it, he believed that manufacturers would readily come before a proper tribunal, and that the result would be most satisfactory. In conclusion, he asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of the Government to make any and what alteration in the system hitherto adopted of appointing permanent or special Committees to choose new Arms for the Service, when modern requirements render it necessary to adopt Arms of new pat-

  495
  tern or improved principle of construction; and, if it is the intention of the Government to sanction the expenditure of Public Money by Officers at the head of Government Manufacturing Departments in trying experiments, for which, if successful, they are permitted to take out Patents, thereby levying a Tax upon the trade created by the article being adopted by the Government, the Public Purse being saddled with the expenditure if the experiment be unsuccessful?
  MR. MACFIEwas of opinion that the Patent Laws ought to be abolished, if this country were to compete on equal terms with the continental nations.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the only object the War Office should have was to get the best weapon and ammunition at a moderate price for the public service. About ten years ago the heads of the establishments at Woolwich were members of the Ordnance Select Committee, but at that time the Committee was re-constituted, and those gentlemen ceased to be members of it. His right hon. Friend who preceded him in the War Office (Sir John Pakington) dissolved the old Ordnance Select Committee, and it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to substitute for it a small Committee which should sit at Woolwich. It appeared to him (Mr. Cardwell), however, that a Committee sitting at Woolwich "was not what we wanted. He thought there ought to be a closer connection with the War Office and with Parliament in the Committee that should advise him; consequently, he constituted a Committee to sit, not at Woolwich, but in Pall Mall. Of that Committee his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War was president, and Ms hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) was a member of it, as was also the Director General of Ordnance, the Controller-in-Chief, the Inspector General of Artillery, the Inspector General of Engineers, the Inspector General of Naval Ordnance, and other persons who were above the suspicion of being actuated by any desire but that of promoting the interests of the public service. When a special Committee was required to examine any particular article they appointed such a Committee, and he trusted that this statement would be
  496
  satisfactory to his hon. and gallant Friend, and would prove that he (Mr. Cardwell) had been walking in the direction that the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired. As to the Henry-Martini Committee, that was constituted before he came into Office, and its Report was presented very soon after he took Office; but he believed that a more able, independent, or trustworthy Committee could not have been possibly nominated. Colonel Fletcher was at the head of it, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland sat upon it, and all its other members were persons in every way calculated to inspire respect. His hon. and gallant Friend had said that every Committee of this kind ought to be judicial and not experimental, but that must depend upon circumstances. As far as awarding prizes was concerned the Committee was judicial, but the object of securing the best weapon for the public service could not be attained unless experiments were instituted. They had instituted experiments to ascertain whether any one of the weapons brought before them, or whether the combination of a part of one weapon with a part of another, would be the best for the public service. The result of those experiments was that they adopted the breech of one inventor and the barrel of another, and they recommended the Henry-Martini rifle. The course taken by the Government was to have the Henry-Martini rifle tried at the late Wimbledon meeting. He had not yet received the official Report of that trial, but he believed he was only stating what everybody knew when he said the result had been very successful. That weapon could not be immediately adopted because it must first be tried in India, where some specimens of it were to be sent out for that purpose. With regard to ammunition, the ammunition of Colonel Boxer was generally very satisfactory. It was quite true that there had been recent reports from India which showed that No. 5 ammunition in that country was not in a satisfactory state. He was not yet sufficiently informed of what the extent of the deterioration had been, or whether the cost of destroying any considerable portion of it would be entailed on the Indian Government; but, at all events, the whole amount of the loss would be much less than had been represented to his hon. Friend. But a remedy had been

  497
  found; the means of excluding chemical action and moisture had already been adopted. With respect to the system of patents, he might say that he had never been a friend or admirer of the Patent Laws, which appeared to him to he open to many of the objections urged against them with great ability in a late debate in that House. But, however that might be, as long as they existed the question would arise whether persons employed in the public Departments, as the heads of public establishments, should be allowed to take up patents. He knew that patents were not binding against the Crown, and that, therefore, no cost need be incurred for them by the public service; but he quite agreed that it was very doubtful whether a public servant at the head of a public manufacturing establishment should be permitted to take up any patent. That opinion he entertained in common with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty, who had been in correspondence with him for some time on the subject, and they proposed to issue instructions in accordance with that opinion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had known a good deal about these arms in former days, and he had heard something further upon the subject from Birmingham. The great object was to have a tribunal that would satisfy inventors that they would have justice as between each other, and that they would not be exposed to the piracy of their inventions on the part of any of their judges, or of any persons employed by their judges. He had known cases of great hardship, and he had to represent them to predecessors of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which cases there had been direct piracy of inventions submitted to the Government for improvements in arms. But a remedy for this was found. General Peel appointed a Committee of officers to give a preliminary judgment upon the arms submitted to them. Now, officers were the proper judges; a soldier ought to know what soldiers wanted. A man who had seen active service was the most likely to know which arm would endure the wear and tear, and what ammunition would be most likely to resist rain, and snow, and heat. If the right hon. Gentleman would revert to that system of General Peel, he would find that the best commencement for establishing an impartial and unsuspected
  498
  tribunal. He had never known satisfaction so fully given as by the tribunal appointed by General Peel.
  MR. MITNTZsaid, that a great amount of discontent existed among the private manufacturers, and he was glad to hear from the Secretary of State for War that in future the taking out of patents by officers or persons connected with the public manufacturing departments would be put an end to. He also hoped that those officers would be prevented from making trials at the public expense in any way for their own advantage. When private manufacturers made discoveries and improved weapons they ought to have some security that the benefit of their discoveries and improvements would not be taken from them.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, that in his opinion the moment the Secretary of State parted with the direction of a matter of that sort and handed it over to a Committee composed of members of the constructive departments of the War Office or of any one of the great spending Departments of the State, that moment the right hon. Gentleman and the country were placed in a false position. A question that required a clearer answer than had yet been given to it was this—whether it was possible, seeing the manufacturers were dissatisfied with the judgments of persons interested in the constructive departments of the Government, an independent Committee should not be formed, composed in part of Members of that House?
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,978, 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 National Gallery, including the purchase of Pictures."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that when he complained the other night of the practice of the National Gallery authorities in neglecting to buy pictures when they could be obtained at low prices, and afterwards purchasing them at excessive prices, the right hon. Gentleman

  499
  the Chief Commissioner of Works replied to him in a tone peculiar to himself, denying in a somewhat excited and reckless manner certain statements which he (Mr. Bentinck) had then made. He must repeat that a picture dealer bought at a public auction a couple of pictures for £800, and a few months afterwards sold them to the Government for £1,800; and that another picture had been offered to the Government some years ago, was refused, and then purchased by the Government on the Continent at a high price. Then there was the question of scrubbing, and the reply made to him was in the nature of cross question and crooked answer. He had asked whether a certain picture by Rubens had been scrubbed; and the answer made by the Chief Commissioner was that a picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds and some others had been very well treated. This he granted, but if two or three pictures could be well cleaned, why could not they all be cleaned well? The fact was the Rubens had been in bad hands. He cared little for the opinion of the Attorney General; the facts could not be altered if the whole of the Government one after the other contradicted him, but the Attorney General's answer consisted of an attack on Sir George Beaumont, whose memory, however, would doubtless survive the stroke. The Attorney General had been cited as an authority because he was an accomplished artist. He had the good fortune to possess a work by Sir George Beaumont and another by the Attorney General, and he would be glad to exhibit them side by side and let their authors stand the test. He desired further to put a Question to the Chief Commissioner with reference to Sir Charles Eastlake's library—whether it would be added to any existing Art library or be placed in the National Gallery? He also desired, in the interest of Sir Charles Eastlake's family— as it was said that the pictures of Sir Charles Eastlake were to come to the country for the prices he had paid for them—to inquire what explanation the Government had to offer of the fact that £1,500 was to be paid for one of his pictures, which was bought by him some years ago at a public sale in London for less than £100? One of the pictures attributed to Melozzo da Forli, which had come into the hands of the Government in so extraordinary a manner,
  500
  and which the Chief Commissioner said had never been in the country before the Government purchased it, was exhibited by the British Institution in Pall Mall in 1863, and was hawked all over London before and after this. For a long time it was exhibited at a temporary studio in the neighbourhood of Oxford Street. It had been offered to a gentleman of his acquaintance. His informant declined the picture on the ground that it was not by the Master to whom it was attributed, and that it was practically valueless on account of the extensive restorations it had undergone. The same informant and others assured him that this and the companion picture had been repaired by Mr. Ugo Baldi, and that a large portion of the works were by his hand. He desired to give to those who represented the Department in the House an opportunity of affording the explanation which the country had a right to expect at their hands; and therefore he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury the Question which stood in his name upon the Paper, and which was as follows:— Whether a picture exhibited in the British Institution, Pall Mall, from June until August 1863, under the following description—"No. 28—Subject: Prince Guidobaldo di Montefeltro, afterwards Duke of Urbino, kneeling before an allegorical figure; painter, Melozzo da Forli; proprietor, W. B. Spence, Esq." —is not one of the two pictures purchased for the National Gallery from Mr. W. Spence, of Florence, during the year 1866, and attributed to Melozzo da Forli?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted the Committee would not renew or repeat the discussion which occurred the other night on this subject. They all knew the extreme devotion of the hon. Member to matters of art, but the Committee was now devoted to matters of business —[Mr. BENTINCK: And economy]—and economy, if they could effect it. There was no use spending another hour discussing the merits of ancient pictures, and the best mode of varnishing and cleaning them; for he never knew two gentlemen taking an interest in the subject who did not differ in opinion on these points. There was no mystery about the two pictures referred to in the Question. The Report of the Directors of the National Gallery, laid on the

  501
  table so long ago as February, 1867, contained a very full account of these purchases, which stated very fairly what the pictures were. It did not guarantee them as being the works of the artist, but merely said that they were attributed to him; but the peculiarities of the pictures were described in nearly a page of print. The House had adopted the policy of placing the National Gallery under a Board of Trustees, with a stipendiary Director to assist the Board in the selection of pictures. The reason was that the selection of pictures was an affair of taste, about which everybody differed in opinion. It was perfectly useless for the Committee to discuss the proceedings of those Commissioners for the last half-dozen years, and to raise the question whether they had wisely exercised the powers with which they were invested by law. If the system was a bad one, nothing could be done but to change it altogether. So long as the Commissioners retained their powers, it was obvious the Committee of Supply could only vote the money to enable them to discharge their functions. If, therefore, he did not follow the hon. Member into details, he hoped it would not be supposed that there was any ground for reflecting on the proceedings of the Board, or for suggesting that they had not acted to the best of their judgment.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to correct a statement made in his absence the other evening which conveyed a very erroneous impression to the House. The statement originated with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), who always spoke upon this subject in a manner which deserved attention. The statement was that the authorities of the National Gallery and those of the National Portrait Gallery were in the habit of bidding against each other at public sales. [Mr. BENTINCK: I did not say so; I never said that.] However, the general impression was that the statement was made, and it was represented that in consequence of the two institutions competing with each other the country lost the portrait of Hogarth at his easel, painted by himself. As a Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, and one who took much interest in that institution, he ventured to say there was no foundation whatever for that statement, by whomsoever it was made. It was quite
  502
  impossible that the trustees of the two institutions could bid against each other, because there subsisted between them the most cordial and confidential understanding, and they always communicated with each other upon a sale of any importance. The portrait of Hogarth at his easel was one which it was desirable the country should possess, and the Trustees of the National Gallery wished to acquire it, but on the whole it was thought that it would be more satisfactory to the country if it were placed in the National Portrait Gallery, and the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery undertook the duty of purchasing it; and they made an offer accordingly of the sum of 355 guineas. That, he believed, was a fair and proper offer; but a gentleman from Manchester defeated the country in this instance, because he was prepared to go to a much larger amount. Those Manchester gentlemen were formidable foes. He was sorry the country lost this interesting picture, but he must congratulate the country on its possession of such high-spirited men as our fellow-citizens of Manchester.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he must add a word as a Trustee of the National Gallery. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinek) was unfortunate in his remarks on this subject, for his hostile criticisms were generally made upon the pictures which were acknowledged to be among the best in the National Gallery. He had spoken of an Italian picture cleaner being employed at the National Gallery, and no one else; but a very eminent English cleaner (Mr. Merritt) was employed at the same time, and had cleaned a Rubens most successfully, removing a mass of brown varnish, and revealing the original colours of the picture. The remarks made respecting Sir Charles Eastlake's pictures were calculated to cause his family great pain. Sir Charles had expressed a wish that the pictures which he had purchased whilst Director of the National Gallery should, after his death, be offered to the nation for the price which he had paid for them. Upon these terms, the Trustees of the National Gallery had acquired some of those pictures. Two other pictures which had belonged to him before his connection with the National Gallery, had been purchased from his widow at their fair market value.

