Sitting of 29 June 1869

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading—Railways Abandonment * [186]; Pensions Commutation * [187].
Second Reading—Stipendiary Magistrates (Deputies) * [176].
Committee—University Tests [15]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Debts of Deceased Persons * [165]; Medical Officers Superannuation (Ireland) * [48–185]; Courts of Justice Salaries and Funds * [96].
Considered as amended—Imprisonment for Debt [179]; Special Bails * [162].
Third Reading—Court of Session Act (1868) Amendment * [145]; Greenwich Hospital * [105], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

  [BILL 179.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to insert, after Clause 17, new clauses.
  (Application of Vexatious Indictments Act to offences under this Act.)
  (Justice of the peace becoming bankrupt or arranging with creditors.)
  Clauses ordered to be added to the Bill.
  Clause 5 (Saving of power of committal for small debts).
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved to omit the first paragraph—
  "Subject to the provisions hereinafter mentioned any Court may commit to prison for a term not exceeding six weeks any person who makes default in payment of any sum due from him in pursuance of any order or judgment of that or any other competent Court."
  It provided that the proof of the means of the person making default may be given in such manner as the Court thinks just. Now, that was a new paragraph, and was not in the Bill when it was originally drawn. His attention was called to it for the first time in the reprinted Bill last night. He submitted that this was a power which ought not to be given to any Judge, who might declare an affidavit sufficient, and such affidavit might be cooked up behind the back of the party immediately concerned. It was a power which was not conferred upon the Judge of any court of law, and, in his opinion, one that deeply affected the liberty of individuals. He begged to move that the paragraph be expunged.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out from the word "Subject," to the word "court," in line 18, both inclusive.—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had some reason to complain of the course pursued by the hon. and learned Serjeant. This proviso had not been introduced at the last moment into the Bill, but it had been discussed three several times when the measure was in Committee. Upon the first occasion when the House went into Committee it was fully discussed, and it was in deference to what he understood to be the general feeling of the Committee that he introduced this clause, which had been very carefully prepared. On the second day the Committee met the matter was also discussed, and the words to which the learned Serjeant took exception were adopted without objection. A third time the whole question was re-opened by the hon. and learned Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon), the learned Serjeant was in the House, and had, or ought to have had, the words of the clause before him, and yet it was passed. The effect of the clause was to maintain to the County Court Judges the jurisdiction they at
  762
  present possessed, so far as related to the imprisonment of a man who could pay his debts and would not; and it was provided that this jurisdiction should be extended to the Superior Courts. But, so far from a County Court Judge being enabled to exercise this jurisdiction as he pleased, the learned Serjeant would see, if he read the clause, that rules and regulations for the purpose of exercising this jurisdiction of the County Courts would be framed by three County Court Judges, to be selected by the Lord Chancellor, and the rules were to be approved by him; and as regarded the Superior Courts they were to be framed by the Lord Chancellor, assisted by the Judges of those Courts. The hon. and learned Serjeant, therefore, was wrong, not only in the whole of his facts, but also in his law.
  MR. HADFIELDstrongly objected to the clause. It would be better for the country, as a matter of pecuniary arrangement, to pay every debt for which those poor creatures would be sent to prison, than to keep them there and incur all the cost of their maintenance. He should like to hear from the Attorney General how often a man might be imprisoned for a debt of 10 s.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to ask if the rules were to apply to persons tried for the fraudulent contraction of debts for large amounts as well as to small sums incurred probably for temporary subsistence. If the rules were not to be analogous in the case of men who contracted debts to the amount of thousands and hundreds of thousands with those for them who contracted debts of a few shillings, great discontent would prevail. He was strongly in favour of the clause, but it ought to apply equally.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdesired some information with reference to the manner in which those who had contracted debts by fraud were to be dealt with when they were imprisoned. There were no less than ninety-one debtors of this class at present in Lancaster Castle, and they were confined in a large yard, with nothing in the world to do. So heavily did the time hang on their hands that they were glad to do some trifling work by which they earned 1d. a day, while they were being maintained at an enormous expense by the country. He did not think that this was an advantageous state of things for either the coun-

  763
  try, the creditors, or the debtors. If a man had committed fraud, he ought to be properly punished, and. not merely shut up with a number of others to pass his time in idleness.
  THE SOLICTTOR GENERAL THE SOLICTTOR GENERAL, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire, stated that the debtors who were confined for wilfully neglecting to pay their debts were imprisoned as first-class misdemeanants. It was not quite correct to say that they were sent to prison for a punishment—they were sent there to compel them to pay debts which they were supposed to have it in their power to discharge. With regard to cases of commitment from the Superior Courts, the law in that respect remained unaltered. He entirely sympathized with the remarks of the hon. Members for North Warwickshire and for Sheffield (Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Hadfield) to the effect that persons who had contracted debts, whether large or small, by fraud, should be treated upon an equal footing; but they were inapplicable in the present instance, because all provisions relating to debts contracted by fraud had been struck out of the Bill. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, he had to state that the County Courts could, at present, commit only upon being satisfied that a person was contumaciously refusing to pay a debt which it was in his power to discharge. If the Government could have seen their way to carry this measure without this provision they would willingly have omitted it; but they had been informed upon sufficient authority that the County Court system as at present constituted could not be carried on without it.
  MR. BARROWobjected to the power of imprisonment contained in the clause. A man was committed, and then re-committed, when the first committal had been the means of preventing him from earning any money.
  MR. STAPLETONwas opposed to the clause. It was possible that a man who had not the means of paying might be committed under it.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that several defaults might be made in respect of the same debt, and in that case the County Court Judge had the power to commit for each default. A debtor was liable to imprisonment as often as it was sup-
  764
  posed he had the means to pay, but refused to do so.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, to omit paragraph 4 of Clause 5—
  "Any jurisdiction by this section given to the Superior Courts may be exercised by a Judge sitting in Chambers, or otherwise, in the prescribed manner,"
  the effect of which, he said, would be that the Judge, on the hearing of a case, and as soon as he had given judgment, would be competent to commit a defendant at once to prison if he believed he had the means of payment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from the word "Any," to the word "manner," in line 36, both inclusive.—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the paragraph only retained a power to the County Court Judges which they already possessed.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought the clause as drawn turned on the question whether default had been made in pursuance of the order and judgment; but the paragraph to which objection was taken would give the Judge power then and there, at the time of hearing to imprison the party. That could not be intended, because it would be contrary to the first part of the clause.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he did not understand the paragraph in the same sense as the hon. and learned Serjeant. If, at the hearing of the cause, it should be shown to the satisfaction of the Judge that the party was able to pay the Judge would make an order for payment on a day to be named, and if he disregarded that order then he might be committed to prison.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, that the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to spare the rate-payers the expense of maintaining these prisoners in gaol. He observed that they were not put to hard labour, and had very little inducement to exert themselves to get their term of imprisonment di-

