Sitting of 23 July 1869

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE —Report— Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Committee. [No. 352.]
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Public Works (Ireland)* [202].
Committee—Report—Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment* [217]; Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment* [214]; Metropolitan Poor Act (1867) Amendment* [53].
Report—Metropolitan Board of Works (Loans) * [181–238].
Considered as amended—Valuation of Property (Metropolis)* [100]; Railways Abandonment * [219]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [191].
Third Reading—Trades Unions (Protection of Funds)* [216]; Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment * [182], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTION.
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the authorities of the British Museum have issued a Circular requiring proprietors of Provincial Newspapers to deliver regularly to a Mr. Lethbridge, on behalf of the British Museum, and for the use of that
560
Institution, a gratuitous copy of each and every newspaper they publish, with the postage paid thereon, while up to this time these newspapers have been delivered to the local stamp distributors and paid for by them; and, whether this requisition is not contrary to the requirements of "The Copyright Act, 1845?"
MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that since the passing of the "Newspapers Repeal Act, 1869," the proprietors of newspapers are subjected to inconvenience and expense owing to the appropriation of the titles of their newspapers by other persons, and the registry of such titles at Stationers' Hall under the Act 5 and 6 Vic. c.45; whether he will endeavour to prevent this piracy of title by the transfer to Stationers' Hall of the existing register at Somerset House, or otherwise; and, whether he will also provide the public with the same facilities for inspecting the register as were formerly afforded at Somerset House, as the officer at Stationers' Hall declines to allow the inspection—gratuitous or otherwise—even of the index of such register of newspapers there kept, unless applicants can furnish him with the title of the particular newspaper for which they wish to search?
MR. AYRTON,MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, as this was a question involving matters of considerable importance to the public Press, he might be permitted to give a somewhat full answer to these inquiries. Up to the commencement of the present Session the periodical Press was subjected to two separate systems of law— one imposed for the purpose of collecting taxation upon the Press, and for the purpose of repressing supposed abuses in the publication of libels. That branch of law, with one or two exceptions, had been entirely repealed; but proprietors of newspapers were still at liberty to have stamps impressed upon their newspapers, if they so desired, in order to circulate them through the Post Office. The other branch of law affecting the Press was that with regard to copyright. The Copyright Act had not been in any way affected by the change that had been made this Session, and newspapers were still entitled to all the privileges which the Copyright Act gave them. That Act required as a condition of such

561
privileges that any persons publishing any printed matter should deliver a copy to the British Museum, and up to the present time the authorities of the British Museum had been in the habit of making use of the Inland Revenue Department for the purpose of receiving the newspapers they desired to preserve in its library. In consequence of the repeal of the law, however, the British Museum was now thrown back upon its more appropriate rights under the Copyright Act, and it was, therefore, to that Act that the newspaper Press and the British Museum must look respecting their relations with one another. In consequence, therefore?, of what had been done in the present Session, the British Museum had issued a Circular to the Press calling their attention to the Copyright Act and the necessity of delivering copies of their publications to the British Museum, They were required at their own cost to take care that the British Museum should receive copies of every number of a newspaper. In order to facilitate this transmission, the British Museum had employed a gentleman who! was constantly in communication with the periodical Press in the office of Messrs. Smith, but if any gentleman chose he might send his newspaper direct to the British Museum. So far as the British Museum was concerned, it was a convenience to them that the newspapers should not be sent by post on each day of issue, and the transmission would be more economical in parcels at intervals of three or more months, provided that full and complete files of the paper were furnish from time to time. Under the Copyright Act, undoubtedly, everyone was entitled to search for any newspaper that might be entered, and if the persons at Stationers' Hall did not give facilities for such a search for the fee of 1s. they were in fault. An entry of a newspaper once for all entitled it to the privileges conferred by the Act, and if any other person made a false entry the Copyright Act contained strong provisions applicable to such a case.

THE POLICE AND THE PUBLIC.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to a recent charge against three
  562
  young men at Marlborough street Police Court, and to the published comments of Mr. Knox, the magistrate, upon the conduct and evidence of the police, and, whether he intends to direct any proceedings to be taken in the matter?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, the facts of this case have received my very careful consideration. It appears that on the night of the 1st of July there was a disturbance in the Haymarket, between the hours of one and two o'clock, a large number of prostitutes being present. Certain persons were arrested on the charge of having taken part in the disturbance and of having assaulted the police. The magistrate before whom the case was brought dismissed the charge, believing the statements of the persons accused rather than the sworn evidence of the police. The constables were men of good character and of long service, and were especially selected for the very arduous task of keeping order in the Haymarket at night. Undoubtedly the decision of the magistrate throws doubt upon their veracity and trustworthiness. The rule established by the Home Office, after much experience in such matters for the guidance of the Chief Commissioner of Police, has been that, in all charges against members of the force where the evidence is conflicting, and is supported on either side by witnesses who are not members of the force, the case should be left to the decision of a magistrate. The Chief Commissioner of Police has no means of conducting a judicial inquiry, without which no decision affecting the character and interests of the members of the force could be properly made. The proper course, therefore, in the present case would seem to be that the gentlemen aggrieved should either summon the policemen for assault before a magistrate, or should proceed against them by way of indictment Should the result of either of these proceedings be unfavourable to the policemen, it would be the duty of the Chief Commissioner to inflict such punishment by dismissal or otherwise, as might seem adequate to the offence.
  MR. LOCKE: I should like to ask, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman intends to recommend that the Government should indict the policemen, or whether it is to be left to the persons who have been injured?
  MR. BRUCE: I see no particular reason why the Government should undertake the prosecution. The policemen adhere to the truth of their statement; hitherto they have borne excellent characters in the force. The occurrence took place in a part of the town, and at an hour of the night, which rendered the circumstances suspicious; and the remedy being so cheap and so easy— namely, that of summoning the men for an assault before the magistrate, it seems to me unnecessary for the Government to interfere.

CEYLON—LITTLE BASSES LIGHT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What sums have been expended in placing a Light Vessel near the Little Basses Rock, off the Coast of Ceylon, and what is the annual cost of lighting and maintaining that vessel; what is the estimated cost of erecting a Lighthouse on the Great Basses Rock, as proposed in the Bill now before the House; what rate per ton is now charged upon vessels for the maintenance of the present light, from what vessels and where is it collected, and what is the total amount annually collected; and, what toll per ton will be imposed under the Bill now before the House, and if that toll, or any toll can be imposed without the concurrence of the authorities at Ceylon? He would like also to ask the hon. Member, if he will postpone the second reading of the Bill on this subject to Monday?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, in reply, that the sum expended on the Little Basses Rock Lightship was £12,000, and the annual cost of maintaining it was £2,000. The estimated cost of the Lighthouse on the Great Basses Rock was £65,000. At present a toll of 1d. per ton was paid on all vessels passing the light, and it was collected in the United Kingdom, in India, in the Mauritius, and at the Cape. This produced an annual income of £6,500, and it was proposed to increase the toll by ½d. per ton. It was the intention of the Government to proceed that evening with the second reading of the Bill.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.

  LORD'S AMENDMENTS.
  Lords' Amendments to Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments and. Reasons considered.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, un-der a heavy sense of responsibility, but with profound satisfaction, to move that this House do agree to the Irish Church Bill, as re-amended by the House of Lords, without any exception or reservation. It is my duty, considering what has passed before, briefly to state to the House what are these Amendments to the Bill, I do not mean as technically expressed on the Paper printed for the use of Members, but according to their substance and effect; and I have likewise to sketch the manner in which we have arrived at these Amendments. Sir, in the Amendments to the Bill, there are six points which call for particular notice. In the first place, we, the Government, assent to the excision from the Preamble of the entire words which were struck out by the House of Lords on the first occasion when the Bill was in Committee in the other House. That portion of the Preamble is cast out which related to the application of the surplus in a negative sense, specifying that it was not to be appropriated to religious uses; and also that part of the Preamble which declared in a positive sense that it was to be appropriated to the benefit of the people of Ireland. We could not have consented to part with those words, had there been no provision in the Bill relating to the surplus; but inasmuch as there will be a provision—passed by the House of Lords last night—relating to the appropriation of the surplus, we feel that it would be invidious and unnecessary to require a theoretical or abstract declaration in the Preamble of that which will be found briefly and simply, but sufficiently, indicated by enacting words in the latter portion of the Bill. The next point necessary to be noticed is the date. I am quite satisfied, after what has passed "elsewhere," that those Gentlemen who considered that we evinced an undue tenacity in replacing the date of the 1st of January will not be inclined to persist in any charge against us on that score, for we have the gratification of knowing, or of at least believing that

  565
  we know, that it was declared last night by a person who is a most influential organ of political opinion in the House of Lords that, provided the other enactments of the Bill were reduced to a satisfactory condition, he was of opinion that the earliest date for disestablishment would be the best. The date of the 1st of January, therefore, stands in the Bill, not as a token of contest and victory, but as indicating the joint and harmonious opinion of both Houses of Parliament. The third point that requires notice relates to the deduction of the stipends of curates from the incomes of the incumbents. As the Bill last left this House the majority of the House had introduced into this portion of the measure a change which, I think cannot have been understood, or it would have received an earlier and more favourable notice. We had assented to the framing of clauses in such a way that none of the poorer incumbents in Ireland—none the income of whose benefice amounts to less than £300 a year—would, under any circumstances, be liable to a deduction of a curate's salary from his clerical income. When the Bill reached the House of Lords, it was found that other provisions, and particularly those which related to the certainty of the criterion for determining who was and who was not a permanent curate, admitted of further consideration and amendment; and it was suggested that it would be extremely hard that the rector who, from some accidental cause, had, within a particular and limited period, employed a curate, contrary to his usual habit and to the absolute necessities of the benefice, should, on that account, have the stipend of the curate deducted from the income of the benefice. Acceding to the justice of that representation we cheerfully proposed two things — in the first place, that no man should be adjudged a permanent curate simply on the ground of having been employed within the stipulated time, but only after the terms which would give a statutory definition of a permanent curate should have been found to have been fulfilled; and, in the second place, that the period of service for which a curate's stipend should have been allowed for in reckoning the income of the living for taxation should not be one year, but should be extended to five years. The next provision I
  566
  would notice is that which relates to the glebe houses, and with respect to that important portion of the Bill I will simply say that in substance it has not undergone alteration. A change has been introduced—and here again with the perfect good-will of the Government —to the effect that any person desirous to commute may, if he likes, commute as to all his other interests, but except from the commutation the house which he occupies, and likewise any land of which he may be himself not only the landlord, but the occupier. That change is one which I think can cause no possible offence. With respect to the moderate charge which this House consented to leave on the glebe houses as the Bill originally stood, it was possible that in the last resort, so far as the view of the Government was concerned, that might have been a subject for consideration; but the discussions which have arisen both here and "elsewhere "have established so close a relation between that moderate arrangement and the question of the maintenance or non-maintenance of the principle of religious equality in the arrangements of this Bill that I think it is generally admitted, as it has been conceded by the vote of the House of Lords, that these provisions ought no longer to be the subject of discussion or change. Then, with respect to the surplus clause, that will be reduced to a very simple form. It will declare that it is expedient the proceeds of the property of the Irish Church, remaining after the satisfaction of all equitable claims, shall be appropriated mainly to the relief of inevitable calamity and suffering, yet not so as to cancel the obligations attaching to property under Acts of Parliament for the relief of the poor; and it will also enact that the appropriation of the surplus shall be effected in the manner which Parliament shall hereafter direct. And here I may be permitted to add a few words of explanation, in order to say that to us this enactment is perfectly satisfactory. Upon the introduction of the Bill I hinted to the House that in all likelihood the 68th clause might require some subsidiary legislation before the money could be astually appropriated, but we had no desire to retain in the hands of the Executive the appropriation of the money. At no time have we made it an essen-

  567
  tial portion of our proposal, or desired to treat it as a subject of conflict. It was quite enough for us to ask, and all we could ask, that Parliament should make a solemn legislative declaration of the general purpose to which the money should be applied, and should reserve to itself all other discretion. Of course even that discretion is likewise reserved. We, who are modifying the Act of Union, could not and should not wish to set up any higher claim for ourselves than we allow to others; but we did think it a great and important object that this large sum of money should not be suspended as it were before the eyes of every party, of every section of a party, of every local community, of every candidate at an election, to become the subject of promises, bargains, and intrigues, which would tend to corrupt both the representative and the constituencies. We have been censured, and perhaps not unnaturally—for I will admit that the case is open to observation both ways—for the introduction of some minute and careful specifications into the clause which are said to be open to objection; but I ask those disposed to criticize us—what would have happened, how should we have fared, and, what is more important, how would the Bill and the public interest associated with the Bill have fared, if we had introduced the Bill in the condition, as regards the surplus, in which it came down to this House from the House of Lords? I do not think any man would deny that in that case we should have laid ourselves open to the gravest charges, and interposed the gravest obstacles in the way of the passing of the measure. I would call on the man who thinks that we could have presented a Bill for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, which would have wholly and absolutely relegated to the future the question of the application of the surplus, to recollect the history of the Reform Bill of 1866, and what happened when the proposal was made to separate the questions of enfranchisement and disfranchisement. Sir, this is not, so far as I am concerned, intended to be more than an explanatory and apologetic plea. Not one word have I said, nor will I say, conveying the slightest reproach to any one. My task is one far more agreeable. I am sure it must be the desire of all who hear me, now that
  568
  we have arrived at this solemn point in the history of the nation, that every man should discharge from his recollection whatever words may have tended, be it much or little, needlessly to embitter this great controversy. And, Sir, to support by practice that which by precept I have suggested, I call to my own mind that I used an expression in the discussions of last week that gave offence "elsewhere," when I described, perhaps, by an ungainly figure, not, as those who recollect my words will know, any general unacquaintance on the part of the Lords on the subject of public affairs, but their necessary comparative unacquaintance with the details of the engagements and obligations between Members of Parliament and their constituents; but the expression has given offence, and I therefore regret that I used it. Sir, I have now gone through the Amendments, excepting, advisedly, the main one, which I am desirous of placing in that position of prominence that in every way belongs to it. The main Amendment is the Amendment in the commutation clause. We have agreed to accept as our own, to make part of our policy, and earnestly to recommend to this House, with whatever urgency we may presume to use, the adoption of provisions which will materially alter the operation of the commutation clause. The changes to which I need refer, I think, are only two. One of them is that the proportion of clergy in any diocese who are to agree to commute before certain effects can follow is to be altered from four-fifths to three-fourths. We do not see the advantage of that arrangement, but we can understand the motive by which it has been dictated; and this is palpable, as we think, that it in no way adds to the burden likely to be imposed on the funds by the alterations in the commutation clause. We therefore have adopted it because it was desired. But the main alteration is this — that subject to the same condition of working by a large majority within the limits of each diocese, and, of course, with the perfectly equal application of the principle to the Presbyterian Church in its various and separate divisions, the sum of 5 per cent shall be added to the sum of 7 per cent which was the increment of commutation which the House sanctioned when the Bill was last before it. The pecuniary effect of this change it is not easy

  569
  to compute with precision. I think its operation will probably be somewhat reduced by the change from four-fifths to three-fourths; but if it is largely acted upon, it will lead to an additional charge upon the fund for the disestablished Church to an extent somewhat exceeding £250,000, and there will be a corresponding sum, though my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derry (Mr. Serjeant Dowse) may not admit that it will be a corresponding sum, but there will be a corresponding percentage laid on the fund for the benefit of the Presbyterian Church. Now, Sir, this is the important change, as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, to which we have assented. And. I ought, in recommending such a change to the House on the part of my Colleagues and myself, to acquaint the House with the grounds on which we recommend it, and the manner in which we have arrived at it. Sir, from the first moment of the conception and of the introduction of this Bill, our dominant idea, to which every other has given way, has been the sense of our duty of keeping strict and loyal faith with the people who have sent us here. The engagements at the last General Election were no ordinary engagements. In general, a candidate goes before a constituency with general declarations of opinion, which are liable necessarily to very large varieties of application. It rarely happens that an issue perfectly distinct on a question of primary national importance is submitted to the country at a General Election. Such an issue was submitted at the beginning of 1784, when Parliament was dissolved upon the question between supporting George III. and the Ministry of Mr. Pitt against the coalition of Mr. Fox and Lord North. Such an issue was submitted when, in the spring of 1831, the country was asked whether it would rally round and sustain the Reform Bill of the Government of Lord Grey. Such an issue was again submitted in the November of last year, and these three occasions of questions so put with such distinctness, and upon interests so vast, before the country, are the only three, so far as I know, that the Parliamentary history of an entire century affords. Sir, we had no choice— whether as persons engaged together in government, or as persons actuated by a sentiment of individual honour—we
  570
  had no choice, except to make strict fidelity to our engagements, the cardinal consideration to govern our course. Subject to that, we were desirous to make every concession to the Irish Church about to be disestablished that was compatible with the principles of religious equality which we desired to run like a silver cord through the whole tissue of the Bill. That being so, when the Bill came back from the House of Lords to be discussed in this House, we carefully reviewed and severely tested the provision we had made, and asked ourselves what were the points on which it would be possible for the House of Commons, without derogation from the principle of the Bill, to make further concessions either to the Church or to any other religious body. The result of the conclusion at which we arrived was exhibited in the Amendments which we recommended, and which the House was pleased to adopt in the debates of Thursday and Friday last; and the pecuniary effect of those Amendments, so far as we could judge, was to grant to the disestablished Church a sum of money little short of £800,000, besides the sum corresponding in respect to the commutation which was granted to the Presbyterians. These were our overtures towards the settlement of the question, and I refer to them now because they form an essential link in the chain of the transactions. Other overtures were made to us; and after we had concluded the process in this House we again considered what our course was to be in the event of such overtures being made, and whether it was still possible for us to make any step in advance. We still concluded that we had done all that the principle of the Bill, strictly considered, would admit—nay, that in respect of private endowments we had done more than the principle of the Bill, strictly considered, would admit. But, notwithstanding, we at once arrived at this conclusion, that considering all the great interests involved in the case, the benefits of passing the measure, the mischief of its rejection, the value of peace, the desire we entertained for it, and lastly the deference which none of us should be ashamed to own that he owes to the other branch of the Legislature—the combined force of these considerations, we at once concluded., would lead us,

  571
  provided the question ever reached that issue, to recommend strongly to the House to make some one further sensible and substantial concession in order to bring about an agreement with the House of Lords. Now, Sir, that is a plain, unvarnished tale; and it is upon that tale that we wish our case to stand. I have no doubt that considerable collateral benefits will arise from accelerating commutation by increased inducements, for every commutation where the clergyman is a landlord, puts an end to his position as a landlord; and that, in Ireland, we think to be no small or secondary benefit. But still the main grounds on which we recommend the concession —as it is certainly in our view a concession beyond the principle of the Bill —are those I have briefly detailed— they are the immense public interests involved, the great objects we have in view, and the desire to defer to and concur with the House of Lords in the exemplification of that harmony of our institutions which, perhaps, has rarely been more severely tried than during the discussions of the present year; and which, I thank God, has stood the trial. Sir, I know not that I need add anything in explanation of these Amendments, excepting to say that, immediately that we found that a disposition existed which gave us hope of a common basis, my noble Friend, Earl Granville, in that spirit which all would desire, and with that capacity which I think all admit, entered into the detailed communications which have resulted in the settlement which we now recommend. And, Sir, it is but fair that I should repeat, what I have before gladly said, that I owe my acknowledgments to the Opposition in this House for the manner in which— abstaining from every effort to clog the course of this Bill, whether by open or by secret obstruction—they allowed the issue to be taken fairly, and while fighting the battle with the courage that becomes them as English Gentlemen they stooped to no unfair advantage. And further, Sir, I must refer to "another place," and must acknowledge with satisfaction and thankfulness, not only the ability which I grant to be a great ornament and glory of the other House as displayed in debate, but that comprehensive sagacity and forethought, that power of realizing the future and of preparing for it, which alone, I think, has
  572
  brought about on the part of the House of Lords the recommendation of the settlement which I am now authorized to urge upon this House. Sir, we have arrived indeed at a great period. When this Bill receives—as I trust it will receive within a very few days—the Assent of the Crown, every man must be conscious that a change has begun to pass over the moral atmosphere of Ireland. I think, too, that, quite apart from the differing views which we have taken of this measure, every man will feel that, at the introduction of this new period, it is a solemn duty for each of us, in his sphere, to labour to accomplish his own prophecies, if they have been sanguine, and to defeat his own predictions, if they have been gloomy and unfavourable. And, moreover, I am confident that this will be the spirit in which this measure will be ushered into the world. So far as we are concerned we have urged it as a remedy, in part, for the diseases of Ireland, because we are convinced that in equality, as it is understood in this country—and it is here a term of far different import from that which the corresponding phrase bears across the Straits of Dover—that in equal laws and equal rights there is a potency of charm for healing political and social wounds, and for creating that concord which is the strength and glory of a nation. On such grounds it is our duty to test to the utmost the power of that principle, and as a portion of that process it is that we have urged this Bill. But, Sir, in endeavouring to put an end to a state of privilege for the minority, it is not, I hope, to introduce a state of tyranny on the part of the majority. I trust that the majority will disclaim that tyranny both in word and action, and indeed if they should not we should be compelled to admit that although it might exhibit a condition of things less odious than that which we have put down, yet it would still be a condition of odious and intolerable wrong To the Roman Catholics by this Bill we offer nothing but that which we believe to be their strictest due. With the Presbyterian community we have endeavoured to deal on principles of equal justice. To the Church that is now disestablished, and towards which not one of us can ever feel a sentiment other than that of earnest good-will—to the Church now about to be disestablished we simply record our wish and prayer that there may be de-

  573
  veloped in her, according to her means, those masculine qualities by which a great crisis can be met. And we bid her God-speed on her new career. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Lords' Amendments be now considered and agreed to.
  MR. VANCE MR. VANCE, who rose amid cries of "Agreed," said, that, as the representative of a cathedral city (Armagh), he had a right to deliver his sentiments upon this subject. He looked upon these Amendments less as a compromise than as an unconditional surrender. In the question of the commutation, a noble Lord in the Upper House proposed that the commutation should take place at fourteen years' purchase, which was strictly analogous to what had been allowed in the case of Maynooth. But the right hon. Gentleman only offered a bonus of 7 per cent, which, in fact, only represented the greater longevity of the clergy; and the addition of 5 per cent would not prove of much real benefit to them. Indeed, he doubted if the clergy would commute at all under such disadvantageous circumstances. He regretted that the Lords did not adhere to their views respecting the ecclesiastical residences and the preservation of the glebes. In many of the poor and remote districts the means for purchasing those residences would not be found, especially if the landlord were an absentee; and in that case the gift of the churches would be useless, and the purpose of giving them would be altogether defeated. But he further objected to yielding on this point, because those residences had been promised by Cabinet Ministers whom he now saw before him, and who had pledged themselves on their canvass that the glebes should be restored to the Church. He did not blame the noble and learned Lord who conducted these negotiations (Lord Cairns) so much as he did those noble Lords who deserted him at the last moment on the subject of the Ulster glebes. Those glebes ought never to have been given up. They never were the property of the Roman Catholics; they were the gift of a monarch on conditions that had been strictly fulfilled; they had been restored from the wilderness, drained and fenced by their owners; and he was sure that the people of Ulster would look with indignation at the confiscation of these lands. It had
  574
  been carried out against every principle of right and equity; and it was an act of the English Parliament which would neither be forgotten or forgiven. Then there was no provision made for the maintenance of the cathedrals. It would be impossible for the disestablished Church to maintain them, especially in the remote districts; she would have enough to do to maintain the churches, and the cathedrals would gradually sink into ruin. Then he thought the House of Lords ought to have maintained the surplus intact, as the minority in this House wished it to be; and it ought to be remembered that the minority was greater on that point than any other. He would remind the House that at the very moment when the House of Lords was engaged in making these concessions the Solicitor General was charging them with being ignorant of the feelings and regardless of the wishes of the people of England. He thought their Lordships had carried concessions much too far, and the consequence of the compromise come to last night would be that the Church of Scotland would be next attacked. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had put himself into the hands of the voluntaries and Dissenters, and they had aided him in this work of the demolition of the Irish Church, because they knew that it would give them a power which would before long be used against the Church of England. Indeed, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a voluntary church in one part of the Kingdom, and an Established Church in the other—at all events, it would be a subject of constant agitation. He believed the Lords would live long enough to repent of the act they had now committed.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER: I do not think it would become those who, to the best of their power, have maintained the opinions of the minority during this long, anxious, and arduous discussion, now that they think the course taken is, under all the circumstances, wise, and right, and creditable to all concerned— I say I do not think it would become them to be silent, and not to accept the responsibility of declaring that opinion upon the present occasion. In all human affairs there is a point at which persons must accept an adverse decision, and bow to the superior force and power of

  575
  those with whom the practical control of affairs remains; and it is not the course of true wisdom when that point has been reached, to refuse to see and to acknowledge it, or, without a hope of improving the position of any class, to maintain a struggle against public opinion, simply for the sake of that conflict and that struggle. If here or "elsewhere" it had appeared to any who had the responsibility of judgment that, by keeping this question open and deferring a settlement, better results for the country—or, speaking on the part of those who had the interests of the Church at heart, better results for the Church—would have been likely to be obtained, that belief would have justified a corresponding course of action. But, for my part, I cannot conceive that anything would have justified a deliberate choice of policy which would have kept this question, having attained to its present position, longer open and unsettled, to be a constant source of irritation and mutual recrimination and excitement, inflaming the passions and feelings of large classes of men both in England and Ireland. Nothing could possibly have justified that but a strong and, I venture to say, a reasonable opinion, that by so doing some good practical result was likely to be attained. I, therefore, cannot blame as if it were an ignominious surrender—I rather applaud the wisdom and generosity of those who, having done all that they could, felt that the limit had been attained, and that by persisting in a fruitless opposition they should be doing harm and not good to the very interests they desired to protect. And I must say it appears to me that on the side of the Government there has been substantial concession, both of feeling and of something of real practical value, to the disestablished Church. Of feeling, because all men have their feelings, and when a Minister is in the position of my right hon. Friend, supported by so great and so loyal a majority, sure to be able in this House to carry by a great majority anything on which he thinks fit to insist, and having no reason to doubt that he would be supported out-of-doors in any course that he might adopt— when such a Minister, conducting a measure like this, has taken a strong, strict, and severe line, and has from time to time spoken as if any deviation from that line on the side of greater liberality to-
  576
  wards the disestablished Church might be, perhaps, a deviation from the principle of the Bill, it did require some courage in himself, and some confidence in the generosity and wisdom of this House, before such a Minister could make up his mind, under the influence of those considerations—which my right hon. Friend has so worthily spoken of to-day—to make the concessions for the sake of peace which he has announced to the House. And I venture to say that the motives for making those concessions which my right hon. Friend has mentioned are such as increase their value, such as are honourable to himself, and, I may add, are motives the absence of which from the mind of anyone occupying so high a position I should have thought matter to be deplored almost more than any calamity which could happen to the country. If there be any duty of a Minister so powerful as my right hon. Friend—I venture to say none can stand higher than this—to contribute what is in his power to the maintenance of the authority of all the branches of the Government, and of the Constitution under which we live, and do his best to avoid conflicts and irritation between the two branches of the Legislature, and to bring into harmony all the parts of our system of government. To that responsibility and to that duty my right hon. Friend has shown himself not insensible. He has been met in a corresponding spirit by what appears to me to be the unanimous sense of this House. And I must add that the disestablished Church could not certainly have had a worse fate before it than to become disestablished, not now, but some years hence, perhaps, after a prolonged period of conflict, and after other great interests in the country had been endangered unnecessarily for her sake. In the interest of the disestablished Church it is better that she should go forth into the world with something less than than what her advocates consider justice, than that she should get more as the price of such perils and dangers as otherwise might have been incurred by those other great interests. I cannot conclude without saying one word to express my personal feeling as to the way in which my right hon. Friend has conducted this measure—in a way in which all of us must, I think, appreciate. He has referred to an unguarded