  503
  No doubt those pictures had considerably risen in value since the time of their purchase by Sir Charles; but the trustees had no right to call upon his representatives to sell them, except at the price they would fetch in the market.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that he had no intention of making an attack upon the representatives of Sir Charles East-lake. Everyone knew how the right hon. Gentleman opposite answered statements made in that House, rushing into matters which were totally irrelevant, The Director of the National Gallery was equally answerable with the head of any other Government Department for the conduct of its business, and must submit to have his acts criticized. His complaint was that seven pictures had been injured in cleaning. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), he must explain that what he stated on a former occasion was not that two Departments had competed together for the purchase of certain pictures, but that by arrangement one of them had been prevented from competing. The hon. Member (the Secretary to the Treasury) had not answered his question respecting Sir Charles Eastlake's library.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the library in question was to be kept in connection with the National Gallery. It would not be kept open as a public library in the strict sense of the term, on account of the expense that would thereby be entailed; but any person taking an interest in art would be allowed to refer to the works it contained on making application to the gentleman under whose care it was placed.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would suggest the policy of opening a gallery for the exhibition of collections contributed by private individuals instead of purchasing pictures at the national expense. That course had been adopted in Copenhagen with the best results.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) £1,110, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £8,300, 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
  504
  of March 1870, for Grants in aid of the Expenditure of certain Learned Societies in Great Britain."
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON, in answer to Questions put by hon. Members, stated that the sum of £10,000 was granted to the Royal Society in consideration of their having undertaken to carry out meteorological observations.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he hoped that some assistance would be given to the Royal Geographical Society, which rendered valuable assistance to the Government.
  MR. MILLERsaid, he must object to the Royal Society receiving £10,000 per annum, while the Meteorological Society of Scotland received nothing in exchange for the information with which they furnished the Government.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the Royal Society only received the £10,000 per annum as trustees, having to expend it for the purposes of the Government. No part of it was applied to their own requirements.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he would remind the Committee that the Royal Society now made meteorological observations which had formerly been made by the Department of the Board of Trade, and that the society had undertaken this duty for the convenience of the Government.
  MR. MONKasked why a sum of £500 for the Royal Academy of Music had been re-introduced in the Votes?
  MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, there were increased demands on the scientific societies, and he did not think the contributions made by the State to the funds of those societies were at all too liberal.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought the Committee ought to have some explanation on the subject of the re-introduction of the Vote of £500 for the Royal Academy of Music, which was discontinued several years ago. He would be the last man to object to any well-spent outlay for the cultivation of music; but he thought there was much reason to doubt whether this Vote to the Royal Academy was a really useful one.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the mercantile interests of the entire kingdom benefited by the observations of the Royal Society. There were accounts to show how all the money voted to that society

  505
  was spent. The Geographical Society had lost the house accommodation with which the nation had provided them in consequence of the building operations going on in Piccadilly; and the Government could not undertake to supply that society with another hall. The Royal Academy of Music had received a Vote for several years. During the last two years that Vote had been withdrawn, probably owing to the expenses of the Abyssinian War. The question was, whether the Vote should be revived. The Academy wanted a building for its accommodation, and Her Majesty's Government thought that the Vote ought to be renewed, so that the Academy might be kept alive. But since the Government had arrived at that conclusion there had been an expression of opinion by a portion of the musical world against the Vote, and, in consequence of that opinion, the Government would carefully consider the question whether the Vote should be asked for in future.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that, though music was the science of harmony, there was no profession among the members of which there was greater discord than that which existed among the professors of music. He was authorized to say that the Vote would be of great use to the Academy, which was the only society which gave musical instruction to poor people at a cheap rate. Many of the members of the Covent Garden orchestra had received their musical education from the Academy.
  MR. MONKsaid, he did not think a good case had been made out for the Vote to the Royal Academy of Music. He accordingly moved that the Vote be reduced by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £500, for the Royal Academy of Music, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Monk,)
  DR. BREWERsaid, that £500 was a very trifling matter to the State, but it would be a serious loss to the Academy of Music. Its existence was of great advantage to young women with a taste for music; and it had enjoyed the favour of former Sovereigns, George IV. especially having invited the Academy to play before him during his illness.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, he would vote the £500 if it were understood to be a gift. But any hon. Member who had taken the
  506
  trouble to go through the Estimates for the last thirty years, as he had done, would be astonished to find how every item had grown, so that we had exactly trebled our expenditure in that time.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he thought it would be hardly fair to stop the £500 this year, as the Academy must have expected to receive it.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must point out that the Academy had not received the Vote for the last two years. At the same time he had no objection to grant £500, or £5,000, if it were proved first that the Academy required it, and next that it filled that place in the estimation of the musical world which it ought to do. What assurance had they at present that the Academy was worthy of its name?
  MR. WHITWORTHsaid, that according to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, that Department had undertaken to see to the proper distribution of the Vote. The ordinary course was to vote money for a purpose clearly defined and ascertained beforehand.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he remembered perfectly well that two or three years ago, when this subject was last discussed, it was agreed to drop the Academy of Music out of the Votes. He wanted to know what change of circumstances had induced the Treasury to put it in again?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Vote was an exceptional one, merely to assist the Academy to meet the exigencies of the year, arising out of the necessity of a change of residence. It had been distinctly understood that the Vote was not to be continuous, and power had been reserved to the Government of investigating thoroughly the condition of the Academy, with a view of ascertaining how far it fulfilled the wishes and expectations of the musical world.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £6,449, to complete the sum for the University of London.
  (5.) £12,337, to complete the sum for the Scottish Universities.
  (6.) £2,100, to complete the sum for the Board of Manufactures (Scotland).
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he thought that the salary of £300 a year paid to the Secretary was excessive, seeing that the

  507
  same gentleman received £520 yearly as Secretary to the Fishery Board. He thought it was a great abuse and waste of the public money that the son of a Peer should hold both these appointments.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, no complaint had ever been made of the manner in which the gentleman in question performed his duties.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he observed in the detailed account of this Vote an item of £1,000 for the purchase of pictures. He should be glad of an explanation.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, as to the question of salary, no doubt the item appeared large; but he feared it was not open to the Government to re-consider the amount till the office fell vacant, without paying this gentleman a considerable sum for compensation. As regarded the pictures, the Vote was one enabling them to be purchased, and would be administered by the Board of Manufactures, subject, however, to this restriction, that to meet the amount voted by the State an equal amount must be raised by local contributions. How they might exercise their taste he could not undertake to say.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £1,240, to complete the sum for the National Gallery (Ireland).
  (8.) £1,084, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy.
  (9.) £1,710, to complete the sum for the Queen's University (Ireland).
  (10.) £2,865, to complete the sum for the Queen's Colleges (Ireland).
  (11.) £1,250, to complete the sum for the Belfast Theological Professors, &c.
  (12.) £9,298, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board (Scotland).
  (13.) £5,391, to complete the sum for the General Register Office (Scotland).
  (14.) £4,166, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Board (Scotland).
  (15.) £9,838, to complete the sum for the Poor Law Administration (Scotland).
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON, in reply to Mr. MONK, stated that the considerable increase in the amount incurred for salaries in connection with this Department had arisen from the appointment of stipendiary officers, whose duty it was to see that the provisions of the Public Health Act were
  508
  properly carried out, that Act having been extended to Scotland.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,664, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Expenses of the Lord Lieutenant's Household."
  MR. RYLANDS moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,562 6s. 2d., the amount granted for Queen's Plates.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  " That the Item of £1,562 6s. 2d., for Queen's Plates in Ireland, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he thought that the Motion ought not to be persisted in, seeing that the opponents of the granting of Queen's Plates to Scotland were beaten on a division by two to one. He had supported the Vote in reference to Scotland, knowing what his Friends below the Gangway had in store for Ireland.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee on this Vote. A large stud was maintained by the Crown in England, and these Plates were originally granted to Scotland and Ireland under the impression that they might in some degree be regarded as an equivalent. The arguments against the Queen's Plates in Ireland were equally strong in the case of Scotland, and as the opponents of the Vote had in that ease been beaten, he trusted that they would not oppose the Vote now.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had furnished sufficient argument to induce his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) to persist in his Motion. The hon. Gentleman had defended this Vote, not on the ground that it was good in itself, but on the ground that these plates being granted in England, it was necessary they should also be given to Ireland. If the Committee had no opportunity of dividing on these grants in the case of England this year, he would take care that they were afforded an opportunity next Session.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to explain

  509
  what Vote connected with England it was that he referred to?
  MR. AYRTONreplied that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had mistaken his argument. What he had said was that the Vote having been granted in the case of Scotland, it would not be fair to refuse it in the case of Ireland. There was a considerable expense incurred in England in connection with horses as part of the Royal state and dignity, and this expenditure was supposed to improve the breed of horses. These Plates were given as an equivalent, not for the purpose, as some hon. Gentlemen appeared to imagine, of encouraging racing, but for the purpose of encouraging the breeding and improvement in the breed of horses. That was the view of the Vote which was taken at its establishment.
  MR. SOLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the expenditure alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) as being incurred in this country did not appear in the Estimates, but came out of the Civil List, and did not, therefore, in any way prove the validity of his argument.
  MR. COGANsaid, he thought that any hon. Member who was about to propose the reduction of a Vote ought to give notice of his intention. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was so fond of dividing in minorities that he should never dream of appealing to him not to divide; but he trusted the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) would not take the sense of the House after the decision which had been given on a former occasion. It was a great advantage to the country that the breeding of horses should be encouraged.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that he should vote for the grant of this money because he desired to place Ireland on a footing of equality with the other portions of the United Kingdom.
  MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, a smaller sum used to be voted for this purpose in England until the late Sir John Shelley persuaded the House to strike it out of the Estimates on the ground that the Royal stud was not only self-supporting, but even a profitable concern. If, then, the English Vote had been disallowed, why should the Irish Vote be agreed to?
  MR. PIMsaid, that he should vote in favour of the reduction, as he had on a previous occasion adopted a similar course
  510
  with regard to Scotland. One division was surely enough on this subject.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ayrton) need not be alarmed on the score of inequality between the two countries, as the Report of Supply had not yet been brought up.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he was of opinion that if the Queen's Plates in England came out of the Civil List the expense of those for Ireland and Scotland ought to be likewise defrayed from the same source.
  Question put,
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 79: Majority 20.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to move to report Progress. He had a complaint to make against Her Majesty's Government. He had placed a Notice on the Paper to the effect that he intended to object to certain items of the Vote respecting the Fishery Board of Scotland, and he had come down to the House expressly to bring forward his Motion. That Vote had been taken. He had given notice of his intention to move to reduce Vote 30, Class II., for the Scotch Fishery Board, by £5,766 13 s. 5d. The Notice placed on the Paper by the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) was that Class IV. would be taken, and after Class IV., Class II. Shortly before midnight, he made an inquiry respecting that Vote of a Friend of his, the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther), who took the same interest in the matter that he (Mr. Craufurd) took, and he was informed by him that the result of an inquiry addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury had been an assurance that Class II. of the Votes would not be taken that night, as the intention was to proceed with Class IV. Now, if it had not been for the fact that he had had a letter to write he should have left the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Fife would also have gone away, but fortunately the Lord Advocate was good enough to go and inform him that the Vote was on. Now, he complained that, instead of going on with Class IV., Class II. was taken, when public notice had been given that objection was to be taken to the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board in that Class. What was done? The hon. Baronet the Member for Fife and himself had scarcely turned

  511
  their backs, having been informed that Class II. would not come on, when Class IV. was put aside, and Class II. was brought on behind their backs, and passed without comment. He thought he had a right to complain of such conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and especially on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, who told his hon. Friend the Member for Fife that he would not take Class II. of the Estimates that night. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Craufurd.)
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he was quite prepared to confirm everything that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd). They remained there the whole evening in order that they might be present when the Scotch Votes came on. He went to the Secretary of the Treasury about forty or forty-five minutes ago, and asked him whether the Scotch Votes were to be taken that night, as he was anxious to know; and he told him distinctly that the Scotch Votes would not be taken.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he had also been anxious to make some observations on the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board, not with a view to oppose it, but to show to the Chancellor of the Exchequer— who would not lend £10,000 to keep the Irish fisheries alive until they could get a portion of the surplus funds of the Irish Church—what a gross injustice was done to Ireland by giving Scotland £7,000 more than Ireland.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was exceedingly sorry that the smallest misunderstanding should have arisen about the progress of the Committee of Supply. He was constantly asked by hon. Members as to what would be the probable course of business, and he gave them the best estimate he could of the time that was likely to be taken up by particular matters. If any hon. Gentleman construed such an estimate into an engagement that certain business should not be proceeded with, all he could say was that he was very sorry for it, because he only gave the best opinion he could as to how far the Committee were likely to go. He thought it was generally understood
  512
  that they would not that night take the Irish Education Vote—the only Vote passed over in Class IV. When he asked the Committee whether it would not object to go on with Class II., he was not in the least under the impression that any hon. Gentleman interested had left the House. If, however, any hon. Member had lost an opportunity of questioning any Vote, he would promise him that the Report should be brought up at a time when it could be freely and fully discussed. If the Committee did not now wish to proceed any further, Progress could be reported. ["Go on."] But it was desirable, if such was the pleasure of the Committee, to finish Class II. that night.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would beg to inquire what Classes of Supply would be taken at the Morning Sitting to-morrow, and what Classes in the evening?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he proposed at the Morning Sitting to take the Irish Education Votes in Class IV., and then proceed in the ordinary course with Class III. If they got into Supply at the Evening Sitting he wished to resume exactly at the point where they might have left off at the end of the Morning Sitting.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he must be allowed to say that he was not satisfied with the explanation which the Secretary of the Treasury had just given, and he should accept no assurance from the hon. Member. He must have the assurance of a Minister of the Crown. ["Oh, oh!"] Otherwise, he should refuse to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress. He could not help thinking that he had been "jockeyed" out of his opportunity. ["Oh!" and "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he rose to Order. He must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that expression.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, if the expression he had used was un-Parliamentary he would withdraw it; but, he must say, that he thought he had been treated unfairly in the matter. No opportunity which might be afforded him on the Report would put him in the position which he would have occupied in Committee of Supply.
  MR. BRUCEexplained that no promise had been given by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to postpone the Scotch Votes. His hon. Friend