  765
  minished. Many of them who were poor men were as well off in prison as at home. He thought that when the creditor was able to do so he ought to bear the expense of putting his debtor in prison. On the other hand he was willing to let the expense fall on the rate-payer when the creditor was unable to bear it himself. He had drawn the clause with great care to avoid the infliction of hardship on the necessitous creditor. He thought his clause would meet the views of the County Court Judges, who, though anxious to preserve the power of imprisonment, wished to have their hands strengthened against the tallymen. The power of imprisonment was now reserved in one case only —that of a debtor who could pay and would not. 80 restricted it amounted simply to a mode of collecting debts from reluctant debtors. Now he put it to the Committee, as a proposition in political economy altogether beyond dispute, that it could not be for the benefit of the community that a trade should be carried on which could not bear its own expenses, and one of these was the collection of debts. If the tallyman had to bear the expense of imprisoning his debtors, he would alter his mode of dealing if he found the expense was eating up his profits. He would be more cautious in giving credit. He would be less ardent in pushing his trade. He would act in conformity with the public interest, because his private interest would be in conformity with the public interest. But as the law now stood he was enabled to throw the expense of collecting his debts on the public, and so carry on with profit to himself a trade which might in reality be a losing trade. He forced the rate-payers into an unnatural partnership with him, the conditions of which were that they should get none of the gains, but bear the larger share of the losses. It might be urged that the Attorney General merely left the law as it was. But this was not so—he had taken the law and re-modelled it. He had extended it to debts above £50, and he had taken it away where the debtor was unable to pay, although the debt had been fraudulently contracted. They must, therefore, consider it as a new law, which they were enacting for the first time, and should not send it forth with such an imperfection in it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 43, after the word "person," to add the words "That, in every case in which such jurisdiction is exercised, the Court shall make an order on the creditor at whose suit any person is committed to prison, for payment into Court of such sum as it shall deem sufficient to pay the costs of committal and the maintenance of the person imprisoned during the terra of his imprisonment, unless it shall be of opinion that the creditor is not of sufficient ability, on account of poverty, to pay the whole or any part of such expenses, in which case it shall make an order for payment into Court of part of such expenses, or shall certify the inability of the creditor to pay any part of such expenses as the circumstances of the case may be; and such officer as the Court may designate shall inform himself, and his evidence shall be sufficient as to the proper amount of such expenses; and the treasurer of the Court shall be accountable to the clerk of the peace or town clerk, as the case may be, of the county or borough in which such person is imprisoned for such expenses when ordered to be paid into Court to the amount so ordered, and shall be accountable to the creditor for any sum which may remain after such accounting as aforesaid; and no order of committal shall be executed until payment into Court shall have been made of any money so ordered to be paid into Court." —(Mr. Stapleton.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could hardly suppose that the hon. Gentleman was serious in proposing that the creditor should keep the debtor in prison at his own expense. The object of imprisonment was to enable poor creditors to recover their debts. If a labourer earning 15 s. a week imprisoned his master for refusing to pay the wages when he had the means to do so, then the labourer was to be called on to allot a certain portion of his weekly earnings for the maintenance of his master in prison. It would be fining a poor man for no fault of his own. It was impossible for him to entertain such an Amendment.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON, adverting to Clause 11, said, that the effect of that provision was that if a person did not do certain stated things he should be deemed guilty of misdemeanour, and be liable to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, unless the jury were satisfied that he did not abstain from doing those things with intent to defraud. This introduced a new principle in criminal law, for it had hitherto been held that the accused was to be deemed innocent until found guilty, and that where doubt existed the benefit of that doubt

  767
  was to be given in his favour. It might be said the objection was a lawyer's objection; but the phraseology of the clause involved a substantial question, and reversed the ordinary rule of our criminal jurisprudence—that the accused should have the benefit of a doubt. He moved the omission of certain words and the addition of others.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 23, after the word "If," to insert the word "with intent to defraud."—(Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
  MR. ANDERSONobserved that the string of Amendments of which his hon. and learned Friend had given notice were Amendments of alterations introduced by him, and if the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. and learned Sergeant should be preferred by the Attorney General, he should of course have no objection to his phraseology being corrected. It was, however, rather a lawyer's than a merchant's question.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERdenied that the clause threw the onus probandi on the wrong party. The language of the clause was not the best, but the words of the Amendment were less suitable for the purpose for which they were intended. The criticism of the hon. and learned Serjeant was only a verbal one.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Serjeant's Amendment would not be adopted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the words which had been inserted were rather in favour of the accused. He thought it would be better to retain them.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  An Amendment made.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL— [BILL 15.]
(Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Grant Duff.)
UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL— [BILL 15.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had placed on the Paper a Notice of Amendment,
  768
  not only with a view of taking the sense of the House upon it if his friends should desire it, but in order that there might be some discussion on the principle of this important Bill. He was quite aware that his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General), who was for the time the promoter of this measure, might say, as he said before, that no discussion was necessary, and that discussion of it was mere waste of time. But the discussion last year was defective on two very material points. At that time neither the House nor the country had realized the principle of disestablishment, then enunciated for the first time. They did not know how far the right hon. Gentleman proposed to go, nor did they then foresee that this Session he would occupy the Treasury Bench, surrounded by Members of a Cabinet, some of whom had for many years been most determined opponents of all establishments. Again, the debate of last year had another peculiar feature—it was a proposition, a curriculum so to speak, for the election contest then about to ensue in order that Radical candidates might denounce their opponents, and every effort was made by Members opposite to misrepresent the action of the Conservative party on this question, and to prejudice the public mind unfavourably with regard to it. In proof of that assertion he would refer to a speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope), which appeared next day in the first person in a morning journal devoted to ultra-Liberal politics, and went far and wide through the land. And what was the climax of that speech? It was that the hon. Gentleman had gone into a smoking - room and seen half-a-dozen young gentlemen playing at billiards who owned as many millions of property, but could not get a decent education because they were sons of Dissenters. Although such a statement might do very well for an article in the Morning Star and for an ignorant class of electors such as seemed to exist at Stoke-upon-Trent—it was utterly without foundation as every reasonable being must know. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House most strongly repudiated the attempts made to charge them with injustice to Dissenters. He had always maintained in that House and elsewhere that the Universities were national institutions, and that the Dis-

  769
  senters should be admitted without tests; that they should be allowed not only to take degrees, but also to vote as members of Convocation or members of the Senate, and be permitted to establish their own Colleges or Halls if they thought fit to found such institutions. Holding those opinions he could not see how Dissenters could in justice or equity claim to form part of the Governing Bodies of Church of England Colleges. It is time there was a great distinction between property acquired by the Colleges before the Reformation and property acquired after; but it must be remembered that the pre-Reformation endowments were held exactly by the same title as Church property generally throughout the country, and the same principle must apply to both—many Nonconformists, no doubt, were opposed to all endowments—but as regarded Roman Catholics, considering that if there was anybody which had ever struggled to retain every scrap of property it was the Roman Catholic Church, he could not see how they could support this Bill. Some time last year there appeared in the Tablet, which he was informed was the principal organ of the Roman Catholics of this country, an article which said that when they came to the question of principle it was impossible for any Roman Catholic to vote for the Bill; but it must be remembered that the Church of England did not teach truth, and therefore Roman Catholic Members were enabled to support it. But, as the question of denominational education abroad was now occupying the attention of those who were most attached to the principles of the Church of Rome, he hoped Roman Catholic Members would pause before they supported a Bill which was an abnegation of the principles most dear to their Church. By the policy pursued towards the Irish Church he (Mr. Bentinck) insisted that the issue on this question was now altogether changed from that of last year, and it was absolutely necessary before this Bill passed that the House should receive from Her Majesty's Government some enunciation of the principles upon which they were about to proceed with regard to the Church of England. He viewed with great regret the state of the Treasury Bench, without one of the responsible Ministers of the Crown in his place— the result, no doubt, of those disastrous
  770
  Morning Sittings when Ministers could not be in two places at once. The Government should declare their views and submit a measure as a final settlement. If they proposed a scheme leaving the government of the Church Colleges in the hands of the Church, and establishing a certain number of Fellowships, in the nature of Exhibitions which might be held by individuals who were not members of the Church of England, it would meet with no objection from the Opposition side of the House, but what they objected to were "little tinkering measures"—a favourite expression of the right hon. Member for Birmingham— which were merely instalments of something else. His hon. and learned Friend had talked to them about not hoisting the flag of "No Surrender!" which was sure to be torn down. With a majority of 115 at his back, it was easy for his hon. and learned Friend to say that. And now they were told to be wise in time. But the ultra-Dissenters, upon whom his hon. and learned Friend depended for his election at Exeter, would be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of the Church of England; and a great measure of that kind lay behind, and would make its appearance when this little measure was got rid of. If there was one individual who ought to be in his place on this occasion it was the Prime Minister. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would refer him to his past career; for if there was one question upon which the right hon. Gentleman had been more erratic than another, it was this University question. The last speech he delivered on this subject was spoken on the 14th of June, 1865. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were then two real questions before the House. The first being whether University education could be separated from the spirit of a distinct and definite religion; and the second being whether the recognition of religion was necessary to enable the University to perform its work as part of the discipline of life. In answering these questions the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I confess for myself that, apart from all distinctions between Churchmen and Dissenters, I am convinced of the soundness and wisdom, under the circumstances of this country, of that which is called the denominational system. I mean that we should not endeavour to tamper with the features and principles either of the Established or any other religion. I would recognize the same