  577
  expression which was used by him upon one important occasion, not with the intent of conveying any species of disrespect to another Assembly, but which, having been so taken and so understood, he has, in disavowing the construction put upon that expression, retracted it with the best possible grace. I feel bound to say, as far as I myself am concerned, not only that from the very beginning I have been certain that my right hon. Friend, in the course which he has taken in this matter, has been actuated by the purest motives, but that it seems to me that, from the beginning to the end of the discussion, he has conducted it with temper, moderation, and dignity, with courtesy towards his opponents, and respect towards this House.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, that, the supreme moment of the political death of the Irish Church having arrived, he was anxious it should die with dignity. The principles which the Church held were true, and it would take far more than any measure that had ever passed the Legislature to do them harm. He deeply regretted the injustice and injury which had been done to the Church; and he was more satisfied than ever of the impolicy of the arrangement which had been made. But he rejoiced with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken last, that if the passing of the Bill were inevitable, and if they were simply to retain through its rejection a respite of a few months, or possibly of a year, the period of suspense had been put an end to. Nothing had been more painful to him, and he was sure to most if not all of those who sat behind him, than to have mixed up with what to them was a great religious question subjects of a pecuniary and humiliating character. But, situated as they were, it would have been wrong in them had they neglected to support, as far as lay in their power, the just claims of all persons concerned to liberal compensation. It had been freely asserted that the Church, though disestablished and disendowed, would still carry off a very substantial portion of its endowments. He entirely denied that assertion, and he could not comprehend the arguments by which it was supported; and he must say that if there were any one thing more unfavourable to the future of the disestablished Church than another it was to carry off the sem-
  578
  blance of endowment without the reality. He ventured to offer his thanks, and those of Members sitting around him, to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) for the sincere and valuable assistance which, all through these debates, he had given to the friends of the Church; on all occasions, perhaps, they had not been able to agree, but they felt that the support given them in his advocacy was that of a just and powerful friend. The fact should also be recalled to mind that all through these debates not one word had been uttered in any way reflecting on the character or energies of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland; that would be a pleasing memory which would remain with those who had advocated the cause of the Church. And, looking back on the brilliant display of eloquence which had been made in "another place," perhaps the most ornate and effective speaker of all who had addressed the House of Lords was one who, though his title was Bishop of Peterborough, owed his origin to the soil of Ireland, and his training to the Irish Church. While he regretted the change, he would say, speaking for the great body of the Irish Churchmen, that into the future, however black or dark for themselves, they would not carry any resentment towards those individuals of differing faiths in Ireland who would be the gainers by the change. He could hardly bring himself to believe that it would do so, but he hoped that out of the present trial and depression might grow the materials of a better understanding among all classes in Ireland, conducing to the peace and prosperity of the country.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose to express a hope that the assurance given by the First Minister of the Crown that the Bill would be a means of conciliating differences and restoring peace and harmony in Ireland would be verified. On former occasions similar assurances had been given by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but time after time those assurances had not been fulfilled, and further concessions had been called for. He trusted that those who presided over the Church of Rome would not now violate the pledges which had been given on their behalf by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; and that they would stand them in better

  579
  stead than the obligations on which they relied in vain during the last sixty or seventy years.
  SIR JOHN ESMONDEsaid, he hoped it might not be considered unbecoming in him, as some Irish Catholic of more importance had not risen, to tender to Her Majesty's Government his sincere and hearty thanks for the result at which they had arrived upon that day. Indeed, he thought that the thanks of the country were due to both sides of the House for the manner in which they had borne themselves during the long and exciting struggle which was now about to close. The Government generally, but especially the Prime Minister, deserved the highest praise for the earnestness and intelligence which they had manifested from first to last in grappling with this momentous question. He did not think it would be becoming if they were to separate without bearing testimony to the great services of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. Throughout the whole of that trying time he did not think any hon. Member could recall one instance in which his right hon. Friend was not to be found at his post; ready against all comers, with untiring energy and thorough acquaintance with the subject, from the great principle of the Bill down to its minutest detail. He could assure his right hon. Friend that he had watched him with pride since the time they were at College together grasping one after another the honours of his profession until he had capped them all by the honour of that day. He wished to be allowed to include his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his tribute. He felt rejoiced in being one of that band of Irish Members who had been lately described by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as having supported Her Majesty's Government all through "almost unanimously and with great fidelity," although, in so doing, they only obeyed the wishes of the country. He reciprocated words of conciliation spoken at the other side of the House by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry, and he trusted this might be the beginning of an era when Irishmen would be drawn closer together. The First Minister of the Crown might well feel proud of the great occasion for which they were assembled that day. Looking
  580
  back along the line of history an event stood out to his view which he thought bore some analogy to his position. When Columbus returned to Spain after the discovery of America, by the favour of his Sovereign and amidst the acclaim of the nation it was granted to him to bear upon his escutcheon the proud legend, "For Castile and Leon Columbus found a new World." The policy which the right hon. Gentleman had inaugurated towards Ireland would, he believed, yet entitle him to a greater fame than that of having, by just legislation, changed an integral part of this United Kingdom from a weakness and a danger into a glory and a strength.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he had honestly and sincerely opposed the Bill in its progress through the House, and deeply regretted that it had ever been introduced. He should not, however, hesitate to admit that he had listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that day with pleasure, seeing the tone and spirit in which it was couched. He trusted that the silver cord which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of as running through the Bill would extend to the working of the measure, and that those happy results would flow from its operation which he (Mr. Lefroy) had not been sanguine enough to expect. So far, at all events, as he personally was concerned he should do everything in his power to make it work for the benefit of his country.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished, in the name of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and not only to them but to that rank and file of Members for England, Scotland, and Wales who supported him and his co-religionists in the endeavour to secure an act of justice for their country. Though the day might be called one of triumph he desired to say that Irish Roman Catholic Members did not desire to treat it in any manner as a triumph over their Protestant fellow-countrymen. In the great struggle which had taken place their only idea had been to break down the barrier which had so long separated different classes in Ireland. He hoped the time was now nearly approaching when Irish struggles would no longer be of a religious character. Religious dissensions

  581
  were responsible for creating a strange set of circumstances in Ireland; but he hoped they would all be wiped away by the passing of the present measure. The time might come when great polilitical changes might occur in Ireland. As a Catholic he might become Conservative, although he did not think that was likely to be the case; and, on the other hand, perhaps some of the friends of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Frederick Heygate) in Derry might be inclined to relinquish some of their long-cherished Conservative opinions. He had risen in no feeling of triumph, but simply to express the joy he felt that the great difficulty which had so long kept Protestants and Catholics disunited in Ireland had been removed. For that great event they had to thank the right hon. Gentleman who presided over Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the uniform courtesy which he had extended to him personally in the course of these debates, and he must bear testimony to the admirable good taste which had characterized the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman had just addressed to the House. If he (Mr. Charley) had on any occasion used strong language, it had been under circumstances of great provocation; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would believe him when he said that there were Protestants in Ireland who had gone so far as to request him to impeach the right hon. Gentleman at the Bar of the House of Lords. For the admirable good taste which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed on this occasion, and the lenient way in which he had used his oratorical dictator ship, he bogged to thank him. At the same time, he deeply regretted that the House of Lords had read the Bill a second time, and that they had assented to the present compromise. If the House of Lords had thrown themselves unreservedly on the Conservative democracy of the country, they would have been supported in throwing out the Bill. He had hoped that they would at least have adhered to their Amendments, and, on the Prime Minister refusing to accept them, have given the country another opportunity of considering the question. He believed that if Parliament had been pro-
  582
  rogued, and the Bill had been sent to the Lords a second time they would have thrown it out on the second reading. As a representative of the Conservative democracy, which was totally opposed to the Bill, he felt functus officio, and would gladly resign his seat, did he not feel that so long as the oratorical dictatorship of the right hon. Gentleman continued, no part of our Constitution was safe. It was the Church of Ireland that was attacked to-day. It might be the Church of England to-morrow. And he regretted that the most reverend Prelates who presided over the Church of England had, by abstaining from voting against the second reading of the Bill, admitted the most pernicious principle that the State could seize upon and secularize property which had been solemnly dedicated to the service of Almighty God. Against that principle he entered his emphatic protest, and if it should be applied to his Dissenting friends opposite no doubt they would be happy that he should retain his seat to assist them in combating it. What had the House done by means of the present Bill? Disunited two Churches which had taken sweet counsel together for centuries. The homes of the clergy, their glebes, and their tithe rent-charges they had devoted to secular purposes, and had told Protestant Christianity in Ireland to go forth bare and naked, as if Ireland were still the Pagan country that she was when Patrick first set foot on her benighted shores! The time would come when the Presbyterians of Scotland and the Dissenters of England would regret the union which they had effected with the Church of Rome in order to strike down a Church which was apostolic in her discipline, and which, although episcopal, was the least prelatic and the most evangelical Church in the world.
  MR. KIRKsaid, he had been returned to that House to support the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and to effect, as far as possible, the equality of all religious sects in that country. He objected to the present settlement, therefore, inasmuch as it did not secure that equality; for while the disestablished Church was to have £250 to £800 a year for each of her clergy, the clergymen of the Presbyterian Church would receive not more than from £36 to £30 a year. He felt,

  583
  therefore, that his pledge to his constituents was not fully redeemed by the Bill, but at the same time he did not wish to disturb the unanimity which seemed to prevail in all parts of the House on the present occasion.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think it quite unnecessary, and certainly inconvenient, that, on an occasion like the present, we should enter into any discussion of the principle of this Bill. My opinions on the subject remain the same, but it does not appear to me that this is an occasion that requires an expression of opinion from any hon. Member on that important point. If there was a difference between the two Houses as to the principle of the measure, I could easily understand, though the consequences might be of a grave character, that a delay in the settlement or further consideration of this question might have been advisable, and not only expedient, but, upon the whole, wise and. politic. But, when the difference between the two Houses has resolved itself into what we all must acknowledge to be matters of detail, I must say that I have always felt that delay in the settlement of this question, while bringing with it very doubtful advantages, might lead to difficulty and disaster to no inconsiderable extent. We should therefore remember that we are called on to consider to-day, when differences between the two branches of the Legislature have taken place on this question of the Irish Church, whether it is possible to come to an agreement with respect to details, and not in the least with respect to any principle involved in the Bill. Both the House of Lords and the House of Commons have accepted that principle. Now, I hear some talk of unconditional surrender, instead of amicable compromise in this instance; but I cannot help thinking that those who use expressions of that kind must really associate the acceptance of these Amendments with the acceptance of the principle of the Bill. I can easily understand that if an hon. Member is of opinion that by dissenting in some very small points of detail the defeat of the measure might be secured, he should wish that course to be taken; but it can be owing only to a confusion of ideas of that character that the phrase ''unconditional surrender" can be applied to the settlement which is proposed for our con-
  584
  sideration to-day. Let us see whether this is a just view of the case. The points of difference between the two Houses are really reduced in number to four. Considerable modifications have been agreed to by the Government in three of these— modifications, indeed, in a very important proposal, which amount, I might say, almost to a total change of its character. If that be the case; if, when there are only four points of difference between the Houses, points of detail, Her Majesty's Government has consented to a scheme which in three of these points introduces considerable modifications—I cannot understand how any hon. Gentleman can be justified in describing an arrangement of that kind on our part as one of unconditional surrender. It appears to me, on the whole, to be a wise and conciliatory settlement of the points of disagreement, and, although I do not wish to introduce my own opinion upon the subject—for it is not necessary —if I had really to decide which party had the best of the arrangement, I should think it, for the purposes of debate, more prudent to hold my tongue. Very likely the same feeling may influence Gentlemen on either side, and if, therefore, there is a reciprocal feeling of that nature respecting the settlement, I think we may arrive at this conclusion—that the compromise is a fair and just one. If the differences between the two Houses involved, as I ventured to observe before, the principle of the measure, I could understand hon. Gentlemen expressing, in terms of becoming indignation, their opinion of what they considered an unconditional surrender. But, even from their own point of view, it could only be an unconditional surrender of points of detail, not of any principle of policy, and when you come to examine into the terms of arrangement, you find at least, to use the mildest phrase, that as many of these points of controversy are conceded to us as have been conceded by us to the Government. If any arrangement was to take place upon this matter I cannot understand how it could have been brought about in any other way. I know there are some who very much regret that the point as to the glebe houses has not been insisted on. But allow me to say that that has been considered by some of the best judges at all times a questionable demand,

  585
  and that, if conceded, it might involve conditions as regards the future right of the State to interfere with the general property of the disendowed Church, which might he inconvenient and, perhaps, even dangerous hereafter. There is no doubt whatever that the strong feeling that exists upon the subject of the glebe houses and the necessity of that concession being made to the disendowed Church of Ireland, arose from certain expressions of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his Colleagues upon that subject during their canvass last year. They have frankly admitted that those views were then held by them and those expressions used, and I have no wish whatever to enlarge upon the subject further than to repeat what on another occasion I did mention, merely because it is a political truth which ought not to be forgotten — that I trust this will be the last occasion on which political questions will be dealt with on abstract principles. If the right hon. Gentleman had not laid down so broadly and abstractedly the principles on which he would settle this business he would have been able to have settled it more easily and in a manner which would have conciliated the feeling of powerful classes now much —I will not say outraged, but certainly much pained and offended, and we might have brought about this settlement in a way that would have been infinitely more satisfactory and more advantageous to the country. It must be remembered that there is not a single principle that was laid down on which this legislation was to take place from which, in practice, the right hon. Gentleman has not been obliged to deviate. It is not merely in certain cases where, contrary to his principles, he has been obliged to do something for the disendowed Church. Take, for example, the case of vested interests. Every vested interest and every personal position was to be respected in this settlement. But what was the first thing you did? You were obliged to attack some of the most important vested interests, and deprive individuals of some of their highest offices, such, for instance, as the ecclesiastical baronies. I do not say you were not justified in doing it. I do not say it would have been a wise thing to leave the Bishops of the disestablished Church in the House of
  586
  Lords, but their expulsion from that House was a complete violation of the principle of respecting all vested interests and personal rights. It shows you, therefore, that you could not adhere strictly to your abstract propositions; and that being so, I wish the right hon. Gentleman had deviated from them a little more, and had been a little more liberal to the clergy and laity of the disestablished Church of Ireland. He would have made a more satisfactory settlement if he had not been hampered by the enunciation of abstract principles by which, practically, he has not been able to abide. I only wish to impress upon the House that we really were on the eve of circumstances in our political life which we ought most to dread and avoid—namely, collision and misunderstanding between the two branches of the Legislature, and that at a moment when both Houses had so comported themselves that they really deserved and possessed the respect and confidence of the country. We have assembled here to-day to sanction and ratify upon matters of detail the settlement proposed by the Government, which will terminate the chances of such a collision not by sacrificing any principle, not by giving up any great doctrines in politics which we have supported under difficult circumstances in the face of the majority that has asserted them, but by assisting in a conciliatory and, I hope, satisfactory adjustment of points of detail which, on the whole, have, I think, been arranged with due consideration to the claims of both parties. Let us view what we are doing in that light. Do not let us consider what we are sanctioning this morning under the perverted and erroneous supposition that we are settling and deciding great principles of policy, and particularly the principles upon which this measure is founded. That is finished. The House of Commons has agreed to disestablish and disendow the Church of Ireland. I regret it. The House of Lords has agreed to it, and by no mean majority, and the affair is at an end. But when hon. Gentlemen regard what after all should be looked upon by both sides of the House, under the circumstances, as a statesmanlike and satisfactory settlement of a most difficult question from an erroneous and perverted point of view — namely, that

  587
  we are now settling the principles of the measure, whereas we are only arranging in an amicable and conciliatory manner for all parties certain details of the measure — they may believe with my hon. Friend (Mr. Vance) that there has been an unconditional surrender of principle, although there has only been, I repeat, a satisfactory and statesmanlike settlement of detail.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that upon any other occasion but the present he should have felt it necessary to dissent from some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) as to departures by the Government from principles which they had laid down on this question. He might also have protested against the tone of some part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he appeared to undervalue the enormous importance and gravity of the questions of which the House was now disposing. Upon this happy occasion, however, he had no wish to enter into matters of controversy. He hoped he should not be violating the rule he had laid down for himself, if he asked his hon. Friend the Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk) to re-consider the remarks he had made, and he thought it would become clear to him that the Presbyterians of Ireland had been treated in a spirit of the utmost impartiality. There was no point affecting them which had not been anxiously considered by the Government and settled upon terms at least equal to those given to the Established Church. As to the statement that the compensations given to the Presbyterians were far inferior to those of the Established Church, it was not inequality in the true sense of the word, but it was an inequality arising out of the inevitable circumstances of the case, for compensation must bear a strict and equitable relation to the endowment of which it was to take the place. He knew the candid mind of his hon. Friend, and hoped he would explain to his co-religionists the principles on which this Bill was founded. And now a word upon the termination of this great and memorable contest. No one sitting on that Bench could possibly have taken a deeper interest in the measure which had now reached its final stage in this House, and of which, for many years, he had been an advocate. Now, he agreed in what had been said
  588
  by the right hon. Gentleman opposite— that this was not a case of unconditional surrender, and that a settlement had been arrived at, creditable to both sides, and to the other House of Parliament; and it was a triumph, not of abstract principles, but of the great policy which the Government and the Liberal party had been pursuing. He held this to be a great satisfaction. He regarded the spirit both of the majority and the minority, with the best hope for the future, when he recollected the tone of the speeches which had been delivered, and he would particularly refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Lefroy). He looked upon the measure which was now brought to a successful issue, as one of the greatest acts of justice and wisdom ever adopted by any legislative assembly in the world, and he trusted that an era of constantly increasing peace, prosperity, and concord in Ireland might date from the period of this great historic event.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought the country had much cause to be satisfied with the issue of this great conflict; and he could tell the Members of the Free Irish Church, from the experience of Scotland, that she had nothing to fear, and might throw herself boldly and with reliance on the Christian sympathies and support of those who belonged to her communion.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, he had no desire to prolong the discussion, but he was unwilling to remain silent after having heard the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk) in disparagement of the great measure now about to be completed. He would, therefore, however unwillingly, ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in order emphatically to express his dissent from those observations. He would remind his hon. Friend, who so efficiently represented Presbyterian interests in that House, that while the Presbyterian community, who number about 600,000, obtained something, and that a very considerable something, under the Bill, the 5,000,000 of Irish Catholics, to whom originally belonged all the Church property now being dealt with, got absolutely nothing. He would ask the House to mark the difference— the Presbyterians complained because having got much they did not get more,

  589
  while the 5,000,000 of Catholics, who asked nothing for themselves and who got nothing, were content because they saw in the great act of the hour a recognition by both Houses of Parliament that they were entitled to stand on the same platform of equality as their Protestant fellow-countrymen. He (Sir John Gray) regretted that even one Irish Liberal Member expressed dissatisfaction at the results attained. He rejoiced, however, that the dissent did not come from a Catholic representative, for he believed the whole Catholic party were content with the signal advance made. ["No!"] He heard one voice say "No;" but he would ask who ventured, when the demand for religious equality was made in 1866, to hope that in 1869 that demand would be conceded with the concurrent assent of both Houses of Parliament? He (Sir John Gray) could at least speak with authority, and, more important still, with authority based on recent communications, for the great Catholic community he had the honour to represent; and with that absolute and recent authority he would say that his constituents in Kilkenny, most of whom were Catholics, would accept the great act of justice with gratitude and with entire contentment; while for himself he would say—and possibly it would be conceded that he had some right to offer an opinion in the matter—that it far exceeded the most sanguine hopes entertained three years ago as to what might be obtained in the direction of religious equality within so brief a period. The right hon. Gentleman who led the Opposition, with that personal caution and political prudence which he invariably displayed in all cases of party difficulty, stated, when addressing the House, that he would abstain from expressing any opinion on the question as to which party had the best of it in the adjustment arrived at. He (Sir John Gray), standing in a sense apart from both parties, would not hesitate to express his opinion, though he might have to use somewhat of a paradox, and say that both parties had the best of it. He never looked upon and never treated this question as a mere party question. He looked upon the act now about to be completed as a great act of national justice about to be accomplished by the public assent of all parties for the benefit of the Irish nation, and from this
  590
  great national measure of right and justice all parties in the State and all sections of the community would reap signal advantages. Men interested in party may dispute as to who has the best of it. It ought to be their duty to see the great good that will come to all parties from establishing in Ireland content and confidence in the wisdom of Parliament. He would say of the House of Lords that the course adopted by them at that critical moment was most creditable and generous, and from it they would reach the rich reward of securing the confidence of the Irish people by demonstrating that the Lords as well as the Commons of this great Empire are willing on cause shown—on a fair case being clearly and conclusively made out—to lay aside the cherished prejudices of centuries—bow to the public opinion of the nation, and by a great act of retributive justice redress at any personal sacrifice the grievances and remove the wrongs of the Irish people. The Lords and Commons then had both "the best of it," for from that day forth the Irish people would judge of the Imperial Parliament by the great act of conciliation now being adopted by all, and would feel that one by one all the wrongs they complain of will in a similar spirit of justice be removed, when calmly and fairly brought under discussion. The Bill now about to become law would heal the wounds of centuries; and he felt bound to add that the tone of the last debate in the House of Lords—the kindly and generous tone and the conciliatory words used in that House that day, but more especially the language of conciliation and forbearance in which the Irish Conservative representatives accepted this great revolution, would sink deep into the Irish heart, and he hoped be imitated by all public men in Ireland so as to prepare the way for future co-operation in securing peace, prosperity, and unity amongst all classes of his countrymen.
  MR. MIALL: Sir, I cannot part with this subject without one word of farewell. I will not, however, detain the House for long, for after all that has passed my emotions are too deep to admit of my addressing the House at any length. But this is a question on the settlement of which I really think it becomes some representative of the Nonconformist Body to say one word. I cannot but

  591
  rejoice that one great and important principle of the Nonconformist Body has now received legislative adoption. I believe it to be a principle of justice, and I think that in regard to Ireland the consequences of its adoption will soon appear, in greater harmony, greater social confidence among the people, and truer and more earnest exertions for the promotion of their religious ends. I trust, Sir, that the religion to be henceforth propagated in Ireland will be far less political and polemical in its character than it hitherto has been; and I wish to say, so far as I can say it on behalf of the body whose sentiments I represent on this occasion, that now that the Church of Ireland ceases to be a political body, we shall on our part be ready to afford her any assistance that we can in promoting her views and in placing her in a strong position. There never has been any feeling in our minds which would tend to the destruction of that body as a spiritual institution. We never have wished it to occupy a position of disadvantage. We do not believe that the money which has been left with it now will be of essential service to it in the future, but that the only way in which that Church can triumph over the difficulties of her position will be by putting forward the true spirit of self-sacrifice which our common Christianity demands from all Churches. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having conducted this great controversy to a successful issue, and I trust that the end of it will be the initiation of a new era of peace, harmony, and prosperity for Ireland.
  MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he had taken a great interest in this great question, never having been absent from a single division having reference to it. As an Ulster man he wished to say that he believed the glorious settlement which had been arrived at would be satisfactory to all the Irish people. During his canvass of the city of Londonderry, the Roman Catholic electors never asked for anything more than perfect religious equality; the name of Maynooth was never mentioned, and he was convinced that they would have abandoned all claim on account of Maynooth rather than forego that glorious settlement. He believed the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland would also approve of that measure. It might appear to them at
  592
  first sight that there was some inequality in the mode of dealing with them and the members of the Established Church; but it should be remembered that the principle of the Bill was compensation, and the amount of the compensation must, of course, depend upon the nature and value of the life interests. He thanked the Government and both Houses of Parliament for having brought to a final issue that great question by a settlement which, in his judgment, was thoroughly and entirely satisfactory.
  Amendments and Reasons read a second time.
  Resolved, That this House doth not insist upon its disagreement to the Amendments insisted upon by the Lords; and doth agree to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords, and to the consequential Amendment to the said Bill.

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

  FREEDOM OF SPEECH—ARREST OF MR. MURPHY.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: * I owe, Mr. Speaker, the position which the Notice standing in my name occupies to the arrangements of Her Majesty's Government, because I had attached that Notice to Class III. of the Civil Service Estimates—the class in which the expenditure connected with the administration of the law in this country is proposed to be voted, and the arrangement of the business of this House connected with Supply rests with the Government. Considering the nature of this Motion, I cannot help thinking that it is somewhat appropriate that the subject of my Notice should occupy the attention of the House immediately after the House has come to an agreement with the House of Lords upon the Irish Church Bill, for the substance of my Motion portends the future of Ireland. A great measure has just passed both Houses, by which there will hereafter be no Established Protestant Church in Ireland. The Motion which I have now the honour of submitting to the House is intended for the defence of freedom of speech, particularly in the enunciation of religious opinion.