  513
  had explained that they had arrived at a point when it "was inconvenient to proceed with the important Vote for National Education in Ireland, and the Committee consented to proceed with Class II. of the Estimates. He thought it unnecessary to renew the assurance which had already been given by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) would have on the Report a convenient opportunity of stating his views with respect to the Scotch Fisheries Vote.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he must be allowed to say one word in explanation. He thought that when the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs spoke with such extreme certainty as to what took place, he should remember the fact that he was speaking not of anything within his own knowledge, because he did not suggest that he had any connection with him (Mr. Ayrton); and when observations made by him passed through other channels, it was quite possible that, without the smallest desire on the part of any person to mislead, there might have arisen a misapprehension as to what took place.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, as he was the channel referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, through which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs might have been mistaken, he was bound to say that there was not the slightest misapprehension on his part as to what took place. It was quite possible that the hon. and learned. Gentleman did not mean him (Sir Robert Anstruther) to understand that the Scotch Votes would not be proceeded with to-night; but all he could say was, that upon the faith of what he stated, he informed his hon. Friend that the Vote which he, in common with himself, had been waiting for for a great many hours would not come on.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished distinctly to understand what they were going to do to-morrow. It was generally understood that the first business would be the Irish Church Bill, and after that the Metropolitan Poor Law Amendment Bill. He desired to know whether that was to be the Order of Business.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, it was certainly intended to take the Irish Church Bill as the first Order at two o'clock if the printer should have finished his
  514
  work, but if not the first Order would be Committee of Supply.
  MR. HUNTsaid, if at one o'clock in the morning the Government did not feel certain that the printer would be ready, they ought to say that the Irish Church Bill would not be taken first.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Church Bill first, and it was their hope that it would be ready.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished to know when the Metropolitan Poor Law Amendment Bill would come on?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was impossible for him to give any pledge on the subject.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BOWRINGsaid, he wished to know what was the meaning of "two gentleman at large," whose salaries formed an item in the Vote?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that these were gentleman attached, at a small salary to the Viceregal Court, and adorning it. There was nothing at all novel about the matter.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (17.) £15,453, to complete the sum for the Chief Secretary's Offices.
  (18.) £100, to complete the sum for the Boundary Survey (Ireland).
  (19.) £1,238, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office (Ireland).
  (20.) £13,722, to complete the sum for the General Register Office, &c. (Ireland).
  (21.) £65,328, to complete the sum for the Poor Law Commission (Ireland).
  (22.) £3,182, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office (Ireland).
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £18,196, 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 Public Works in Ireland."
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he must ask that the Vote might be postponed, as he was prepared, if there was time, to show, that there was the most wasteful and wanton extravagance in connection with

  515
  the Board of Works, and that there was general dissatisfaction as to the manner in which the business was carried on.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend that if he were to communicate with him he should have every assistance in promoting the economy and efficiency which he desired in the Board of Works, and that would be better than postponing the Vote.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would move to report Progress, as there were several items in the Vote which required explanation.
  MR. BLAKE moved to report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SUPPLY RESOLUTIONS [JULY 12.]
  REPORTED.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must again refer to the recent changes in the establishment of the Office of Works, and would base his remarks on the correspondence between the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Treasury, which had been presented to Parliament on his (Mr. Selater-Booth's) Motion. It appeared that the original proposition of the Chief Commissioner had not worked well, and the net result seemed to be that a valuable public servant had been exchanged for a gentleman of reputation and ability, with an increase of the establishment and not an increase in efficiency. Then it appeared that Mr. Pennethorne's office had been abolished; but, while his salary appeared on the Estimates for twelve months only, it was understood he was to receive £3,000 for work done, which did not appear on the Estimates in any shape. Mr. Hunt, a most able surveyor, appeared on the Estimates as drawing a salary of £750, but in some way this was to be made up to £1,000. He trusted the Government would be able to offer some explanation of these points.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the hon. Gentleman had given a singularly unfair version of the matter. The arrangement which he at first proposed was not carried out. It was that the distri-
  516
  bution of coals, candles, and furniture should be taken away from the Department, that the assistant secretary should be dispensed with, and that there should be a financial secretary and one for works and buildings. The Treasury, however, thought it right not to take away the distribution of coals, candles, and furniture from the office, and the amount of business, therefore, thrown on the secretary led to an inquiry by a Committee, who recommended the continuation of the appointment of an assistant secretary. It would have been well if the hon. Gentleman, who had so suddenly appeared in the character of a financial reformer, had done something when in Office to check reckless and scandalous expenditure on the new Foreign Office, Burlington House, and other buildings, for it appeared there was not a single person in the Office of Works to check any part of the enormous outlay on those buildings. Mr. Pennethorne was a practising architect, and was receiving 5 per cent on every 1s. which he expended. The system was a bad one which led to the employment of Mr. Pennethorne to check the expenditure upon buildings which he himself was erecting for the Government. Thinking it necessary to have some disinterested person attached to the office to give advice to the Chief Commissioner, he selected Mr. Fergusson, whose appointment had given general satisfaction, who had already effected a large saving to the public, and who, if appointed some years ago, would have prevented much scandalous and extravagant expenditure. With increased efficiency in the Office there was no addition to the expenditure. Mr. Pennethorne would be able to compete like any other architect for the erection of public buildings, and would be remunerated by a percentage.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that in Committee of Supply he remarked that the circumstances of the case were very peculiar, correspondence which had been promised three months not having been produced, and the production of the correspondence had borne out the remark he made. In so simple a matter there never were so many blunders made by two Departments. When the right hon. Gentleman (the Chief Commissioner of Works) came into Office there were a secretary, an under secretary, and an assistant; and Mr. Austin, the secretary, an old

  517
  public servant, was anxious to retire. Before he had been in Office many days the right hon. Gentleman recommended that there should be a Secretary of Works and Buildings, but the right hon. Gentleman and the person appointed had different opinions as to what were the duties of the office. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer found the new arrangements would not work, and recommended a Committee of Inquiry; and no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right. The Committee recommended that the arrangement so harshly interrupted should be restored; but the new Secretary of Works and Buildings could not be got rid of, and as there was an officer too many, Mr. Pennethorne, a valuable public officer, must be made the victim. He was to be discarded to make room for this new Secretary of Works and Buildings imported by the right hon. Gentleman. It was proposed that he should be discarded at the end of six months, and that his salary should be taken only for that term on the Estimates; but it was found that Mr. Pennethorne had works in hand which would occupy him much longer than six months, and. it was felt that it would be treating him unhandsomely to give him less salary than he had been receiving. How the money was to be found to pay Mr. Pennethorne for his services he was at a loss to know. The Committee was scarcely treated with frankness when it was told that Mr. Henry Hunt's salary was to be reduced from £1,000 to £750, and it was not stated that he was to be recouped by commission. [Mr. LAYARD: I stated it the other night.] All he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that Mr. Hunt had handsomely waived a quarter of his salary. He did not understand the official reply then given in the sense in which it was now interpreted. There was no intimation, certainly, that Mr. Pennethorne's services were to be retained for a year and a-half at a cost of £3,000. The correspondence ended with a request from Mr. Pennethorne that it would be stated that he left the service with honour. The answer given to that request had not been communicated to Parliament, but he hoped that Mr. Pennethorne would be satisfied, and that testimony would be borne to his official services. The right hon. Gentleman had sought to turn upon the Con-
  518
  servative Government responsibility for the expenditure upon the Foreign Office. But when the plans for that building were under consideration, and the nation was practically committed to the expenditure, who were the Ministers at the Foreign Office? Why, Earl Russell was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the right hon. Gentleman now the Chief Commissioner of Works was his Under Secretary. Even supposing that the officials primarily interested in the character of the new building had favoured extravagance of design, whose business was it to check them and keep them within reasonable compass? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, who then was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite endeavour, under these circumstances, to fix responsibility for this expenditure upon the Conservative Government, was a proposition so extraordinary that one could hardly refrain from laughter. Before the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned other changes in public Departments, he hoped they would be preceded by careful inquiry, so that they might not again have such an exhibition as was contained in this correspondence.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the discussion would not be carried on with any acrimony. The Government had laid upon the table all the details affecting an important and useful change in a public Department, but naturally a minute history of any such change must disclose the fact that views from day to day had changed or modified. Economy and advantages were expected to follow from the change, as well as the removal of much inconvenience that was now felt, for without reflecting upon Mr. Pennethorne, or any other gentleman, the fact remained that a state of affairs existed which prevented the Department from being efficient for its purpose. It was the price paid for all improvements in the public service that there was always at first considerable difficulty, as well as apparently an increase of expenditure. There had not been the slightest desire to keep back anything from the House of Commons. The Papers could not be produced at an earlier date, and the discussion upon the Vote itself had been taken expressly upon the condition that those Papers would be produced upon

  519
  the Report, a pledge which had now been fulfilled.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he wished to ask what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to filling up the vacant appointment of Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland? It was often said that Scotland was governed by the Lord Advocate and the Queen's Remembrancer, and he was sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate must have been greatly inconvenienced by the vacancy which had existed in the office of his Colleague for so many months; and he trusted that the intentions of the Government in reference to the appointment would be made known to the House.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to state that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the great importance of this office, and that had been the reason why no step had been taken to fill it up; because it had been necessary to consider very carefully what should be done in regard to it, with a view to a number of questions which are now pending, and have reference to the future administration of affairs in Scotland. As soon as Her Majesty's Government had arrived at a conclusion on the subject, they would deal with the office; but he must remind the hon. Member that there had been subjects of great moment engaging the attention of the Government for some time past, and they had not. in consequence, been able to arrive at a conclusion in regard to this office.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not wish to cavil at the answer just given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated distinctly that, on the Report, he would be prepared to say whether Her Majesty's Government would fill up the vacant office or not.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, his hon. Friend was perfectly right; and if the Prime Minister was in his place, he would be prepared to make the statement, because it was upon his instructions that he gave the answer he had referred to.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)
  (No. 2) BILL—[BILL 226.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. William Edward Foster, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, he hoped the people of Macclesfield would have an opportunity of bringing the case of Cheshire under the consideration of the House next Session.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  VOLTUNTEER ACT (1863) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Captain VIVIAN, Bill to amend the Volunteer Act, 1863, ordered to be brought in by Captain VIVIAN and Mr. Secretary CARDWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 236.]

  IRISH CHURCH BILL.
  Ordered, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Irish Church Bill, and the Reasons for disagreeing to several of the Lords Amendments, be printed. [Bill 232.]— (Mr. Walpole.)

  ACCOUNTS, &C. PRESENTATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATRTON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the presentation of Accounts, Statements, Returns, and Documents to Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Mr. AYRTON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  House adjourned at Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE —Report— Bankruptcy* (207).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Presentation of Benefices belonging to Roman Catholics, &c. * (209); Dublin Freemen Commission * (210); Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks* (211)*; Married Women's Property* (212).
Second Reading—Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2)* (205); High Constables' Office Abolition, &c* (99).
Committee — Medical Officers Superannuation (Ireland) * (180); Fines and Fees Collection * (155); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (183).
Committee — Report—Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland)* (175); Seamen's Clothing* (189); Queen Anne's Bounty (Superannuation Allowances)* (185).
Report—Bankruptcy * (154–208).
Third Reading—Municipal Franchise*'(200); Charity Commissioners * (170); Special Bails * (166); Companies Clauses Act (1863) Amendment * (147); Poor Law Union Loans * (194); Sunday and Ragged Schools* (188), and passed.