  771
  sacredness against political invasion in the one case as in the other. To maintain a definite religious teaching is the principle on which we have proceeded in the whole of our recent and most important administrative and legislative Acts with regard to primary and popular education. And that is a principle to which I think we ought to adhere in our Universities as well as in our grammar schools."—[3 Hansard, clxxx. 226–7.]
  Now, in the autumn of 1866, a very remarkable criticism was delivered on this speech by no less a person than his hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff), who must be of high authority, because from a crowd of aspirants he was selected by the right hon. Gentleman to fill the responsible post of Under Secretary for India. It would be well known to readers of the public prints, that it was the annual custom of the present Indian Under Secretary, during the dead season of the year to deliver, at some remote spot in Scotland, a speech, or rather oration, to his breech-less constituents upon the topics of the day. These orations had certainly not the merit of brevity, and he was not going to ask the House to follow him through the oration of 1866; but he would nevertheless venture to read one most relevant passage where his hon. Friend, after stating that the right hon. Gentleman had fired a revolver in the faces of his partizans, proceeded as follows:—
  "The only mistake in tactics was that truly astounding speech which he made on the Oxford Tests Bill, and which put the Liberal party in the absurd position of gaining its one great victory in this unhappy Session at once over its enemies and its commander-in-chief. I had, perhaps, more reason than anyone to feel annoyance at his gratuitous onslaught upon his best friends; but, when the first vexation was over, I forgot it in reflecting on the amusing glimpse which it affords into the state of mind of this highly-gifted man. Just at this stage of his career the neophyte leader of the Liberals is a curious study. What he hates most, hates with concentrated malignity, is that thorough - going Liberalism which extends to every department of thought; and he hates it because he has a suspicion that the line upon which he has been moving when produced leads to that end. He has a horrible foreboding that time is on the side of those politicians who, when he started in public life, were at the opposite pole of the political sphere, against whom all the strength of his youth and of his manhood were directed. Read his early speeches; study his early books. He has travelled far since then, and may well murmur at that destiny which may lead him, like the Sicambrian of old, to burn what he adores, and to adore what he has burnt."
  In May, 1867, when the Bill was read a second time, the right hon. Gentle-
  772
  man was found voting with the minority, but in 1868 — and the occurrence exhibited most strikingly the effects of time upon great minds—the right hon. Gentleman rushed into the House just before the division was taken, and went into the Lobby with the hon. and learned Gentleman. When such a great change had come over the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in so short a time, he at least should be in his place to give some explanation of the reasons which had led to that change. He was much afraid that the time would come when the Church of England would be offered up in the same way as the Irish Church was being offered up; and, therefore, he was anxious to know how far the Government intended to proceed in that direction at the present moment. He desired to see the Dissenters and the Roman Catholics confirmed in the indisputable possession of their property, but he claimed that the same principles should be applied to the Church of England, which was that of the large majority of the intelligence of this nation. Believing then this to be a most dishonest measure; that, while his hon. and learned Friend declared the Bill was permissive and would practically be inoperative, the majority of the Members opposite regarded it in a different light, and as a lever to overthrow the English Establishment, he begged to move that the House resolve itself into the said Committee upon the Bill on that day three months.
  MR. HENLEYseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Bentinck,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CAMPBELL: If I venture to trespass on the time of the House, it is because on this question I entertain very strong opinions, and my opinions not only differ diametrically from those of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Bentinck), but also from those held by many supporters of the

  773
  Bill. It appears to me, Sir, that all the arguments that have been addressed to the House on this subject, both on former occasions and during the present Session, have proceeded on the supposition that the University system is nearly perfect. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed their fears lest the influx of a large body of students unconnected with the Church of England should impair the present excellent system; while ton. Gentlemen on this side have endeavoured to calm those fears. Sir, if I wish to see this measure passed into law, I am almost afraid to say that it is precisely because of what I conceive to be the gross inefficiency of the present system, and because my only hope of its amendment lies in the infusion of fresh blood. Hon. Members look back on the Universities through a mist of pleasant recollections and associations which, to a great extent, blinds their eyes to the real state of the case. But I am only expressing the opinion of a great many University men when I say that not only do those Universities with a maximum of endowments educate a minimum number of the young men of the nation, but to those few young men they afford a minimum of education at a maximum of expense. We used to hear the Universities spoken of as "places of sound learning and religious education." Our belief is that the learning is not very sound, and that the religion is not very learned. Sir, I have no wish to disparage or depreciate the good which a young man receives from his residence at a University. He can hardly fail to acquire, in greater or less degree, that most subtle but most valuable quality which may, perhaps, best be termed knowledge of the world. But this benefit is entirely extraneous, entirely extra-academical; he obtains it from mixing in society with his contemporaries, and not in any sense from the University system. So far as more solid acquirements are concerned the University and Colleges leave him to his own resources; he is obliged to hire for himself a tutor to conduct his studies; and for all practical purposes, he might every bit as well prepare for the periodical examinations in London or Paris, as at Oxford or Cambridge. Now, Sir, let us consider the religious teaching on which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond sets such store, and which he
  774
  would so jealously guard. What does it amount to? I do not wish to detain the House, but I would remind hon. Gentlemen who have been at a University, and would inform other hon. Members what it is. I will take the largest and most illustrious College at either University. What training in religion does an undergraduate there receive? There is compulsory attendance at chapel. Now, Sir, this a matter of discipline—sometimes even of penal discipline—and I venture to think the House will not attach much importance to the influence of such attendance on the religious character of a young man under these circumstances. Then he is examined in the course of his residence on two or three Gospels or other parts of the New Testament; but these are, very properly, treated as pieces of classical literature, just as a Greek play would be, and not with regard to dogmatic teaching, or moral training. He has also to pass an examination in Butler's Analogy, Butler's Three Sermons, and—if that work be dignified with the title of religious — on Dr. Whewell's Elements of Morality. But the most important piece of this education—the piéce de resistance of this theological banquet — is Dr. Paley's Evidences of Christianity, a work undoubtedly of the highest merit, and of great historical interest; but its interest is mainly historical, and it is hardly suited to be used as a text-book. And as to the value of this as an element in religious education I may say that a week or two ago I met in the Library of this House, two Members of the House who have not very long ago left the University. They asked me if I could remember a certain argument of Paley's; and, in order at once to suggest to my memory, and to refresh their own, they repeated a fragment of a line of wretched jargon, a piece of memoria technica which is used for the purpose of getting up this subject, and which was probably all that remained to them of Dr. Paley's work. Now, Sir, even supposing—which many may doubt—that it is advisable to supplement at the University the religious training which is better received at home, and at an earlier period of life, I venture to submit that this so-called "religious education" has no substantial value. And yet it is to secure the maintenance of this system that the hon.

  775
  and learned Member for Richmond wishes to clog the clauses of the Bill with all sorts of conditions. I humbly submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman, to whose motives we all so readily defer—is fighting for a shadow—that he has really gone to war for an idea. Sir, I think we are very far wrong if we look on this as a mere question of Churchman and Dissenter. For my part, I have no wish to take from the Church of England anything which rightfully belongs to her; nor, on the other hand, have I any sympathy with the motives of those —and there are not a few—who hope, under the provisions of this Bill, to see a very select number of the Dissenting youth brought up to the Universities, there to be fascinated by the influence of the Church of England, and, as it were, inveigled into her fold. Sir, I think such considerations should not be taken into account by this House. This is not, I say, a sectarian question, it is a national question; it is not a question of aggrandizing or denuding any individual sect, it is a question of raising the efficiency of the Universities as national instruments of education; and I firmly believe that the infusion of new blood, which will result from the adoption of this policy, will speedily bring their teaching organization into greater harmony with the times. Above all, it is not that we wish to have what may be called a scramble for the endowments. I am inclined to think that such overgrown endowments are positively pernicious in their effect; that they create apathy and ineffectiveness, so that sometimes the object for which institutions exist is altogether missed. The Oxford Commissioners reported of some of the wealthiest Colleges that if they were altogether abolished, there would be a loss to the picturesque architectural beauty of Oxford; there would be no loss to the University, the Church, or the nation. Changes have, of course, been made since the time when that statement was made, but they have not been very vital. We wish to see the Universities thrown altogether open to the nation; and thus, while the nation derives the full benefit of the high traditional position of those great institutions, my hope is, that the freer and fuller life of the nation will in turn react on the Universities, and render them better qualified to fill their high position.
  776
  I hope that the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the speech to which they had just listened was one of those strong orations which were apt to be interposed when a great question was approaching to a practical solution. Its argument amounted to the expression of a wish to alter the Universities radically and fundamentally—the belief that the learning imparted there was not sound; the religion taught was not real, and the endowments were too great. In a single word he wished the Universities of England to become the Universities of Scotland and Germany. Such was the hon. Member's argument summed up briefly and neatly. It was well that the House should see to what some persons were driving, while introducing so great a change under the mild form of an enabling measure. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) however, did not read the Bill in the same way as the hon. Gentleman, and in order that it might be fully discussed, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven would not persist in his Motion, but would take a division on the 6th clause, which touched the Colleges. In his eyes the Bill proposed two things: first, to open the Universities compulsorily; and, secondly, to confer an enabling power upon the Colleges to open themselves to Dissenters. Those two things had no natural connection; and they had been brought forward in former years in different measures. No doubt we had lately heard that the fusion of the two proposals had become unseverable; but the example of that which was going on "elsewhere" showed that policies might come to life again after their extinction had been declared an article of political faith. He would divide the Bill now as it had been heretofore divided, and consider whether it might not be possible to meet the grievance, such as it was, by trying the experiment of only opening the Universities. He could not tell how far the consideration might weigh with the House, but it seemed to him a hardship that the question had now, for the first time during the Session, come on to be seriously debated, after the bodies vitally affected by the Bill had broken up for their summer vacation, and could not be consulted upon any compromise. He did not deny that there was the sem-