  593
  I may remind the House that there is no Established Church in the United States of America. The position of the United States is in this respect, therefore, analogous to that which will be the position of Ireland. It is known, Sir, that up to the period of the late civil war in the United States there was a system of persecution—too often with the sanction of the official authority—directed against those who ventured publicly to express Protestant opinions. It was inevitable, from the nature of their religion, that these men should also be the defenders and promoters of freedom. Many of these persons were persecuted, some of them were murdered, and John Brown was executed. At whose instance were these persecutions carried on? I have ample details here, with which I shall not, however, trouble the House, but which show that it was invariably at the instance of the Roman Catholic clergy, that these persecutions were carried out by Irish Roman Catholic mobs, at the instance of the Roman Catholic clergy, with the late Archbishop Hughes at their head. I am fully alive, Sir, to the difficulty of the task I undertake, but I believe, in proposing this Motion, that I have the same right of reply as you sanctioned lately in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), when he brought before this House a Motion with respect to some abuses which he conceived to have taken place in the Coventry Election. The Motion which I now propose impugns the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the directions which he has issued through the Law Officers of the Crown or with their advice, for the exercise of certain powers which, by Act of Parliament, comes within the province of his Office. Mine, Sir, is no light undertaking, and considering that I have been a justice of the peace for nearly thirty years in the county of Middlesex, and the City of Westminster, it is a task which I would not lightly undertake. I have lately presented a Petition to this House from a meeting that was held in St. James's Hall. At that meeting I presided, at the request of the secretaries and other persons connected with various Protestant bodies existing in this metropolis. I was present during the whole of the proceedings, but I did not
  594
  attach my signature to the Petition as chairman, because that would not have been conformable with the usages of this House. Their meeting was attended by never less than 1,000 persons; when the meeting was fullest, about 1,300 or 1,400 were present. There is a very singular circumstance connected with that meeting. No full or fair account of it has appeared in any of the daily papers. I saw the reporters before me. I saw them taking notes; but in The Times there did not appear one word with reference to this meeting, whilst the notice in the Standard contained little more than a list of the principal persons present. It really seems to me to be rather extraordinary that a meeting such as this should have been ignored by the public press to the extent that it was. Hon. Member are aware, however, that a full report of the proceedings at this meeting has been published, and I believe it has been placed in their hands. That publication arose from the circumstance that I would not consent to preside at a meeting for such an object without having a competent reporter present, in order that I might be able to testify to this House that nothing occurred at this meeting of which I, as chairman, might have any reason to be ashamed. I now proceed to the subject-matter of that meeting. It has been stated that the meeting was called for one purpose, and one purpose only— namely, to defend or promote the interests of Mr. Murphy, the Protestant lecturer. Sir, if that had been the object of the meeting I should not have taken the chair, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lancashire (Mr. Holt), and my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Joshua Fielden) would certainly not have attended; for we are not prepared to accept the title of "Murphyites" in any sense whatever. But, Sir, it is always necessary, in order to illustrate the infraction of a principle, that some individual ease of grievance should be brought forward, and it must be clear to every hon. Member, who bears in mind what has occurred with respect to this person Murphy in this House, that his case could not be ignored by anyone who believes that the right of free discussion has been violated in his person. I know very well the danger of alluding to individuals. Three or

  595
  four years ago I brought under the notice of the House a Motion with respect to the conventual and monastic establishments of this country, and moved for a Committee to inquire whether there was not occasion for some inspection of these institutions. It happened that in the Session preceding I had made a Motion in a matter connected with the death, the disposition of the property, and the circumstances attendant on the burial of a Mr. Hutchinson, of whose property the late Father Faber, the head of the Oratorians, became possessed. This person, Mr. Hutchinson, died in the house belonging to the Oratorians at Brompton, and a relative of his, a Mr. Smee, petitioned this House with reference to the circumstances connected with the death of his relative and with respect to his funeral. When my Motion came on the next Session—in 1865—it happened that this Mr. Smee, who is the medical officer of the Bank of England, chose—without my knowledge—to write a letter to the Duchess of Norfolk with reference to one of her daughters, who was in a convent in France. I never heard anything about this letter until I received a printed copy of it, and found that it had been circulated. I deprecated that letter. I thought it in bad taste, and did all I could to prevent its circulation; but when my Motion for the consideration of the conventual question was before the House, up got three or four Roman Catholic Members in succession, who delivered themselves strongly against Mr. Smee and his letter, and endeavoured to connect me with it, although I had done all I could to stop its circulation. Some of my Friends were thus deluded into the belief I had something to do with it, just when they were entering the House to support my Motion; and under this they said delusion, it was a "blackguard business," and, although they had come down with the intention of voting for my Motion, they went away without voting at all. It is very probable that, in reference to the case, which I am now about to bring before the House, it will be said, that there is nothing in it but Mr. Murphy, and that I am come here for the purpose of setting Mr. Murphy up against the Secretary of State. Sir, if I thought I held a brief for any such purpose I would abandon it at once. But such is not the object of my Motion;
  596
  and, in illustration of it, I think I cannot do better than read to the House a letter that was addressed to me by Mr. Roebuck, whose absence from this House I consider one of the greatest losses we have suffered during the late elections. I have been for twenty-six years in this House with Mr. Roebuck; he had been thirty-five years a Member of the House; and I know no one who, as a Member of the House—though I was opposed to him for many years, and we sat on opposite sides of the House—did more to elevate the character of this Assembly. What, then, does Mr. Roebuck say in reference to this matter? He was unable to attend the meeting in St. James's Hall, but he addressed the following letter to me as chairman of that meeting:—
  "My dear Sir,—For the reasons I stated to you when we met, I shall not be able to attend your meeting. I am, indeed, sorry that this should be so, as I heartily concur with you in thinking that such a meeting is much needed under present circumstances, and that, if it be properly conducted, good—aye, much good—may result from it. As I understand you, the meeting has been called to express disapprobation of certain acts of the Home Secretary, which you believe to be—some of them illegal—all unjust and alarming, and forming mischievous precedents for the future, In this opinion of yours I concur; and I am the more alarmed, first, because the Home Secretary bears a high character for probity, kindness, and intelligence; and, secondly, because the arguments he uses to justify and palliate his conduct are just those plausible pretences which have always been employed to defend and excuse the beginnings of tyranny and oppression. Tyranny has not seldom begun in breaches of the law, which, though acknowledged to be breaches of the law, have been sought to be justified by necessity. Salus populi suprema lex is a favourite and convenient phrase upon such occasions. By it the first attacks on freedom are supposed to be justified, and the excuse accepted. But this is a step in the direction of illegality and despotism; another step soon follows; and by degrees, and these not slow degrees, freedom and safety are undermined, and despotism usurps the place of law and justice; certainty and security disappear; alarm, jealousy, and suspicion take possession of the public mind. Careless and confiding people will deem these fears frivolous and uncalled for. But if these consequences do not follow such proceedings as those of which we are speaking, it will be because the nation is watchful, and resents and marks with disapprobation these first hasty and unstates-manlike deviations from the frank, loyal, straightforward course of a Constitutional Minister. By what I have said here, do not suppose that I am defending the conduct of Mr. Murphy. Of his doings, indeed, I can give no opinion, not knowing what he has done. I had learned by the papers that his speeches have not seldom been followed by violence and tumult. Mr. Murphy, it appears,

  597
  has undertaken the task of explaining his own opinions of the Catholic religion, and of the conduct of some of its professors. As his views are unfavourable to that which he undertakes to de-scribe, I can easily understand that his sayings are very disagreeable to Catholics generally. But though he may be rude of speech (I do not say that he is so), still there is no justification for a violent personal assault upon him—neither is it an excuse for that breach of the law by which it was attempted to silence him. For my own part, I very much dislike acrimonious religious discussion, and I frankly own I can sympathize with those who feel disgust and shame, when they hear of such scenes as are said to have taken place on the occasion of Mr. Murphy's lectures. This, however, is just the state of mind in which a powerful Minister should be most careful of his conduct and jealous of himself. I have no doubt but that Mr. Bruce thought Mr. Murphy a pestilent agitator."
  ["Hear."] Well, that seems to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Roebuck proceeds to say:—
  "That, too, I suspect, was the state of mind of Leo X., when he thought of Luther. I know that I here am comparing small things with great, but the comparison is apt, and renders us all a very useful lesson. One observation more, and I have done. It may be said, that in the case of shutting up the lecture-rooms of Mr. Murphy and preventing his meetings no law was broken, as an old obsolete despotic law sanctioned the proceedings. This is true. But the acting upon this obsolete law was in reality a breach of the law, as it has been acted upon ever since the now obsolete law was passed: The law was passed in time of great danger and alarm, and has always by that party to which Mr. Bruce belongs been deemed a gross violation of constitutional freedom. And it must surprise and strike every thoughtful man, that in these palmy days of liberality, when we have a Prime Minister who is par excellence a Liberal, that despotic law of a Minister should be dug up from the grave, to which public prudence, shame, and indignation had assigned it, for the purpose of silencing a speaker whom you could not or would not answer.—I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,
  "J. A. ROEBUCK."
  Now, Sir, it does strike me as very singular, that a Liberal Home Secretary should have availed himself of this law, the 9 & 10 Vict., c. 33, which contains the substance of the Act of 1795, though limited in its operation to such cases as the Law Officers of the Crown will undertake. Mr. Fox and every Liberal of his day denounced, the restrictions upon freedom of discussion, or rather of lecturing, which the statute of 1795 imposed; all those who inherit Mr. Fox's opinions have declared that this statute had been very properly consigned to oblivion. I believe they would have repealed this statute long since had it been remembered by these Liberals. By
  598
  whom was that Act of 1795 modified? By whom was the administration of it limited to the Government? By the late Mr. Buncombe, a man of undoubted Liberal principles, an adherent of the opinions of Mr. Fox. But what has occurred! The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has declared, that recently there has been an emergency. He seemed, indeed, to imagine that there was a parallel between some emergency which the riots that attended some of Murphy's lectures had created, and the circumstances which preceded the passing of the Act of 1795. What, Sir, were the circumstances of that period? It occurred about two years and a-half after the King of France had been beheaded; about two years after the commencement of the Reign of Terror in France; and when the principles of the French Revolution had obtained considerable hold, not only among the Roman Catholics but among the Presbyterians of Ireland. In those days there was a real rebellion brewing in Ireland; England herself was in a most unsafe position. Really dangerous opinions were propagated throughout the country in lecture-halls, and infected the minds of the people, who were subjected to a heavy pressure by the circumstances occasioned by the external war then raging, and by the seasons, which were unfavourable. Some of the English people, stimulated by foreign agents, gave way to disloyalty, and George III, when coming down to the House of Lords to open Parliament, was fired at in his carriage. Under these circumstances was it that the Act of 1795 was passed, simultaneously with an Act for the protection of the Crown and person of His Majesty. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there is any parallel between the circumstances of last year, between the emergency which he supposes to have lately existed, and the emergency which induced Mr. Pitt to pass this law?—notwith- standing which emergency Mr. Fox and the party with whom the right hon. Gentleman is now supposed to be connected denounced the measure as an act of tyranny? But these are not the whole of the circumstances of the case. And here, Sir, permit me to observe that I speak in disparagement of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. with regret; for there is no Member of

  599
  the Government for whom, personally, I entertain a higher respect than I do for the right hon. Gentleman; and I am convinced that some very urgent pressure must have been put on the right hon. Gentleman to induce him to act as he has done. I have reason for thinking that some influence must have been used to bias his better judgment, or he would never have recourse to this obsolete Act for the suppression of—what? Of sedition! Will any man come forward and produce in this House the record of any lecture ever delivered by Mr. Murphy in the sense of the lectures against the dissemination of which this Act was originally directed? Will any man in this House, or elsewhere, produce proof that, whatever this man's imperfections in other respects may be, he was ever guilty of sedition? And yet the Preamble of this statute, which has been used against Mr. Murphy and his lectures, declares that it is an Act to be applied only against seditious, nay, treasonable meetings. A Question was put to the right hon. Gentleman in this House by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) this Session, inquiring whether it was true that the right hon. Gentleman, as Home Secretary, had ordered the closing of these lecture-halls, or rather had authorized the virtual closing of them against Mr. Murphy and his audiences; for it rested with him only to authorize the local authorities to threaten the infliction of a fine of £100 upon any owner of a hall who opened it, and the infliction of a fine of £10, I think, upon any person who might attend the lecture therein; and this, mind you, in some cases, without any sworn information of an apprehended riot. Well, the right hon. Gentleman, in answering this Question, spoke of Mr. Murphy as "delivering one of his inflammatory lectures at Tynemouth, and the result was much violence and some bloodshed." One might have supposed that it was one of those lectures which were delivered in 1795. But no; it was a Protestant lecture, and that was the offence! Then the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "That being so, I did not hesitate to put in force an Act which I quite admit is one only to be used in extreme cases."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 759.]
  What are we to consider an "extreme case?" It seems that the right hon. Gentleman considers it an "extreme
  600
  case" when a lecture is delivered in a hall with closed doors — a lecture, the substance of which may be distasteful to some persons, who need not enter the hall, who have no business in that hall, if they do not like the announced substance of the lecture. Is that to be considered an "extreme case?" The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say—
  "The case here was one which, in my opinion, justified its application—that of the Statute 9 & 10 Victoria, Here is a man, who, for no good purpose whatever, goes about exciting the peaceful inhabitants of these towns in such a way as to lead to acts of violence, creating dissension and disorder wherever he appears; and as long as there are means of repression known to the law"—
  These words have been taken as of peculiar signification, and I beg attention to them—
  "as long as there are means of repression known to the law, I think it is the duty of those charged with the preservation of the peace to use them. It was therefore under my directions and on my responsibility that the Mayor of Tynemouth made known that all persons attending these lectures would be liable to a penalty."—[Ibid.]
  Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to say that these Protestant lectures do no good; and that may be his opinion. But there is no such definition as that in law. If there were, the substance of these lectures would be actionable; but there has never yet been an attempt made to prosecute this Mr. Murphy for anything he has uttered. Then, again, when this man had been arrested in Birmingham, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene), who has written to me — but I fear he will reach town too late for this Morning's Sitting—put a Question with respect to the arrest of Mr. Murphy at Birmingham to the right hon. Gentleman, who, in reply, said—
  "Murphy was arrested, bail was taken for him, and he appeared before the magistrates, who dismissed the case. No information was laid, and consequently none could be produced."—[3 Hansard, cvcvii. 411.]
  I did not know, and it was not known in Birmingham, with certainty, that there was no information, until the right hon. Gentleman declared there was none. None was produced before the magistrate. There was a charge on the police sheet of an intention on the part of Mr. Murphy to disturb the town's meeting, which he desired to attend; but no attempt was made to support that charge. The stipendiary magistrate asked whether or not there was a sworn informa-

  601
  tion; and the right hon. Gentleman informed us that there was none. He then proceeded to say—
  "He had been unable to discover that the Mayor of Birmingham acted under any Act of Parliament or had legal sanction for what he did; he appeared to have acted on the basis of Salus populi suprema lex, and to have undergone some considerable personal hazard for the purpose of averting a popular danger."—[Ibid.]
  Why, Sir, the justice of the peace who ventures to act upon the doctrine Salus populi suprema lex, and to arrest a person against whom there is no sworn information ought to have under his personal view the danger of an insurrection or riot, and that the person he arrests is promoting that riot. I have had to act as a magistrate in very tumultuous times. During the year 1842 I was acting in the presence of mobs, amounting to 5,000 and 6,000, and many of them strangers to the locality; I knew that I could not order the arrest of any person in them, unless I myself saw and was prepared to swear that there was immediate danger of a breach of the peace, owing to the presence and action of such person. Now, there was nothing of the sort at Birmingham. The arrest of Murphy was contemplated some days before. And what happened? Before this man could enter the Town Hall—though he was a rate-payer and had a ticket for the meeting—he was arrested in the lobby by an order, which, it appears, came from the Mayor. What right had the Mayor to assume that there was danger of a breach of the peace in the meeting from the presence of this man, who had never entered the meeting? This arrest constitutes an act which I should not have supposed the right hon. Gentleman would think of justifying by quoting the maxim Salus populi suprema lex. That is a maxim which has been used to cover acts of tyranny of the blackest dye. This is a kind of language which the Home Secretary ought to be very careful in using, when he knows that his words go forth with authority to officials who are not deeply versed in the law, many of whom have had little experience in dealing with assemblies which they may mistakenly consider to be illegal. I do not deny there was a great disturbance in the Town Hall at Birmingham; but I believe that this arrest of Mr. Murphy aggravated, if it did not create, that disturbance. This arrest virtually excluded a considerable num-
  602
  ber of persons from the Hall, and created in the minds of others a sense of oppression on the one side, and of undue favour and of exultation on the other. There never was such a scene in the Town Hall at Birmingham as took place on that occasion. The meeting had been called in support of the measure which the House has just passed relating to the Irish Church. At that meeting a letter was road from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, upon which I will only say that the expressions it contained with regard to the House of Lords and their functions were not analogous to those which have to-day fallen from the Prime Minister. Sir, that letter was of itself quite sufficient to excite a breach of the peace; but Mr. Murphy was not the author of that letter. He was not even in the hall. He was only in the lobby, and the Mayor could not possibly have known what would be the effect of his presence. Mr. Murphy was not seen there, and the Mayor could have formed no judgment by personal view of his conduct on the occasion. I should not have thought that the Mayor would have been alarmed at the entrance of any person into the Town Hall of Birmingham whilst he occupied the chair. But the Mayor of Birmingham acting upon the timid policy which has been recommended by the Home Secretary, but in the sense of Salus populi suprema lex, ordered Mr. Murphy to be locked up, from the fear that he would come into a town's meeting of which his Worship was the chairman! Such conduct on the part of a municipal officer, however, is not after all so surprising as that the Home Secretary, in his place in Parliament, should quote such a maxim as this in justification of conduct, that I cannot think either wise or lawful. This person, Mr. Murphy, was I understand, at the meeting to which I have referred, and over which I presided. He sat I believe, behind me somewhere, but he took no part in the proceedings, and to this hour I do not know the man by sight. Now, that which particularly concerns this House is, what has been the conduct of other Home Secretaries in analogous cases? Have we any precedent in the action of other Home Secretaries for such an extraordinary stretch of power; any precedent for this extraordinary departure from the usual rules of constitu-

  603
  tional law, which guard the right of freedom of speech, freedom of meeting, and freedom of discussion? It does happen that the case of this person has been frequently brought before the notice of this House. In the year 1867, this person, who is now a resident in Birmingham, desired to deliver some lectures there and to hold religious services; and there was a great deal of opposition, to his doing so. His friends erected a temporary building for his accommodation. But on the Sunday morning, when he and his friends were going for the first time to use this structure for Divine worship, they were attacked in the streets and assaulted by an organized Roman Catholic mob, and, in anticipation of this, some of the Roman Catholic priests, it appears, manifested their discretion by closing their chapels. Mr. Murphy was attacked. His friends, too, were wounded on that Sunday morning. When the matter came to my knowledge, I went to the President of the Board of Trade and asked him if he knew anything about it; but he said he knew nothing. A friend of mine, in whom I could place reliance, then went down to Birmingham, and reported to me by letter what was the commencement of that disturbance; I have found that his report was perfectly accurate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was Home Secretary; and a Question was put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonial Department (Mr. Monsell) upon the subject. It was a leading Question, leading up to some such conduct as has been unhappily pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State. And what did the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) answer? He said—
  "No legal proceedings could, however, be taken in respect of the language which had been used, because it would not of itself necessarily lead to a breach of the peace; but he could not say how much he regretted that such language had been used."—[3 Hansard, clxxxviii. 88.]
  This was an attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies to induce the late Home Secretary to admit that there was danger to the public peace; and that was the reply he got. This took place in this House on the 19th of June, 1867. Again, on the 20th of June, 1867, being
  604
  the day after the Question had been put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) put a Question, and the reply, which I take from Hansard, was in these terms. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I do not think, that he (Mr. Murphy) is deprived—I do not think that anything I have said could justify the inference that he is to be deprived of the right of protection in a place built by him and others for the purposes of these lectures; because the words were not criminal words in themselves, or words that could be legally taken notice of."— [Ibid. 175.]
  We find, too, that on the 3rd of July, 1867, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, the late Home Secretary said—
  "The other question was as to any steps which might be taken with respect to the discourses delivered at Birmingham. Upon that point he said he did not think that there were any grounds for criminal proceedings."—[Ibid. 925.]
  Subsequently, on the 15th of May, 1868, a Question was put to the right hon. Gentleman by a person who was then a Member of this House, Mr. Rearden. We all remember Mr. Rearden—who was supposed to be a man of very advanced opinions—
  "Mr. Rearden said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it be his intention to introduce a Bill this Session for the purpose of preventing lectures upon the religious profession of faith of any of Her Majesty's subjects in any part of the United Kingdom, except in Churches and Chapels licensed for that purpose, and during Divine Service in such Churches and Chapels, without first submitting a copy of such lecture for the approval, revision, and consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?"
  Such was the suggestion made in the form of a Question by Mr. Rearden. To this the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) answered—
  "Sir, I have no intention of introducing such a Bill; and I must protest against adding to the duties of Secretary of State for the Home Department the approval or revision of lectures upon religious subjects."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 346.]
  The present Home Secretary does not appear to have undertaken the consideration or revision of Mr. Murphy's lectures. What he has done was to go beforehand and stop the mouth of a person not in the act of delivering a lecture, but who, as he has said, he feared would deliver an irritating lecture. Sir, the contrast between the conduct of the late Home Secretary and that of the right hon. Gentleman who has succeeded him

  605
  with regard to this matter of freedom of discussion is very marked. But it does not stop here. What we have now to do with is the question of personal freedom. Some riots had occurred at Ashton-under-Lyne and other places. These riots were made by Roman Catholic mobs, incited, in several instances, by Roman Catholic priests. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) made a speech in this House with a view of commending the subject in the most stringent form to the attention of the late Home Secretary, and this was the reply, as I find it reported in Hansard, of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy). The date is the 25th of May, 1868—
  "Now, as I understand, the mode which is adopted by Mr. Murphy when he is going to lecture at a place is either to hire a room for the purpose, or to make use of a building which belongs to him, and to which persons are admitted by ticket. There is no analogy in such proceedings to meetings held in the open air, and I am not aware that there is any law in existence by which a person can be prevented from delivering controversial lectures, either in a room which he takes or a structure which he carries about for the purpose. The hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) said he should be averse from any interference with free discussion; but I am afraid, unless you were to impose a limit with regard to the language used, which would be found intolerable, you must rely, under the present law, on the moderation of those who lecture, and on the authority of persons of influence on their side, whether in religion or politics, to make them temperate in the language they employ. I am not able to say, therefore,"
  —and this is the point to which I would particularly call the attention of hon. Members—
  "I am not able to say, therefore, that I contemplate any mode by which persons going to deliver controversial lectures, which in themselves are not wrong, in buildings which are their own or are hired, can be prevented from doing so."—[Ibid. 823–4.]
  This is a most clear and distinct declaration, and I believe it to be thoroughly sound in law. I will assign my reasons for thinking so hereafter. Again, on the 29th of May, 1868, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) said—
  "Everyone, so long as he did not commit a breach of the peace, being entitled to the protection of the law. As regards controversy, no one would protect its freedom in religion and politics more thoroughly than I would do so. I think every man has a right to put forward his own creed, and to support it with such arguments as he may think proper; but I do not think it advisable to put forth inflammatory placards, containing
  606
  language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace—language insulting, and no doubt, in many instances, meant to be insulting, to people professing other creeds."—[Ibid. 1094.]
  Now, Sir, I adduce these extracts, because I heard the answers myself, and it was in consequence of my having watched the effect of these answers upon the late House of Commons, and the approbation with which they were received by the House, which induced me to feel extreme surprise when I heard the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the question of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene). I then conceived that it would be my duty to bring the matter under the notice of the i House. I have consulted with no mean authorities on constitutional law. I have already laid before the House the opinion of Mr. Roebuck, and I might state the opinions of other lawyers; but Mr. Roebuck is a Queen's Counsel, and all whom I have consulted agree that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in using this Act of the 9 & 10 Vict, for the suppression of these lectures, is not only the perversion of an Act of Parliament, but is virtually, if not literally, an infraction of the law. I cannot believe, indeed, that the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman are not conscious in some degree of the accuracy of what I say. For it is a significant fact that when the Newspaper Bill went up to the House of Lords it was found to contain a clause for the re-peal of this very statute. I say this on the authority of Lord Cairns, the late Lord Chancellor, who expressed his surprise that this House should have seemed to countenance the exercise of arbitrary power under this Act, and that the Ministry, who had sanctioned the exercise by their officials of this arbitrary power should, within four days of doing so, have introduced a Bill for the repeal of the very statute under which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been acting. This led to some discussion in the House of Lords, and the present Lord Chancellor endeavoured to apologize for the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman; and a very lame apology, I am sorry to say, it was. Because, whether it was right or wrong to use this statute; whether it was a law that was properly applicable to

  607
  the circumstances; whether the emergency was sufficient to justify the use of such a law, and whether the lecturer, Murphy, could be considered guilty of sedition or not, this at least is clear, that if it were a law, and a useful law, it ought to have been preserved for the use of other Home Secretaries. But what did the present Government do? They used this statute, and then immediately afterwards repealed it. I have never been a Member of any Government; but if I were, and I had Colleagues who induced me to first abuse the law and then within four days proposed to repeal that very statute under the powers of which I had acted, I should not, I think, be much inclined to submit to such treatment. This one fact seems to me enough to condemn the proceedings of the Government. Why should they propose the repeal of a law which they had just enforced, if they considered it a just law? That proposal on the part of the Government was, to my mind, a confession that the invocation of that statute was an action that they cannot justify. I wish to speak without any disrespect of the authorities at Birmingham—they seem to have been incited by this strange conduct on the part of the Government. I have been told that what occurred at Birmingham is sub judice, and, as an action for false imprisonment has been threatened, I ought not to refer to it. But, Sir, I have ascertained what is the actual position of the case. The case was brought before the stipendiary magistrate of Birmingham after Mr. Murphy had been locked up all night in a cell in the principal establishment of police. He was next morning taken before the magistrate, who happens fortunately to be a very good lawyer, Mr. Kynnersley. The first question put was—"What is the charge?" The police sheet was produced. "Charged with attempting to disturb a public meeting." Why, the man had never entered it! No wonder, then, that there was nobody to support the charge. "Where is the information?" asked the magistrate. The police said they did not know. "Then," said Mr. Kynnersley, there is no charge;" and he ordered the prisoner to be immediately liberated. As I have before remarked, the meeting at Birmingham was very tumultuous, but it could not have been so on account of Mr. Murphy's presence but rather on account of his absence.
  608
  ["Oh," and "Hear!"] That, at all events, is the information given to me. His arrest produced intense irritation amongst many of his friends who were in the meeting, and a corresponding degree of exultation amongst the other party, to whom it imparted the feeling that they might do just as they pleased; and the result was that they overpowered the Mayor. They listened to the Mayor from the first with impatience, they heard Mr. Thomas Lloyd, the proposer, and they heard the seconder of the Resolution in favour of disestablishing the Irish Church; but from that moment the meeting was one continued scene of uproar and disorder. Previous to the meeting Mr. Sampson Lloyd, one of the most distinguished citizens of Birmingham, eminent in position and education, and capable of speaking in a manner of which I sincerely wish this House had an opportunity of judging, had communicated with the Mayor and. arranged that he should move an Amendment to test the opinion of the town meeting. He also sent to the Mayor the names of those who were to speak in support of the Amendment. The Mayor acceded to the arrangement, but the excitement of the audience, whether increased by the unjust arrest of Murphy or not—and I have a right to say it was an unjust arrest when no information was produced, and although a charge was entered on the police sheet no attempt was made to support it—aggravated, I think, by that unjust arrest, the meeting utterly repudiated the authority of the chairman, and for two hours there was a continuous scene of hubbub and tumult. Can it be said, that such a scene of hubbub was favourable to freedom of discussion? This tumult was caused by the mob, which afterwards attacked Mr. Murphy in the street, as they had attacked him before. It was this mob which broke the windows of the house in which he lived—it was this same mob, I say, which set the Mayor of Birmingham at defiance after he had ordered the arrest of Murphy. I have here the details and a full catalogue of the attacks which have been from time to time in various localities made on this man and his friends, but I will not trouble the House with them. I find, however, in these accounts that there were Roman Catholic priests who urged their congregations to attack this person and those who were with him