COMMONS' AMENDMENTS AND REASONS CONSIDERED.
Commons' amendments to Lords' amendments and Commons' reasons for disagreeing to some of the amendments made by the Lords further considered (according to order).
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I stated on Tuesday night the reasons why I thought it necessary to ask your Lordships to adjourn the debate until I had had an opportunity of consulting with my Colleagues as to the course which ought to be pursued. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the decision of your Lordships that night was one of a very grave character; but they have been unwilling to incur the responsibility of preventing your Lordships discussing the further Amendments which have been sent back by the House of Commons. My Lords, I can only say that I will endeavour to approach that discussion on the part of Her Majesty's Government, while adhering to the principles of the Bill, in a spirit of peace and conciliation. I not only hope, but I believe that we shall be met in a corresponding spirit by noble Lords on dif-

407
ferent sides of the House. My Lords, my first duty is to propose that this House will not insist on your Amendment substituting the 1st of May as the date of disestablishment, instead of the 1st of January, which the Government originally proposed. It was a matter of observation the other night that the fact of the House of Commons having insisted on this Amendment was a proof of want of conciliation on their part; and that observation was repeated when I assented to the remark of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), that the alteration was not very material. Now I venture to remind your Lordships that this is a point of the Bill on which the House had not a very decided opinion. In the first place, when it was proposed by the most rev. Primate, I stated what appeared to me to be a strong objection to deferring for one year more the operation of this portion of the measure. I think your Lordships will admit that, although you have shown singular personal indulgence to me, which I feel the more sensibly since I believe you were, in some degree—at all events in your individual capacities—actuated by a sympathy for "unavoidable suffering and calamity," yet that with regard to the suggestions which I made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, they were not very much attended to by your Lordships. I do not think however, considering the feelings your Lordships entertained when the Bill was introduced, that such a course was perfectly unreasonable on your part. The Amendment of the most rev. Primate was carried by a considerable majority. I did not endeavour to reverse that decision during the early stages of the Bill; but I found that there was such a general feeling of doubt, to say the least, as to the expediency of this particular date, that I made an appeal to the most rev. Primate and to a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), who has shown such a thorough acquaintance with the subject of the Irish Church, the latter responded by expressing a decided opinion that it was desirable to retain the date proposed by Her Majesty's Government, This appeared so much to be the feeling of the House that a noble Earl on the opposite side of the House (the Earl of Carnarvon) moved the restoration of the original date. Thereupon the noble and learned Lord
408
opposite (Lord Cairns) proposed a compromise, which was accepted at once without any discussion, based very much on a practical reason—for, on examination, it has been found that his proposal, having reference to the time when the rent-charge is paid, would not affect the position of the clergy on the day when, according to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government, the Bill would come into operation. Her Majesty's Government put themselves into communication with the Irish Church, it being entirely a matter for the Church itself to consider, and they found that the most active members of that Church wish the Bill, if passed, to take effect as speedily as possible. We have, therefore, thought it better that your Lordships should have one more opportunity of considering the matter. I now move that, in Clause 2, your Lordships do not insist on the substitution of May for January; but if the feeling of the House should be strongly against the restoration, I shall not only not divide the House but shall withdraw the Motion.
Moved, in Clause 2, not to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Earl Granville.)
LORD CAIRNS: I trust your Lordships will allow me to say somewhat more than what relates to the precise Motion which the noble Earl has made. On a former occasion the noble Earl threw himself on your Lordships' indulgence; and though it may be a somewhat strange thing wherewith to begin what I have to say, I must also on this occasion throw myself on your Lordships' indulgence. I do so for this reason. Since the adjournment of the House on Tuesday night I have had an opportunity of conferring with the noble Earl opposite, and it appeared to him as it appears to me, that it was better that I should state to your Lordships exactly what has occurred between us. I throw myself especially on the indulgence of many noble Lords who have honoured me with their confidence, and of those noble Lords who have more than once in regard to this Bill acted in unison with us. I should have been glad, had it been possible — but it was not possible, to have held more conference with them before making any public statement on the subject to which I am about to refer. My Lords, it was

409
clear to me that after the vote of Tuesday night the questions which remained to he discussed upon the Amendments to this Bill were not many in number, and that they were questions by no means incapable of solution. My Lords, I was glad to find that a similar spirit actuated the noble Earl opposite; and I have felt —what I am sure every one must have felt—that, whatever we might think of the principle of this measure, nothing could be more culpable on the part of either side of the House than to encourage or promote controversy on the details of a measure of this kind, where the materials for the solution of the controversy were at hand. It was in that view and with those sentiments that any communication which has occurred in conference between the noble Earl and myself was conducted. I agree with him that the Amendment to which he has now referred is of very secondary importance. Not only so—it has always appeared to me that if one of the most important provisions of the Bill—that with regard to commutation—were placed on a satisfactory and intelligible basis, the result would be that, for the purpose of that commutation, as well as for many other reasons, the earlier the day named for the disestablishment of the Church, supposing it to be disestablished, the better. As far therefore as that Amendment is concerned, I own that, for my own part, I am quite ready to accept the date of the 1st of January, 1871, if the noble Earl proposes that we should not insist upon our Amendment which fixes the 1st of May. I now come to an Amendment which I have before described, and would still describe, as one of great consequence—the Amendment proposed by my noble Friend below the Gangway (the Marquess of Salisbury) with regard to the relative position of rectors and curates. I took the liberty of stating to your Lordships on Tuesday night that the alteration made by the other House appeared to me to make the relative position of rectors and curates somewhat worse than before, for it provided that if an incumbent had, for the purpose of the ecclesiastical tax, made a return claiming a deduction for a curate in one previous year that curate was to be stamped for ever as a permanent curate, so as to become a permanent deduction from the income of the incumbent. I
410
supposed a case, which was a very probable one, of a rector having employed a curate for a transitory or accidental purpose during one year, and having claimed a deduction in consequence of that employment. The sum paid to him would be claimed as a permanent deduction. Another provision in the clause, which was also referred to, suspended the annuity of a curate during a period of ill-health, and I believed the Government would not be unwilling to remove some part, at all events, of the objection which I entertained to the clause. I understand from the noble Earl that they would be willing in substance to provide that no curate should be stamped as a permanent one unless under two circumstances—first, unless he be adjudged a permanent curate after consideration of the various matters named in the original clause— namely length of service and the duties discharged to the benefice, and the non-residence, infirmity, or other incapacity of the incumbent, and his habit of employing a curate; and, secondly, unless he has returned the curate for the purpose of the ecclesiastical tax, not for one year, but for five years previously. I ought to mention, also, that I think this reference to the ecclesiastical tax, provided you carry it sufficiently far back, is a considerable advantage; for, as your Lordships may be aware, no living in Ireland is subject to deduction for that tax unless it amounts to upwards of £300 a year. The result of the proposal would be that with regard to livings under that sum there would be no deduction in respect of a curate, if there should happen to be one, from the income of the incumbent—and I believe we all agree that we should be especially anxious to afford the largest possible advantages to small incumbencies. As I have said, I have had a very insufficient opportunity of communicating with my noble Friends during the progress of my intercourse with the noble Earl opposite, but I trust that my noble Friend below the Gangway will not be unwilling to take the same view of the matter as myself—namely, that this is an offer on the part of the Government which we ought not to refuse, but ought rather to accept. My Lords, I now come to another Amendment, which I have before described as of very great consequence—indeed, I venture to regard

411
it as the most important in the Bill— that of the noble Earl below the Gangway (the Earl of Carnarvon), dealing with the subject of commutation. Your Lordships will recollect generally that this Amendment proposes a commutation upon a scheme for the payment to the representative body of the Church of fourteen times the aggregate annual value of all the life interests of the Church. That scheme was objected to in the other House on this ground—it was said that in order to give effect to the scheme two things must occur. In the first place, if any incumbent, or any number of incumbents dissented from the commutation, there was an obligation on the Church Body to purchase a Government annuity or annuities for such dissentients; and it was said that if there should be, as no doubt there might be, a very large number of dissentients, that the new Church Body might find itself in considerable difficulty as to the means of obtaining money for the purpose of purchasing these Government annuities. It might indeed be said that the money could be obtained by means of the sum to be paid over to the Church Body for the compensations; but that sum is only payable in eight instalments, extending over a considerable space of time, and there is no doubt the Church Body might find itself in want of immediate funds for buying such annuities. Another objection was that, for the purpose of the whole operation, the Amendment required the consent of all the incumbrancers upon the incomes of any incumbents—which no doubt in words was the case—and that as some of the incumbrancers might dissent the whole scheme of commutation might be interrupted. Now, my Lords, admitting to a certain extent the weight of both these objections, I think a sufficient answer for the purpose of legislation is that the Church Body is willing to take the risk. They might lead to some difficulty in working out the arrangement, but if that difficulty could not be surmounted by the Church Body it would be that Body that would be injured, and not the funds which had formerly belonged to the Church. A proposal however was made in the House of Commons proceeding upon a totally different plan—a proposal for what I might call diocesan commutation, which was applicable also to Nonconformist bodies. If a certain por-
412
tion— four-fifths being suggested — of the clergy of any diocese in Ireland assented to commutation, the Commissioners under this Bill were to pay to the Church Body not merely the tabulated value of the lives of the incumbents, but also a further sum of 7 per cent, which was to represent the value of the greater probability of duration in the case of clerical lives as compared with lives taken indiscriminately from any considerable population. Now, stopping there, I think the observation I made the other night was a fair one— that, in the first place, you have but small inducement to call upon four-fifths of the clergy of any diocese to assent to commutation, and in the next place, that the addition of 7 per cent was after all, nothing more than the bringing up the value of the annuities to what you admit to be their true and proper value. Then the observation was apparent, that if this scheme of commutation were to be undertaken—as it is most desirable it should be—on a large scale, and undertaken by the new Church Body, very large expenses would necessarily be incurred by that Body in the way of negotiation, in legal expenses, and in the various financial arrangements which would be necessary before you could persuade a large number of beneficed persons to come forward in a limited time and assent to the commutation. No provision, it was obvious, was made to cover that large margin of expenditure which was necessary on behalf of the Church Body. Now I have reason to believe on this head that Her Majesty's Government are willing to propose to the other House that in the event of commutation in the different dioceses, by consent— not of four-fifths, but of three-fourths of the holders of preferments, there should be paid not merely the addition of 7 per cent but a further addition of 5 per cent, making 12 per cent in addition to what was originally proposed. Here again, I feel myself — and I hope my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) will forgive me if I have gone beyond my proper province in informing the representative of Her Majesty's Government that I thought the proposal was, upon the whole, a fair one for the Church, and that if it were one which the Government were prepared to support I did not think we ought to come to an issue with them in favour of the alternative pro-

413
posal of my noble Friend. With this proposition, to which, as I understand, the Government are willing to accede, there is connected another—I mean the Amendment respecting residences. My Lords, as all schemes of commutation have hitherto stood, the result of accepting them would have been this—there would of necessity have been included in the commutation the value for their lives of the residences of the clergy and of any land occupied by them—for the principle of the Bill is to save to all life holders not merely their own interest in the tithe rent-charges, but their full interest in their residences and in lands belonging to those residences. Now, it has appeared to those who have considered this matter in the interest of the Church that it is likely to lead to great difficulty in the way of a general commutation, if it is made a condition of that commutation that there should be included in it not merely the interests of the incumbent in the tithe rent-charge, but also his life interest in his house and land; because if you did so he would be obliged to give up his house and land to the Commissioners, and would have only the chance or risk of getting them back through the medium of the new Church Body. Her Majesty's Government, as I understand, are willing to assent to a provision that if any incumbent desires it, there may be excepted out of his commutation his life interest in his residence and in any land which, on the 1st of January of the present year, was in his own occupation as appurtenant to that residence. Of course, if his land was let out to tenants, there would be no right to deduct it from the commutation, since he would get the full value for it by the commutation; but he may, if he pleases, except his residence and land in his own occupation, from the commutation, and become in that way the owner either of the whole of the commuted value, or of such part of it as he may agree with the representative of the Church Body—at the same time not being disturbed in his residence or in his occupation of such land during his life. That connects itself with the Amendment regarding residences, and it is the only mitigation of what I have throughout felt to be a very great hardship—a hardship much greater than the actual value of the property concerned
414
in the proposal of the Government as regards residences — for I understand that the Government are not willing to make any concession as to the terms upon which they will give up the residences to the Church Body. They still desire that they should be dealt with in the manner originally proposed by the Bill—namely, by the payment, where there is no building charge, of a certain number of years' value of the site as land, and by the payment, where there is a building charge, of one or other of two sums mentioned in the Bill. I am not going to enter on debatable ground, but I have felt throughout that, both upon the merits of the case and on the pledges given by the Government in former years or months, the proposition contained in the Bill on this subject was one which I could not help thinking even to the last they would abandon. Her Majesty's Government take a different view, and the question which I have had to ask myself—I beg again your Lordships' indulgence for having taken upon myself without consultation with you to express an opinion on the subject—was this—The life enjoyment of the residences and land being provided for through the exception from the commutations wherever it is desired, would it be right that we should come to an issue upon a matter of this kind, involving, as I believe, a sum of not much over £100,000? I do not undervalue the question as divested of its financial aspect. I say again that I regard as one of the severest hardships of the Bill the way in which it deals with residences; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to advise your Lordships, upon an isolated point of this kind, supposing the other questions to be capable of a satisfactory solution, to push the matter to extremities. There remains one other matter only to which I will refer—for, of course, I will not trouble you upon mere technical points—the vote at which your Lordships arrived two nights ago, when you decided by a very large majority to strike out of the Preamble the statement that the property of the Church or its proceeds—
"Should be held and applied for the advantage of the Irish people, but not for the maintenance of any church or clergy or other ministry, nor for the teaching of religion."
And also the statement that it was expedient—