  777
  blance of a grievance. It was, in fact, a general proposition that no proposal for any change was ever made without some grievance, more or less real, existing behind. But the question at issue was whether the remedy might or might not be worse than the disease to which it was applied. Whether it was good or bad in itself to open the Universities, he was willing to try the experiment; because he thought the time had come when it would be wise to make the concession, and run the risk. He was not of the same opinion, however, with regard to the Colleges. The Universities were already open to a very considerable extent. Dissenters might go through the whole curriculum, and obtain Collegiate distinctions and emoluments in their undergraduate career. They might appear in the Honour List, and in both Universities take the degree of B.A.; whilst in Cambridge they might also take that of M.A., though without the vote in the Senate attaching to the degree. And if a person had taken the M.A. degree as a member of the Church of England, he did not forfeit his vote by becoming a Nonconformist. He would equalize the system in both Universities, and allow the Dissenter to take his degree of M.A., and the degrees in Law, Medicine, and Music, and to obtain the votes attaching to those degrees. He thought they might fairly make the experiment without further disputation; and that would clear away the contention involved in the first portion of the Bill. As to the permissive power of the Colleges to open themselves to Nonconformist Fellows, he would ask the House to consider what was the grievance under which Dissenters lay. The grievance of social degradation was a mere chimera. There was no social degradation at all in it. As an undergraduate the Nonconformist wore the same dress, dined in the same hall, and had the same rooms as anybody else. He got into society not according to the creed he professed, but according to his power of making himself agreeable to those with whom he lived; and so the agreeable and intelligent Dissenter had a great advantage over the surly and niggardly Churchman. At the present moment Cambridge could show the Roman Catholic, the Jew, and the votary of one of the ancient religions of the East mixing together upon a footing of ab-
  778
  solute equality. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Melly) had, during the last Session, made a hit by telling a good story of having met seven Dissenters together, worth the expectancy of £4,000,000, in the billiard-room of a provincial club, who, as he averred, had evidently missed the benefits of a University education, because they were Nonconformists. Now, he ventured to observe that this story was totally irrelevant. These gentlemen might, if they liked, have gone to the University and taken their degrees and all prizes open to undergraduates, and all they could not have taken was just what the reversioner of the seventh part of £4,000,000 could not much care for —a Fellowship. He could not but fear, therefore, that the deficiencies of these young gentlemen arose, not so much from the constitution of the Universities as from a genuine preference for billiards and tobacco. Had he (Mr. Melly) told a story of seven intellectual and hardworking sons of Dissenting ministers not worth 400 pence, it would have been more to the purpose; and to such cases he (Mr. Beresford Hope) now addressed himself. He admitted that there was an individual grievance in the case of every Nonconformist, who having distinguished himself at the University, found himself precluded from the higher emoluments and advantages which that University had to bestow upon its meritorious sons. He made that admission knowing its force; but he would proceed to inquire whether the giving of plenary indulgence to those few exceptional persons would or would not be dangerous to the body politic. He feared that it would be so. It must be remembered that the Colleges were not homogeneous institutions, and though the introduction of the alien element into one of the larger Colleges with its sixty Fellows might or might not have serious effects, it would be otherwise in the ease of the smaller Colleges, with, it may be, under a dozen Fellows in all. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had drawn an exaggerated picture of the smallness of the amount of religious education now given at the Universities. Admitting for one minute that his description might, in certain respects, be applicable to the minimum amount of religious teaching with which a layman might be able to scrape through, he would remind the

  779
  hon. Gentleman that he ignored the much larger amount of theological education which the Universities bestowed upon that considerable proportion of their members who proposed to enter the sacred ministry. It was the injury to those men, arising from permission being given to the Colleges to alter their religious character, which he dreaded. The time might come when such seminaries for the clergy of a disestablished and disendowed Church of England as they had in the Colleges of our two Universities would be of the greatest value; and in face of the possibility of the day for the great crash coming for the Church of England he did not see why they should now huckster away one by one the advantages she now enjoyed. He would briefly touch upon one of the most specious arguments in favour of the change. It had been argued that because the Church of England—the most tolerant Church in the world, by the confession alike of friend and foe—admitted of many shades of difference, and that those who cast those shades, lived together in tolerable harmony within the several Colleges, therefore, that a little more diversity outside of that Church would not spoil the harmony. To him the argument seemed to answer itself. The course of that apparently difficult harmony, in face of antagonistic tendencies, was the secret influence of the occult vexus involved in belonging to the same community, being of the same Church. Take away that gentle yet persuasive restraint, and it would be impossible to say what breaches of peace and charity, what conflicts, might not ensue. Had the Colleges and the Universities themselves invited that change? He contended that they had not. The University which he had the honour of representing had last year presented a Petition against the Bill, signed by between 2,000 and 3,000 of its members. This year it had presented one as numerously signed, and bearing such names as Stokes and Adams, Challis and Willis—men of European fame— men whose genuine zeal for the advancement of scientific knowledge, for its own sake, all must recognize. There might, he said again, be here and there an individual grievance, but had they ever given the Universities a fair opportunity of trying whether they could not in some way or other remedy that indi-
  780
  vidual grievance? They had not; and he contended, therefore, that it was premature and unfair to apply the cutting remedy of the knife to a complaint which gentle and curative remedies might heal. The present House of Commons had surely done enough this year in the way of pulling down, and might be content with passing only that portion of the Bill that had to do with the Universities, and postponing to another Session the one or two clauses which had references to the Colleges, with a view to seeing whether, in the meantime, when the attention of the Universities had been seriously directed to the question, some means might not be found of indemnifying, of honouring, and of contenting Nonconformists who had distinguished themselves in their University career, without altering the constitution of the Colleges themselves. The method he proposed would be that of enabling the Colleges to alienate some portion of their revenues for the purpose of founding University or honorary Fellowships or prelectorships, which would enable the Nonconformists to enjoy the substantial rewards of their studies without giving them a share in the Government of the Colleges. This solution of the difficulty had often formed the subject of private deliberation among the persons most interested in the question, but it had never been publicly canvassed, owing to the somewhat high-handed way in which the promoters of the Bill had always declined to enter into counsel with the Universities.
  MR. W. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he was anxious to offer a few remarks, which should be very brief, upon this question, because he was one of those who were prepared to support this Bill, and yet who did not wish to see any very great alteration in the general character of the education at our Universities. He believed that the idea which lay at the bottom of the opposition to this Bill was that the effect of it would be to secularize the Universities, that is, to destroy the distinctive character of their religious teaching. Now, if he thought that secularization was to be the result of this Bill, he did not think he should be able to vote for it; but he was far from thinking that the secularizing of the teaching in the Universities would be the result. By secularization he supposed was meant the destruction