  609
  as well as other Protestants who attended his lectures. I have heard the details of a very questionable act committed by the stipendiary magistrate at Manchester. I have been much struck by the analogy between these attempts at the suppression of free discussion, these violent outbreaks to prevent persons from lecturing in public, and those which occurred before the civil war in the United States. The other day there was a similar occurrence in Ireland. One Sunday some Methodists met for Divine worship in a gentleman's private park, when they were attacked, outraged, wounded, and hunted from the place. In Scotland, also, there have been two cases of the like kind within the last three weeks— one at Dundee and the other at Glasgow. Judging by what has happened in Ireland, and what has happened in the United States, I have no hesitation in declaring, that if encouragement is given to this system of outrage by Roman Catholic mobs—if these matters are allowed to grow, we shall have to do just what our American cousins did—turn out and put them down ourselves. If the authorities will not stay a riot, then the inhabitants of the neighbourhood have a right to take the part of the persons assailed. I am lawyer enough to know that. If you see a man put in danger of his life, or suffering outrage, it is your duty as one of the Queen's lieges to protect him, and this is a duty which we should not neglect. I hope the House will forgive me for bringing this matter under its consideration, because, whether the right hon. Gentleman can justify the course he has pursued or not, I am sure the House will agree with me, that the conduct of the Government in these matters is unprecedented; that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of this statute—or late statute, as I believe it to be by this time, and the conduct of the Government, of which he is a Member, in inducing or permitting him to abuse the power given by that very questionable law, ought to be held, to say the least of it, exceptional. Judging of the effects produced in my own district by the declarations made in this House and published upon the temper of the Roman Catholics, especially in Birmingham, and from what I hear of the probable action of civic authorities who believe that they will be supported as the Mayors of Tynemouth and other
  610
  places have been supported by the right hon. Gentleman, I deem it to be my duty, though I am a Tory and the right hon. Gentleman is the Home Secretary of a Liberal Government, to submit my Motion to the House in terms of the Notice.
  MR. HOLTseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the right of free speech is one of the most important safeguards of good Government, and that attacks upon this right are, therefore, dangerous to the welfare of the State:—That the recent conduct of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in preventing free discussion of important topics was, in fact, an attack upon this great safeguard of freedom; and is, therefore, deserving of reprehension by this House:—That this conduct of the Secretary of State for the Home Department has proved especially mischievous, since it has led to breaches of the law on the part of official persons, more particularly by the Mayor of Birmingham, who caused the arrest of an innocent person for the purpose of preventing what to him was distasteful discussion,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DIXONsaid, he entirely approved of the course which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in reference to the matter introduced to the notice of the House by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). With regard to the first declaration in the Resolution of the hon. Member, it was unnecessary with reference either to the Mayor and authorities of Birmingham or, he should hope, to any part of this country. The Resolution further stated that the Mayor of Birmingham had caused the arrest of an innocent person for the purpose of preventing, what to him, was a distasteful discussion. Now he (Mr. Dixon) was not present at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and he had had no communication with the Mayor of Birmingham on the subject; but he thought, from the knowledge he had acquired, that the hon. Gentleman was under an entire misconception as to the facts of the case. The sole object the Mayor of Birmingham had in the course he took was to prevent what seemed to him likely to lead to a disturbance of the peace. A more impartial and fair-deal-

  611
  ing man as a politician, as well as a private individual, than the Mayor of Birmingham, he (Mr. Dixon) was not acquainted with. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the proceedings which had taken place at Birmingham in 1867 with reference to Mr. Murphy. The disturbances which had occurred were well known to the whole country. Mr. Murphy was known before he came to Birmingham to have caused breaches of the peace elsewhere, or, at all events, what he did and said was known to have preceded breaches of the peace which would not otherwise have occurred. It was apprehended, therefore, that the same breaches of the peace might happen in Birmingham, and what occurred was a justification. There was a breach of the peace and a riot of no small dimensions. He (Mr. Dixon) was Mayor at the time, and had to read the Riot Act in the presence of 100,000 persons. Mr. Murphy had built a place in which to deliver lectures which were highly objectionable to many persons, and. a number of Roman Catholics had thrown stones at a house occupied by one of the friends of Mr. Murphy, but he believed the main damage which ensued from the disturbance was caused by those who took Mr. Murphy's part. Not unnaturally, when Mr. Murphy made his appearance again in Birmingham, it was thought that such a firebrand appearing at a meeting called to consider the Irish Church Bill might lead to a breach of the peace. It was not till Mr. Sampson Lloyd got no to speak that the disturbance really commenced. The alleged disturbance of the meeting, in spite of the arrest, was simply an indisposition on the part of the meeting to listen to Mr. Sampson Lloyd, those present knowing well what his opinions were. He thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was entirely misinformed as to what took place at this meeting, and he felt persuaded that there was an entire misapprehension as to the course taken by the Mayor of Birmingham.
  MR. WHALLEYexpressed his satisfaction that this outrage had been brought under the attention of the House by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). The House had now for the first time heard of '' Mr." Murphy. Formerly he was Murphy the firebrand, Murphy the agitator, and so
  612
  on; but now he was treated with some little respect. Some two years ago Mr. Murphy appeared in Birmingham as a Protestant lecturer, and the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon), not content with protecting the Town Hall, set the police to prohibit, by all the influence and power of the Corporation, the use by Mr. Murphy of any other public building for the delivery of his lectures. A building, however, was erected by Mr. Murphy at his own cost, and afterwards riots of a disgraceful character ensued. Instead, however, of their being "Murphy riots," he was in no way responsible for them, because they began even before he had opened his mouth. They were got up by Roman Catholics, who were liberated from their chapels on that particular Sunday for the purpose of creating a riot; and after two or three days of saturnalia, the Superintendent of Police reported to the Mayor that but for the intervention of Mr. Murphy and the people over whom he possessed an influence, the town of Birmingham would probably have been sacked and set on fire. Therefore, those riots, originating with Roman Catholics, were suppressed by Protestants acting under the direction of Mr. Murphy. He (Mr. Whalley) had felt it to be his duty to stand by the side of Mr. Murphy before the magistrate at Birmingham, and to ask for the ground of complaint against him. He received no other answer except this—that he] (Mr. Whalley) would be held responsible if Mr. Murphy remained in the town. Be it recollected that though Mr. Murphy had been denied the use of the Town Hall, a fortnight previously Dr. Manning had been allowed to lecture in it, and had received no interruption, though he uttered many things which were calculated to excite the anger of Protestants. He (Mr. Whalley) did not suppose that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would justify a proceeding calculated to suppress freedom of discussion, on the ground that the principles advocated by Mr. Murphy were opposed to those of the Government. It was not true, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, that Mr. Murphy was a person who went about the country for seditious purposes. He had known Mr. Murphy for years, and he believed him to be honest and truthful. It was true that the newspapers of the metropolis tried to make him out to be a dangerous

  613
  agitator, but it was now tolerably well known that the newspapers of the metropolis were all more or less under the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood. It was the boast of the Weekly Register that every gentleman in the Reporters' Gallery, every writer in the newspapers, was completely under that influence. Why was Mr. Murphy to be branded as an agitator, when he never spoke a word which was not loyal and patriotic? The right hon. Gentleman had said that Mr. Murphy was going about for no good purpose; but who, he should like to know, constituted the right hon. Gentleman a judge as to what was or was not a good purpose? He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had estimated the gravity of the question. It was not Mr. Murphy who ever created disturbances; he merely quoted from Roman Catholic books the doctrines which the Roman Catholics were bound to believe, and then came the row, then the riot. He called upon the Secretary of State to prove what he had stated— namely, that Mr. Murphy went about for no good purpose, and that any one who attended his meetings was liable to a penalty of £20.
  MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) what were the expressions of which he complained as used by Dr. Manning, and which he said were usually applied by Roman Catholics to Protestants. He should also be glad to know what the hon. Member intended by the phrase, '' the Roman Catholics were let loose from their chapels."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, Dr. Manning had called all Protestants "heathens;" and associated them with all the very worst attributes of heathenism. What he meant by saying that the Roman Catholics were '' let loose from their chapels "was that, as stated by the Inspector of Police in his official Report, the chapel 'service was not held at the usual time, being that which Mr. Murphy had advertised for the commencement of his lecture.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that any hon. Gentleman who addressed the House in behalf of the right of free speech had a very great advantage. In that sacred right all sides of the House were equally interested. He did not doubt that his hon. Friend who introduced this Motion was a vigilant guardian of the right,
  614
  but at the same time he might be permitted to suggest that if the interference now complained of had occurred to a Roman Catholic lecturer, who had been going about inflaming the public mind, and leading to violence, destruction of property, and bloodshed, the House would not have the benefit of hearing his hon. Friend for a hour and a-half on the subject. He need not say that in the performance of his duty, as regarded Mr. Murphy, he could have but one motive—that of the preservation of the public peace. It was nothing to him whence the danger came; if the danger existed, and if he was armed with powers to prevent it, it was his duty to exercise them. Let them look at the facts of this particular case in order to see whether he had properly exercised the powers which the law gave him, he admitted, under very peculiar circumstances. Towards the end of March last he received from the Mayor of Tynemouth an announcement that Mr. Murphy had advertised a certain meeting to be held at South Shields, and that the Orangemen were going to have a procession on Easter Monday, which, in the opinion of the Mayor of Tynemouth would probably lead to violence and bloodshed, and he inquired how he should proceed. He gave him the advice of his predecessor in Office—that he should do his best by appealing to those who were about to join in the procession to abstain from doing so. He was happy to say that in that appeal the Mayor had succeeded. With respect to the meeting of Murphy, he informed the Mayor there was nothing in the common law to prevent him from holding it in private rooms, but inasmuch as danger was apprehended he advised the Mayor to have a force of special con-stables and put himself in communication with the military, in case of any serious riot, to have the means of suppressing it. All these means were taken very energetically. On the day when the meeting was held, as the Mayor had apprehended, large numbers of Irishmen were assembled—not only of those residing at South Shields, but others came in trains from several neighbouring towns, and then occurred a scene which was described by the Mayor; but the House must recollect it was not on this occasion that he had interposed in what was called an illegal manner. The first

  615
  lecture of Murphy was given under these circumstances—
  "As Mr. Murphy began his lecture, which was numerously attended, at eight o'clock, there was at that time a large crowd gathered, and at the east end of West Saville Street a large number of Irishmen were assembled. The magistrates, who had had information that an attack was threatened, had a large force of men in reserve at the police station, and were in telegraphic communication with all the military in case they should be needed. All passed off quietly till between half-past eight and a-quarter to nine o'clock, when the Irishmen, who had kept together at the east end of West Saville Street, suddenly disappeared, and immediately after a large body of Irish, 200 or 300 were seen coming up the Borough Road in military array, headed by two leaders. They were all armed—some with sticks, others with hammers—and proceeded shouting into Saville Street—' We'll kill Murphy; suppose we are hung for it,' and uttering other threats. The crowd about the door fled before them, and as there were only four policemen inside the passage leading to the Odd-Fellows' Hall, who believed that the rioters were about to break in upon the meeting, they shut and locked the front door to exclude them. As soon as the Irishmen got in front of the Hall they fell into line. Their two leaders gave a shout, and threw two large stones at the windows of the Odd-Fellows' Hall. Two or three volleys followed, which smashed in the windows, and caused great alarm to those in the interior, some of whom were struck by the missiles, and one man is reported to be somewhat seriously wounded, a large iron slug having hit him. From the outside the assembly in the hall could be heard pouring down stairs; and fortunately, the front door being locked, they could not be attacked by the exasperated Irish outside, who attempted to smash in the doors with sticks and hammers. There being an egress from the back, the large body of the assembly got into a back street and so escaped. The whole of the audience however, did not take flight, but not more than one-sixth remained, Murphy calling upon them to stand firm. The most of them made to the platform, which became crowded, and they broke up the chairs, and armed themselves with the legs and backs to receive the charge. More stones came into the room through the broken windows, but the policemen had effectually barred the entrance of the Irish from the outside, and Murphy and his supporters retained possession of the room in comparative safety. In the meantime a messenger had been sent to the police station for the reserve force, and, on arriving, headed by Mr. Superintendent Hewit, they charged the Irishmen who fled in all directions. There were three contingents of them—one coming by the steam ferry from South Shields and Jarrow, another by the ten minutes past eight train from Howden and Walker, the third men belonging to the town."
  That was the result of the first meeting. Murphy then went northwards, intending to address audiences in some of the principal towns of the north; but, on all occasions, he was refused permission to lecture in large places. He returned to Tynemouth, and gave notice that he
  616
  intended to resume his meetings. It was known that wherever this man had gone, at Ashton, Staleybridge, Birmingham—outrages similar to those described —similar, but much worse — had occurred. In all cases the religious feelings of the Roman Catholics had been outraged, their outbreaks had led to retaliation, and from one cause or another, there had been great danger to life and destruction of property. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked what harm was there in going about to preach Protestant doctrines; and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) said this man's motives were high and pure, and therefore he should not have been interfered with. He hoped both hon. Members were ignorant of the nature of this person's addresses. At first the subjects were simply theological—" The Scapular and the Blessed Virgin Mary coming down from Heaven to release Souls out of Purgatory;" "Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass unscriptural;" "The Seven Sacraments of the Church of Rome unscriptural." The charge for attendance at these theological lectures was 2d. and 4d. Then there was also a series which this pure and simple-minded man delivered at North Shields upon "The Confessional Unmasked; Maynooth and its Teaching," the advertisement being accompanied with the notice that the lecture would be addressed to "gentlemen only, gentlemen under eighteen years of age not being admitted." He quite approved of the Juvenalian maxim—
  "Maxima debetur pueris reverentia."
  But on Saturday, March 20, the subject announced was "The Confessional Unmasked "—to ladies only. On these occasions this Apostle of Truth appreciated the superior attractions of his subjects, and the charge was 6d. and 1s. Was it to be wondered that lectures on such subjects delivered in such circumstances, impeaching the morality of Catholic priests and people, should have led to proceedings which they must all deplore? On the threatened return of Murphy to South Shields he (Mr. Bruce) was again applied to by the Mayor, who apprehended similar scenes, the Irish threatening to attend in much greater numbers. Such was the state of alarm that the question was whether the Volunteers should be called out. He then

  617
  found he had a weapon at his disposal, which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) called obsolete, but which was one that the hon. Gentleman had himself assisted in forging, since he was a Member of the House when it passed. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: It was limited in its application.] The difference between the old Act and the one recently modified was that formerly anyone could lay an information against any person who lectured, even on Shaksperian subjects, whereas the powers conferred by the recent Act could not be exercised by any individual, but only by the Crown and the law. On the statement of facts laid before him he took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and asked them whether he should be justified in putting the Act in force. They advised him of the legality of so doing. The hon. Member had argued this case as if it were an attempt to prevent a meeting from being held, whereas the fact was that it was done to prevent the return of Murphy to a place where he had previously been the occasion of a disturbance. On receiving the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown he informed the Mayor of Tynemouth that he would be authorized under the Act to give notice to the owner of the lecture-hall that he would be liable to a penalty of £100 if the meeting was held in an unlicensed room, and that any person who attended it would be liable to a penalty of £20. The law was not put in force, for the threat was effectual. Mr. Murphy disappeared, but re-appeared in other places, where new disturbances arose. He was not there to justify the law—indeed, he admitted that it was altogether unsuitable to these times. The question, however, was whether, being responsible for the peace of the country, he would have been justified in abstaining from using the weapon which the Legislature had placed in his hands, and he could not admit that his judgment ought to have been influenced' by the fact that they were all of opinion that the law ought to be repealed. The hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to connect him with the proceedings of the Mayor of Birmingham. The Mayor had not, however, consulted him, and what the Mayor did was on his own responsibility. The answer he had given in the House, on a recent occasion, was derived from the
  618
  letter of the Mayor himself. He knew that the Mayor had subjected himself to an action which he believed had since been commenced. He had expressed no approval of the conduct of the Mayor, nor did he say that it had been legal.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, it was impossible that the Mayor of Birmingham, could have allowed a man to lecture in the Town Hall who had been causing riots in every town in the country. The only mistake made by the Mayor was in not seeing the necessity of having the informations filed before issuing his warrant. Murphy applied for the use of the Town Hall, which, could be granted for the purpose of a public meeting either by the Mayor, or by two magistrates, or by six members of the Town Council. They all refused, and Murphy could not get the use of the Town Hall. Some of the magistrates and members of the Town Council were Roman Catholics. Murphy then built what he called his Tabernacle on a piece of waste land, and the Mayor kept a large body of police and some dragoons in readiness for four days to protect Murphy against the assaults of those who were enraged by his obscene and disgusting language. The fact was that Murphy was a violent agitator, with whom reasonable men, of whatever creed, could have no sympathy.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the House must wish to get rid of these acrimonious ecclesiastical discussions. The reason why he and others supported the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was not from any feeling of antagonism to the Roman Catholic religion, but because the right of free speech was involved in this question. He regretted that, on the afternoon when words of peace and conciliation had gone forth to their Roman Catholic brethren, the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have appealed to the religious prejudices both of the Catholics and the Protestants. Of course if a man went into a public place and used insulting language towards persons of other religious or political opinions, the State had a right to interfere, but he (Viscount Sandon) held that people should be free to hold meetings in closed rooms, whatever opinions they desired to express, and this freedom should be equally enjoyed whether by Protestants or Roman Catholics, by Tories or Radicals. He believed that the law of the

  619
  country protected such meetings. With reference to the arrest of Mr. Murphy, he should have expected that the Minister of Justice in this country would have uttered some expression of his deep regret that the liberty of the subject had been interfered with, and he was sorry that no such expression had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He felt that in supporting his hon. Friend he was standing up for a great constitutional principle, which it was equally the interest of Gentlemen on the other side of the House to support. He should vote for the Motion simply on the ground of the enormous importance of freedom of speech; and because under a very democratic government there was an evident danger that in the future opinions distasteful to the majority might run the risk of being suppressed with the strong hand. Almost every opinion worth having had been the opinion of a minority at one time or other, and but for the law would doubtless have been crushed out by a triumphant majority.
  MR. DOWNINGtook exception to the language which had been used by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). It was hoped that the proceedings of that day would have been a message of peace to Ireland; but, after the imputations made in the course of the debate upon the Roman Catholic clergy, it seemed hopeless to expect any such result. He asked the hon. Member for Peterborough for the names of those Roman Catholic clergymen whom he had charged with inciting their parishioners to riot. Without knowing any of those rev. gentlemen, his confidence in the order to which they belonged was such as to justify him in using the strongest language in condemnation of the charge.
  It being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, debate adjourned till this day.

  FREEDOM OF SPEECH—ARREST OF MR. MURPHY.—RESOLUTION.

    TURNPIKES.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he desired to appeal to the lion. Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson), who had given Notice of a Motion on this subject for the Evening Sitting, not to proceed with it, as he could obtain no practical result, and the Secretary of State for the Home De-
    620
    partment had announced his intention of fully considering the subject during the Recess with a view to early legislation.
    SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he gladly accepted the assurance given, and would consent to withdraw his Motion.
    The Sitting was then suspended.

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH — ARREST OF MR. MURPHY.—RESOLUTION.

      DEBATE RESUMED.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [23rd July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair;" and which Amendment was,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the right of free speech is one of the most important safeguards of good Government, and that attacks upon this right are, therefore, dangerou3 to the welfare of the State:—That the recent conduct of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in preventing free discussion of important topics was, in fact, an attack upon this great safeguard of freedom; and is, therefore, deserving of reprehension by this House:—That this conduct of the Secretary of State for the Home Department has proved especially mischievous, since it has led to breaches of the law on the part of official persons, more particularly by the Mayor of Birmingham, who caused the arrest of an innocent person for the purpose of preventing what to him was distasteful discussion,"—(Mr. Newdegate.)
      —instead thereof.
      Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      Debate resumed.
      MR. DOWNINGsaid, he adopted every word that had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) on this subject. He was one of those who would be sorry to see the right of public meeting encroached upon; but if the House considered the nature of the placards produced that day by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the feelings with which they must have been read by the Roman Catholic population, it must be apparent that they were eminently calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. There was no part of their doctrine to which Roman Catholics were more sincerely attached than to that of the Confessional; and when the character and conduct of the clergy and of ladies were attacked in connection with that subject, it was no wonder that they

      621
      should be exasperated. He would put it to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) himself to say how he should like to have doctrines which he believed vital attacked in placards similar to those which had been posted through Birmingham. If the Protestants of the North of Ireland were subjected to such insults they would resent them. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had accused the Catholic clergy of Birmingham of having incited a Catholic mob to attack the lecturer.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: I made no such charge.
      MR. WHALLEY: I am ready to make that charge.
      MR. DOWNINGsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would give the names of the Catholic clergy who had done so. If a man took a hall or room he would be perfectly at liberty to lecture on such subjects as he thought proper; but he contended that it was unjustifiable to post those offensive placards through the town. The Secretary of State would have been condemned by every impartial man if he had not taken precautions to prevent scenes of violence and bloodshed which a firebrand like Murphy was likely to provoke.
      LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that he knew of an instance in which Armagh had been visited by some persons who preached anti-Protestant doctrines, but in no case had they been met by their Protestant hearers in such a way as to cause disturbance. The question involved in this matter was simply whether the British privilege of freedom of meeting and freedom of speech was to be overthrown. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in dealing with this subject, had prefaced his remarks by some observations on the sacredness of this right to freedom of speech; but as he went on he blamed the maltreated party for their acts, and spoke of them as the authors of the lawless outrages complained of to-night; not a single word of blame did he use as against those who broke into the building, resisting the constituted authorities, and dispersing a meeting assembled in a legitimate manner; he had simply said he did not stand there to defend them. If by faint praise we damn, surely by slight reproof error is condoned. The Secretary of State had
      622
      described how Murphy, having proposed to give a lecture in a public hall, was proceeding to keep faith with his hearers, when bodies of Irishmen—some of whom had come by train for the purpose— marched, armed in military array, upon the Odd-Follows Hall, forced the door which the police on duty had barred against them, demolished some portions of the building, and dispersed three-fourths of the meeting. Without entering upon the question of Murphy's character, he asked whether that was not an assault upon the right of public speech and public meeting. As long as Murphy remained within the law he should be protected; if his lectures were marred by indecencies, as had been suggested, he should be prosecuted; if he simply argued, his opponents must be taught to content themselves by meeting him with arguments, and not by throwing brickbats at him. Englishmen loved fair play, and could not understand on what grounds this ruffianly mob could be excused from the consequences of their conduct when they came to the building on purpose to be insulted, and commenced their assault before they could, have heard a single word of what was being said withing the building. The junior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had made rather a remarkable speech upon this matter; he complained that Murphy was a violent agitator, who had forfeited his right as a British subject; but did he know nothing of the career of the senior Member for Birmingham (the President of the Board, of Trade?) Was not he an agitator against the law which saved hundreds and thousands of women and children from the tyranny of their employers? Was he not an agitator against the Corn Laws? Surely he was. Had anyone proved that Murphy had violated the law? He was said to have been the cause of riot and of the gutting of houses, but his friends had been the sufferers; and the rioters were not wholly to blame, because they only carried out orders. The Roman Catholics were amiable and Christian like in private, but they belonged to a magnificent organization, and, when ordered, committed acts of violence. In so doing they were only carrying out a principle the reverse of that which Murphy contended for; they were only carrying out the spirit of a decree by Pope Clement VIII, which

      623
      declared that liberty of conscience was a curse. How a Protestant Legislature could approve a system organized to crush expression of opinion he could not understand. It was gratuitously assumed that Mr. Murphy had been the cause of riots; but suppose he had been let alone where would the riots have been? He did not make a riot, but those who opposed him. ["Oh! Oh!"] He (Lord Claud Hamilton) invited hon. Gentlemen who interrupted him to adduce a single instance in which Murphy had aided a riot, broken into any person's house, headed a mob, broken people's heads, or used bludgeons and brickbats instead of arguments in discussion. Had not the President of the Board of Trade been in a minority very often, and would he have considered it fair if his arguments had been met by brickbats? If Murphy had been treated as he ought to have been—if the law had not been violated by others, if he had been left free to say what he had to say, the peace of the country would not have been disturbed by him or his friends.
      MR. MUNTZsaid, that the remarks he had made had been incorrectly quoted. What he said was that Mr. Murphy was an itinerant agitator, whose course had been always followed by bloodshed and riot, and it was the knowledge of these facts which justified the interference of the Mayor of Birmingham.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was important to bear in mind a distinction between two questions—whether it was desirable to retain or to repeal an Act of Parliament, and whether it was proper that the Executive should carry out an existing statute. The Secretary of State for the Home Department might have a private opinion that it was scarcely expedient to maintain a statute; but it did not follow he was to take upon himself to say that under no conceivable circumstances should that statute be enforced, for that would be practically to repeal an Act of Parliament. As long as an Act remained on the statute book it was not for the Secretary of State or the Law Officers of the Crown to declare that it should not, under any circumstances, be enforced. The statute in question was spoken of as old and obsolete, and one that had been forgotten; but in the year 1846 it was considered by Parliament, which came to the conclusion that it was desirable to maintain
      624
      it, with a modification of its provisions. Therefore the Law Officers of the Crown could not assume the responsibility of saying that the statute was one which should not be acted upon. If ever there were any circumstances in which it was proper to put the Act in force they occurred in the case of Murphy. It was not asserted that he was a housebreaker, or that he went sword in hand, and attacked people; but he went about for the purpose of exciting religious animosity; he used language that was indecent and offensive; and he roused into a violent state of excitement—compared with which that of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Claud Hamilton) was nothing—those whose religion he outraged and whose feelings he purposely set at naught. Murphy was rightly described as a firebrand, for wherever he went there were tumult, excitement, and almost insurrection. He was not proceeded against because he was a Protestant; and if a Roman Catholic or a Presbyterian of a hundred-lecturer power went about the country exciting animosity and ill-will he would have to be dealt with in the same manner. Fortunately, there was but one Murphy; there was no man who came near Murphy; this was entirely an exceptional case; and the questions for the Secretary of State in this case were —Will the peace of the country be seriously endangered by Murphy returning to this town? and how is the peace of the country to be maintained? Two courses were open to the Secretary of State—one was repression, the other prevention. He might have directed that police and soldiers should be in readiness to put down the riot if it occurred; or he might prevent the possibility of a riot by acting under the provisions of this Act and preventing the delivery of the lecture. His right hon. Friend took the latter course, and he contended that it was the right course. Mr. Murphy had been described as a man who was sincerely desirous to promote the cause of Protestantism, and who was independent of any considerations of profit. But this statute only gave the authorities power to interfere where lectures were given for money, and if, therefore, he was animated by such Protestant zeal he might have avoided interference by delivering his lectures gratuitously. Instead of this, the price rose in proportion to the excitement occasioned by the lec-