415
"That the said property or the proceeds thereof should be appropriated mainly to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering, yet so as not to cancel or impair the obligations now attached to property under the Acts for the relief of the poor."
The effect of your Lordships's vote was that the Preamble should run thus, that—
"After satisfying so far as possible upon principles of equality as between the several religious denominations in Ireland all just and equitable claims, the property of the said Church of Ireland, or the proceeds thereof, should be applied in such manner as Parliament shall hereafter direct."
Now, the arguments on which your Lordships arrived at that conclusion were in substance these—First—and this weighed most with some—that a negative declaration was inoperative, unnecessary, and objectionable, and further that it was absolutely necessary with regard to any appropriation of this large sum of money that the absolute control of Parliament over it should be preserved until the occasion arose for its application. Now we shall by-and-by approach the 68th clause, which, when it first came up to us, provided for the application of the income, at all events, of the surplus, through the medium of Orders in Council and of the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland. A certain check was afterwards interposed by the House of Commons in a rather unusual manner on the efficacy of Orders in Council, requiring them to be laid on the table of the two Houses of Parliament, and providing that they should not take effect till a certain number of days after they had been so laid on the table. Her Majesty's Government, as I understand, now desire that in this clause your Lordships should introduce a statement to this effect—I am speaking from memory, but I believe I am tolerably accurate— that it is desirable that the surplus should be applied in the main to the relief of unavoidable calamity, but not so as to impair the obligations now attached to property under the Acts for the relief of the poor, and that it should be so applied in such manner as Parliament shall hereafter direct. My Lords, I conceive that that is in substance in harmony with your Lordships' decision, and, for my part, I should not be prepared to offer any opposition to the introduction of these words into the 68th clause. My Lords, I have now gone
416
through my statement. I end as I began. My strongest inducement to my conference with the noble Earl was my belief that the concessions which I have mentioned are such as this House, in a spirit of conciliation, would be disposed to entertain, and that, as far as I was concerned, and those with whom I act, they would be willing to entertain these concessions upon this footing. I trust that in this step I have not gone beyond what I was entitled to do in thinking that I had the support of those behind me. If I have I can only crave their indulgence, and ask them to consider the difficulty of the position in which I stood, and the short time there was for consultation with them. I will only add that, much as I object to this Bill, much— although I do not desire to use hard words—as I detest every part of it, I believe that if it is to pass it is not desirable for the public interests of this country, or for the particular interests of the Irish Church, that there should be a struggle prolonged for months upon minor details, if we are able to secure, as I think the suggestions I have made would secure, the most reasonable terms which the case admits of in favour of the Church of Ireland.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, as the author of one of the Amendments which have been rejected by the other House, it is right I should say one or two words as to my feelings with regard to this matter. I wish to state that in moving that Amendment I was solely actuated by the information given me that it was desired by the Irish Church that the date at which the Bill was to take effect should be deferred. When I found it was doubtful whether this was the case, and that there were probably as many unwilling that the date should be altered as those who wished it to be altered, I was of course quite willing to bow to the decision of the House on the matter. It is a question of little consequence, and I am therefore perfectly willing to agree to the restoration of the original date. My Lords, another Amendment was intrusted to me, which related to a far more important subject — namely, the private endowments of the Irish Church, and under the head of those private endowments the Ulster glebes. I was unfortunately absent on Tuesday evening, when an announcement was made

417
to your Lordships that, upon the whole, it was the opinion of those who sit opposite that the House should not insist on its Amendment as to the Ulster glebes. I came down to the House to-night quite ready to insist upon it, had that been the wish of your Lordships, and am still ready to do so. At the same time, it is obvious from what has happened in the course of the various debates that there is a very grave question with regard to those Ulster glebes. It is obvious that we have the highest legal authority on the one hand as to their being private endowments, and the highest legal authority on the other side as to their being public endowments; and between the two it seems to be exactly one of those cases in which a compromise ought, if possible, to be accepted. Now it is true that in name no compromise has been offered; but I am free to admit that with regard to private endowments generally a very fair compromise was offered, and I accepted with the greatest satisfaction the proposal that £500,000 should be given down at once in payment of private endowments. Your Lordships were not slow to perceive that the payment of £500,000 at once, without waiting for the expiration of the various lives, raised that £500,000 to a sum of nearly £800,000. Now, as calculations had been made by the Prime Minister that these private endowments, even subsequent to 1670, were worth £500,000, it at first appeared to be no great concession, but merely the concession of the difference accruing from their payment at once, and their being postponed till the lives had expired—or some £300,000. On the other hand, however, it was contended by us that the Prime Minister had altogether miscalculated the value of these private endowments, and that they amounted to a much smaller sum than £500,000. When, therefore, the sum of £500,000 was offered, it was obvious that there had been a very great concession—not, indeed, sufficient to counterbalance the advantage which would have been derived from the retention of the Ulster glebes, but still one going a considerable way in that direction; and as I understand, from what passed early on Tuesday evening, that it was scarcely the intention of your Lordships to contend for the Ulster glebes, I could not help
418
feeling that, upon the whole, we had made not a bad bargain by obtaining this £800,000 for private endowments. With regard to the other matters in dispute, it is very satisfactory to learn that they have been arranged, and that a proposal is to be made by Her Majesty's Government to conduct the commutation of life interests upon terms as satisfactory as those proposed by the noble Earl below the Gangway (the Earl of Carnarvon); so that the Irish Church will lose nothing by accepting the proposal of the Government to add 12 per cent, in addition to the commutation at some twelve years' purchase. The question of curates, so far as I could gather from the noble and learned Lord's statement, seems to have been arranged satisfactorily. There remains, therefore, only the question of the glebe houses. That is in the hands of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and it is no business of mine to trespass upon that field. With regard to the Amendments which I have had to submit to your Lordships, I must express—not, indeed, my entire satisfaction, for I should have been very happy to have been the instrument of retaining the Ulster glebes—but my satisfaction that, on the whole, we have got as good terms as we could expect. My Lords, the noble Earl (Earl Granville), speaking on Tuesday night of some words I had used, said it was not necessary for me to have apologized for having come forward as the advocate of the mere pecuniary interests of the Irish Church, because, as he clearly saw, behind those pecuniary interests there were far higher interests which could not be maintained if those pecuniary interests were sacrificed; yet it is impossible to conceal from oneself that the fact of having had to speak so much on matters connected merely with pecuniary interests does place us—especially those of us who occupy a position like mine —in a somewhat invidious position. I still regard the sacrifice of an Established Church in Ireland as a great misfortune. I hold as strongly as ever that the right policy for Ireland would have been to maintain the Established Church there in moderate proportions, and to give the people of Ireland the benefit which the sanction of religion by the State must confer upon a nation. To say anything more however on that point, would be

419
to go back to the principle of the second reading of the Bill and to call in question the decision of the House. But when the Established Church was gone it still remained for us to consider whether we ought not to endeavour as much as possible to maintain an endowed Church; and I am thankful to believe that, by some means or other—in truth, not in name, because we are not allowed to mention such a thing as endowment— we shall be able to maintain an endowed Church of a very moderate character. These endowments, I grant, may be small, and the Church will have great difficulties to contend with; but I regard the possession of these endowments as a matter of great importance for the religious, social, and political well-being of Ireland. The evil of an unendowed clergy is confessed by all. I will not trouble your Lordships with statements as to that evil, but I will read one or two extracts which I trust at this time may not be without effect on any who are so infatuated as to desire that we should adopt the voluntary principle altogether in England as in Ireland. By the voluntary principle I mean the entire dependence of the clergy on the offerings of the people. I hold in my hand the opinion of a Roman Catholic priest on the effect of the voluntary system as carried out without endowments in Ireland itself, and his words are these—
"Can it be said that the present state of clerical dependence for support upon a capricious multitude had no share in determining this unbecoming conduct on the part of the Irish Catholic priesthood? The multitude held the strings of the clerical purse, and woe betide the unfortunate priest who had set himself in opposition to their wishes. As a body they became all powerful in this respect. The common cry among them was that they would not uphold any priest who would not back them in their proceedings; and instances could be produced where this threat was carried into execution; and upright individuals of the clerical body were made the objects of every species of injustice and persecution,"
All men who understand what the office of the clergy is greatly deplore the fact that when they are so stripped of all endowments they become the mere servants and tools of those whom they should teach. Whether, therefore, it is to be called endowment or not, I am thankful that, through some means or other, there is to be retained something which is to be placed in the hands of a Church Body for the benefit of the Church of Ireland to carry on its minis-
420
trations, independently of the offerings of the congregations. Lest I should be supposed to speak in any spirit of unkindness of the Roman Catholic priesthood in maintaining that doctrine, allow me to read a passage with regard to a totally different set of people. It comes from the Life of Crabb Robinson, a well known Dissenter—
"I asked the landlord of an inn in Bohemia about the Hussites.' 'They are,' he replied, ' the most loyal and peaceable of all our people. In former days they were always breeding disturbances. Their priests were very poor and lived on the peasants, and so they went from house to house beggars and paupers.'"
The result was that, instead of teaching the people to live according to the laws of the land, and giving their whole time to their religious, social, and political improvement, even these inoffensive Hussite ministers were forced to become agitators and to forget the high mission which God had given them. Crabb Robinson goes on to say—
"When the Emperor Joseph II. came to Prague to be crowned he issued a decree the first day that the Hussite priests should be allowed the same pay as the lowest order of the Catholic clergy, and since then we have never had a disturbance in the country."
Nothing, of course, is easier than to sneer at these poor Hussite priests because they dropped all their agitation as soon as they received any endowment; but after all human nature is human nature everywhere, and men who have to depend for their daily bread upon the passions of the people over whom they are set cannot well fulfil their high mission, whether they are tempted to appeal to the superstition or to the fanaticism of those amongst whom they are placed. I think, therefore, all experience proves that it is a great religious question whether or not the clergy shall be entirely dependent upon their flocks for their subsistence; and I am thankful to believe that if this Bill passes, according to what I am willing to say are the conciliatory proposals of the Government, though they may not be satisfactory to all, something will remain secured as a means of subsistence for the clergy of the disestablished Church of Ireland. It has been remarked in the course of these debates that the religion is not worth preserving which looks to the secular arm or the mere prop of pecuniary endowment for its maintenance. Now, our religion requires nothing of the kind;

421
but it is quite possible that if we should neglect opportunities of good which God has given us our religion may not be presented to the people in the purest form. I believe that evil will be averted in Ireland, partly, I trust, by the fact that some endowment will still be left for the clergy, and still more by the fact that the clergy who will first have to administer the concerns of that Church will have been brought up in a totally different system from the voluntary system. If they had had to start on this voluntary system I should have despaired for the religion, for the social improvement, and for the political security of the country; but bred as they have been in a totally different system, educated, trained in habits of intimacy with the clergy of the English Church, and commanding, as they do, even from a Roman Catholic Prelate, that tribute to their honour which has been more than once quoted "elsewhere," and which shows that they are quite unlike those fostered on the voluntary system, I believe they will be able, if any men can, to import into this Free Church something of that spirit which they have learnt in a nobler, higher, and far better system. I will conclude by reading the words in which that Roman Catholic Prelate bears his testimony to the Irish clergy, and which I trust will still remain characteristic of them, and distinguish them from all persons who live by pandering to the passions of the people—
"In every relation of life the Protestant clergy who reside among us are not only blameless, but estimable and edifying. They are peaceful with all, and to their neighbours they are kind when they can; and we know that on many occasions they would be more active in beneficence, but that they do not wish to appear meddling, or incur the suspicion of tampering with poor Catholics. In bearing, in manners, and in dress, they become their state. If they are not learned theologians, they are accomplished scholars and polished gentlemen. There is little intercourse between them and us; but they cannot escape our observation, and sometimes when we noticed that quiet, and decorous, and modest course of life, we felt ourselves giving expression to the wish—talis cumsis, utinam noster esses!"
Here you have the testimony of an excellent Roman Catholic Prelate to the same great truth which was maintained by the great leader of the Free Church in Scotland, and I believe is maintained also by the best Dissenting ministers— that there is a spirit in the clergy of
422
the Established Church which those who belong to Free Churches may well envy.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I will trespass but for a short time on the indulgence of the House. No one who remembers the slight part I have taken in the discussion of this Bill can doubt my earnest and sincere wish, if possible, to settle this most difficult question by some process of conciliation. I have had before now the misfortune of offending, in some degree, the feelings of many noble Friends with whom I have long acted, because I wished to push that conciliation to an extent which perhaps they thought was hardly justifiable, and I am satisfied, therefore' that you will not suppose that I am in any degree under-rating the value and importance of conciliation on such a question as this. I admit the difficulties as regards the critical and dangerous position of the Irish Church, and I admit the difficulties as regards the honour and consistency of this House—difficulties so great that they are a justification for the unusual course, as I am bound to regard it, of my noble and learned Friend who leads this side of the House. I fully admit that, if possible, some compromise should be arrived at. The only question is, what the terms of that compromise are, and whether they are—I will not say satisfactory in all respects, but as satisfactory as, under the circumstances of the case, we are justified in requiring them to be. I will not trouble your Lordships with any statement as to the Ulster glebes after what has fallen from the noble Earl on the other side. If my noble and learned Friend is content to waive that Amendment, I for one shall not urgently insist upon it. And with regard to the Amendments of my noble Friend the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Salisbury), he is perfectly competent to explain to the House how far the proposed terms are satisfactory. My Lords, the alteration of the Amendment which I took charge of, and which was carried by a considerable majority of this House, has been explained by my noble and learned Friend. As I understand it, it amounts to this— that in lieu of the compulsory commutation which my Amendment carried with it, and in lieu of the fourteen years' purchase which that Amendment also gave to the value of a clerical life, the com-