  781
  or elimination of the religious element. But in what did the religious element in University education chiefly consist? Not, he thought, in the religious teaching given, but rather in the influence which the associations of the place exercised on undergraduates; the respect and veneration excited by the characters of the great men who had lived there, and in the private study of divinity. These influences the Bill would be unable to affect; and, therefore, he should vote for it, as he had voted for it before, believing that it would not destroy the religious influences now felt at the Universities. There were two or three alternatives to the passing of this measure. One was to leave things as they were. That alternative, he thought, they might consider as practically given up. The opinion of the country was growing stronger and stronger against such a course. First and foremost his reason against it was that it was inequitable. The present position of things was one they could not maintain. To allow Dissenters to come to the Universities, to toil through the inferior stages of the course of education, and when at last they offered themselves for examination for Fellowships to say— ''Thus far shall ye come, but no farther,'' was a position which could not long be maintained. But, beyond this, he would submit that the present test system was ineffectual; and for two reasons. It was ineffectual partly because, he was told, there were persons who took the test not bonâ fide, arguing that as it was, in their view, an immoral test, they could not be morally bound to observe it. He hoped there were not many who acted on such a principle, but he had been told, and he believed, there were some. The present system was also ineffectual, because the House must recollect that of late years the tendency had been to throw more and more of the teaching of the place into the hands of quite young men, who were lecturers or private tutors, but who, in many cases, were neither tutors nor Fellows, and who, therefore, were not brought under the test. There was one other alternative— it was the scheme alluded to by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) for retaining one portion of the endowments in connection with the rest, and surrendering the other. That had not been
  782
  hitherto much ventilated; but, as far as he was able to form an opinion of it, it seemed to him that the result of this scheme would be unfortunate. It would tend to bring the various Colleges, if not into antagonism, at least into very marked contradistinction one from another, and to destroy that social equality which was, upon the whole, so satisfactory a characteristic of University education. He also thought it would be the means of introducing that very secularism which he should be very sorry to see introduced. There remained nothing for it but to pass this Bill. Having voted for the second reading, he should vote for going into Committee, because above all he considered it was equitable. He thought to shut out Dissenters from the legitimate rewards of a University course was a thing most invidious for us to do, and most humiliating for them to submit to. Moreover, he was convinced that this change would be highly beneficial to the Universities. The Universities were places of learning and religion; and long might they so continue. But surely they were pre-eminently places of learning, and, if so, he thought it followed that they should be recruited from all ranks, to whatever creed those persons might belong, who were fitted by talent, position, and acquirements to extend the sphere of their usefulness. For these reasons he should vote for now going into Committee; but he trusted the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) would not give them the trouble of dividing.
  MR. WALPOLEcongratulated the House on the speech which they had just heard from the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. W. H. Gladstone). It was a clear, moderate, and admirable statement of the case on his side of the question. The hon. Member had made a favourable impression on the House, and he was sure that all who had heard him would wish to hear him often again. He desired, however, now, to point out the extraordinary difference there was between the two speeches that had been made in support of the Bill. The speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, delivered as it was with great clearness, seemed to him to run directly counter to the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell). That hon. Member argued as if the education now given in the Universities was defi-

  783
  cient, and as if that deficiency was in consequence of the non-admission of Dissenters. The Universities, he said, gave the minimum of the advantages of education with the maximum of its cost; that they discouraged learning; and, therefore, if any conclusion could be drawn from his premises, they ought to admit Dissenters, when all those evils would disappear, or, at least, be greatly mitigated. Now the hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that this was not at all a question whether Dissenters ought to be educated at the Universities or not. The hon. Gentleman's arguments might have been applicable thirty years ago when tests were applied not only on taking degrees but also on matriculation, and by these no doubt Dissenters were excluded. But since that time no tests were applied—no distinctions were made to prevent Dissenters from obtaining the full benefit of University education. Every possible encouragement was given them. Sizar-ships, Exhibitions, and Scholarships, he was glad to say, were open to Dissenters; and, speaking of Cambridge, of which he naturally knew more than of Oxford, he could state that within the last eight or ten years almost every variety of creed had been educated within its halls, comprising not only Dissenters on certain points of the Christian faith, but members of the Jewish persuasion, Parsees, and others, for whose religious instruction the parents undertook to make provision. The hon. Gentleman also alluded to what he called the failure of education in the Universities, and he spoke as if this alleged failure would be remedied by this Bill. Now it was fair to say that he believed there never was a period in the history of the country when the Universities did more to advance the education of the country, of Dissenters as well as Churchmen, than they had done within the last twenty years. The hon. Gentleman also seemed to think that the number of those attending the Universities had not increased. They had not increased as their friends would wish them to do; there were many reasons why the increase did not keep pace—though the fact was doubtful—with the increase in the population. But within the last ten or twelve years the number of matriculations at Cambridge had risen from 400 to 610, in those ten or twelve years show-
  784
  ing an increase of 50 per cent. The hon. Member said they had not increased equal to the students of foreign Universities. [Mr. CAMPBELL: I said the Scotch Universities.] Well, he had not a word to say against the Scotch Universities; he believed they did their work admirably, and he might advert to them afterwards as furnishing a proper mode of dealing with this Bill. But with regard to the foreign Universities, the House must bear in mind that there was a compulsory system, for no man could enter the service of the Government in any department without being required to go through a course of University education. The English system, on the other hand, was entirely voluntary. And yet, with the single exception of Berlin, there was not a foreign University that was equal in point of numbers to their own. The number of students in Berlin was 2,180, the number at Cambridge 2,153, so that the two were very nearly equal, and Cambridge exceeded all the other foreign Universities. Then it was said that the bulk of the people did not get the benefit of a University education, and that it was the object of this Bill to give it to them. He had already observed that he should be sorry if they did not get the benefit of an University education. But he maintained that every encouragement was given for the purpose, and that the Scholarships and Exhibitions were as so many shafts driven down into the lower strata of society, by which men might be brought up to the highest, and many of the most distinguished men in the country had risen to eminence in that way. It ought also to be borne in mind that Oxford had, some years ago, provided means for young students residing in lodgings, who could not afford to live in College, and Cambridge had since followed in the same course. This, then, was not a question of education; it was simply this — whether by the proposed alteration they could admit every variety of religious opinion to the Universities by opening them more than they were open at present, and by opening the Colleges in the one point on which alone there was anything like exclusion—and here he more particularly adverted to the speech of the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. W. H. Gladstone) —without the neglect of religious ordinances, without the compromise of reli-

  785
  gious consistency, and without any disturbance of religious peace. No one could deny that that was a fair test of the merits of the Bill. If they could adopt any scheme which would admit Dissenters to Convocation and to a vote in the Senate, on these terms, and reserving, of course, the Theological Professorships, which implied that the Professors must be members of the Church of England, then he would be among the foremost to say that he had no strong feeling of opposition to this Bill. But with regard to the Colleges, there was this to be borne in mind. In former times it might be contended that the Fellowships were not necessarily a part of the rewards for an University career, but were intended rather as the means by which a Governing Body for the University should be maintained, and it was through them that the Governing Body was now constituted. Well, then, if they were to make such an alteration as to enable any person to obtain a Fellowship, and so to become a member of the Governing Body, would the Governing Body, according to the trusts of the foundation and the usage which had ever existed, be a Governing Body according to the tenets of the Church with which alone these Colleges were connected? He had heard it stated over and over again that the admission of a few Dissenters would not prevent the continuance of the present religious system. But, to test the value of that opinion, they must see what the consequences of the admission of a few Dissenters would be upon the Governing Body. To take the case of Cambridge. The Colleges at Cambridge were divided into two classes—the larger Colleges of St. John's and Trinity, and in the other class all the minor Colleges—minor, he meant, as regards numbers. Now the seniority of St. John's and Trinity consisted only of eight Fellows, while the seniority of the others was even less than that, and consisted of only five or six. If, therefore, no precautions were taken, they might easily get a Governing Body which would not govern the Colleges according to the doctrines of the Established Church. The hon. Member for Whitby said that religious education would still be carried on much as it was now. His belief was that if this Bill were to pass one of two consequences must follow—either every form of religious be-
  786
  lief must be admitted into the Governing Body—and then it would be exceedingly difficult to carry on the work of religious instruction upon any system—or else they must say that there should be no religious instruction at all. Taking either alternative, they were running a danger which, at least, it was their duty to anticipate before passing the Bill into law. As to what had been said about the deficiency of religious instruction he wished to point out that it was not the amount of religious instruction which was to be given so much as the system established within these institutions which gave them their religious character. They were all the creatures of habit and the children of circumstances; they were governed more by association than by direct teaching and the particular instruction which might be given at the Universities. The influences infused into the youthful mind by such habits and associations were much more powerful than the direct religious teaching on the future life of the student. These influences he was unwilling to do away with. These, he feared, would be done away with if the Bill were passed in its present state. What was there to meet the difficulty? To his mind there were two and only two ways. The one was to establish Fellowships which should not be connected with the Colleges, but which should be made and instituted as the reward of a distinguished career; and that he thought would be difficult to accomplish. The other course was that some such course should be adopted as that which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir E. Palmer) recommended—that those who were admitted to Fellowships should make a declaration that they would not take advantage of their position to do anything or say anything contrary to the authority of the Divine Scriptures, or that militated against that form of religion which had always been the religion of the University and the Colleges. He was willing to go into Committee to see if provisions of that character could be introduced into the Bill; if not, he feared that he must oppose a measure which could not be passed without detriment or danger to the religious character of our University education.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that on a former Bill strong convictions had been expressed, but no division had taken