      625
      tures, and the highest price was charged for the kind of excitement which was produced by a visit to Dr. Kahn's museum. The fact seemed to be that if Mr. Murphy loved Protestantism much he loved profit more. The Secretary of State might have resorted to repression and coercion and the use of force, though probably not without serious riot, bloodshed, and plunder. Instead of this he threatened to put the Act into force, and the threat was effectual. If a Roman Catholic or Presbyterian lecturer had gone about exciting tumult of this description, and the Secretary of State had not interfered, in all probability the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would have moved a Vote of Censure upon him for not putting the provisions of this very Act into execution. The Solicitor General and he took their full share of responsibility for the course that had been adopted here; and that was the wisest course which prevented tumult and bloodshed.
      MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, this question now assumed a most serious aspect. It had nothing to do with Popery or Protestantism, religion or politics. The question was whether a person was entitled to express his own opinion in a public meeting convened by himself without being put down by force of riot or force of law. Now, after listening attentively to every word uttered by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he had come to the conclusion, not as a Protestant or a Liberal, but as a lawyer, that his right hon. Friend's own statement put him out of court. Who were the parties concerned? On the one side was a man whom he never saw or heard, but who was an English citizen. This man proposed to deliver a lecture, and why should he be sneered at for fixing a low price for admission in order to cover expenses? Did the Attorney General mean to say that this person was outside the protection of the law when he proposed to lecture on such subjects as the Seven Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, or the practice, doctrines, and principles of Confession? Nobody could deny that herein he was exercising the rights of an English citizen, and had a right to claim the whole force of law for his protection against violence. Nobody need go to his lectures who disapproved them; but at North Shields there was an attempt, not by a
      626
      sudden, but by a concerted riot, to prevent him from delivering them. People came from a distance, across a ferry, with that deliberate object. Well, were they within the law? Of course they were breaking it. As each one joined the others for the purpose of taking a journey to create a tumult, every word they uttered and every step they took in furtherance of their object was a breach of the law. They were guilty of conspiracy to make a riot, and all the force of the law might be fairly invoked by any English citizen against whom they thus put themselves in array. Now, he agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Claud Hamilton) that in the speech of the Secretary of State all the language of extenuation and excuse was for the rioters, while all the language of rebuke and reprimand was for the innocent man; and he defied any man to draw from the argument of the Secretary of State any other conclusion than that the privilege of free speech depended entirely upon the fact of how many people disagreed with you. The position of his right hon. Friend and the Attorney General seemed to be pretty nearly this—"If the people who disagree with you are numerous enough and strong enough and unscrupulous enough, wherever you go, to combine together for the purpose of putting you down, there is an end to free speech and the exercise of the rights of a British citizen. You are not to reckon upon the absolute omnipotence of the law to protect you in the exercise of those rights; but your freedom of speech will depend upon the strength, for the time being, of the party who is opposed to you in opinion." Now, it might be true, though it was not to his knowledge, that Murphy might be personally unworthy of this discussion in the House of Commons, and of any interference in his behalf. But how many great constitutional questions had been fought in the person of an unworthy representative? It was, therefore, nothing to him how far Murphy might be guilty of bad taste and extravagance of language, though not a word had been quoted during the debate to prove this extravagance. It was said that he should never have lectured on these subjects at all. That is, our religious liberty was to be measured by that of a Church which had always denied such liberty. With the Home Office,

      627
      however, the question appeared to be not who was in the right, but which side would be the easiest to put down. The Secretary of State came to the conclusion that it would be the easiest to put a gag upon this man's mouth. True, it was not legal to do so. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is legal.] Well, the Act of 1799 was entitled—"An Act for the more effectual suppression of societies established for seditious and treasonable purposes, and for better preventing treasonable and seditious practices." He asked any candid man whether an Act of Parliament passed for such a purpose as that could, except in some technical sense, be used for the purpose of preventing a man from lecturing upon a religious subject? He maintained that a man so lecturing was entitled to call upon the whole authority of the State to protect him, no matter how much force might be required for that purpose. It was the weakness of the Executive that gave strength to mobs, and the persons who had engaged in those riotous assaults upon individuals and private property had reason to thank the Home Office and rejoice in their success. Murphy was within the law and the law ought to have protected him. The rioters were without the law and the law ought to have put them down. The man who ought to have been protected was put down, and the persons who ought to have been put down were protected. These were his opinions; but as his right hon. Friend had acted with the best intentions and under the advice of the Law Officers, he would not join in censuring him, and therefore he could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
      MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that Murphy came to Tynemouth and delivered lectures which were exceedingly insulting to a large number of the inhabitants. The result was a riot. Murphy left the town, but returned again, and the Mayor thought it his duty to apply to the Home Secretary, and, under the authority of an Act which was not obsolete, the right hon. Gentleman put a stop to Murphy's lectures in Tynemouth. That act of the Home Secretary had the approbation of the whole of the orderly and well-disposed inhabitants, whatever religious denomination they belonged to. Had Mr. Murphy confined himself to vindicating the doctrines of Protestantism his
      628
      lectures would have been popular in Tynemouth; but he had insulted the Roman Catholics in a gross and aggravating manner.
      MR. HOLTsaid, that in this case there was a great question of principle altogether apart from that of the doc-trines preached by Mr. Murphy. It was, however, necessary to mention Mr. Murphy's name, because he was the victim of an act of tyranny. He had supposed that every man in this country was entitled to deliver his opinions without interference so long as he kept himself within the bounds of the law. If Mr. Murphy had said anything illegal the House of Commons ought to be told what it was. It might be that Mr. Murphy was unpopular with a class, but if the liberty of an Englishman were to depend on his popularity, we might say farewell to liberty. In former days, as they had been reminded, minorities had held opinions which subsequently came to be the opinions of the whole country; but, if these opinions had been put down by a strong hand, they would not have occupied the position which they now held. Suppose a Roman Catholic lecturer had been treated as Mr. Murphy was, there would have been half-a-dozen Gentlemen opposite ready to take up the case. There would have been a burst of indignation from every Gentleman immediately opposite had a Conservative Government attempted to stop a lecturer by means similar to those employed by the present Home Secretary, and they J would have been told that Tory tyranny had been put into operation to check discussion. He asked what would be said by the Liberal party in that House if at a Tory meeting in Tynemouth or Birmingham a Tory Mayor caused a Liberal gentleman to be arrested for moving an amendment to a Tory motion? It appeared from a report in the Birmingham Daily Gazette that at the meeting in that town Dr. Sebastian Evans endeavoured to make his way to the chairman with the object of protesting against a motion being put before an amendment to it was seconded, and that the only answer the Mayor made to his protest was to order him into custody. As he understood the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a large number of Irishmen in Tynemouth said they would kill Mr. Murphy; but instead of these Irishmen being arrested,

      629
      Mr. Murphy was prevented from delivering his lecture. The persons who committed an illegal act were protected, and the innocent man was punished. If this were to be the rule of conduct for future Home Secretaries, a man might be imprisoned because Homebody else had threatened to murder him, and he did not know that a Secretary of State might not justify himself in committing a judicial murder by the plea that it was done in order to prevent bloodshed on a larger scale. If a man were to be locked up because a mob of Irishmen chose to break his windows, he should like to ask the Home Secretary whether, on the occasion of the late election, when his political opponents in North-east Lancashire broke the windows of the building in which he was addressing his constituents, the right hon. Gentleman would have felt justified in preventing him from proceeding by locking him up, or by other methods of coercion? Certainly his party had not charged for admission, but surely a man's liberty ought not to depend upon 2d. The question was whether every Englishmen had not a right in a private room to deliver his opinion in such language as he thought fitting to the occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had complained of the strong language that Mr. Murphy had used, but he thought that such a complaint came with a bad grace from the opposite Benches, on which sat hon. and right hon. Members who were in the habit occasionally of expressing their opinions out-of-doors in rather strong language. It was not because a man had used strong language that he was to be put outside the pale of the law. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was known that Mr. Murphy was about to give a mere repetition of his former lectures; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to show that there was anything illegal in those lectures, or anything which justified the course which was adopted. The Act under which Mr. Murphy was arrested was intended to be applied to cases of seditious language, and not to religious lectures. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had told the House that Murphy was known as an itinerant agitator, whose course was marked with bloodshed and riot. He did not stand up as the defender of Mr. Murphy: he was
      630
      unable to say whether the course adopted by him was a wise or an unwise one; but he thought that the hon. Member should have been prepared to show that bloodshed and riot took place at the instigation of Mr. Murphy. What had been the effect of the course taken by the Government in this matter? Why, the mob had already begun to take advantage of it. At a place called Patricroft a mob of Irishmen assaulted some Methodist preachers who were about to preach, and drove them away with the cry—" You're not going to do as you like any longer; we'll have things different… We'll let you that we are under a Liberal Government now." Bible teachers in Ireland were generally pelted — and that, in the belief that such conduct would be upheld by the present Government. That was the conclusion that the masses had drawn from the action of Her Majesty's Government, and such an opinion was not likely to be conducive to either personal liberty or to liberty of speech. It was to that House that the people looked for the defence of their liberties. During the Session hon. Members on opposite Benches had been kept apart by a subject on which they had taken different views, but upon this subject they might join hands and unite, not for the purpose of defending any particular man, or any peculiar theological principle, but for the purpose of defending the principle of personal freedom and of free discussion—a principle in which all, whether Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen, Churchmen, or Nonconformists, were equally interested.
      MR. HENLEYsaid, that they must all agree with the first part of the Motion, which merely propounded the truism that free speech was one of the most important safeguards of good government; but the next part of the Motion went on to propose a Vote of Censure upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Now, it was always a very grave matter to propose a Vote of Censure in that House upon anybody, and the greatest caution should be observed in bringing such a proposition forward. The last part of the Motion applied to the conduct of the Mayor of Birmingham and others. Upon the latter point he should merely observe that if the Mayor of Birmingham and

      631
      others had done anything contrary to the law they would be amenable to the law, and might be made to pay for it without the matter being brought before that House upon an ex parte statement. It would be very unjust for the House to pronounce an opinion on a matter which was or might be sub judice. He then came to the really important question of what had been called an attack upon the freedom of discussion. No one was more jealous than he was of the interference of arbitrary power in any form, whether that of a Secretary of State or a policeman; but he could not help feeling that the freedom of discussion might be injured as much by being abused as by being arbitrarily interfered with. Abuse of that freedom had led to such enactments as that under which the Secretary of State had acted. It had been alleged against the Secretary of State for the Home Department that, being a party to the repeal of this Act, he had on the eve of its repeal put it into force for the purpose of oppressing Mr. Murphy. The right hon. Gentleman himself had pointed out how little it mattered whether an Act of Parliament were moribund or not. As long as it was in existence he had a right to put it into force. He questioned whether the Act of Parliament under which the right hon. Gentleman acted had been repealed by the Newspaper Act. The Act of Parliament which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. T. Chambers), and which was passed in the last year of the last century, was applicable solely to matters of sedition and of the public peace. But there was another Act, 57 Geo. III., passed in the time of the Regency, which, following precisely the clauses of the former Act, was also applicable to meetings held for immoral purposes. The Act 57 Geo. III. was referred to in that of 9 & 10 Vict., which provided that prosecutions could only be conducted by the Law Officers of the Crown. Now, what had the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said? He had produced a handbill setting forth a great many matters which were of such a nature that there was a notice that women were requested not to attend, and that male persons under eighteen years of age would not be permitted to attend the lectures. Well, it was not a very unfair inference to draw from that
      632
      that the subject of the lecture must have been somewhat special. What it was the House had not been exactly told, except that it was something relating to the Confessional. At all events, if it were not suitable for women and male persons under eighteen years of age to hear, it was not a violent conclusion to draw that it might have been something which at least was not of a highly moral nature. If his memory was not treacherous, there existed in London not many years ago an anatomical museum into which women and young persons were not admitted, and he believed that somehow or other that establishment came into contact with the law as not being an extremely proper exhibition. This would almost lead him to the conclusion that there was fair ground for considering that the lecture to which he had just referred was not likely to be of a very proper kind. If so, there had been no straining of the law on the part of the Home Secretary. These were the points which had struck him with reference to this matter. Other persons might not, perhaps, have come to the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman, but the question for the House now to determine was whether a man honestly acting to the best of his ability for the public service had any fair grounds for putting the Act in force. Under the circumstances, he was unable to join in a Vote of Censure on the Home Secretary. There was a responsibility on that right hon. Gentleman, and he was unable to say that he had not acted to the best of his ability. The right hon. Gentleman had not strained the law, and, therefore, he, for one, could not support a Vote of Censure upon his conduct.
      MR. NEWDEGATErose to address the House, whereupon—
      MR. SPEAKERinquired: Does the hon. Member desire to make an explanation?
      MR. NEWDEGATE: No; I am going to reply.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having moved an Amendment, has no right to reply.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: I beg to state— ["Chair!"]
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may ask permission to withdraw his Amendment, but he cannot reply.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: I wish to put

      633
      a question to you, Sir. It is not my intention to move the last paragraph of the Resolution. What am I to do?
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having moved the whole, it is in the possession of the House, and he cannot withdraw any part of the Resolution without the permission of the House.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: Then I ask the permission of the House to withdraw the last paragraph. [" No! "]
      MR. SPEAKER: The House declines to permit it.
      MR. NEWDEGATE: I am in the I hands of the House. It is not the usual course to take a Resolution out of the hands of an hon. Member. [" Order! "]
      MR. SPEAKER: The Resolution has been moved, and is in the possession of House, and it is for the House to decide whether it will permit the whole or any part of it to be withdrawn.
      COLONEL BARTTELOT: I beg to move that the last paragraph of the Resolution be now omitted.
      MR. SPEAKER: The original Question was, that I do now leave the Chair, since which an Amendment has been moved, and it is not competent for the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Barttelot) to rise to make another Motion. That which is before the House must be first disposed of. If it be negatived, then will be the time to move the insertion of words as an Amendment. I must, therefore, put the original Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"

      NAVY—NAVAL AND MILITARY CONTRACTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. MUNTZsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the manner in which Contracts and purchases have been made by the Naval and Military Departments of the Government, and to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to inform the House of the nature of the changes in this respect recently introduced at the Admiralty. The constituencies had a right to look for a considerable reduction of expenditure, without which there could be no great reduction of taxation, and no Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, could expect to retain the
      634
      confidence of the people, which did not address itself earnestly to the task of economical reform. It would therefore be necessary to trace the growth of Imperial and local taxation, and also of naval and military expenditure, between the year 1835 and the present time. In 1835, our Imperial taxation amounted to £44,422,000, and our local taxation to about £11,000,000. At the end of last year, our Imperial taxation had increased to £70,000,000, and our local taxation to £20,000,000. If our Imperial taxation went on increasing as it had done of late years, by the year 1900 it would reach £144,000,000 per annum. It was mainly to the cost of the Army and Navy that we must look for the means of effecting any important saving. The expenditure for those services amounted in 1835 to £11,720,000, whereas, last year, including the supplementary credit and various odds and ends, it reached to about £30,000,000 per annum. The hon. Member next compared the cost of our Army with that of Continental nations, and showed that the soldiers of countries, in every respect our equals, cost a far less sum per man. He did not wish to reduce the number of men in the Army or Navy, but he asked how it was that each soldier of our Army cost £115, while the cost of the Prussian was considerably lower? and it was an army equal in every respect to our own in discipline and efficiency. He was sorry to say there was an immense system of nepotism which pervaded every Department, and which ought no longer to be tolerated. If he had a clerk who did not do his work he would send him away, but under the Government every man, however stupid, had a freehold interest. [" No, no!"] But it really was so; for whenever an attempt was made, as last night, to do away with an useless office, they were immediately told by the Secretary to the Treasury that the holder, if dismissed, would have to receive full pay, because he had a life interest in it. Some fifty years ago, if a boy were very stupid, it would be said—" Oh, put him in the Church." But now that the Church had many pious and educated men as ministers, the best thing that could be done with a stupid lad was to put him in a Government Office. Although, out of regard to a Ministry but recently appointed, the House had not been very pressing, in regard to economy this Ses-

      635
      sion, he begged to say that next year they would not be so easy, and that their constituents would no longer tolerate wasteful and extravagant expenditure. With regard to the question of contracts and purchases, he did not know whether the Army or the Navy was the worst offender. Just as in the case of anchors, which for eighteen years had been purchased from the same man, so he ventured to say that the purchase of almost every other article had been confined to some particular person, and that they might have been obtained, if a business-like plan had been adopted, at far lower rates than they had cost. He begged to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to inform the House of the nature of the changes with regard to the contracts and purchases recently introduced at the Admiralty.
      MR. BAXTERsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) over the very extensive ground which he had travelled, but would merely answer the Question which he had put on the Paper. That the House might fully understand the nature of the changes in the making of contracts which had been introduced at the Admiralty, it would be necessary to contrast the past with the present organization of that Department. In the beginning of this year the Admiralty consisted of the Departments of the Secretary, of the Controller of the Navy, of the Storekeeper General, of the Coastguard, of the Accountant General, of the Director of Works, of the Medical Director General, and others, making ten separate and nearly independent departments, having a staff of clerks and writers numbering 459. The House was aware that while a considerable portion of this large clerical staff was employed at Whitehall a very much larger portion was located at Somerset House. The inconvenience — he might almost say, the absurdity—of such an arrangement could scarcely be exaggerated. Anyone who had experience of the number of messages daily and hourly passing between Whitehall and Somerset House must be sensible of the great waste of time and money involved in such a separation. The first thing that was done when the present Government acceded to Office was to resolve that all this clerical staff should be brought as soon as possible under one
      636
      roof. He was happy to inform the House that a very considerable portion of the staff at Somerset House had been brought to Whitehall, and in a short time that great transfer he hoped would be fully accomplished. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had, at an early period of the Session, informed the House of the nature of the changes which, with great wisdom and foresight, he had made in the constitution and working of the Board of Admiralty itself. These changes needed no defence from him, for he ventured to say that no one conversant with their practical operation for the last few months would impugn their success. Then they were called to consider a reform in the purchase system. The system which formerly existed was, he would venture to say, totally opposed to all sound commercial principles; it was one over which neither the Board of Admiralty itself nor that House exercised any efficient control. What was that system? The Storekeeper General located in Somerset House and his clerks bought all the goods he thought necessary for the dockyards. The Controller of the Victualling Department did the same thing for the fleet, and so on. But it unfortunately happened that not one of the heads of these departments, however great their professional abilities might be, had any commercial knowledge whatever. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, therefore resolved to take from the different departments all matters connected with with purchase, and to establish a purchase department, presided over by a man of business, supported by clerks chosen entirely for their business knowledge, who should be responsible primarily for all purchases. He said primarily because it was thought desirable that the Lords of the Admiralty whose departments required certain articles should have a voice in the manner in which these articles were procured. All the alterations had not been completed, but already, instead of 459 clerks and writers—the number on the 1st of January—there would not be more than about 339 employed by the end of the year. The saving would be about £30,000. This morning the Controller of the Navy Sir Spencer Robinson, who had rendered able assistance in the work of economy, had given him a paper showing that in-

      637
      stead of forty-three clerks and writers employed in the material and construction department of the Admiralty, at a cost of more than £11,000, by the present arrangement twenty-two clerks and writers of all ranks would serve every purpose at a cost of £5,405. He had come to the conclusion that the Admiralty in its civil branches had been greatly overmanned, a defect which naturally led to an increase of unnecessary work; for although many of the Admiralty clerks did as fair a day's work as the clerks in any establishment, others were simply ornamental under the old system, and their departure from the service would be highly beneficial to it. He would next give a few particulars as to the savings that had already been effected in the purchase department. The whole amount of the Store and Victualling Votes taken in the last year's Navy Estimates amounted to £1,708,000. A great part of this amount was made up of standing contracts, which, of course, could not be terminated at once, and most of them had a considerable time to run; but the saving on new purchases, as far as actual price was concerned, was at present on an average 13 per cent; so that if we had been able to deal with the whole contracts this year, £231,000 would have been the saving. One article of large consumption he found cost last year £73 10 s. a ton; he had made several purchases of what he was told on all hands was superior in quality to former purchases, at an average of £43. [Several hon. MEMBERS: What is it?] He did not deem it prudent to mention the article, on the ground that publicity might lead to correspondence in the newspapers; he would, however, be happy to place the paper containing the information desired in the hand of any hon. Member. In marking cordage, which he would mention, as it was a small matter, he had made a saving of £1,800 by using jute instead of worsted; and the officers told him the jute answered better. The saving on a small-coal contract for the Mauritius was no less than £1,500 a year; and in coal they had already saved up to June £12,000. His predecess or in Office (Lord Henry Lennox) had a question on the Paper as to whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to discontinue the use of smokeless coal. He could assure him there was no such intention, but that the Admiralty as
      638
      at present advised, intended to use a mixture of North Country and South Wales coal, which was almost smokeless, and was much approved by scientific men. He should be much surprised if that did not save £30,000 a year. He was quite satisfied that the expenditure on coal this year would not exceed £140,000, as against£345,000 for the year 1867–8, made up of £225,000 for what was bought at home, and £120,000 for the purchases abroad; and the coal would be better in quality into the bargain. They had issued circulars to all the admirals abroad, calling attention to the wasteful expenditure of coal at the different stations. Then, in reference to the articles purchased for the use of officers and men on board our ships, a similar supervision had resulted in a similar saving. An article of great consumption bought for 9d. per pound in former years was now bought at 6½d., the quality being superior at the lower price in the estimation of the examining officers. On another article he had effected a saving of 38½ percent. Another article bought last year at 1s. 7½d. was this year bought at 1s. 5d.; and in the case of other articles the reductions made were from 9s. 1½d. per bushel to 6s. 4¾d., and from 8s. 4d.> per bushel to 6s. 4d. In the case of another article the price which had been paid was £22 15 s. a ton, and the price this year was £16 3s. a ton. Let it not be thought that in making these purchases he had been actuated entirely by a desire to get goods as cheaply as possible. On the contrary, his desire had been to get the best that were in the market, and in one particular instance he directed the payment of an advance of from 20 to 25 per cent in the price of an article which a contractor had supplied for many years at low prices, but of an extremely inferior quality. He was sorry to say this was not all. He found on entering Office that the Admiralty was doing business with a great many firms that were simply not respectable. One of the first things he did was to close the accounts of all those firms; and now a register was very carefully kept of the results of inquiries in regard to the means and the respectability of every firm proposing to do business with the Admiralty. It would not be prudent to state, in detail, all the irregularities, not to say corruption, that had prevailed in connection

      639
      with, the making of contracts; far less would it do for him to tell the House the precise manner in which these transactions had been managed. At the same time he would not mince matters; he would call spades spades; and he would say at once that a system of what was called "tipping" had prevailed both at Somerset House and at the dockyards — a system which it had been and should be his endeavour to uproot. They all knew that the system was not confined to the Admiralty, nor even to the Government Departments, but it prevailed extensively in railway and other large public companies; and it was high time, if England wished to retain her commercial honour, that an effort should be made to put an end to it. It did not require the Rumble-Gambier trial, the annotations found in the note books of those now in gaol, the subsequent discoveries of detectives, or the representations made to him by firms of the highest respectability in the City of London to convince him that for many years past money had been given in order to obtain contracts and also to pass goods at the dockyards. It had been directed that all contracts should for the future be made by an officer directly responsible to the House of Commons, and a circular was issued stating that when a contractor felt himself aggrieved by the rejection of his goods he had only to write to the Financial Secretary of the Admiralty, who would appoint an arbitrator to investigate the whole transaction. He had not thought it prudent to adopt any particular mode of purchase. Sometimes purchases were made by advertisement, sometimes by tender, sometimes by direct offer, and sometimes by an agent or broker, that course being adopted which at the time seemed to be the best. It was not always prudent, without respect to times and seasons, to advertise the wants of the Government in the newspapers; the result sometimes was to encourage combination and to send up the market price, for as soon as the Government was known to be in the market prices went up immediately. He found that a number of galling and harassing conditions had been imposed upon contractors, such as heavy bonds and stamped contracts for the most trifling transactions. The other day a case came before him in which the value of the stamp was greater than
      640
      the amount of the transaction. Such things had been going on from time immemorial, and he was trying to put an end to them. An examination of patterns showed that 60 or 70 per cent of them were obsolete, and that fact alone had restricted the supply to certain antiquated sources. Speaking generally, he had endeavoured to conduct the business of purchasing for the Admiralty precisely as he conducted his own business; and he had received great assistance from friends, both in and out of the House, and particularly from junior officers of the Navy, who came forward to expose the faults of the prevailing system. The result had been to show that the business of a great Government Department, as far as purchasing was concerned, might be conducted on very nearly as advantageous terms as the business of a private firm. In the discussion on the Navy Estimates, horror was expressed at the idea of our having introduced copying presses. He had since made another innovation, which was to subscribe to business papers and prices current, so that the officials might know the value of things in the market. Much remained to be done in the judicious disposal of old stores, of timber, copper, and various kinds of iron, the quantities of which lying out were beyond all conception. The other day there came to him from one of the dockyards a demand for an enormous quantity of birch brooms, and that suggested an inquiry as to the cost of cleaning the dockyards, which proved to have been £23,000 a year. Economy, he believed, had only just begun. Without striking off a single sailor on a single ship, without impairing the efficiency of the Navy even in the event of war, there was great room for enormous reductions in these over-grown establishments. With the questions of the amount of naval force to be kept up and of the disposition of the fleet he had nothing to do. His had been the humbler task of assisting his right hon. Friend the First Lord in attempting to show the people of this country that if they still desired to retain a Navy far superior to that of any other Power—and certainly they had that at the present moment— they could do it at a much reduced cost.
      SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he regretted that in the absence of the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), and of