423
mutation shall occur when three-fourths of a diocese are agreed upon it, and it is to be at 7 per cent in the first instance, with an additional allowance of 5 per cent, calculated, as I understand it, as a margin upon the clerical lives, in order to cover the risks and contingencies of insurance. When my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) stated this, he said he hardly knew what I should say to this alteration in the Amendment. I must really echo the words of my noble and learned Friend, and avow that I hardly know myself what to say to the alteration. On the one hand I cannot flatter myself that the 12 per cent is really a sufficient and complete substitute for the two years' additional purchase which my Amendment would have given, and I doubt very much whether the consent of three-fourths of the clergy of any diocese is really equivalent in value to a compulsory commutation such as I proposed. At the same time I feel bound to say that, as far as I understand the nature of the alteration which has been effected, it is probably, on the whole, more satisfactory than any which has been proposed on any other Amendment, and therefore I think it would be ungracious in me to hold out and refuse my assent to the terms which have been offered by the Government. With regard to the amended measure, as a whole, I can only say that I sincerely hope and trust it may be for the best. I have no desire except to advance the interests of the Irish Church, and if the Amendments as they are now proposed to be altered do, as a whole, secure to that Church some little competence out of the wreck of her fortunes, I, for one, shall rejoice. I own I cannot think that the altered Amendments are, as a whole, equivalent to the Amendments as they formerly stood; but I feel that in the position in which I and others are placed there is no alternative but to accept the Amendments as they are now proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess, my Lords, I have listened to the statement of my noble and learned Friend with a feeling of very considerable embarrassment and some slight regret. I ventured the other night to say —and the noble Earl opposite objected to the statement—that the Irish Church Bill had been framed in a spirit of hard-fistedness that even Shylock might have
424
envied; and having listened to the statement of my noble and learned Friend, I cannot help thinking that he has rather played the part of a gentle Antonio to a too exacting Shylock. I fear we have hardly received a full equivalent for those glebe houses, to which we were entitled on account, not merely of the original rights of the Church, but also of the distinct and unmistakable promises of Members of the present Government to their constituencies. Still I think that in a situation such as this great regard should be paid to the peculiar position in which my noble and learned Friend was placed. Whenever great differences of opinion divide the majority of one Assembly from the majority of another Assembly the fact involves the necessity that the questions in dispute shall not be fought out on the floor of the House but committed to plenipotentiaries who can decide them in the comparative freedom of a private room. And I feel that we ought to entertain the greatest sympathy for the position of my noble and learned Friend. It is all very well for us who have no responsibility in the matter to wish to fight somewhat further in behalf of our opinions, and to endeavour to obtain, as we thought we could, better terms for the Church which we love; but we must not forget that my noble and learned Friend who engaged in these negotiations had a tremendous responsibility on his shoulders. I do not speak merely of the constitutional situation. That is not a subject on which I should like to dwell, and considerations respecting it ought not, I think, to have much weight with an Assembly like this. But if the result of my noble and learned Friend refusing the terms which the Government has proposed had been that many months or years were wasted in the discussion of these details amid an atmosphere of political bitterness and sectarian animosities, it must, at least, have happened that many of the lives on which we depend for the value of the extra commutation afforded by the Government must have fallen in, and the Church of Ireland must in consequence have been very much poorer in the future. If the Government had adhered to the same terms, every year's delay would have made a considerable difference in the ultimate heritage of the Church of Ireland. Then there was the prospect of mischievous agitation and disturbances in Ireland, of

425
the discredit attaching to a Church which would be charged with keeping up a struggle for the mere sake of obtaining more money, and the injury which must thereby arise to its future spiritual mission. I can well conceive that all these considerations must have pressed with overwhelming force on the mind of my noble and learned Friend. My own inclination would be to demand somewhat better terms, but I cannot dispute the discretion of him who knew the whole of the negotiation, which I do not. I am quite sure he has acted with an earnest desire to obtain the best terms for the Church to which he belongs far more closely than I do, and his zeal for which has always been well known. I feel that no good could arise to that Church if we, who are bound as much as we can to support him, were on this occasion to break away from his lead and refuse to accept the compromise he has conditionally assented to. The result of the conference leaves much to be lamented; but it is at least satisfactory to feel that the Irish Church will enter upon its new career without the addition of any further period of distracted and embittered controversy to turn its attention away from its high and lofty mission.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rejoice to see the approaching termination of this great controversy, and I cannot but think that, notwithstanding all the calumny which has been poured upon us, the conduct of the House of Lords on the subject of the Irish Church does them the highest honour. It was obvious that the plan of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church could not be welcome to your Lordships, and yet your Lordships, acting in accordance with the opinion of the country, affirmed the principle of the measure by a considerable majority. I cannot but add that in Committee the most rev. the Primate of England, representing, as he did, the Church of England, and naturally having great sympathy with the Church of Ireland, behaved with the greatest moderation, and did not ask for anything unreasonable on behalf of the Church. There are two points which I cannot refrain from mentioning. One is that to which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has adverted—the question of the glebe houses for the clergy. For my part I should have been glad
426
if those glebe houses could have been granted without any payment to the clergy of the Protestant Church. But if this been had been granted solely to the Protestant clergy, it is obvious that the principle of equality would have been departed from, and therefore, when it had been determined that no clergy or ministers of any other Church should have residences, it was obvious that Parliament could not make such a grant to the clergy of the Protestant Church. The other point which I wish to mention relates to the Preamble and the 68th clause. With regard to the words of the 68th clause, as they will stand as the clause has been amended and accepted by the Government—that after all claims have been satisfied the surplus shall be applied to the relief of unavoidable suffering and calamity, in such a way as Parliament shall hereafter determine, I cannot think that these words have, in reality, any force. I cannot suppose that, after many years have elapsed, and it is found that there is a considerable surplus, Parliament will not be at liberty to see whether there are any objects likely to be of advantage to Ireland which have superior claims to those of "unavoidable calamity or suffering," and to decide freely in what manner that surplus shall be applied. On the whole, I look upon this as a most just and beneficial measure, and I rejoice that after three centuries of injustice to Ireland we have reached the century of reparation for that unhappy country.
THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, in the main purpose of this Bill I have throughout agreed with Her Majesty's Government, although on some points I have entertained a different opinion from theirs. The Preamble, as altered by your Lordships, is, I understand from the explanation given to us to-night, agreed to by the Government; and I gathered from the remarks of my noble Friend and from those of the noble and learned Lord opposite—who did not appear to me to be quite explicit on the point—that something is to be introduced into the 68th clause which entirely confines the future disposition of the surplus, as far, at least, as one Parliament can bind another on such a matter. I hope the noble and learned Lord—whose speech was in all other respects so admirably

427
clear, and who seems to have adopted so conciliatory a course, and one forwhich this House, I think, is much indebted to him—I hope when we arive at the 68th clause we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord an explanation of the precise nature of the alteration which it is proposed to make in it. I do not now desire to revive the controversy as to the question of what has been called concurrent endowment. I think, after all that has occurred, that this would be a most inopportune moment for doing so. I thought, however, that the Preamble was originally framed in a manner that was highly objectionable, and it has been said that it was drawn with a view, to exclude the possibility of concurrent endowment. I should therefore like to know what are the precise words which the noble and learned Lord intends, in conjunction with the Government, to introduce into the 68th clause—if, indeed, he has entered into any engagement on that subject.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I must say, on my own part, that often as I have congratulated myself during this Session on having abdicated the responsible position which I lately held in this House in connection with the great Conservative party, I do so this evening more than ever when I consider the line taken by my noble and learned Friend, who, with his judicial mind and his great abilities, has effected what, I venture to think, perhaps no other noble lord on this side of the House could have succeeded in doing. My Lords, we ought all to be grateful to him for the manner in which he appears to have carried on this important negotiation. Nor would I be stingy in the expression of my gratitude, but I would extend that feeling to Her Majesty's Government for coming forward at this moment, ready to meet my noble and learned Friend in a fair spirit. When matters had arrived at the critical point which they had attained, I think it would have been a scandal, not only to this House, but to the whole country, if a compromise could not have been effected on the subject between the two Houses of Parliament. My Lords, after the division upon the second reading, in which the Conservative party were defeated in this House, the House of Lords admitted the principles of this Bill. Whether it be a good or a bad Bill,
428
they admitted the principles of disestablishment and disendowment; and I say that, after the many debates which have followed the adoption of those principles, it would have been most inexcusable—most shameful, I think—in reference both to the Parliament and to the country, if we had been unable to arrive at some settlement on points of detail. I congratulate your Lordships, therefore, on the settlement which has apparently been come to; and if the terms of that settlement are not altogether satisfactory to this side of the House—and, probably, no such negotiation can ever be carried out in a way that shall be perfectly satisfactory to either party—yet, I must congratulate your Lordships on having reached a point, which, bad as I think this Bill is in its principle and also in its details, will make it less baneful to the country which Her Majesty's Government, no doubt, believe it will benefit. I think, my Lords, that this House has hitherto conducted this great controversy throughout with a due regard to the duty which it has to perform. Without too rigidly insisting on the personal opinions of its Members, it has shown that it holds itself to be still an independent element of the State. That it has acted independently, honestly, and fairly, has been evinced by the great mixture of political opinions which the divisions which have taken place have exhibited. The discussions and divisions on various points of detail, prove that this has not been treated by your Lordships merely as a party question, but one on which individual Peers have spoken and voted according to their conscientious views of its merits. I think we may, therefore, look with indifference upon the criticisms of those who charge us with failing to do our duty. We may also disregard the language of those who say that the House of Lords must do this and must do that because the whole nation is against them. My Lords, I deny that the whole nation is against the House of Lords on this question. At least two-fifths of the House of Commons are opposed to this Bill, and as they represent, according to the spirit of the Constitution, two-fifths of the country, it is impossible to maintain, with any truth, that the opinion of the House of Lords on this measure is opposed by the whole nation. My Lords, I will not

429
trespass any further on your attention, but simply congratulate you again on the prospect of terminating this great controversy.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I confess that I concur with my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) in not wishing to abandon the hope that when we come to the 68th clause, both sides of the House may agree that it is inexpedient to introduce words which can have no real effect. But, at the same time, I, for one, am not prepared—at all events, without the consent of all parties—to press for any alteration of that clause, as assented to by the noble and learned Lord behind me. But I rise now, merely for the purpose of expressing the great satisfaction with which I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns). I rejoice to think that this great question is now settled, in a manner which—though I cannot say it is altogether satisfactory—though I cannot believe that it will prove so final and complete a settlement as might have been accomplished—though I fear it will leave behind for future years some difficult discussions and perplexing questions— though I feel all this, still I am, upon the whole, satisfied that a matter of so much difficulty and so much embarrassment— is likely to be settled in a manner which, at all events for the present, will relieve us from the difficulty in which we were involved. I must say that, in arriving at that settlement, great credit is due, both to the noble and learned Lord and also to Her Majesty's Government; and as what I said on a former evening gave great offence to the Friends of Her Majesty's Government, I am anxious to take this opportunity of saying that I think to-night they have made the best and a complete answer to the charge brought against them. When I look back to all the circumstances of the ease, to the nature of the answer that was returned by the House of Commons on the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers to the Amendments which we had made in the Bill, and to the manner in which that decision was recommended to the other House, I think they have no right to be surprised that I, and many besides myself, should have believed that some, at all events, of Her Majesty's Ministers— I never believed it of my noble Friend the Leader of this House, or of any of my noble Friends near him—were not
430
anxious for a settlement of this question without a triumph over this House. But I have the greatest satisfaction in declaring that, by the course they have now taken, they have completely dispelled all suspicion of that kind from my mind, and I have the greatest pleasure in thinking that they have acted in a manner that will promote the advantage of the country and the honour of both Houses of Parliament. I must be permitted to add one word more, and it is this — it is now thirty-four or thirty-five years since I first pressed on Parliament the opinion —which I have on various occasions since again and again insisted upon— that it was absolutely necessary, if we wished to restore tranquillity and prosperity to Ireland, to deal with this question of the Irish Church. It is, therefore, to me a matter of extreme satisfaction to find that this advice has been at length acted upon. But it is a satisfaction not altogether unqualified with regret, because I feel that, if only two or three years sooner, both parties would have looked at this question in a dispassionate spirit. They might have arrived at a more satisfactory settlement, and the Church and the country might have been left in a better position.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, there have been so many noble Lords who are opposed to Her Majesty's Government, who on the present occasion have expressed their satisfaction at the arrangement which has been come to, that I think it is only fair to my noble Friends below me that some one of those who, with a single exception, have supported them throughout the whole Bill, and who, on all other points, approve the Bill as it was introduced, should say—on the part I hope of others as well as myself—that we also are gratified with what we have heard, and that we are relieved from an anxiety which I confess I have felt, to a great extent, since the division of last Tuesday. I must also say I was struck by the conciliatory tone adopted by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) when perhaps some excitement and a little angry feeling might have been expected to remain in the minds of your Lordships, and I think he deserves every compliment which has been paid him from both sides of the House for having so materially, on a most difficult question, contributed to a decision with which, I