  787
  place. The Amendments in that case were proposed from the other side of the House. Now the debate had been maintained from this side of the House, and it elicited from the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. W. H. Gladstone) the hope that the religious character of the Universities would not be changed. That was a hope in which he did not join. If, however, the hon. Member desired to maintain the character of the Universities, such as it was, that was a desire in which he cordially shared. But what he wished to point out was that in this House they were coming to the habit of expressing strong convictions by their speeches, but of not giving effect to those convictions by their votes. The feeling was spreading still further in the country. Then, it appeared, that strong feelings were not to be expressed, if those feelings were disagreeable to others. The Home Secretary took it upon himself to prohibit a meeting, if he thought the opinions expressed were likely to be disagreeable to certain parties. The Mayor of Birmingham arrested a rate-payer who was going to a meeting, because it was supposed that that rate-payer would do or say something disagreeable. ["Question!"] Now what was this coming to? Hitherto, the system of government in this country, as in the Universities, rested upon the belief that Englishmen would not only express their opinions, but act upon them. On the other side of the House an example was being set of expressing opinions, and not only not acting upon them, but acting in direct contravention of them; and the very measure before the House was to prevent the requirement of the expression of decided opinion in matters connected with religion. To what was all this tending? Why, to a state of things which existed only under despotic Governments. He wished to impress on the House that if the present system of education in this country was to be maintained, it could only exist on the foundation on which it had hitherto rested; and that foundation had always been that not only should the people express, but act upon their convictions, and recognize conscience as the basis of their actions. He saw in the present Bill a proposal to undermine the education of future generations of a higher class; and his belief was that this was but a step in that course of pro-
  788
  ceedings which would not only change the laws and customs of the country, but effect such an extensive change in the course of education as would alter the whole system of thought and action, disassociating action from conscience, and in the course of time, undermine those institutions, on which he placed the highest value. He did not care how large might be the majority, or how small the minority, but must enter his protest against the course which was now being pursued.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that after the appeal of the hon. Member near him (Mr. Beresford Hope) he would not trouble the House to divide, but would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered, in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title of Act).
  MR. STEVENSON MR. STEVENSON moved, in page 1, line 13, leave out "and," and after "Cambridge," insert "and Durham," in order to prevent the government of that University being left solely in the hands of members of the Church of England.
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he did not see the necessity for the Amendment, because he believed the feeling of the Convocation of Durham was to do that voluntarily which was now proposed to be done by Act of Parliament. To adopt the Amendment, would, he thought, be setting a new and undesirable precedent in our legislation.
  MR. BOUVERIEasked whether it was competent to the Committee to extend to the Durham University the title of a Bill, the object of which was to repeal certain statutes relative to Oxford and Cambridge? The whole scope of the Bill referred to these two Universities, and had nothing whatever to do with the University of Durham.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it had been held that when the subject-matter of a Bill had not been departed from, it might be extended over a wider area than was contemplated when the Bill was introduced. He therefore thought that the Amendment was not out of Order.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that the Preamble only referred to Oxford and Cambridge. Could Durham be introduced without an Instruction to the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Preamble of the Bill might be amended, without any Instruction.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid, that the University of Durham was established, in 1837, by Royal Charter, which gave the power of conferring degrees. Several years ago all religious tests, except in regard to theological degrees, were done away with. There were, however, still some disabilities and restrictions which were disadvantageous to students, namely —the difficulty of obtaining a seat in the Senate and in Convocation. The object of the Amendment was to do away with those disabilities, and to establish perfect religious equality, and it was calculated in an enormous degree to increase the educational power of the University. As no opposition had been offered, it might be presumed that Durham University was inclined to submit itself to the authority of Parliament.
  MR. HEADLAMsupported the Amendment, and believed that its operation would, be highly advantageous to the North of England.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that Durham University originally formed no part of the scheme, and it would be a strong measure to alter the purpose for which that University was founded, during the lifetime of one of its founders. He had not, however, heard that the University of Durham objected to being included in the Bill, and as he understood from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mowbray) that it was likely to do voluntarily what was now proposed, he should offer no objection to the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he did not see how any objections could possibly come from Durham when the Preamble and the Title only referred to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. No one could have supposed that the Bill applied to Durham, and he did not think it right that Durham University should be included in the Bill by a side-wind. He thought the University of Durham should have had more time to consider the Amendment.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid, the University had had timely notice of these
  790
  alterations which had been discussed by the Senate, and if they had thought it wise to appear here by Petition they would have done so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Persons taking lay academicals degrees not to be required, to subscribe any formulary of faith, &c).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he should have been prepared, on the question of principle, to have divided against the Bill on any stage; and if he did not now divide against the present clause it was not because he had changed in his opposition to the Bill, for he still strongly objected to its principle, and he believed it was impossible to carry it out on any satisfactory footing. He would, however, take a division on the 6th clause, and he thought it right to give the hon. and learned Gentleman timely notice of his intention.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Act of Uniformity, &c, so far as relates to Collegiate offices, &c, repealed).
  MR. RAIKESmoved, in line 33, to leave out "mastership or headship" and "tutorship." Hon. Members opposite seemed to consider that Collegiate offices should be regarded as academical prizes; but hon. Gentlemen on that side were not of that opinion. The object of this Amendment was to except from the operation of the clause those offices which stood in loco parentis, and there was a wide distinction between such offices and the offices of instruction. The majority of parents who sent their sons to the Universities were members of the Church of England, and it was not unfair that the persons to whom they committed their sons for care and discipline should be members of the same communion to which they belonged. The Amendment would leave entirely open the Fellowships, lectureships, &c, which it would be the ambition of Nonconformists to obtain. When hon. Members opposite had the splendid majority they possessed at present, it was always well to be generous, and if they wished to settle the question upon an enduring