      641
      the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), the task of saying a few words on the subject of the reply they had just heard had fallen to him. He could not but feel that the mode in which the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the reforms he had introduced rather reflected upon his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry) and his predecessors in Office. The object, he believed, of every Administration had been, as far as lay in their power, to endeavour to effect an economical administration of the public service, combined with due efficiency; and if there were any reflection at all it fell much more upon the Administration of which the present First Lord had been a member for five or six years, during Lord Palmerston's Government, than upon the Administration which held Office for two years from 1866 to 1868. The system of public contracts had this advantage, that no member of the Board of Admiralty had ever been charged with complicity with those to whom public contracts were given. He did not for one moment intend to throw any blame upon the present Board of Admiralty for the system they had inaugurated, but they had yet to show that the system was successful. He knew that as long as his right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had the conduct of the affairs of that Department the public honour was safe in their hands; but, he confessed, that where there would be pressure in time of war, and where enormous purchases were entrusted to one individual, there would be more risk to the public, through that individual being tampered with, than there was in the system of public contracts. Indeed, he believed that where large and considerable transactions were involved, the system of public contracts was likely to be more advantageous and more economical than any system of private purchase. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that by going into the market and entrusting the purchase to a private individual he had succeeded in purchasing what was required at a less cost, and in securing an article of a better quality; and when his hon. Friend made that statement on his official responsibility, he was perfectly willing to accept it. But three or four months' experience was not suffi-
      642
      cient to prove the efficiency of the system, and he believed that the system of contract had hitherto been fairly, openly, and advantageously conducted by those to whom it had been entrusted. With reference to the coal purchases, as he understood the matter, certain additional orders had been sent to officers on foreign stations, desiring them to exercise economy in the consumption of fuel. But the orders had always been very stringent on that point, and officers, if they neglected to pay attention to them, were liable to reprimand and punishment. He thought it would, perhaps, be well to wait until the Estimates for next year were produced, until they decided whether any reduction had been made in the consumption of fuel, and whether any advantage had accrued to the public service through the change. It had been asserted that the smoky and bituminous coal was more advantageous to the public service than the smokeless fuel which had been introduced into the Navy. That might be so, but the reports from the coast of Africa and the China station, the two stations where it was necessary to maintain our ships at war efficiency, showed that with the former the service was ill-performed, and that the smoke of the steamers betrayed their position; and, if that was so, of course the difference of 2s. per ton was a matter not worthy of consideration for a moment. He was, therefore, very sorry to find the First Lord of the Admiralty and his hon. Friend reversing the arrangement which had been made by the late Board. It was not possible for him to offer much criticism upon the statement made by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty with regard to articles unnamed and unknown, and with regard to market conditions about which his hon. Friend had thought it right to be reticent. He was by no means disposed to criticize unfavourably many of the changes made at the Admiralty; but he could not help thinking that the reflections which had been thrown upon the hon. Gentleman's predecessors at the head of the Admiralty, and the mode in which the changes had on that occasion been announced to the House, were unworthy the character of the hon. Gentleman by whom that statement had been made.
      MR. CANDLISHsaid, he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Gentle-

      643
      man the Secretary of the Admiralty for the clear statement he had made; and he (Mr. Candlish) felt personally grateful to his hon. Friend for the firm and courageous action which he had inaugurated at the Board of Admiralty in connection with the right hon. Gentleman who presided over that Department. He did not understand that his hon. Friend had thrown reflections upon any of his predecessors at the Board. The evils which he denounced were the growth of years, and had become inherent in the system. In a Committee upstairs he was surprised to learn from an officer of the Navy that he did not think it necessary to inquire into the market price of articles at all, but that he trusted entirely to public tenders. He was glad to find from the admirable statement of his hon. Friend that the new system had resulted in so great economy, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War would be able to tell an equally nattering tale as to the Army. He wished to know whether the clerks that were to be superseded were to be allowed a freehold in their services. The country was now spending £4,000,000 a year on non-effective services, or something like 15 or 20 per cent of the whole sum devoted to the maintenance of the Army and Navy; and this would be increased if the unnecessary clerks were to receive life pensions. He wished to ask whether anything had been done to effect a reduction in the number of non-effectives?
      MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought it but right to congratulate any Administration that was able to make such a statement as that which he had heard that evening from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Admiralty. He believed, however, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry), whose absence that evening was a source of regret to them all, would, had he remained at the Admiralty, have carried out many advantageous alterations, as his right hon. Friend was fully alive to the importance and necessity of introducing reforms. Ever since he had heard the speech of the present first Lord of the Admiralty he had felt that a new system was about to be initiated in the Department. He placed great confidence in his right hon. Friend, and might be permitted to observe that he had with great firmness and vigour carried out a system of re-
      644
      form, which perhaps was partly due to the inquiries of the Select Committee of last year. The members of that Committee were not able to lay their hands distinctly upon any portion of any particular Department in which those reforms could be specified, but they one and all became in the course of that inquiry thoroughly convinced that there was much to be done in the way of reform. He was exceedingly glad to hear that the system of purchase was undergoing an alteration; for, though he agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that if a spirit of competition existed a system of contracts might be very well, this system depended on the way in which they took their contracts. They had at the Admiralty a contract list, and it was against it the manufacturers and producers of the country had set their faces, because while it existed there was no fair criterion. He was glad the contract list had been abolished, and he hoped it had been abolished for ever.
      MR. RATHBONEsaid, the country had long been indignant at the mode of management pursued by the Admiralty in respect to contracts. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty would be supported by the House in his efforts to reform abuses.
      MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he thought the House and the country had reason to feel grateful for the able statement laid before them that night. It was hardly fair on the part of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Hay) to say that the remarks of the Secretary to the Admiralty implied a censure on his predecessor, at the Admiralty. The real reason why the business of the Admiralty had been better conducted under the present Government was that that Department, or at least the financial part of it, was in the hands of a man of business. No doubt the heads of the War and other Departments were anxious to conduct the service in an economical manner, but so long as they were at the mercy of subordinates so long would the country have to complain of wasteful and extravagant expenditure. It was notorious to business men that both at the Admiralty and in the War Department, especially the latter, there was a systematic corruption in respect of contracts, and the result had been that the most respectable houses would

      645
      not accept a Government contract. During the Crimean War the worst articles were purchased at the highest prices. He himself had brought under the notice of Lord Northbrook, when he was Mr. Baring, a case in which a quantity of underclothing had been purchased for the troops under these circumstances. The articles were made at Nottingham and sold to a Dublin commission agent in Dublin, who sold them to an army clothier in that city, by whom they were sold to the War Department at 40 per cent over the original price. Again, he had been asked to inspect a quantity of cotton socks for the army. He found that the pattern had been sealed in 1823; and that for twenty years there had been no machinery at work which could make socks such as the sealed pattern. The goods furnished were no more like the sealed pattern than he was like Hercules. Another great source of waste were the manufacturing departments of the Government. We had gunpowder enough to last us for ten years, if not twice as long, and nearly 70,000,000 cartridges, which were in rapid process of deterioration. He believed that, if pains were taken to investigate the matter, it would be found that we had in store stocks of articles sufficient for five years, though tenders were taken for those articles year after year. During the preparations for the war in Abyssinia coals were required in the Thames. A contractor with whom a contract was made at the time of the Crimean War claimed his right to supply 10,000 tons. Was it not ridiculous to make a coal contract for so long a period as five years? Every one knew that coals had fallen 25 or 30 per cent within the last few years. He could have no hope of at complete reform in contracts for the Army as long as the War Department was under two separate roofs. The dual system was a mysterious and complicated device for showing "how not to do it."
      SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he could not congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty either on the prudence of his financial statements, or the taste which had characterized the remarks in which he alluded to his predecessors. The thanks of the House were eminently due to the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), whose cumulative knowledge and general ad-
      646
      ministration exceeded that possessed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There were only two contracts in the Navy which could be regarded as close contracts, and those were for anchors and for steam-engines. All the other articles in use in the Navy had been bought by open contract. The anchors had been bought from Messrs. Brown, Lennox and Co., ever since he went to sea, forty-five years ago, and from that time to the present no ship had ever gone on shore from the fault of the anchor, nor had any vessel parted from her chains where it was at all possible to hold on. In the Crimea the superiority of their anchors and cables enabled Her Majesty's ships to ride out the storms in safety, while the unfortunate transports, supplied with rotten cables by the much-vaunted men of business, were running ashore and being knocked to pieces. This showed that those who had gone before the right hon. Gentleman who now administered the Navy were not such fools as he appeared to think they were. The hon. Member had taken credit for the reductions in the prices of the contracts; but was not hemp 13 per cent cheaper during the present year than it was last, and were not beef and peas also a great deal cheaper, while flour alone was a little dearer? Then they had been told that the firms with which the late Admiralty had dealt were not respectable; whether they were or not, it was not for him to decide; but all he could say was that as a Dockyard Member he should institute a pretty strict inquiry as to the existence of "tipping," to which allusion had been made. With regard to the birch brooms, the hon. Member, being a new broom himself, was naturally a little jealous of them, but surely he could not complain of an annual charge of £20,000 for keeping seven dockyards clean. The First Lord of the Admiralty had so diminished the number of vessels that the condition of the Navy was reduced below what he had ever known it to be before, except when, in Sir James Graham's time, there was only one ship to represent the Channel Fleet. If any complication were to take place now the whole concern would fall on the head of the First Lord of the Admiralty like a house of cards. With regard to the subject of these purchases, he might say that he had a great jealousy of mercantile men. There were scarcely ten firms

      647
      in existence now that were in being forty-five years since; and in no case had Government officers been guilty of the misconduct that clerks in merchants' offices had been guilty of. Of all persons in the world to attack Government officers mercantile men should be the last. This might be plain speaking, but he was sent to that House to speak the truth, and he would take care to do so. As to coal, he disliked the mixture which had been spoken of, and would prefer to have either a really good smoky coal, or one that did not smoke at all. But if they were to continue to carry on warlike operations with the secresy of movement which was often necessary, and if they did not wish to have the sailors' clothes and the ships' rigging destroyed by the smoke, they would have the smokeless coal. In conclusion, he expressed his satisfaction with the fact that the Abyssinian War Committee would soon be compelled to stop its labours, and he hoped that Parliament would never again see anything of the kind instituted.
      MR. CHILDERSsaid, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty had spoken very clearly as to the arrangements which had been made in connection with the purchase of stores; but he had not claimed, as he might have done, credit for them as having been entirely worked out by him. The general principle had been stated to the House in opening the Estimates, but the whole of the very difficult details had been worked out by his hon. Friend. One or two questions of some little importance had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay). His hon. Friend's observations with regard to the subject of coal arose, he believed, from his not having quite appreciated the answer which he (Mr. Childers) had given at the commencement of the Session, when he was asked what change had been made in reference to the purchase of coal. It was quite true that the late Board of Admiralty, upon a report furnished from the West Coast of Africa, had decided upon altering the system which had been in practice, but he thought it scarcely right because of a report in favour of smokeless coal from one station that none but Welsh coal should be used in the Navy. He would like now to refer to the remarks made by his hon. Friend the Member for Shef-
      648
      field (Mr. Mundella), and he could assure his hon. Friend that they were doing all in their power to ascertain the quantity of obsolete stock, and also to regulate more economically their supplies in all parts of the world. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), in refering to the non-effective services, had asked him whether, while cutting off from the top, they had at the same time put a stop to the supplies at the bottom. In answer to that question, he might state that, with one exception, he had not made a single civil appointment since he came into Office, that he did not intend to make any, and that he believed that none would be necessary for years to come. In regard, too, to the number of officers having the right to superannuation and compensation on their offices being abolished.—what was commonly called "the establishment" —this class would be reduced by the appointment of a class at present known under the name of "writers." The House, too, might have observed that within the last few days a Pensions Commutation Bill had been passing through its different stages. That Bill had passed both Houses almost sub silentio; but under its provisions they would be enabled to reduce the non-effective list, and also the list of officers on half-pay. Although its operation would be gradual, and they would have to take care that justice was done to all concerned, they had every reason to believe that it would lead to a great reduction in our offices and establishments. His hon. Friend who had last spoken had said that he had so reduced the Navy that the whole concern would give way on the first occasion. It was very easy to make such a statement, but he ventured to anticipate a very different result. When he brought forward the Estimates this year he stated that he had not reduced the Navy by a single blue jacket. So far from our Navy being less efficient, he was able to say that it never was stronger, whether at sea, or in our home ports; and he would point to the power of calling out the Reserve fleet, the despatch of the flying squadron, and the condition of the Channel and Mediteranean Fleets in evidence of this.
      MR. CARDWELLdesired to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member

      649
      for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who had made a very serious charge in reference to Army purchases—such a charge as ought never to be lightly made. His hon. Friend might remember that after the Crimean War Lord Panmure introduced a new system of purchase into the Army. Under that plan, as was now being done by his right hon. Friend and his hon. Friend in the case of the Navy, the Department by which the purchase was made and the Department by which the article was consumed were held entirely distinct. Inspection, again, was independent of the reception of the article, and the vouchers in each case made out by distinct officers, met together in the hands of the auditors, and were subjected to examination before payment was made. He could not suppose that there was anything in the Department with which he had the honour to be connected that could be regarded as winking at a fraud or anything of that nature, but if any hon. Friend of his would bring to his knowledge any fact pointing in ever so small a degree in the direction of "tipping" he would promise that no vigilance should be wanting on his part to thoroughly investigate the matter. He ought to say that the plan established by Lord Panmure, which was conducted at that time under the immediate direction of Sir Benjamin Hawes, was, like that in the Navy, chiefly, though not exclusively, carried on by tender. They endeavoured, as far as possible, to follow the plan adopted by large commercial firms—to buy in the market by private purchase where that plan was the more advantageous, and to purchase by tender where such a plan would be adopted by large commercial houses. [Mr. MUNDELLA: A close list.] It was undoubtedly a close list to a certain extent; but any person who desired to be placed on the list had only to communicate with the Department and to produce satisfactory references of his respectability to enable him to get his name placed upon the list. He had understood his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary of the Admiralty to say that he had found that the Admiralty had been in the habit occasionally of contracting with firms that were not respectable, and this plan had been adopted to prevent the continuance of that practice. When he came into Office he found that the control sys-
      650
      tem had been established, a system which, though it dated back as far as Lord De Grey and Lord Herbert, owed its immediate introduction to the action of his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). Under that system a thorough examination was now being instituted into all departments of the service. If they found that the system, which had been in force during the last fourteen or fifteen years, could be improved they were anxious and desirous of adopting improvements. With regard to retrenchment, he had no desire to take exclusive credit to himself for the reduction that had been made, but he might observe that the Store Vote was now less by one-third than it was in the previous year, and a reduction was going on in the various administrative departments of the Army. He had made these remarks for the purpose of doing justice to the Department over which he had the honour to preside, and for the purpose of explaining to the House what had been done by his predecessors. It was his intention earnestly and steadily to promote to the utmost of his power that system of economy of which he had spoken, and with respect to the non-effective Votes, all he could say was that, like his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty, he had not made a civil appointment since he came into Office, and he thought the day was distant when he should do so. He entirely approved the system of diminishing permanent appointments as far as possible, and nothing would give him more satisfaction than to select for mere mechanical duties men who had served their country in the Army in earlier life.
      MR. HENLEYwished to say a single word upon the subject of private purchase or contract. He would not offer any opinion upon the general question; but his belief was that if any Government made large private purchases they would become as unpopular as could be desired; for the most unfounded allegations would be made against them.
      Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
      Committee deferred till Monday next.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
      House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Courts of Justice Salaries and Funds* (215); Cinque Ports Act Amendment * (216); Contagious Diseases (Animals) * (217); Contagious Diseases* (221).
Second Reading—Prevention of Gaming (Scotland* (206); Debts of Deceased Persons* (169).
Committee— Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment (No. 2)* (205).
Committee— Report — High Constables' Office Abolition, &c* (99).
Report—Endowed Schools* (192–220); Medical Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* (180); Fines and Fees Collection * (155); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (183).
Third Reading—Assessed Rates* (174); Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland)* (175); Seamen's Clothing* (189); Queen Anne's Bounty (Superannuation Allowances)* (185), and, passed.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the amendments made by the Lords to the amendments made by the Commons to the amendments made by the Lords, and the consequential amendment, agreed to; and the amendments made by the Lords to which the Commons had disagreed and on which the Lords have insisted, agreed to.

RAILWAYS (INDIA)—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I have to lay on the table certain despatches lately received from the Governor General of India on the construction of railways in that country, together with the reply which, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I have made to the Government of India with reference to that important question. The construction of railways has so important a bearing on the subject of the finances of our Indian Empire that I have thought this a convenient opportunity for fulfilling the pledge which I gave the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) at an early period of the Session that I would make a statement with regard to the se finances. The "Indian Budget" is a term altogether inapplicable to the financial statements made from time to time to the British Parliament by Secretaries of State for India. The British Parliament does not authorize the expenditure in India nor vote the Indian taxes, the estimate of expenditure and income for the year being made by the Finance Minister in India before the Legislative Council there. All that could be done here is to give an explanation of the state of matters brought before the Indian Legislature. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships at any length with the statement of the Budget for the current year, because to the se who do not remember the pre-existing state of Indian finance, the figures for the present year have little significance. I shall state very shortly the Estimate for the current year; but I am most anxious to give the House an idea of the state of Indian finance by placing before them a comparison of the last year for which we have completed accounts with the beginning of the last decennial period. The last year for which we are in possession of completed
522
accounts is the year 1867–8, the tenth since the Mutiny; and, in order to give an idea of the general progress of Indian finance, I propose to compare the revenue and expenditure of that tenth year since the Mutiny, with the year preceding the Mutiny. I shall then state the regular Estimate for 1868–9, and the Budget Estimate for 1869–70. I will first state the increase of revenue arising from our Indian Empire since the Mutiny —that is, compare the revenue of 1856–7 with the revenue of 1867–8. In the year immediately preceding the Mutiny the revenue stood at £33,378,026; whereas the revenue for 1867–8 stood at £48,534,412; in other words there has been an increase in the ten years of £15,156,386, or 45½ per cent on the whole revenue of the Indian Empire. First of all, in the excise there is an increase of £1,318,581, duo to an additional duty on distilleries; and in assessed taxes an increase of £653,848, due to the imposition of a new tax, the license tax, which is substantially a modified income tax. Customs show an increase of £1,380,735, arising from a revised tariff, but not generally from increased duties; on the salt tax there is an increase of £2,133,037, a large portion of it being due to increased duties; and stamps of £1,573,481; while the electric telegraph, a new item, amounts to £241,947; thus showing that of the whole £15,000,000 of increase, £7,301,620 is due to sources of revenue on which there has been increased or new taxation. Turning next to that portion of the increase not due to this cause, the land revenue shows an increase of £2,083,727; opium of £3,912,043; the post office of £399,487; law and justice of £667,108; marine of £295,573, and miscellaneous of £707,714. These items of increase are peculiarly satisfactory, especially the increase in the customs duties, since concurrently with this increase in the total receipts there has been a very large reduction in the duties levied immediately after the Mutiny. There has been very much the same process, indeed, in India as in this country of diminishing the number of articles on which duties are levied, and in many cases of reducing the rates levied on the se articles. Generally speaking, the tariff stood before the Mutiny at 5 per cent, with some exceptional classes at 3½ to 10 per cent;

523
cotton piece-goods being at 5 per cent, and cotton thread, twist, and yarn at 3½ per cent. Now, on fifty-five classes out of sixty-six the duty is 7½ per cent, including cotton thread, but cotton twist and cotton piece-goods are still at 3½ and 5 per cent respectively. The land revenue has increased in all the provinces of India, and this is peculiarly satisfactory, because it is going on concurrently with more moderate assessment and a lower rate. In some cases we do not now take more than 50 per cent from the net produce of the soil, whereas in former times upwards of 66 per cent was taken. This shows, then, a pretty steady increase in the land revenue. In the Punjaub the increase is £112,000; in Madras, £412,000; in Bombay, £710,000; in Bengal, £282,000; and in Oude, £362,000. No doubt one of the minor causes of the increase is that we have had, to a certain extent, confiscated estates subsequent to the Mutiny, and we have had the resumption of rent-free estates also to a small extent; but, as far as I can make out, some £250,000 would fully account for the whole increase due to these sources, and the rest of the increase must be attributed to the increase of cultivation and the general prosperity of the people. With regard to opium, which stands at a very high figure, I find that in the ten years since the Mutiny, the net receipts from opium have risen from £3,861,045 to £7,049,447, being an increase of £3,188,402. It may be interesting to your Lordships to have a short statement of the increase of Indian trade during the same period, which is also peculiarly satisfactory as showing the progress of the property of the Empire. The imports in the year before the Mutiny were—£28,608,284, while in 1866–7 they were—£44,291,496; showing an increase of £15,683,212. The exports in the year before the Mutiny were — £26,591,877, while they now stand at £50,202,777; showing an increase of £23,610,900. To the increase in the imports cotton goods contribute £8,247,960, and cotton twist and yarn £1,488,152; metals for the purpose of railway construction figure very largely, contributing also. As regards exports it is satisfactory to find that the export of raw cotton has increased from £1,437,949 before the Mutiny to £19,756,489, the increase being £18,318,540; and that the export of grain has also
524
nearly doubled, having increased from £2,587,456 to £4,168,935; the increase being £1,581,479. With regard to agricultural produce, including seeds for the purpose of making oil, wool, coffee, tea, and jute, these have increased since the Mutiny by £22,358,887. This, remember, is a comparison of two ordinary normal years, and it by no means gives an adequate idea of the resources of our Indian Empire as regards production, when there are any unusual circumstances stimulating production, for, in 1865–6, during the American War, the imports increased from £28,608,000 to £56,156,000; and the exports from £26,591,000 to £67,656,000; of which raw cotton alone accounts for £34,000,000, and grain for £2,660,000. This increase of exports and imports is a most satisfactory indication, not only of the existing trade of the country, but of its enormous resources, whenever any extraordinary circumstances bring high prices to bear to stimulate production. The postal increase is another gratifying item, for the letters and newspapers received for delivery have increased from 37,260,000 to 67,978,000. Before passing to items of expenditure, I wish to call the attention of the House to a statement which has been made in this country that our Indian Empire has for a great many years been in a state of chronic deficit. This is an inaccurate statement of the facts of the case. There was, of course, an enormous deficit in the year of the Mutiny, and for four or five years afterwards there was also a very large deficit; but of the seven years which succeeded 1861, when the Mutiny deficits came to an end, three have shown either small deficits or an actual surplus. In 1861–2 the deficit was the nominal one of £50,000; in 1863–4, there was a surplus of £78,000; in 1864–5, there was a deficit of only £193,000; while, in 1862–3, there was a surplus of £1,800,000; in 1865–6, one of £2,766,000; this last being partly due to a mere question of account, but partly also to a large increase in the opium revenue. The year 1866–7 was altogether exceptional, only eleven months being taken, owing to a change in the system of accounts; and in 1867–8 there was a deficit of £1,000,000
I now proceed to give an account of the expenditure for 1867–8. The revenue, as I have already stated, being £48,534,412; the expenditure was

525
£49,542,107, leaving a deficit of a little more than £1,000,000. This increase of expenditure, which is a little more than the increase of revenue, arises, in the first place, from the military expenditure in India and in England. Exclusive of military buildings, the army showed an increase of £1,863,625 in India; and £1,457,755 in England; making a total of £3,321,880. Together with this there is an increase in the police force of £1,341,085; making for the internal defence of India an increase of £4,662,465. In public works the increase of expenditure during the same period was £1,943,689; and in the charges connected with the collection of the revenue, £2,180,483. Law and justice stand for £824,980; science and education for £536,903; superannuation and retiring allowances £548,044; interest on the increase of debt, since the Mutiny, £2,684,408; and, lastly, the loss on the guaranteed interest to railway companies over and above the traffic returns, which is £1,136,238; thus accounting for £14,500,000 out of the total increase of £15,000,000. The other items are such as are not easily classified. I will now refer to one or two of the items on which an enormous increase has arisen. First, as to the army. Before the Mutiny the number of European troops was 45,522 and the Native army numbered 249,153; making a total of 294,675; the cost being £12,781,916; while the police force cost only £1,093,040; so that the total cost of the army and police was £13,874,956. There are now 64,704 Europeans and 122,984 Natives, a total of 197,688 men, at a cost of £16,054,061 for the army, and £2,374,290 for the police, showing a total of £18,428,351; or an increase on the year before the Mutiny of £4,553,395. Lord Canning, before he left India, estimated that when the immediate exigencies of the Mutiny should have passed away the cost of the army and police would be £15,266,378, whereas it has been £18,428,351—showing, therefore, that the military expenditure for India was not only very much in excess of what it stood at before the Mutiny, but also considerably in excess of what Lord Canning estimated for the necessities of our Indian Empire. Perhaps it may not be thought quite fair to compare the expense of the army with its expense before the Mutiny, because undoubtedly
526
everyone believed that the expense of a much larger European army must necessarily be greater. It is, perhaps, fairer, therefore, to compare the military expenditure of last year with the lowest point to which it has been reduced since the Mutiny—namely, 1863–4, when the expense was reduced to £14,546,410; it now stands at £16,054,061, being an increase of £1,507,651, in addition to an increase in the cost of military buildings of nearly £1,000,000, to which I shall afterwards refer. I have endeavoured to ascertain the causes of this very large increase, with the view of seeing whether any reduction could be made, and I have directed the attention of Lord Mayo and the Government of India very earnestly to the question whether considerable economy might not be carried out in the military expenditure. A considerable portion of the increased cost can, however, be satisfactorily accounted for. I find from the speech of Sir Richard Temple, the Finance Minister for India, in the Indian Council in the early part of the year, that much of this increased expense has arisen from the necessity of giving increased pay and better clothing to the troops. Then there is a considerable increase on account of providing for the wives and families of a larger number of married soldiers. A third cause is the increased pay to Native troops; a fourth, a large increase in the cost of the medical staff; a fifth, the extension of batta; a sixth, the cost of Staff corps; and a seventh, compensation to Nativ o troops for the great rise in the price of provisions in India. These various causes are calculated by Sir Richard Temple to account for an increase of £950,000. Then there are the following causes of increase in England, owing to the very much larger number of European troops kept in India. The cost of transport of troops has increased by £255,713, the charges for recruiting by £420,231, the retired pay pensions and furlough allowances by £460,199; thus accounting for an increase of £1,136,143. There remains another £1,000,000 for which I confess I am unable to account, and I earnestly trust that, the attention of the Government having been directed to the point, some economy may be effected both in England and in India with regard to the military expenditure required for the latter. With regard to recruit-