431
may say generally, we are all perfectly satisfied. I am glad my noble Friend on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) has paid a just tribute to the conciliatory spirit which has been displayed by Her Majesty's Government, and has confessed that by their conduct to night they have removed all the grounds of suspicion to which he gave expression on a former occasion. I can cordially join in the congratulations which have been offered to your Lordships on the settlement of this great question. No question of this great importance can be settled without a compromise and without concessions on either side; and there is this great advantage in such a proceeding—that when both parties feel that they have had something to do with the final arrangements, they feel more bound than they otherwise would be to stand by and defend the settlement. I do not believe that any question of importance was ever yet satisfactorily settled except by means of concessions made by opposite sides, and the permanency of such a settlement is infinitely greater when it is made by the consent of both parties. I do not think it would contribute to the harmony which I am glad to see prevails to refer in any way to past events. I think that the terms proposed by Her Majesty's Government, and accepted by the noble and learned Lord opposite on the part of his Friends, are fair and equitable as between both parties, and I confess I should be very sorry if any question was raised on the 68th clause which might occasion any difference of opinion. When the matter has been so far settled, I do not think it would be wise to raise any further question upon it. I think, then, that it will contribute to the settlement of this question if we do not attempt to re-open the arrangements which has been come to with the consent of the Leaders of both parties. I entirely agree with what fell from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury)—that after having gone so far it would have been a disgrace to Parliament if the question were suspended for another year. Nobody can say what agitation and excitement might have arisen within that time. It would also have been no slight matter to disappoint the hopes which have been raised among those in Ireland who looked to this Bill as a message of peace and conciliation. And if once this agitation had
432
been raised no one can say to what extent it would have gone, or what other questions might have been drawn in. I am convinced that it is for the good of the Irish people, for the tranquillity of Ireland, and for the peace of the Empire, that this question should have been speedily settled.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, having taken the responsibility of urging upon your Lordships when this Bill was brought before you for second reading to reject it altogether, and not allow it to proceed to Committee, I feel that perhaps it is not amiss that I should, for a few moments, trespass on your Lordships' attention in reviewing the position in which we are now placed. My Lords, I confess that, under the circumstances, I believe my noble and learned Friend has done the best. I say under the circumstances; I wish I could add that much has been really gained for the Church. All that has been gained is confined to one single point. The 5 per cent added to the 7 per cent is the whole of the boon. Everything beyond that is only what the Protestant Church had a right to, and was promised, not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by Mr. O'Connell, by Mr. Miall, and by many Members of the Government in various places throughout the country and within these walls, and by many Members of the Lower House when they appealed to the constituencies on the hustings. Therefore it cannot be said the Church has gained much by our labours. But this House has gained something by the deference it has shown to public opinion —although I cannot help feeling that our deference to that opinion has been too great, because I have a strong conviction that the public opinion, most strongly expressed at this moment, is not that of the electors of the most populous districts, who I firmly believe are not in favour of this Bill. Still, we have shown by our endeavours to do what our convictions urged us to accomplish, that an hereditary branch of the Legislature has a vigour, an individuality, and an independence which do not belong to a representative body; and we have shown that, even although our conclusions may not be approved by the country at large, some will applaud them, and the whole country must admit that we have acted disinterestedly. My

433
Lords, we are now told we may look for happier times; God grant we may not look in vain! But I believe few Irishmen can very heartily join in the hope that has been expressed. With one party rendered dissatisfied, and the other not satisfied, I cannot but believe that the interests of Ireland have been sacrificed—not to Irish wishes or Irish feeling, but to the impulse of Englishmen bent on gratifying English notions. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord behind me in having brought this matter to an end. I wish I could offer an unqualified congratulation to the country at large on the measure before us.
LORD ATHLUMNEYsaid, he had not opposed Her Majesty's Government from any feeling of hostility to their policy—he thought that in pursuing the course he had he should have been assisting them; and he deeply regretted that what he believed would have been a message of peace to Ireland, the giving of residences to the priests, had not been adopted. Those of their Lordships who did not reside in Ireland did not know what it was to live in a country distracted by religious dissensions, and he hoped that by passing this Bill they had provided for peace and conciliation. He regretted that the course he had recommended had not been followed; but the only course now open to their Lordships was to accept the measure as it had been offered to them by the Government, on the basis of the compromise made by the noble and learned Lord opposite and the noble Earl below him, who had conducted their proceedings upon this occasion with so much ability. The day had evidently come when Protestant ascendancy could no longer be maintained in peace; he firmly believed that ascendancy was not worth the price the Church was paying for it, and that the future would see the disestablished Church re-established on the firm basis of the hearts of the people. He thought the result of their present legislation would be that the Roman Catholics would see that they might look for justice to the united Parliament; and he believed the Protestants would soon be of opinion that the position they had held was not worth the keeping.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Considering the confidential position in which I have been placed with refer-
434
ence to my noble and learned Friend behind me (Lord Cairns), I cannot allow the present debate to close without expressing my thanks to him for the manner in which he has conducted the negotiations with Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I could not but feel that the vote to which I was very glad your Lordships came the night before last, and for which I was to some extent responsible, has placed the question in a most critical position; it was evident that this measure was in the very throes of its birth or the throes of its dissolution —and I cannot but feel thankful that the Government has taken what I conceive to be the wiser course, and has not allowed the possible irritation of that moment to induce them to adopt a course which might have been fruitful of the very worst consequences. But I must say that if the Government had thought it consistent with their duty to throw up the measure in consequence of that vote, the responsibility would have rested with them and not with your Lordships. My Lords, if one thing is clearer than another it is this—your Lordships passed the second reading of a measure, which it is notorious a great majority of your Lordships did not believe to be advantageous. Your Lordships do not approve the destruction of a Church which has been established in Ireland for the last 300 years. I venture to say that the great majority of your Lordships do not approve of this. But your Lordships felt that a decision had been pronounced by the country, and you only recognized a constitutional position by yielding to the decision of the country expressed by the constituencies. I will go further, and say that your Lordships have done more than yield to the opinion of the country. This question, as originally submitted to the country, involved only disestablishment and partial disendowment; but as time has passed on the demand upon us has grown—Vires acquirit eundo —and your Lordships have been asked to sanction, not partial, but total disendowment. Your Lordships have yielded that also, with exceptions so slight as to be hardly appreciable; but you have done it with credit to yourselves as a deliberative Assembly. We, on our side, have washed our hands of responsibility; we have protested against the provisions of the Bill; we have contended that the modifications which were suggested by

435
the right rev. Primate who judiciously presides over the Province of Canterbury might have been introduced; and we have maintained that the Church of Ireland, which has been so beneficial to that country, might have been maintained there side by side with other religions in that country. The responsibility of this act is not upon ourselves; it is upon Her Majesty's Government; and I believe that responsibility is one of no ordinary magnitude. I do not believe that this measure will answer the expectations of its friends. There are clouds arising; there are other questions which are pressing; Irishmen will not be satisfied with this measure, but they will regard your weakness to resist their demands as a justification for urging other demands in the future. Viewing the gravity of this crisis, and viewing the consequences which would have resulted had the measure been again relegated to the public opinion of this country and of Ireland, I, for one, am gratified at the result which has transpired, and I tender to my noble and learned Friend my thanks for the judicious manner in which he has carried on these negotiations.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, considering the decision of the constituencies at the last General Election, and the agitation which would have arisen had this measure been rejected—considering also the improved shape which the Bill has at last assumed—much as I dislike this Bill, I do not hesitate to say I should have regarded the loss of it, under such circumstances, as a public misfortune. It would have been no benefit to the country to have remitted the question to it again. Among other evils, agitation would have re-commenced, and the Church of Ireland would probably have been placed in a worse position than that which, under the present Bill, it holds. Therefore I am disposed to join the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) in thanking the noble and learned Lord, for the courage he has shown in taking upon himself the responsibility of acceding to the terms proposed. It does require courage to take upon one's self such a responsibility without any opportunity of consulting the party by whom one is supported. Great praise is also due to the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Granville), who, placed as he has been in such trying
436
circumstances, has not been diverted from the conciliatory temper for which he is so distinguished. Nor will I deny a share of praise upon this question to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I do not think it desirable to re-open the question of the several Amendments. Considering that in the other House there was an utter absence of support for the clause which stood in my name, and which was carried in this House, I do not think I should have been entitled to ask your Lordships to adhere to it; and that is the opinion of other noble Lords who supported me. I have heard, however, that at a private meeting of Irish Members of Parliament a very strong opinion was expressed as to the substantial merits of this clause, and it was felt that, but for other reasons, such as attachment to the Government which introduced the Bill and an implied compact with the Nonconformists, the clause might well have been supported on its merits. I think your Lordships have reason to be satisfied that you adopted that clause and sent it to the other House, for your acceptance of it showed that you are animated by a liberal spirit towards all the religious denominations of Ireland. The adoption of that clause did honour to the independence of this House; and therefore, in urging your Lordships to adopt it, I feel I gave you no advice of which I have reason to be ashamed. I rejoice that we have arrived at a settlement of this controversy upon moderate terms; and I shall most cordially rejoice if our apprehensions with regard to the operation of this Bill are not fulfilled. At all events, if it become law, it is our duty to do our utmost to make it work well.
LORD LYVEDEN: I must join in acknowledging the intellectual ability and the good temper displayed by the noble Lords by whom the terms of this compromise have been arranged; but no one has said a word for the advocates of what is called concurrent endowment. The provision for it went down to the House of Commons, but nobody took any notice of it. To my mind that measure was merely an act of grace to the Catholics of Ireland; it was by no means concurrent endowment. For thirty-five years it has been an article in the Liberal creed that the Church of Ireland should be disestablished; we expected the hour

437
and the man; the hour came, and disestablishment takes place; but the man who carries it does not go the length other statesmen would have done for the last thirty-five or the last sixty-five years, by giving some endowment to the Roman Catholics. Therefore, in that respect, I think the measure is a failure. I agree with what was said by the noble Earl in his letter to Mr. Fortescue, that the real mode of carrying peace to Ireland would have been to endow the Presbyterian religion, to endow the Roman Catholics, and to give one-eighth of the property of the present Church revenues to the Protestant Episcopal Church. I think that if something in the way of endowment had been proposed by Mr. Gladstone it might have gone down with the people, and it is the absence of endowment which will henceforth be the evil of Ireland. Mr. Pitt proposed it in 1800, but on that occasion his plan was thwarted by the unfortunate malady of his Sovereign. Mr. Gladstone has not attempted it now, though he might have done so had he not been thwarted by the fanaticism of the Scotch nation. The opportunity of carrying such a scheme has, of course, now passed away. My only object in rising is to ask for some explanation as to what is to be done with the 68th clause, and the mode in which the surplus is to be dealt with on the clause. In common with other Members of your Lordships' House, I desire to know whether the surplus is to be devoted to the charitable purposes defined in the Bill until Parliament provides some other mode of expending the money, or whether the subject is left entirely open for the decision of a future Parliament? In the latter case another Act of Parliament will, of course, be necessary, and it will be open to us, when that Act is proposed, to express our opinion upon the destination of the money. It certainly appears to me that the Government have thrown away this money because they were afraid of devoting it to any proper use. They could not apply it to education for fear it might involve questions of religion, and they could not apply it to public works for fear of jobbery. If they applied it to railways, in the same manner they are afraid of the adverse opinion of the people of England. I should, therefore, be glad to hear what is the exact understanding
438
between the noble and learned Lord opposite and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies as to the appropriation of the surplus, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I trespass upon the attention of the House.
LORD CAIRNS: In answer to the question which has been addressed to me by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and by the noble Duke below the Gangway (the Duke of Cleveland), I may say that the proposition made to me by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) was that the 68th clause should read in this way—
"And whereas it is further expedient that the proceeds of the said property should be appropriated mainly to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering, yet not so as to cancel or impair the obligations now attached to property under the Acts for the relief of the poor, be it further enacted that the said proceeds shall be so applied accordingly, in the manner Parliament shall hereinafter provide."
The interpretation which I then put, and which I still put, upon these words was that they contain a general abstract proposition by way of Preamble, which, while I cannot quite agree with it, appears to me to be innocuous coupled with what follows, which provides that not 1s. shall be expended until the consent of Parliament has been obtained. As I have risen, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to say a word or two on one other matter, although not actually concerning the precise portion of the Bill now before us. My noble Friend who sits near me (the Earl of Devon), on the third reading of the Bill, induced your Lordships to depart from an Amendment to which you had agreed in Committee, by which their seats in this House were secured for the lifetime of the present holders to the right rev. Prelates who represent the Church Establishment in Ireland in the rotation to which they were respectively entitled. I said at the time that the proposal, as it appeared to me, was not one to which we ought to agree unless the right rev. Prelates themselves expressed a willingness to relinquish their seats in this House. Some time before that Motion was made, I had a communication made to me by my most rev. Friend who presides over the Province of Dublin, on behalf of himself and all the Irish Prelates, which I think it only due to them to mention. He stated to me on behalf of

439
the Irish Prelates that they had no desire whatever to retain their seats in this House, or to make the retention of those seats a subject of struggle for their own sakes; or for any additional dignity or personal advantage that might be supposed to accrue to them for the retention of their seats in this House. But they said they looked upon this whole question as one which must, sooner or later, in the event of the Bill becoming law, be the subject of some arrangement, and they said that if concession on their sides could be made the ground of any benefit whatever being obtained by the Church to which they were so much attached, they were perfectly ready to make that concession, and would willingly make it in order to obtain any such benefit. Owing to the manner in which the Motion of my noble Friend was brought forward, it was, of course, impossible that any such consideration as that should be mentioned, and I was therefore unable to state that this was the desire and the wish of the right rev. Prelates, and it is only right that I should mention it now.
THE EARL OF FINGALL,THE EARL OF FINGALL, on behalf of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, begged to offer his warmest and most heartfelt thanks to their Lordships for the decision to which they had come that evening. When the news of that night's proceedings reached Ireland cries of joy would ring from one end of the country to the other.
THE EARL OF BANDONdesired that it should be known that he, at least, was no party to the compromise that had been proposed that evening, by which the Irish Church had been deprived of property which belonged to it by the prescription not of 300, but of more than 1000 years—of property which was guaranteed to it by the Magna Charta of Ireland — which was guaranteed to it at the time of the Reformation —which was guaranteed to it by the Act of Settlement and by the Act of Union. So far from agreeing with the noble Earl who had just sat down, his opinion was that when the telegrams conveyed to that country the news of the decision of that evening a deep and wide-spread feeling of sorrow would be occasioned amongst the Protestants of that country. What were they to gain by the compromise they had just heard of? He contended that they
440
would gain literally nothing. Indeed, the only thing the Church of Ireland was alleged to have gained was the power of commuting. It was more than twenty-five years since he had first spoken in the House of Commons in defence of the Irish Church, and he was glad that he was still able to say a word—it might be for the last time—on its behalf in the hour in which so great a calamity was about to overtake it.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say in one word how singularly gratifying it has been to me to find by the speeches on every side of the House the entire absence of party spirit which has marked our proceedings to-night; and it is singularly gratifying to me also to hear the noble and learned Lord say that when he was good enough to ask to speak to me confidentially and with perfect frankness I met that proposal in the same spirit in which it was made. I need not say how glad I am to have this opportunity of bearing testimony not only to the perfect accuracy, but likewise to the remarkable clearness and succinctness with which he stated to the House what had passed at that interview. With regard to the suggestion of the most rev. Prelate that the proposal of 12 per cent came from Her Majesty's Government, I think it is only fair to us that the House should not be in any doubt on the subject. That was not a proposal made by us, but a proposal made by the noble and learned Lord; and though we have agreed to recommend it with all our power to the House of Commons we do so only as a concession to your Lordships' House, and as a means of arriving at a speedy settlement of this great and important question.
THE BISHOP OF TUAM: My Lords, as it does not seem probable that a division will be taken on the subject of this night's debate; and as therefore there may not be the opportunity of shewing one's opinion by a vote, I cannot remain silent, and thus appear to sanction what I so completely disapprove. I wish to free myself from all blame, or from the imputation of acquiescing in the turn which things have taken. I do not intend to occupy your Lordships' time for more than a few minutes, but I desire emphatically to protest against these proceedings, as explained to us by the noble Earl (Earl Granville) on the part