  791
  basis the best way to do so was by showing some consideration for the sympathies of the minority.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that this Amendment was an illustration of the un wisdom of refusing moderate proposals when there was an opportunity of coming to an agreement; because when he first introduced this portion of the Bill seven or eight years ago his proposal did not extend to headships or tutorships at all, but to Fellowships. With regard to masterships and tutorships, he thought the Act of Uniformity afforded no security whatever, the real security was in the statutes of the Colleges. In Oxford, he believed the statutes of every College but one required the master to be a clergyman of the Church of England; and, consequently, a much greater security was in that way obtained for the doctrine, belief, and religious character of the head of the College than could possibly be had by maintaining the provision of the Act of Uniformity which imposed a declaration of conformity with the doctrines of the Church of England.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsupported the Amendment, and appealed to the Treasury Bench to meet the opposition in the spirit in which the Opposition were disposed to meet them. If they were to do so, they might obtain a solution which would be satisfactory to moderate men. He would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury himself, who, up to recent times, had very strong opinions on this subject, to give his views to the Committee. This was a subject upon which very strong opinions were held, not only in that House but out of it, and the clergy felt much more interested in it than even in the important subject now under debate in "another place." He remembered reading a speech of the Prime Minister, in which he said that so long as the people of this country wished that an Established Church should remain in this country so long should the connection between religion, the Church, and the Universities remain. He hoped we had not arrived at the conclusion that the Established Church of this country was not to remain.
  MR. WALTERsaid, it appeared to him that they were forestalling the discussion upon the clause as a whole, and that the particular question raised by the hon. Member was one of comparatively
  792
  trivial importance. The question, it appeared to him, would have to be settled ultimately between the Governing Bodies of the Colleges and the public at large,— that is, the parents of the young men who should go to the Colleges. He, for one, could not imagine, if the present state of feeling continued, and the great majority of parents desired that their sons should receive a religious education, that they would ever send their sons to receive education where no religious instruction whatever would be given. He could not conceive it likely that any College, which expected to retain its hold upon Church of England parents, would consent to appoint to a tutorship or a headship the member of a different persuasion, because that would be the way to lose its connection with that class of parents altogether. But this clause did afford the best possible way of putting a great principle to the test,—namely, whether or not and to what extent the members of other religious bodies than the Church of England should be permitted to enjoy the full rewards of University distinction. While, for one, he was not prepared to go the full length of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) and apply any compulsory measure to the Colleges, he would throw on them the onus of acting as they thought fit, and leave the question of religious instruction in the Universities to be settled between them, and the public at large.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the very last course he would wish to take in any matter was to act on the principle of vœ victis to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. But he wished to point out what they were doing by this Bill and what the hon. Gentleman proposed to qualify. The Bill, as had been said two or three times over, was divided into two parts, dealing with, two separate subjects, and on two different principles. Right or wrong, those who were advocating this Bill thought the Universities national institutions, in the sense that Parliament could dictate to them the policy they should pursue. With regard to the Colleges, right or wrong, they had treated them as quasi- private institutions, as institutions which were to be consulted in all the changes that might be made. They removed all Parliamentary restrictions upon their freedom of action, and left them bound by

  793
  their own statutes. Whatever their statutes, they would remain unaltered; whatever their feelings, they would remain unaltered; all that was proposed was to remove from their freedom of action those restrictions which Parliament itself had imposed. But this measure would be useless, and would not have twelve months' life, if they drew such distinctions as the hon. Gentleman desired. He left the Colleges free, but did not force them in their action.
  MR. BENTINCK, seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in his place, wished to repeat the remarks he had already made, to the effect that it was important the right hon. Gentleman should state his views upon this measure, with reference to which his opinions had undergone so recent and so important a change. Until last year the right hon. Gentleman had always voted against this Bill, and therefore, looking at the policy he had pursued with reference to the Irish Church, the Committee had a right to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would state what policy the Government intended to pursue with respect to religious institutions generally. It must not be forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman was now associated with those who were the declared enemies of all religious Establishments.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on his Amendment, but would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he wished to make a few observations before the Committee proceeded to a division upon the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) was mistaken if he supposed that the Bill met the wishes or would satisfy the demands of Dissenters. At a breakfast of the Friends of Religious Liberty, held on the 16th of March last, one of the speakers, Sir George Young, said that the University Tests Bill was not so valuable a measure as some supposed, and would only do away with the restrictions imposed by Act of Parliament, and not with those imposed by the Colleges, and another speaker followed in the same strain, and denied that it ought to be
  794
  regarded as a compromise. Where, then, was the worth of the concession if these were the views of those for whose sake the measure was intended? The Solicitor General had said that the Colleges were not national institutions like the Universities, and that, therefore, there was no intention to interfere with them. But, if this Bill were passed he saw nothing to prevent an attack being made upon the Colleges next year. He should divide against the clause.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, it would be time enough to oppose undesirable changes when they were proposed, and that the present clause should be regarded on its own merits, and not as a possible step to future changes. If it were the sound view to allow the Colleges to have as much freedom as to the admission of persons not belonging to the Church of England to their offices and emoluments as would be consistent, if Parliament did not interfere to the contrary, with their own constitutions and laws—and that was his view of the matter—it was also a sound view that they should be freed from all the Parliamentary restraints now imposed upon them. Those who really wished to maintain religious teaching in the Universities would be resting their case upon a false issue if they were to say—"We must either retain the old Parliamentary restrictions or we must give up everything." For his part, he did not intend to abandon religious teaching, and he believed that there were many on his side of the House who entertained the same view. He did not believe that there was a majority on the side of the House on which he sat who were desirous of merely secularizing the education of the University. Whether that were the case or not, the difficulties in the way of legislating for such an object would be infinitely greater than those which were in the way of those who desired to see the Colleges free from Parliamentary restraints. On the whole he could not join in a vote against this clause.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYregretted that those who opposed this clause would not have the support of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), who had at heart the preservation of the religious character of the Universities. They were now dealing with a state of things which he could not bring himself to look upon in

  795
  the same light as the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member said that they were about to remove merely the Parliamentary restrictions upon the Colleges. Why, that was almost an idle remark. Already they had within the House many who were anxious to carry the measure still further than it went at present, while it was quite clear that outside the House a great many persons were by no means satisfied with it. What would be the result if one College were to open its doors to all, while another retained its restrictions? He was unwilling to take away the existing Parliamentary restrictions so as to permit a temporary majority to effect a change in the constitution of the Colleges which would never be reversed. It would be as impossible to restore the restrictions when once abolished as it would be to render the London University a denominational institution. But this was the principle upon which he (Mr. G. Hardy) was acting himself; and it was also the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and which he had never withdrawn or qualified. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman voted in a different sense from what he had ever done before, without any explanation or without retracting any of the expressions he had uttered on the subject on former occasions. In 1866, the right hon. Gentleman said it seemed to him an act of equity, justice, and policy to demand that nothing should be done which would not secure the maintenance of a religious system of education in the Universities. In 1867, he said he would not question that security should be taken to preserve the present system of religious education in the Universities and Colleges. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond propose? He proposed to do away with the old tests for the purpose of substituting a new one. If they had a divided Governing Body, they would have in it men of no religion at all—men who were anxious to escape from the trammels which they had imposed upon themselves, but which they were anxious to shake off, because they now believed them to be the fetters of superstition. It was idle to suppose that they could continue the religious teaching in the Colleges if the conscientious convictions of each individual were to be regarded, and they must come
  796
  to secularization, whatever might be their wishes in the matter. It was not the intention of Bills of this kind that things should remain as they are. That might be the intention of the Mover, who began by introducing such a mild measure, and who, a few years ago, opposed this very proposal. Until, however, they relaxed all restrictions and securities in the Universities and Colleges, that system of religious instruction ought still to be preserved, which he believed best for the interests of the Universities themselves and the nation at large.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, a few minutes ago the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) made an appeal to him, which he thought it best not to answer, because the tone and language of that appeal were hardly such as ought to be used on a subject of this kind, or, indeed, on any subject at all. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had also referred to declarations of his made some time ago, and had challenged him to declare whether he abided by them or not. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly entitled to ask him whether he had departed from the principle of religious education in the Universities and Colleges of this country which he had formerly maintained. His opinion on the subject was exactly the same as it had ever been. He heartily and cordially desired that both in the Universities and Colleges the education given should continue to be religious. He desired that the Bill should give, as he believed it would give every facility for the foundation, within the Universities, of Colleges in the constitution of which, the greatest possible freedom should exist. He did not desire to interfere with those who, from benevolent motives, founded establishments for seculiar education; but, on the other hand, they ought to give ample liberty to those who founded Colleges for the maintenance of their own particular religion, with whatever restrictions they thought proper, and they ought to respect those restrictions as the offspring of conscientious convictions. As regarded the general principle, he trusted he had now plainly and unequivocally answered the appeal made to him. With respect to the Bill itself, he had stated, in the first instance, that he would accede to no such Bill without just and adequate securities for religious education in the