527
ing, a joint Committee is now sitting on behalf of the War Office and the India Office, and I hope that the result of their labours may be a considerable reduction in the cost; for I cannot help expressing an opinion that the increase in the cost of recruiting is inordinately large, and that a considerable saving may be effected. The expenses of law and justice account for an increase of £741,798, which is satisfactorily accounted for by such items as the establishment of a new system of registration, which is likely to pay for its own cost—the multiplication of small cause courts in the Mofussil and other districts, the very large outlay on gaols and prisons, the administration of justice in the Punjaub and Oude, and the increased salaries of Judges. I now come to another formidable item of the increased charge on the Indian revenue —the interest on the increasing amount of debt. The total amount of debt raised since the Mutiny is £50,425,000; but £7,648,000 having been paid off, the net increase, at the end of 1868, was £42,777,000. The whole debt of India immediately before the Mutiny stood at £53,489,115, while now it stands, I am sorry to say, at £96,251,543, the average rate of interest on the whole being £4 13 s. 8d. per cent. A very large portion of the debt being raised during the difficulties of the Mutiny, when our credit was considerably damaged, the rate of interest was higher than it would otherwise have been; but our recent loans have been raised on very favourable terms—namely, in England at only 4 per cent, and in India at 4½. The total increased charge due to this increase of debt is £2,305,000. The state of our Indian credit is extremely satisfactory, being better than any of the great European States, for France, I believe, pays something more than 4 per cent on its national debt. Another large item of increase is the loss on the guaranteed railways; for in 1867–8 the total expenditure on this account stood at £1,768,744; the total amount of capital guaranteed to railway companies at the close of 1867 was £75,020,436, and during 1868–9 and 1869–70 it is calculated that there will be an increase of £10,000,000. Observations have lately been made in India which would convey the impression that the Indian Government have no control over the expenditure which occurs in this country, and
528
that considerable economy might be effected in it. The fact is that the items of expenditure in this country are very few, and, excepting that of recruiting, they are such that there is very little chance of any diminution being effected on them. There are charges connected with the collection of revenue in India amounting to £275,381, and direct charges on the revenue of India, including the army, debt, superannuations, furlough allowances, &c, amounting to £6,681,806, added to which is the guaranteed interest on railways, £3,494,317, making a total of £10,451,504, independently of certain items which are mere matters of account. The result, then, is that while our revenue is increased by upwards of £15,000,000, our expenditure has increased rather more; so that there is an actual deficit upon the ordinary income and expenses of our Indian Empire for the last year for which we have completed accounts of a little more than £1,005,000. Before passing to 1868-9 and. 1869–70, I wish to explain an item which has recently appeared in Indian expenditure, and which is likely to occupy a much more prominent place in future years—I mean extraordinary expenditure for public works. In the last Minute which Lord Dalhousie recorded before he left India, reviewing his own administration, and referring to the frequent deficits in Indian revenue and expenditure, he says—
"But these apparent deficits are caused by the enormous expenditure which the Government is now annually making upon public works, designed for the general improvement of the Indian Empire. Wherefore a large annual deficit must and will continue to appear unless the Government shall, unhappily, change its present policy, and abandon the duty which I humbly conceive it owes to the territories entrusted to its charge. The ordinary revenues of the Indian Empire are amply sufficient to meet all its ordinary charges; but they are not sufficient to provide for the innumerable and gigantic works which are necessary to its due improvement. It is impracticable to effect, and absurd to attempt, the material improvement of a great empire by an expenditure which shall not exceed the limits of its ordinary annual income."
This, I need hardly observe, points to the absolute necessity of continuing great public works, and of meeting the cost by special loans. Now, in November 1865, in answer to a despatch from the Government of India on this subject, my noble Friend the then Secretary of State (Viscount Halifax), replying to the Government of India with reference to irri-

529
gation works, which constantly amounted to much more than £500,000 sterling, gave a qualified assent to the proposal that this expenditure should be met by separate loans, of which a separate account should be kept. During the few months when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) held the seals of the India Office he replied very much to the same effect, and he approved the principle of providing by special loans for such outlay as roads, barracks, and remunerative public works, but he refused to include in it prisons or gaols. His immediate successor, Sir Stafford Northcote, declined to allow other than remunerative works to be included in such loans; and in July 1868, he sent out a definitive despatch regulating the works in future to be met by special loans, and to be called extraordinary works. His decision was that irrigation and "special fund" works should alone be included under this head. Now, had the decision of the noble Marquess been adhered to, and barracks and great military buildings been included in extraordinary public works, the Indian expenditure and revenue would now have shown no deficit. The deficit has not been above the sum expended on great military buildings. A great scheme for new barracks has cost for the last five or six years more than £1,000,000 annually. I am not questioning the policy of Sir Stafford Northcote's decision, but simply pointing out that it more than accounts for the deficit. Under that decision, which I have not thought it necessary to reverse, we have in 1867–8 a new item for extraordinary public works. In that year irrigation cost only £219,255, and other works at Bombay—special fund works, against which assets were expected to be set off—£382,613, besides £594 on State railways, making a total of £602,462. This increased the deficit in 1867–8 from £1,000,000 to £1,600,000. I now come to the regular Estimate of 1868-9. The accounts are now made up to the end of March, but the regular Estimate is made up when three-quarters of the year have elapsed. We have, therefore, the regular Estimate for the year which ended. March, 1869; but we can only guess at the actual result, and circumstances have occurred in India which lead us to believe that there will be some deficit in revenue, 'and a considerable excess in expenditure, The regular Es-
530
timate of revenue for 1868–9 was £49,389,734, which, compared with the previous year, showed an increase of £855,322; while the expenditure was reckoned at £50,464,203—leaving another deficit on ordinary expenditure and income of £1,074,469. Then there are extraordinary works to be met by loans to the extent of £1,838,455; leaving a total deficit on ordinary and extraordinary expenditure of close upon £3,000,000. I am sorry to say that, owing to the very severe drought which has prevailed over a large part of India, there is reason to believe that the revenue is not likely to meet the expectations originally formed of it, and I really believe that but for the energetic efforts of the Government—of which we hear very little because actual famine has not occurred —there would this year have been actual famine over a large part of the North-Western Provinces, Central India, and the Punjaub. This is likely to affect the finances of the country both by deficient land revenue and increased expenditure. I have received an account showing that in the North-Western. Provinces the average harvest is 17,000,000 maunds, whereas this year it is expected to be only 7,000,000 maunds, and in the Punjaub 470,000 persons have been receiving direct relief, 89,000 being employed on relief works which are anything but remunerative. I am happy to say that not only has the threatened famine been mitigated by the direct action of the Government, in the form of charity and relief works; but also by a considerable increase in the irrigated districts, showing that the natives are more and more taking advantage of the irrigation canals supplied them in former years, and how advantageous it is that irrigation works should be generally promoted. In the district of Meerut, the increase over the average of the last five harvests amounts to no less than 38,000 acres; and in Moozuffurnuggur there is an increase of 118,500 acres. the Irrigation Report for the North-Western Province says—
"We find that the land irrigated in 1868 exceeded that irrigated in 1867 by 195,000 acres, made up as follows:—Sugar-cane, 11,000 acres; rice, 12,000 acres; Indian corn, 43,000 acres; cotton, 44,000 acres; and miscellaneous, including all inferior grains, 85,000 acres. The increase of cotton is attributed to the market, and that of Indian corn and inferior grain is regarded as proof that the instructions of Government to push

531
that cultivation as far as possible have been kept constantly in mind. Good crops have been raised on nearly 500,000 acres; and 2,000,000 acres have been preserved from pressure of famine. The khurreef irrigation is 64 per cent more than that of the previous year."
This is a most satisfactory statement as regards the progress of irrigation in the North-Western Provinces; and I repeat what I have said, that had it not been for the action of the Government and the increase of the irrigated land we should this year have had over a large part of India a famine hardly less severe than that which desolated Orissa a few years ago. I now come to the current year. The estimated revenue is £49,394,000, and the expenditure £49,342,000, showing a small surplus of £52,000. The estimated expenditure for public works extra ordinary is £3,565,000, of which £2,705,000 is for works of irrigation, and £360,000 for railways. The only new item in the income of this year to which I shall advert is the conversion of the license tax into an income tax. When I came into Office I found that Sir Stafford Northcote had sent out a despatch to the Government of India pointing out that the certificate or license tax was really nothing but an income tax, and one of a very unjust kind; for while the servants of the Government were assessed as under an income tax, and while the commercial classes were assessed upon their assumed rate of profit, landowners, house owners, and fund holders escaped; and he expressed an opinion that under a better and more equal system the tax might be made much more productive. One of the first steps I took, after I came into Office, was to inform the Indian Government that Her Majesty's Government entirely approved its conversion into an avowed income tax operative on all classes within the sweep of its operation, and that course was accordingly adopted by my noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) before he left India, and sanctioned "by the Legislature. The proceeds are not reckoned very high, because at present the rate is only 1 per cent, but Sir Richard Temple calculated that in the present year it would produce something like £900,000. The result, my Lords, of this statement is simply this — that on our ordinary income and ordinary expenditure—remembering always that we are including Government public works in the ordinary expenditure—there is an average annual
532
deficit of £1,000,000, and that on extraordinary public works to be met avowedly by loans, there is an estimated expenditure of from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 annually. On the whole, it is impossible to deny that the condition of Indian finances is fairly satisfactory. Considering that the public debt amounts to little more than two years' income of revenue, and that we are able to raise money at 4 per cent, I may fairly say this much. Nevertheless we are not in such a condition as to be careless with regard to expenditure, either ordinary or extraordinary. There has been much dispute among the se versed in Indian affairs as to how far the se irrigation works called remunerative can, in reality, be found directly remunerative to the State. I cannot doubt that irrigation, if done in a careful and economical way, must, in time, be remunerative to the State; and I believe that this very year — although there are no direct returns from water rates, and although we cannot get at the amount directly due to the se works — we have been saved from famine in many districts by the works executed in former years, and saved to a large amount the loss of land revenue which must have naturally followed such a visitation. The last point to which I would direct attention is the construction of railways. I do not know whether the House is aware of the exact footing upon which the Government stands in regard to Indian railways and guaranteed companies. It is commonly supposed that guaranteed railways have been constructed by what is called private enterprize; but I hardly think it can be called so when the money is raised on the credit and authority of the State, under an absolute guarantee of 5 per cent, involving no risk whatever to the shareholders, and sacrificing on the part of the Government every chance of profit, while taking every chance of loss. The system is this—We guarantee the companies 5 per cent upon every shilling of the money which they pay into the Treasury here, that being subject to no deduction except in the case of actual loss upon the working expenses of the line, which has very rarely occurred; and even where it has occurred the Government has flinched from charging it to the guaranteed interest of the company for fear of affecting the credit of railway stock in the market. But

533
that is not all. Not only does the Government guarantee 5 per cent, but it engages that if there be any profit on the working of the line, one-half only of it shall go to the Government, until its own advances have been re-paid, and after that the whole profit and surplus above 5 per cent goes, not to the Government, but to the companies. The Government thus lends money at 1 per cent above that which it could command by direct loans in the market, and if there is any profit the Government gives it to the companies; while any loss is borne by the former. Very soon after I came into Office my attention was directed to this question, and I could not help asking myself why the Government should not have the benefit of its own credit and raise the money directly at 4 per cent. I consulted very competent persons, and among them my right hon. Friend Mr. Childers, who, having lately been chairman of one of the se companies, would, I expected, be able at least to see the question from the railway companies' point of view. He, however, was unable to see why the Government should sacrifice its own credit in this way, and boar all the loss while unable to share in any of the profits, and he entirely agreed in the conclusion to which I was inclined to come, that the Government should raise this money directly. I brought the subject before the Members of the Council, and, after prolonged discussion, they agreed that we ought at least to try the experiment of a less extravagant mode of raising the money, and a less extravagant mode of spending it. So far I had come to this conclusion when despatches arrived from my noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) and from the present Governor General upon the question of railway construction, and I was rejoiced to find that they took the same view, urging it with a force which made it irresistible. I now, therefore, lay on the table the reply we have given to the se despatches, authorizing the Government of India to undertake the construction of railways by themselves, raising the money upon their own credit, and expending it by their own officers. The guaranteed companies may be regarded from either of two points. They may be regarded as agents for the raising of the money, or as agents for the expenditure of it. Now, as regards the first point, there is no advan-
534
tage to be gained by the employment of companies — on the contrary, there is a loss incurred, inasmuch as the Government of India could raise the money required directly at least 1 per cent cheaper than it is now raised through these companies. Again — regarding them as agents for the expenditure of the money, it must be remembered that the directors of these companies are gentlemen in London who employ contractors to make these lines or send out engineers to hire the labour necessary for their construction. Now, why cannot the Government take precisely the same course, entering into a contract where it seems advisable, or, under other circumstances, employing labour ourselves? To these questions I apprehend but one answer can be given—namely, that the Government can raise money better and expend it better than the guaranteed companies can. I may give an instance of the excessive inconvenience and cost of the present system. The other day, upon one of the most important lines in India—the Great Indian Peninsula Line—the bridges and other extensive works necessary for carrying the railway through a difficult country came down by the run. These works were found to be of so defective construction that they were wholly insecure, and when the engineers began to mend the bridge they found the structure so rotten that it was necessary to take it down. More than £1,300,000 sterling had been paid for the re-construction of these works, on every shilling of which the Government have had to give a guarantee of 5 per cent. This is a most extravagant system. The railway shareholders have hardly any interest in the working economy of the lines. It is the 5 per cent guarantee which gets the money, and the shareholders calculate very little as to whether twenty years or so hence there may be a surplus above the 5 per cent. With regard to the construction of the lines, I may remark that the companies have their own engineer, and the Government a consulting engineer; the result being that there is a division of responsibility between the two, and there are frequent disputes in consequence. For instance —there is a dispute now going on between the engineer of the Great Indian Peninsula Company and the consulting engineer of the Government as to whose

535
fault it was that such bad works were constructed on the line; and you will, of course, always have such disputes as long as there is divided responsibility. Let the Government undertake the construction of the lines, and you will have single responsibility and single management; and it will be contrary to the nature of things if you do not have a considerable reduction in the cost of Indian railways. When Lord Dalhousie assented to these arrangements he must have had in his mind a state of things very different from that which exists at present. The credit of the Indian Government is much higher now than it was then, and we have been driven step by step into conditions as regards our terms of agreement with these companies which Lord Dalhousie never contemplated, and which, I am sure, he would never have sanctioned. I believe the time has now come—except with regard to the small extensions of existing lines, which probably ought to be given to the existing companies—when the Government of India ought to take into its own hands the construction of new lines at its own cost. I shall not detain the House by any explanation as to the particular selection of lines, which your Lordships will find referred to in the despatches which I now have the honour of laying upon the table. My noble Friend near me (Lord Lawrence) after a careful consideration of the subject, has recommended that various lines of railway, upwards of 9,000 miles in length, should be constructed in our Indian Empire in the course of the next ten or twenty years, and that we should proceed by the direct action of the Government, taking advantage of its own credit and its own agency. One of these lines will connect the port of Bombay with the province of the Punjaub, and it will be of the greatest importance both for developing the great commercial and productive re-, sources of the Punjaub, and with reference to the military defence of our Indian Empire. This is a line which certainly ought to be undertaken by a company or by the Government, and which Her Majesty's Government has itself determined to undertake. There is another most important consideration which is dwelt upon by my noble Friend in the Minute I have laid upon the table; it is that many of the se lines will go through important Native States, into which, as a conse-
536
quence, a very large amount of European labour will be introduced, and it is therefore very inexpedient that the se lines should be out of the control of the Indian Government. On all these grounds I trust that the House will give its approval to the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken in regard to this very important question of Indian railways.
The noble Duke then presented (by command) a Correspondence with the Government of India respecting Railways (India). Also, Report on Railways (India) for the year 1868–9.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he was sure their Lordships had heard with the greatest pleasure the statement of his noble Friend respecting the state of the finances of India. This was, he believed, the first occasion on which a statement of such a kind had been made in that House. It had always, heretofore, been made in the House of Commons; but as the vote to which they came was merely formal, he saw no good reason why a statement, the sole object of which was to inform the people of this country of the state of our Indian Empire, should not be brought forward in their Lordships' House. He confessed, however, that he was in some respects disappointed with his noble Friend's statement, which, he could not think, showed a satisfactory state of the Indian finances. He attached the greatest importance to the financial status of any country, but more than of any other to that of India, where we could not draw upon the resources of the country for any considerable addition to the taxation, and where therefore it was the more necessary to be watchful as to the expenditure. It might be that he was the more impressed with the necessity of paying attention to economy in India, because he had the superintendence of Indian finance at a time when there was a large annual deficit, but his noble Friend would admit the paramount importance of keeping the ordinary expenditure within the ordinary income. He did not think it necessary to refer to the period before the Mutiny, because since that time a complete revolution in almost every respect had taken place in India. For three or four years the expenditure, in consequence of the Mutiny, caused enormous deficits of £8,000,000, £14,000,000, £10,000,000 and £4,000,000 in sucees-

537
sive years. This state of things, however, came to an end in 1860–1, and for the next five years there was either an insignificant deficit, or a fair surplus. In the last of the five years, 1865–6, there was a large surplus, partly owing to the receipts of railroads in previous years not having been brought to account in the se years, as it ought properly to that been; but if the surplus in the se five years after deducting the deficiencies was divided equally amongst them it would give an average annual surplus of between £800,000 and £900,000. In the next year, however, matters changed for the worse. In the year 1866–7 there was a deficiency of £2,500,000; in 1867–8 a deficiency of about £1,000,000; and, in 1868–9, an estimated deficiency of £1,000,000, which from recent accounts seemed likely to be swelled to £1,500,000 or £2,000,000. This is independent of any extraordinary expenditure for public works. In three years of profound peace there had been a deficiency of near £5,000,000. The interest of the money borrowed to meet this had, of course, to be added to the expenditure. Beyond this, the balances in the treasuries had been reduced. He could not call this a satisfactory state of things for the past. He came now to the present year, in which his noble Friend anticipated, that, without any increase of income, they should be able, by reducing the expenditure to the extent of £1,000,000, to produce a practical equilibrium. He must say that he entertained great doubts as to the practicability of reducing the expenditure in India to such an extent. The revenue of India had steadily increased to a very large extent, but during the same time the expenditure had as steadily increased still more. The additions to the expenditure being higher than that to the income by about £1,000,000, and the tendency to increase was strong and he believed inevitable. His noble Friend had said, and said very truly, that the demands of the local administration constantly required an increase of expenditure. The cost of administering justice in a civilized way was very much greater than that of administering a system of patriarchal justice, under which a man was punished, for example by cutting off his hand, instead of being imprisoned for, perhaps, a couple of years, rendering necessary, of course, the maintenance
538
of expensive gaols. It was the same thing in regard to the police; and, again, the introduction of Europeans into the interior of India rendered it necessary to establish courts up the country capable of trying Europeans. All these things, and many others which he could mention, added very seriously to the expenditure in India. The expense of living-had likewise greatly risen, rendering necessary an increase in the rate of wages. In every possible way, in fact, the expense of the civil administration of India went on increasing year by year, and he feared it must continue to do in spite of every effort that might be made to keep it down. [A noble LORD: So much the better.] That might be so in some ways, but the increased expenditure could only be met by increased taxation, and it was not quite certain that this would be so much the better, and satisfactory to the people of India. His noble Friend had referred to the extraordinary increase of the military expenditure. That resulted to a considerable extent from the employment of a large number of European troops; and the greater cost of living rendered necessary increased allowances of various kinds. The pay and allowances to officers which were formerly regarded as liberal, were now barely sufficient to meet their expenses; and, taking all things into consideration, he could not say that he felt very sanguine about a reduction of expenditure, either civil or military, and he was quite sure that it would require the most strenuous efforts both of the Home and of the Indian Governments to effect any material reduction. Neither, on the other hand, did he see the prospect of any great increase of the revenue. The great source of income was the land revenue, which increased but very slowly indeed. In 1865–6 it was £20,343,000; in 1867–8 it fell to £19,900,000; and the regular Estimate for 1868–9 was £20,225,000. Another important item was the revenue from opium, which had yielded about £6,000,000 sterling per annum for the last year or two. The Chinese were, as he had heard, beginning to grow opium for themselves, and they might also derive supplies of that article from Persia and other countries not subject to our rule. These circumstances might seriously affect the demand for Indian opium. A diminution either of the quantity of

539
opium which the Chinese took from India, or of the price for which it was sold, would cause a large reduction of the Indian revenue. It was obvious that this large item of revenue was obtained from a very precarious source, and any great or sudden falling off under this head would place the finances of India in a very awkward position. He now came to the question of the expenditure on reproductive works. His noble Friend had quoted from a Minute by Lord Dalhousie in regard to public works. Now, contemporaneously with the issuing that Minute, Lord Dalhousie raised a loan of £2,000,000, professedly for public works, but, somehow or other, the money was entirely spent on the ordinary expenditure of India. He did not differ from his noble Friend as to the value of reproductive works, but he thought that much care and caution— which was not often exercised in India —was required in order to insure that the works were so well chosen and so well executed as to afford a reasonable prospect of their proving really reproductive. By a truly reproductive work he did not mean a work that would merely benefit the district in which it was situated, but one that would at least pay the interest upon the money spent on its execution. He confessed to being very sceptical as to the actual money return from what were called reproductive works in India. Many persons doubted the increase of revenue which was said to have arisen in the favourite case of the irrigation of the Delta of the Godavery; and Sir William Denison, the late Governor of Madras, whilst bearing testimony to the improved condition of the people, could not satisfy himself as to the increased revenue of the district. The other favourable case was that of the Jumna Canals. "With regard to these canals which we had not constructed, but only cleared out and improved, he believed they now paid a fair interest not on the sum which they cost to construct, but on the sum expended by us in repairing them. It was notorious that the Ganges Canal did not pay, the Baree Dooab Canals did not pay, and the same remark applied to several other cases. The irrigation works executed by a private company in Madras and in Orissa did not pay, and the Government had been compelled to buy them up. He mentioned these facts, in order to
540
show how extremely cautious they ought to be in selecting works which would be reproductive in the sense of being likely to pay within a reasonable time the interest on the money laid out upon them. His noble Friend said he believed that the expenditure on irrigation had prevented famine in certain districts, and therefore prevented a falling off in the land revenue. That was a most beneficial result, but if the only effect of the expenditure of public money in that way was to prevent a falling off in the revenue, whence was to come the money to pay the interest on the outlay on the se works? It was obvious that it must be obtained by additional taxation. He believed that whilst works of this character might be undertaken with great advantage, it was necessary to exercise the greatest care in examining the estimates both of the cost of construction and also of the probable returns to be derived from them. With regard to railways in India, when they were originally introduced into that country, it was found that Government guarantee was necessary to enable the companies to raise the requisite capital for their construction. It was at that time deemed a great object—and he thought it was a great object—to promote private enterprize in that country. They had heard much of the mischief of double government in India; but never was there a more complicated system of management than that connected with the se guaranteed railways. He was glad, therefore, that the Government had determined to try the experiment of constructing railways by Government officers. He had great confidence in the judgment of his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) who had recommended this course. With respect to the lines, he quite agreed as to the two lines mentioned by his noble Friend. The line up the Indus would be very advantageous for bringing down the produce of the Punjaub and for sending troops to Upper India from Kurrachee. The line to the Punjaub was indispensable, not only for opening up the country, but for its defence; and in his opinion, as parts of these lines passed through the territories of Native princes, it was quite right that the whole staff which was there employed, should be under the complete control of the Government. Before sitting down he would for one

541
moment refer to a point to which he was sorry to advert. He had attempted to induce unguaranteed capital to seek investment in India, and he confessed it went very much against his feelings when he saw that English capital would go into any other country in the world without a guarantee except India, and that there it would not go unless guaranteed. His noble Friend had said very truly that, with respect to India, capitalists had got to be so dependent on the Government that they would not do anything by themselves. He gave them every encouragement, and he was in very great hopes that it would be found worth while for English gentlemen to send capital there without a guarantee, but the result of the experiments of the Light Railway Company had grievously disappointed him. He believed the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had given a guarantee to that company, but the necessity for doing so had probably been occasioned very much by the pressure on the money market at home. He did not blame anybody in the least for having done so, but all he could say was that it was a great disappointment to him that the attempt which he had made had failed. On reading the speech of Sir Richard Temple he felt greatly gratified to see that the measure for which he had been responsible—namely, the introduction of a paper currency—had succeeded. When that measure was first introduced, the amount of the paper currency was £3,500,000; it had now increased to between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000. He believed that now a paper currency was used in many parts of India, and if measures were taken for the issue, to some extent, of smaller notes than the se at present in circulation, it would be a great convenience and a great saving. There was nothing which had effected so great an improvement in India, or which would cause so great a revolution there, as the introduction of railways. He believed that it would go far to break down caste and prejudice, and to carry civilization to the utmost bounds of our Empire. To extend civilization to India was the appointed mission of— what was one of the most marvellous things in the history of the world—our rule in India. That there had been blots and were shortcomings in our administration he could not deny, but he
542
believed that there was no one who knew anything about our administration in India but must be sensible of the blessing it was to that country, and it was his conviction that it would gradually lead to the civilization of one of the most populous and most extensive portions of the globe, and that our Indian Empire would be one of the grandest ornaments of the British Crown.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to join in the congratulations, which have been expressed by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, to the noble Duke for the very able and luminous statement with which he has favoured the House. I am sure it is a great gratification to us that the noble Duke has not thought himself debarred by the fact of his sitting in this House as Secretary of State for India from explaining the great affairs of our Indian Empire, and I think what the noble Duke has done will redound to the advantage, not only of this House, but of the country. I do not know that I have any criticisms to add to the se of the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax). I agree with the noble Viscount in the view which he has taken of the dangerous nature of Indian finance. It appears to me that Indian financiers are not so cautious or prudish on the subject of deficits as we are in England. Indeed, a French rather than an English feeling on the subject appears to prevail in India. They are content to go on from year to year with a deficit on a very hazardous surplus, and they do not think that the security of their finances is at all compromised by such occurrences. I believe, in the present instance, the difficulty has arisen from the decision of Sir Stafford Northcote with regard to the building of barracks to which the noble Duke has referred. I quite admit it is a wise thing to build barracks, and a virtuous thing to meet the expense of building them out of revenue instead of by loan; but a great deal of the beauty of virtue is taken away when the consequence of doing so is a deficit. I confess it seems to me that it is the duty of the se who have the charge of the finances of India to take some energetic steps to bring the present state of things to an end. No doubt we are promised a surplus for the year just come in; but it is only a surplus of £50,000, and in England we should