441
of Her Majesty's Government, and the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns). It is not a pleasant duty, when all seems so smooth, and arranged to mutual satisfaction, to rise and express unqualified dissent; still, in so doing, while compliments are passing between the two sides of the House, it is not my intention unnecessarily to use harsh words. First, I must say that I do not accept the terms of the agreement as consonant with the high principles on which we should be found acting, or as advantageous to the cause of the Irish Branch of the Established Church—soon, I now conclude, to be disestablished; on the contrary, I believe that in many respects the Irish Church has, by this agreement, received very bad and disadvantageous terms. Though I feel it right to say this, and acquit my conscience, I am quite aware that the agreement deals with mere matters of detail, comparatively worthless; and though I attended, and took part in every night's proceedings while we were in Committee, and did what lay in my power to prevent or mitigate the injurious action of this Bill, still I felt, and would wish again to declare, that everything which was worth defending had been given up when you passed the second reading of the Bill. With my present protest ends the duty which I have thus desired to fulfil as regards the Bill, affecting so injuriously as it does, the interests both of our Church and nation. It will become my duty, should the Bill pass into law, then to struggle in our altered condition for the best interests of our true religion, and I trust I shall not be wanting in zealous endeavours to render our Church as effective and useful as possible. But still, I enter my protest against every part and every enactment of this shameful Bill. I protest against what I regard as a national sin—the separation, I mean, of religion from the State—a national sin likely to draw upon us national calamity. I protest against the Bill, because it admits the principle that you have a right to touch property conveyed by solemn compacts for special purposes, which have been faithfully carried out. I protest against it, because it applies to secular purposes what has been dedicated to the service of Almighty God. I protest against it, because I believe it involves a violation of the Coronation Oath. I protest against it, because I
442
believe it involves a violation of the Act of Settlement. I protest against it, because I believe it involves a violation of the Act of Union between England and Scotland; I protest against it, because I believe it involves a violation of the Act of Union between England and Ireland; solemn compacts in which national honour is, I believe, bound up. I protest against it, as doing grievous injustice to the laity of Ireland. I protest against it, as consigning to stereotyped poverty a large number of our best clergy with blighted prospects; and then, moreover, I protest against it, as a violation of the rights of property—draw what distinction you will between corporate and private property—still it invades these rights which are entwined through all our social system. This feature of your Bill is already bearing bitter fruit in Ireland; it is educating the people, by thus making light of the rights of the property of the Church, to anticipate a speedy and easy settlement of the land question according to their favourite views. You tell us that this Church Bill is to be a message of peace to Ireland, and to heal all its maladies. But what fruit has it as yet produced? Why, the few months during which you have been dealing with this measure have been marked with agrarian crimes, greater in extent, and more formidable in character than for many years. Nay, the fruit of your rash legislation has been this—to give confidence to the disaffected, and a sense of insecurity to those who are the bone and sinew of a nation's strength. Government such as this reverses the Scripture character of government, and becomes the praise of evil doers and the punishment of them that do well.
Motion, That the House do not insist upon the Amendment, agreed to.
Clause 27 (Enactments with respect to ecclesiastical residences).
Moved, Not to insist on the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.— (Earl Granville.)
THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLINsaid, that he could not consent to the Commons' Amendment in this clause. The sum of money involved was very small, and at whatever inconvenience to the House, he must divide upon it.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that concessions had been made on both sides, that many noble Lords had left the House on the understanding that a settlement had been arrived at, and under these circumstances he trusted the most rev. Prelate would not divide the House.
THE EARL of BANDONsaid, that the clergyman of the Free Church might be the only person in a parish who would have a difficulty in finding a house. If the houses were handed over free, as originally promised by the Prime Minister, it would involve a sum of only about £100,000. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl opposite would not refuse to give the houses free of charge.
THE ARCHBISHOP of DUBLINsaid, it was only through ignorance of the rules of the House that he had not given warning of his intention to divide on this matter.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN, though cordially agreeing with the most rev. Prelate, hoped he would not divide the House.
VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, it would put the House to great inconvenience if the most rev. Prelate should divide; and, as the noble Earl had stated, many noble Lords had left the House in the belief that there would be no divisions.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER and BEISTOLsaid, that those on the right rev. Bench could be no parties to the arrangement which had been made. He regretted extremely at all times to disturb the harmony of any assembly, but this was a very grave case, when the Primate representing the Irish Church in that House came down and found that arrangements had been made of which he could not be fully cognizant.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he had the honour of being the author of the Amendment which had been so unceremoniously burked. But as the commander of the numerous forces on that side of the House had come to an arragement, he did not think there was anything else for himself to do but to yield. He did not like the arrangement, but the noble and learned Lord had acted for the best.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that the only question before the country at the late elections was that of disestablishment. The details of disendowment certainly were not before it, with the
444
one single exception of these charges upon the glebe houses, and nobody disputed that these houses were to be delivered up free of charge. While anxious not to disturb the harmony of the House, which was like shaking hands after a quarrel, if the most rev. Prelate should go to a division he should feel bound to vote with him. He totally denied that this Bill would conciliate Ireland, or that it would establish religious equality in that country. It did not follow because the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian clergymen were not to receive glebe houses that therefore the Protestant clergyman should be deprived of his.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMthought the Bill dangerous in all its principles and all its branches, and it had been carried through the House by the help of statements totally unfounded. It was most desirable that these houses should be retained for the Protestant clergy. He was sure that this country would not give up its Protestant principles and that there would be a great re-action before long.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, after what had taken place, he thought it would be seen that a Parliamentary title was not a very secure one, and that a title by purchase would give little better security.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDsaid, he objected to the Bill on principle, but he was in the hands of the House. He could not but say that the Irish Church had been sacrificed.
On Question? Their Lordships divided: — Contents 47; Not-Contents 17: Majority 30.

CONTENTS.

Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellar.)

Morley, E.

Nelson, E.

Beaufort, D.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cleveland, D.

Halifax, V.

Marlborough, D.

Sydney, V.

Norfolk, D.

Torrington, V.

Normanby, M.

Chester, Bp,

Belper, L.

Camperdown, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and

Clarendon, E.

Orrery.)

De Grey, E.

Cairns, L.

Devon, E.

Camoys, L.

Fortescue, E.

Carew, L.

Granville, E.

Charlemont, L. (E. Char

Grey, E.

lernont.)

Kimberley, E.

Clandeboye, L. (L. Duf-

Lichfield, E.

ferin and Claneboye.)

445

Colville of Culross, L.

Northbrook, L.

De Tabley, L.

Ponsonby L. (E. Bess-

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

borough.) [Teller.]

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Seaton, L.

Granard, L. (E. Gra-

Somerhill, L. (M. Clan-

nard.)

ricarde.)

Hylton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stratheden, L.

Leigh, L.

Suffield, L.

Lurgan, L.

Sundridge, L. (D. Ar-

Monson, L.

gyll.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Dublin, Archp.

Clements, L. (E. Lei-

trim.) [Teller.]

Bandon, E.

Colchester, L.

Selkirk, E.

Denman, L

Northwick, L.

De Vesci, V.

O'Neill, L

Gough, V.

Redesdale, L.

Lifford, V.

Sherborne, L.

Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

Silchester, L. (E. Long-

Lichfield, Bp.

ford.) [Teller.]

Tuam, &c, Bp.

COMMONS' AMENDMENTS AND REASONS CONSIDERED.

  PROTEST.
  "DISSENTIENT:
  "1. Because the usefulness of every clergyman in Ireland would be greatly impaired by the knowledge that he could have no legitimate successor in his parish and glebe house as of right.
  "2. Because this Bill would perpetuate the divisions into sects of Christians, which the appeal to an open Bible would tend to bring into unity under the supremacy of the Crown.
  "3. Because the families of persons in holy orders would be deprived of that support which promotion on account of zeal and earnestness in duty has hitherto rewarded the clergy withal in their homes.
  "4. Because the want of resident gentry being injurious to Ireland, the disturbance of a system which ensured a fair proportion of educated inhabitants would every year be more deeply felt if the clergy could not have houses free of charge.
  "5. Because the equality proposed by this Bill would weaken the protest against such minor doctrines of the Church of Rome as tend to a reliance on form and on painful observances, and would divert attention from points which pious Catholics considered worthy of being conceded, and which the Queen Regent of France in 1561, in her instructions to be laid before the Pope, so far adopted as to write—' What danger can there be to the Church in removing images from the churches and doing away with certain useless forms in the administration of the Sacraments? It would be advantageous to allow all persons the Communion under both kinds; and to permit Divine worship to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue,' by Protestants.
  "6. Because as sooner or later the continued opening of Churches in the Reformed Faith would bring all the inhabitants of Ireland into one Communion, and as the people of England desire their Irish Catholic brethren to enjoy all the advantages which they themselves possess as a National Church, it might well be considered at the great 'Œcumenical Council' how far changes should be deprecated subversive of all establishments and privileges.
  "7. Because there can be no equality between the Romanists, Presbyterians, and (lawful) Episcopalians of Ireland if the endowments of the latter should be handed over to a paid commission, unless those denominations also permit their property to be confiscated, and because the petition from Killelagh to the House of Commons has been disregarded since 22nd June 1831 until now.
  "8. Because the phrases ' Gifts of Churches' ' Re-establishment' and ' Re-endowment' apply to the case of lawful possession being invaded, of the disturbance' of a position guaranteed by the Act of Union, and promulgated by a solemn invocation of The Deity in Westminster Abbey, and to the revenues of the Irish Church, which are barely sufficient for the support of all the clergy, and of those who have at great cost been educated with the view of being candidates for Holy Orders.
  "9. Because the Peers, being sworn to legislate ' according to law,' are invading the first principles of justice in consenting to this Bill, and removing blameless clergymen by commutation or otherwise.
  "Denman."
  Clause 68 (Ultimate trust of surplus).
  Then it was moved, "Not to insist on the Amendments in Clause 68, to which the Commons disagree, but to leave out the said clause, and to insert the following clause in lieu thereof:—
  "And whereas it is further expedient that the proceeds of the said property should be appropriated mainly to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering, yet not so as to cancel or impair the obligations now attached to property under the Acts for the relief of the poor: Be it further enacted, that the said proceeds shall be so applied accordingly in the manner Parliament shall hereafter direct."
  EARL GREY: I will not disturb the agreement which has been come to by both sides of the House by asking you to divide on this question; but I appeal to your Lordships not to lower the character of this House and of Parliament by inserting words which I cannot help thinking everyone of you must feel to be absolutely idle and futile, and incapable of answering any possible purpose. I should be equally averse to introducing words which will go absolutely for nothing whenever the subject is to be discussed. As far as the substance of the clause goes, it reserves to Parliament the future disposition of the property, and I have no fault to find with that; but it is unworthy of Parliament and of the dignity of this House to introduce into a clause a pledge which has absolutely no meaning, which will not fetter future Parliaments, and which is simply calculated to cover Parliament with ridicule. If these words be added to the

  447
  clause I may say at once that whenever this subject comes up again to be dealt with I shall treat them as waste paper, and as not binding upon Parliament or any individual.
  EARL GRANYTLLE: I am sorry to deny the noble Earl the pleasure of having the last word, but I am bound to say I disagree with him. However, I will not trouble your Lordships with any arguments, as I believe the Amendment has the acquiescence of a majority your Lordships.
  Motion agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  A Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on the said amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith.
  Report from the Committee of the reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting upon certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed; read and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with amendments and reasons.

  PRESENTATION OF BENEFICES BELONGING TO ROMAN CATHOLICS, &C. BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for repealing part of an Act of the first year of the reign of their Majesties King William and Queen Mary, intituled "An Act to vest in the Two Universities the Presentation of Benefices belonging to Papists, and for securing uniformity in the law relating to the residence of spiritual persons upon their Benefices, and to the penalties and forfeitures consequent on non-residence "—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 209.)
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.