543
think that a very small one to go on with on ordinary occasions. No doubt we have been satisfied to go on with a much smaller surplus, but it is the rule to secure a much larger. In this country moreover we have no source of revenue at all comparable in its hazardous character to the revenue derived from opium. You may raise new taxes in India if you can; but it is one of the most difficult things in the world. A great part of your revenue is raised from the land, and you cannot increase the charge on it. In England we may go to the Customs; but the moment the Indian financier raises his Customs he has all the Manchester school down on him. I do not blame them; they are right to look after the trade of England. I mention it to show that these financiers of India are in this particular position— that they have not the command of the resources that are usually available to a Government, because they have to consult the private interests of a commercial community in a far distant land. There is little to hope for in the way of increased revenue from excise, because the natives of India do not consume much of what is the subject of excise duties. I fear, under these circumstances, there is but one thing to be done, and that is to press on the noble Duke to go a little slower with the great military expenditure. That is the great sinner. I do not mean the expenditure on the regular army, but on these great barracks. If you insist on spending a large sum every year in building these barracks, and have not taxes to enable you to meet the expense, it is a matter of necessity that a deficit must ensue. There are one or two observations in the speech of the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) to which I should like to advert. The noble Viscount seemed to doubt the value of assisting reproductive works, because Government does not get full interest for the money sunk in them. But that is scarcely the correct method of estimating this part of our Indian policy. It should be borne in mind that the State when expending money in reproductive works is not in the position of a man seeking investment for his capital, but rather in the condition of a man who makes a road to his property. When a man makes a road to his estate the tolls may no doubt bear part of the expense, but he looks
544
to be repaid over and over again in the long run by the general prosperity the new facilities for traffic bring to his estate. In like manner railways have been made in England, to the loss of those who made them, but the property through which they have run has greatly increased in value. So the railways in India have not paid, nor can we expect them to pay of themselves at present, but the Government has been no loser by them because they have greatly raised the tax-paying powers of the district through which they pass; and in the case of all reproductive works undertaken in India we may expect that they will raise the tax-paying powers of the natives, and repay the Government in the end. Unless this policy is continued I confess I am unable to see a way out of the dilemmas surrounding us. Another observation I have to make is on the remarks of the noble Viscount with respect to railways being made without State aid. Now, I am perfectly satisfied that if the State wants a railway it must pay for it in one shape or other. The idea that it could ever be otherwise arose out of that gigantic delusion which prevailed in this country some years since — that if you made a railway anywhere, under the sea or across the Sahara, it would be sure to pay somehow or other. The consequence of that delusion was that railways were constructed in this country that were absolutely ruinous to those who originally constructed them; and, as is well known, many small unremunerative lines in country districts have been attached to remunerative trunk lines so that the inhabitants of the large towns are paying, in the shape of increased fares, for the facilities granted to the rural districts. In India it is still more true that except as between two large towns a railway will never pay, and inasmuch as private investors have no interest in improving the population, as compared with the interest of the Government, it is not to be expected private investors will make railways in thinly populated districts at a loss, without a guarantee of present profits from the Government. But it does not follow that it would not be for the interest of the Government to make these lines, for they might be profitable not in the direct return they yielded, but in the effect they had in raising the condition of the people. I

545
quite agree with the noble Duke in the opinion that it is absurd to pay 5 per cent for money when you can raise it at 4; but I do not agree with the opinion, rather implied than expressed, that it has been always absurd to pay 5 per cent.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I did not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Duke disclaims that opinion, and I believe he is right in his disclaimer. There was a time when Government could not have got, I will not say the necessary capital, but the necessary experience, for carrying out railway schemes successfully without the assistance afforded by the original companies. Still it does not follow that what was necessary for the starting of any system in India is necessary for carrying it on. I am very glad to find the noble Duke has been able to overcome difficulties which have hitherto prevented our making railways through Native States. These lines ought to be made as quickly as money can be raised for constructing them. I will conclude, as I began, by thanking the noble Duke for his very interesting statement, and by expressing an opinion that, in spite of some of the fears he expressed and the drawbacks he anticipated, still, on the whole, the finances of India are such as to justify the most sanguine expectations of all those who have looked forward with confidence to the future of India.
LORD LAWRENCE: I do not think I can add anything to what has been said on the finances of India; but I do not like to let the debate close without saying a few words upon the subject. No man who has ever lived in India— certainly no Governor General who has ruled there—has paid a more anxious attention to the finances of the country than I have. Before I went out as Governor General I talked with the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) upon all the salient points connected with Indian finance of which he has spoken, and I believe that upon all important points we were mainly, if not entirely, agreed. [Viscount HALIFAX: Hear!] When I arrived in India my first desire was to reduce expenditure. But on examining into affairs I found that in all expenditure connected with the civil administration of the country it was quite hope-less to think of making any reduction.
546
Not only had prices largely increased, but the allowances of all the subordinate officers of the civil establishments, more especially of all Native officials, was ridiculously and even miserably low. One of the first things we had to do under these circumstances was to increase the emoluments of these officers, and this added considerably to the expenditure of the country. Turning then to the military department, I found we had an army of something like 72,000 English soldiers. During my administration that army was reduced by 7,000, and the Native army was also reduced, though not in the same proportion. But notwithstanding this large reduction the military expenditure in India was somewhat larger when I left India than when I arrived. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has fully explained the causes of that increase, so that it is unnecessary for me to follow him in this respect. I do not think we could safely reduce the English army below its present strength of about 64,000 men; because we must remember that this 64,000 includes all men in hospital, all the weakly and convalescent, and all the troops passing to and fro between the seaports and the inland stations. Nothing could be more ruinous to our interests in India, more disastrous to our prestige, or more damaging in our finances, than the making of an undue reduction in the English army. I do not mean to say that some slight reduction might not be made, but even on that point there are great doubts; and these doubts increase the more when one inquires into the difficulties which would arise in making these reductions. Some people believe we have too large a Native army, and that a very large saving might be made by reducing the Native strength. I am not a military man, nor do I aspire to be a great authority on military subjects; but no man can live long in India, and pass the greater portion of his time in those parts of India most liable to insurrection, without being convinced that the Native army is not unduly large. It is quite absurd, too, to suppose that the English army of India requires to be as large as it is to keep the Native army in order, and that a reduction of the English army might be safely made if the Native army were first reduced. I am convinced that that is a cardinal error. Any-

547
one acquainted with India, on casting his eye over the map, will see that large portions of the country are populated by races more or less warlike and numerous beyond appreciation. The population of British India alone does not fall short of 200,000,000 of people, exclusive of marauding tribes, which add materially to the ordinary elements of danger. I do not think, therefore, any considerable military reduction is possible; and, on the other hand, I am afraid we cannot look for any large increase of revenue for many years to come—certainly not such an increase as will enable the Government to spend large sums in reproductive works in addition to providing for the ordinary expenditure. The land revenue of India only increases in considerable cycles of years—in several parts of India it is fixed for periods of thirty years—and it is obvious that during those periods no increase can be expected, for all increase which may be looked for is reckoned in the permanent settlement, and in that way £2,000,000 have been anticipated. No increase in the excise revenue can be reasonably expected; and the opium revenue is in its nature uncertain and insecure; and, notwithstanding that of late years it has systematically increased, the present year exhibits a falling off. In my opinion the salt tax, which falls chiefly upon the poor, is too high, and if there were any surplus, it ought to be applied in the reduction of this tax, as far as this can be carried out without loss of revenue. I do not anticipate that the revenues of India will largely increase; but while I do not think we shall be able to reduce the expenditure very much, still we ought to do all that is possible in that direction. One subject in which the people of India take a vital interest is the expenditure of the Indian revenues in England, and there is a feeling in India that the people of that country are not fairly dealt with. Even though it were untrue, the existence of that feeling would be in itself a great evil, and if there be any foundation for that opinion the authorities in England ought to be willing to put things straight. In the ease of the Abyssinian War, for instance, all the ordinary expenses of both the Indian and the English troops serving beyond the seas in Abyssinia were charged against the Government of India on the
548
pretext that to have done otherwise would have been to save so much money to the revenues of India. I think that was a fallacious view of the question, and I hold that we should have dealt with India on that occasion exactly in the same way that England deals with India as regards English troops. The moment English soldiers leave England for Indian purposes the expenses are borne by the Indian revenues; but the moment the troops pass beyond the frontiers of India all the expense, whether ordinary or extraordinary, is made to fall on the English revenues. That is a fair and just rule, and it should be uniformly applied;— there ought not to be two rules, one applicable to troops leaving England for India, and another applicable to troops leaving India for Imperial purposes. With regard to public works, I consider that expenditure for works of a reproductory character ought to be raised by loan, and should not be charged to ordinary expenditure. Hitherto there has been a great conflict of opinion in India on this point, and many influential people have argued that not only should we charge reproductive works, but also extraordinary works, such as barracks, upon the revenue of India. I believe the late Secretary of State for India, put the thing on the right and true basis— namely, that where it is reasonably to be expected that there will be a moderate return for the expenditure it is right and proper the money should be raised by loan; and, on the other hand, that works, however important, which did not produce a direct return should, as far as possible, be charged to the ordinary revenue of India. With great deference to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) it would never do to reduce the speed with which the barracks are being erected. On the grounds of humanity and policy, and even of finance, it is much better that they should be constructed at the quickest rate consistent with economy. The English army in India has increased with enormous rapidity since the Mutiny; barracks of an inferior description have been run up; and in the course of years these have become much deteriorated. The re-construction of them was one of the matters pressed upon me, and one of the first I took in hand; and I was zealously supported by the Commanders-in-Chief. But I greatly fear that, with all the pres-

549
sure mat can be put on, the re-construction of the barracks will take ten or twelve years. This is a matter of the utmost consequence. The barrack accommodation affects the sickness and mortality of the troops, and their efficiency in the event of emergency. Some four or five years ago a statement was circulated in the English papers to the effect that the mortality among English troops in India was 70 per 1,000; I believe that estimate to be excessive, but still the mortality is very large, and a very considerable proportion of that mortality is due to insufficient barrack accommodation. The result of the construction of new barracks and of the making of various changes has been that we have reduced the mortality very largely, and I am very sanguine that, with the completion of the barracks and the adoption of better sanitary arrangements, the mortality of the British troops in India will not very much exceed that of our troops in the colonies. I do not take a gloomy view of the finances of India, but I do think every fair means of adding to her income ought to be tried, avoiding such as will be oppressive and unpopular to the people of the country. What is remarkable is that a number of people cry out for expenditure without thinking where the money is to come from; but if the tax touches them in the slightest degree then there is a strong clamour for examination and revision. Untunately, the period for which the income tax was imposed was allowed to expire. A year had scarcely elapsed before it was found necessary to impose an income tax of 1 per cent; but that will not give us the revenue sacrificed, and at the same time it is insufficient to keep things straight and in order in case of any great emergency or unlooked-for misfortune. There is great importance in times of peace not only in trying to make both ends meet, but to have such a margin as will admit of a reduction in taxation. I am fully impressed with the enormous advantages which India will gain by carrying out a large system of irrigation. Irrigation is to the greater part of India what drainage is to agriculture in this country; and I am convinced that if proper places are selected, and the works are judiciously carried out we shall not only re-pay ourselves the whole of the money incurred in making canal irrigation, but
550
we shall largely add to the revenue of the country. No doubt some of the most important of the public works in India have not paid in a financial point of view; but it must be remembered that the science of the construction of canals was not well understood by the engineers in India. But I am perfectly certain that, in course of years, you can get not only a fair revenue from these canals, but that you will be able to set aside sufficient to re-pay the original capital. The statement made by the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) with reference to the canals of the River Jumna was scarcely correct. It is quite true that these canals did exist under the Native rule, but to a very poor extent. But scientifically I believe it was an error in constructing the canals to take the lines which had been used for the old canals. Nevertheless, these canals during the last thirty years have not only repaid the whole of the capital expended, but have also given an annual return of 5 per cent upon the capital during the whole of that period. I think, therefore, that I am warranted in saying that that is a good financial result. As to the question of railways, I think credit should be given to those who commenced the present system. It is only right we should recollect that but for the old companies we should not have had these works in India—certainly not so early as we did. In those days there was a great difficulty in embarking in large works of that kind, and had it not been for the energy and spirit with which the original companies took up the subject the railways would never have been in existence. We have now some 4,000 miles and upwards of railways in India, and in the course of next year the original scheme which embraced, the whole Continent of British India will be completed. Probably the railways constructed in India will not cost less than £18,000 per mile. But I am convinced, not only from my own observation but from consultation, with every class of people in India, English or Native, that the present railway expenditure in India is enormous, excessive, and unreasonable, and that if we took the works into our own hands we could carry them out at a very considerable reduction. Now, when we consider that at the very least we want 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 miles of railways more than we now have in India,

551
it is easy to conceive what an enormous sum would be saved if, instead of paying £18,000 per mile, the railways cost only £12,000 per mile. If that result could be effected, instead of the guarantee system which now entails so serious a burden on India, we should not only repay ourselves the interest on the money we have had to borrow, but we should have a margin whereby to repay the capital invested. For these reasons, my Lords, I trust that the authorities in India will take works of this nature more immediately under their supervision.
LORD LYVEDEN: I think, my Lords, that the public is very much indebted to any Minister who awakens its attention to subjects so important as the finance of India. I quite agree with the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax), moreover, that the manner in which the noble Duke has treated this subject is very satisfactory, whatever the prospects may be. I wish, however, he had gone a little more into detail. He entered very explicitly into what has occurred in the past, but, declining to be prophetic, he gave us very little information as to what the intentions of the Government were as to the future. Now, my Lords, it is evident that there are only two ways in which these deficiencies can be remedied in the future— either by diminution in the expenditure or by an increased revenue. The first mode of diminishing the expenditure that has been referred to is the reduction of the military expenditure; but no one, I trust, will propose at present to relieve India from any of that expenditure by the diminution of the European forces. It is plain that, after the experience of the Indian Mutiny, it would, be almost madness to withdraw, at this moment, any of the European forces from that country. I believe, too, that a reduction in the barrack expenditure would be a great evil. Such a reduction would almost inevitably be attended by an increase of disease among the troops; and, therefore, on the point of economy as well as of humanity, it is advisable that the expenditure in barrack accommodation for the troops should be kept up. If the expenditure be not absolutely necessary at all times, it would, at all events, be wrong at the present time to make any reduction in that direction. Now, my Lords, in old times, we were told that the revenue of India
552
was not elastic; but we now find, I am glad to say, that it does to some extent possess that quality. My hon. Friend Sir Richard Temple has, I am glad to see, had the courage to propose the re-imposition of the income tax. I believe that there never was a greater mistake than that committed by Sir Charles Trevelyan in withdrawing that tax after it had once been imposed. But I am willing to confess that I should be sorry to see that tax increased, and that the tax is one which, in my opinion, should, as a rule, be kept for the difficulties of war. Among the topics upon which my noble Friend the noble Duke in his statement did not enlarge is the question of cotton. That subject is one of great importance. It would, of course, be hard upon India to force the cultivation of cotton upon its inhabitants, but I do think that the Indian Government are bound to provide roads and machinery for the transport of the cotton to the seaports. Ought the question of cotton to stand in this position, that when the American market is closed, as it was during the American war, a stimulus is to be given to the cultivation of cotton in India, but when that source of obtaining cotton is re-opened no further demand will arise from Manchester? The subject is one to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed. Then comes the question of the gold currency, which is also of great importance. I think that the adoption of a gold currency is very advisable. The noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) knows the importance of this, and with his force of mind I wonder that he did not carry it into effect while he was in India. Sir Richard Temple has gone very elaborately into several matters which he thinks of moment in the present financial state of India. I venture to think that my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) may with much advantage direct his attention to the Uncovenanted Service. My noble Friend stated what he would do in respect of railways; but I suppose he did not allude to lines in respect of which there is already a guarantee; I suppose he referred to railways which may be promoted in future—because I never could understand why the Government should have guaranteed 5 per cent on railways, inasmuch as the natural effect is to make parties invest in railways so guaranteed rather than in

553
Government securities, which would pay them only 4 per cent. The complaint I make of my noble Friend's statement is that it does not go far enough. He has not gone into the state of India generally. He has not gone into such political details as might have enabled your Lordships to form an opinion as to whether there is a reasonable certainty of continued peace, or whether there is any reason to apprehend war. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs need not be afraid that I am about to indulge in any observations on the Central Asia question. That is not what I mean; but I think my noble Friend the noble Duke might have given us some information as to our relations with the Native States, and as to the communications recently had with Native Rulers, more particularly with Shere Ali. My noble Friend has perhaps thought he ought to confine himself to such a statement as that suggested some time ago by my noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset), to which I presume we are indebted for the speech made this evening by any noble Friend the Secretary for India. My noble Friend may, perhaps, intend that a more general statement shall be made to the House of Commons by the Under Secretary. Nothing can be more hopeful than the language used by Sir Richard Temple in his splendid peroration. I trust that his anticipations may be realized; but the speech delivered by my noble Friend this evening does not enable me to see exactly what are the grounds for these anticipations. With regard to the question of public works, I must say that I do not think there ought to be any diminution in them. I cannot agree with my noble Friend the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) that there has been exaggeration in reference to the remunerative works. I think that such works ought to be paid for out of a special fund, and that ordinary works ought to be paid for out of the ordinary revenue. I have no doubt, however, that all these matters will have the careful consideration of my noble Friend at the head of the India Office.
EARL FORTESCUEhoped that the noble Duke would give every attention to the improvement of the sanitary condition of the barracks in India. By doing so he would promote efficiency, economy, and the interests of humanity.
554
It would have been impossible to allow the barracks to remain in the disgraceful and murderous state they had been in some time ago; but he hoped the noble Duke would go further, and with all reasonable speed take measures for further improving the barrack accommodation for the soldiers.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in reply, said, that in a communication which he had received from Lord Mayo, his Lordship attached much importance to the fact that the equilibrium of Indian finance was about to be restored. The surplus would be only a small one, but there would be a surplus. Their Lordships must be aware that there were peculiar elements of uncertainty in all Indian budgets. First, there was the danger of droughts; next, the danger of a deficit in the revenue from opium; and, thirdly, the possibility of frontier wars. Some of those wars had cost, not only hundreds of thousands, but millions of money. So far, however, as regarded the Estimate of the present year, there appeared to be, not a deficit, but a surplus. "With regard to the growth of cotton, one of the projected lines of railway would open up an important cotton growing district. He had been strongly urged by a deputation from Manchester to assist an undertaking which was expected to be of much value to our commercial interests, and he had sent out an engineer to report on it, who was now on his way home. He was sure that the Government in India would give their best attention to the cotton question.
Then the Correspondence with the Government of India respecting Railways (India) ordered to be printed (No. 219); Report on Railways (India) for the year 1868-9 ordered to lie on the Table.

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In 1843 an extradition treaty was entered into between this country and France, and, in the same year, an Act of Parliament was passed giving effect to that treaty. The offences named in the treaty were not numerous. They consisted of murder, attempt to murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. The treaty

  555
  was in existence from 1843 till 1865; but, so far as any action on our side was concerned, it remained a dead letter during the whole of that period, because not a single criminal was delivered up by us to France. That arose from the view the chief police magistrate took as to the course which he ought to pursue when persons were brought before him for extradition under the treaty. He thought it his bounden duty not to give up an accused person unless he were satisfied on the evidence before him that there would be a conviction if that person were put upon his trial. I think that view of the matter was hardly in accordance with the terms of the treaty. I believe that what was intended by the treaty was this—that an accused person should be given upsupposing the evidence brought before the magistrate were such that, if the offence were committed in this country, the accused would be committed for trial. There was also a misapprehension as to the effect of a judgment par contumace; the chief magistrate being of opinion that such a judgment put a person out of the category of an accused person. Therefore, when it was found that a person had been condemned par contumace in his absence, the chief magistrate said—"This is a convicted and not an accused person, and, therefore, I must discharge him." Now the magistrate was entirely in error with regard to the French law in this respect, because, in point of fact, a person who has been convicted par contumace is, on being apprehended or delivered up, tried in exactly the same way as any other accused person, the previous judgment par contumace having no effect whatever upon the proceedings. Then the French Government had another ground of dissatisfaction, in regard to the proof required of the documents which were transmitted from France. The depositions which were certified by the Juge d' instruction, and authenticated by the signature and official seal of the Minister of Justice, were not admitted as evidence in this country, unless the person producing it proved that it was a true copy of the original depositions. These various sources of dissatisfaction induced the Government of France to give notice, in 1865, that, under the terms of the treaty, they would put an end to it within six months. The noble Earl, who was then, as he is now, Secretary of State for
  556
  Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon), sent Sir Thomas Henry, the chief magistrate at Bow Street, over to France to negotiate on the subject with the French Government. I must admit that the noble Earl could not have selected a person better fitted to conduct the negotiations. The noble Earl stated, on a former occasion, that it was mainly owing to his ability and to the zeal with which he conducted the negotiations that we were extricated from a position of some embarrassment. On Sir Thomas Henry's return the noble Earl had a Bill prepared, which would have removed many of the causes of dissatisfaction, and which applied generally to the proof required in all cases under the extradition treaties. I am much surprised that there should have been the least disposition in any quarter to prevent that Bill passing into law. Soon afterwards, however, the then Government went out of Office, and Lord Derby's Administration was formed. The Bill framed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) was then found at the Foreign Office, and I, having at that time the honour to hold the Great Seal, was charged with the introduction into your Lordships' House of that measure, which I entirely approved. That measure of course received the cordial support of the noble Earl, and the simple object of it was to enact that when the documents and depositions transmitted from France in reference to the extradition of offenders were certified by the Judge or the magistrate to be true copies, and when that fact was further authenticated by signature and seal of the department of the Minister of Justice, they should be taken without further proof to be evidence in all our courts of justice. Of course, the Bill was easily passed through this House with the concurrence of the noble Earl, and was sent down to the House of Commons, where, to my infinite surprise, great jealousy existed in certain quarters as to the objects which the French Government had in view in desiring the continuance of a treaty; because they thought the design of the French Government was to lay hold of political offenders, under the pretence of preferring some criminal charge against them. There was not, however, the slightest ground for any such imputation. It is expressly laid down in the law, as to extradition, of France, and it is made a

  557
  point of honour, never to deliver up or to demand any political offender, and if a person who is a political offender is given up under an extradition treaty for another offence, he is, if acquitted, or in the event of his conviction after the expiration of his sentence, warned that he must leave the country within a certain period, and it is only when he neglects to do so that he can be apprehended and tried for the political offence. So strict, indeed, were the French on this point, that when a person had committed several criminal offences, and was delivered up under an extradition treaty for one of them, he could not be tried for the other offences without a fresh application being made for the extradition of the offender. The feeling, however, which prevailed in the House of Commons induced them to determine that the Bill should not be in force for a longer period than twelve months. Accordingly the Bill passed, its duration being limited to that term. In 1867, it was found necessary to continue that Bill for another year; and, in 1868, the same course was pursued; but, on each occasion, it was necessary for the Government to apply to the French Government to continue the treaty, and I must say that the French Government, though somewhat dissatisfied, had acted with the greatest courtesy and forbearance, and yielded to the application. In 1868, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the whole law and practice of extradition. I should, however, state that the French Government were so desirous of removing any jealousy which might exist with regard to their supposed anxiety to get hold of political offenders, that they expressed their willingness to have a clause introduced into the Bill to the effect that the magistrate in this country should himself decide whether the offence with which a person might be charged was of a political character, and if he came to the conclusion that it was, he might at once discharge the accused. Well, the Select Committee, to which I just referred, drew up a Report, on which was founded a Bill. That Bill, which is now, in all probability, in the Foreign Office, was prepared in 1868. We have now nearly arrived at the end of the Session of 1869, but still that Bill has not been introduced into Parliament. There is undoubtedly a very strong feeling
  558
  in France of annoyance and dissatisfaction at the delay which has occurred; and a Minister has said publicly that it seemed rather surprising that the Government of England had taken three years to decide whether they would agree to an extradition treaty precisely similar to the fifty-six treaties which France has entered into with other countries. In conclusion, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill this Session to enable Her Majesty to conclude an extradition treaty with the Emperor of the French?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I understand perfectly the feeling which has induced my noble and learned Friend to bring forward this subject, and I am much obliged to him for having dealt with it in so conciliatory a manner. It is not my intention, nor have I, indeed, the power, to bring forward a Bill of Extradition this year. The noble and learned Lord has, I think, himself indicated the extreme difficulties which stand in the way of dealing with this question. As he remarked, there was considerable opposition to the very simple Bill which was brought forward by himself, so great was the jealousy and fear entertained by the House of Commons lest political offenders should be delivered up. I think, however,- it is of very great importance that we should have an extradition treaty, not only with France, but also with other countries; for it is a great disgrace — particularly now that the means of intercommunication between different countries have been so much improved—that this kingdom should be a harbour and asylum for all the rogues in the world. The Bill which had been prepared laid down the principles on which extradition treaties were to be concluded not with France only, but with all the countries of Europe. The Foreign Office and the Home Office have been in communication on the subject, and the Bill has been ready for upwards of two months; but it has fallen, like many others, a victim to the exigencies of measures of greater magnitude and importance—as, for example, the Irish Church Bill and the Bankruptcy Bill, by which so much of the time of the Session has been occupied. It was really found impossible to bring it forward; and I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord, with his

  559
  great Parliamentary experience, must feel that it would be extremely inconvenient to introduce Bills of this character, on which great difference of opinion exists, and protracted discussions are likely to arise, unless there is a reasonable prospect of passing them. As far, however, as the Foreign Office is concerned, I engage that this shall be one of the first Bills which shall be brought in by that Department next year. I hope that no injury will result from the delay thus occasioned, because we have already received the assent of the French Government to a satisfactory arrangement on this matter.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Contagious Diseases Act (1866)—Was presented by The Lord NORTH BOOK; read 1a. (No. 221.)
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.