  797
  Universities and Colleges. In the next place he had always insisted — herein strongly differing from his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General)— that it was idle and impossible to deal with the Universities by Act of Parliament without also legislating for the Colleges, because he was not prepared to say, either on legal or historical grounds, that any line could be drawn between them so broad as to make it desirable for them to take their stand upon it, while, in other respects, he saw plainly that any concession given to the Universities, if it were not worthless, would, at all events, be totally insufficient and unsatisfactory so long as they continued to say to young men what they now said in the University of Cambridge—"You may go to the University, and obtain the advantages of its teaching and its highest honours; but, having so done, you shall not be admitted to those College emoluments and powers which are the regular crown and legitimate consummation of a University career." His hon. and learned Friend had completely met his views on this subject in the Bill before the House, and with respect to the securities for religious education, he had not only inserted language which went to establish the present legal status of the instructors, but also expressed his willingness to admit the further declaration on the subject which had been proposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer). He spoke of the declaration with which the Solicitor General agreed, because in respect to the new test proposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer), although he did not see the same objections to it which others felt, yet he did not see such a value attaching to it as to make it desirable for Parliament to attempt the formation of a new test at all. No doubt his own views had been modified from time to time on this subject, and if the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) thought fit to taunt him for having altered them since he ceased to be a Member for the University of Oxford, he was perfectly welcome to do so as often as he pleased. ["Divide!"] Well, he was answering the hon. Gentleman. The very last charge the hon. Gentleman would succeed in fastening upon him would be, that his career as Member for the University of Oxford
  798
  had been distinguished by any undue subserviency to the opinions or prejudices of his then constituents. He would simply say that if it could be proved that this House had maintained one firm standing ground on this subject, all those who had done so might reproach those who, acting at one time in a contrary sense, felt bound to take all the circumstances in view in the proposition they recommended. It was, however, most remarkable that on that very day, and on that very occasion, they had heard one of the Members of the University of Oxford say that, so far as the Universities were concerned, he thought it more or less open for consideration whether the Bill should be resisted if it were confined within those limits. They had also heard both the Members for the University of Cambridge, for the first time, plainly and explicitly express a desire to make, so far as the Universities were concerned, the whole concession proposed by the Bill. When concessions of this kind were made, it had always appeared to him that when Parliament did interfere its interference should be sufficient and effectual. It was always, however, his opinion that it was impossible to legislate for the Universities and to refuse to legislate for the Colleges. When the time had come for legislation of this kind it would, he thought, be far better to place it upon a basis sufficiently broad to make it effectual for its purpose. And that was the reason why he gave his cordial support to the measure of his hon. and learned Friend.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 95: Majority 121.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

PRISONERS (POLITICAL OFFENCES).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. G. H. MOORErose to propose for the adoption of the House two Resolutions embodying the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) made upon a previous Motion of his; and, irrespective of any opinions he might think

  799
  it necessary to urge, He thought the statements then made by that right hon. Gentleman were sufficient to insure the acceptance of those Resolutions. But 'he was bound to say that he was impressed with a solid conviction that the adoption of the second of those Resolutions involved the peace and good-will of very large bodies of the people of this country and Ireland. It had been for centuries a subject of great anxiety to the statesmen and Government of this country that among the constituent elements of its power there was one that had not been fused into unity with it, and that among the great insular races that had carried the Empire, the language, and the name of England to the uttermost ends of the earth, there was one people that loved her not, and whose daily prayer to God was that He would vouchsafe to them one day the opportunity of causing the disruption of her power. The alienation and hostility of the Irish to the British people was a matter of history. Of what was past and irreparable it would be painful and superfluous to speak; but it was the duty of the Government to consider the present condition of affairs, and the causes that had led to it. Something more than twenty years ago, and before the fires of popular discontent in Ireland had begun to shake the surface of Irish society, and when it was the fashion for Irish popular representatives to declare that the Catholic people of Ireland were as loyal as any part of the population of Great Britain, he made this statement to the House—
  "I tell you, on the contrary, that the Catholic people of Ireland are not loyal; they are eminently disloyal, and there are not fifty miles of Irish coast before which, if an English and American vessel were coming into hostility, eight men out of every ten would not wish the American success."
  He had seen nothing since to induce him to recall that statement. With the same confidence in which he spoke of the facts he now spoke of the causes, when he said that the alienation of the Irish people was due, not so much to the wicked system of misgovernment which had existed among them for so many centuries, as to the cruel ignominy with which resistance to misgovernment had been treated. It was not so much the misery of the Penal Laws as the whips and triangles of '98 that had alienated
  800
  the people; and it was with pain that he now saw the Government preparing fresh causes of future hatred. Disaffection had ripened into disloyalty; and because the visionary insurrection of misguided men, despairing of justice, had been punished by a persistent system of organized cruelty and insult, popular resentment had become as deep as it would soon be vociferous and vindictive, not only among the helpless people of Ireland, but among that nation on the other side of the Atlantic whose hostility was an element of danger to this country. He had no intention to indulge in the language of menace; nothing could be less effective; but he wished the House and Government should take this matter into consideration, and take action upon it before anything should have occurred to deprive that consideration and action of its full weight and credit. He hoped the Legislature and the Executive would take counsel in time, because it was too much the habit of the Government in Ireland to despise supplication as weakness. Resistance to English law admitted of no defence or extenuation. In Ireland, as in India, the assertion of self-government was a crime. About thirty years ago Canada rose in insurrection; insult and contumely were poured on the heads of the insurgents, and their grievances were treated with scorn. The insurgents and their American sympathizers were hanged by the score. We redressed the grievances of the Canadians, we granted them a free Government, according to their own desire, and the arch-rebel upon whose head we set a price, and for the suppression of whose opinions we had shed blood without stint upon the field and the scaffold, Papineau himself, was appointed First Minister of the Crown. Nothing could be more ignominious than such a policy, but nothing could be more successful. In 1848, when something like the Fenian insurrection occurred, one of the insurgents was tried on a charge which, if he had been found guilty, would have rendered him amenable to all the punishment now inflicted on the Fenians. He was never convicted; there was what was called a miscarriage of justice; he went abroad, and became a Minister of the Crown. Another insurgent at that time narrowly escaped with his life to America, and there publicly announced with his own

  801
  hand that he had been a traitor, and his words spoken and written in America had been quoted in that House as a reason for continuing the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. That man went to Canada and there became a Minister of the Crown against which he had rebelled, and not only that, but he became, under the free constitution of Canada, the most vehement opponent of the rebellious spirits with whom he had been formerly leagued. Again, a man who had reminded a portion of his countrymen that the days would soon be short and the nights long, and used language which at first sight would have been supposed to instigate to assassination, had become a Judge, and had sentenced O'Donovan Rossa to penal servitude for life for the use of language rather milder than his own. Some twenty-five years ago the Leader of the Conservative party described the Government of Ireland as a system of policy the obvious remedy of which was revolution, and the First Minister of the Crown had lately acknowledged that the abortive attempt at revolution in Ireland had brought about that change of policy which he was now attempting to carry out—
  "Cœlum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt;"
  and therefore it was not extraordinary that a number of Irishmen who had gone to another country should adopt the policy which the Leader of the Conservative party had nearly thirty years ago stated to be the only true remedy for the ills of Ireland. One who might be truly called a wise man had said—
  "The matter of sedition is of two kinds, much poverty and much discontent; and the surest way to prevent sedition is to take away the matter, for if fuel be prepared it is hard to tell whence the spark shall come that shall set it on fire. The first remedy or prevention is to remove by all means the material cause of sedition, which is want and poverty."
  Now, none but simpletons would deny that such causes existed in Ireland, and that they might be removed if the proper remedies were applied. The Irish people did not sympathize with the views and ends of the Fenians, but they did with their feelings and opinions. They did not wish the Fenians to succeed; because, though they greatly disliked the existing form of government, they must feel some confidence in that
  802
  which was to re-place it. But they had not sufficient confidence in ''the Irish Republic," virtually established to accept that alternative. It was the fact that no class of men in Ireland were satisfied with the Government. The people of Ireland for years had been misled, deluded, deceived, betrayed, and disappointed by successive Governments. Their sympathizing countrymen in America had promised them money, arms, and leaders, but they were to look at home for their bone and sinew, and to the English Army for their trained soldiers. The whole scheme was an absurdity from beginning to end, and could only be likened to the act of Don Quixote in charging the windmill. One of the first preparations for this conspiracy was the setting on foot of a public journal whose special function it appeared to be to announce to the Government the progress of the insurrection. The matter thus being thrust before the Government, it would have been unpardonable in them if they had omitted to take steps for the suppression of the insurrection, and accordingly they employed a number of emissaries to obtain information with regard to it. The Government had excused their conduct upon this point by asserting that they had taken the step for the safety of the State. But the Government had not only to look to the safety of the State, but also to the safety of the people. The Irish Government had always acted as though they were a garrison in an enemy's country. They did not seem to recollect that they owed a duty to the misguided men whom their own emissaries were leading on from disaffection to sedition. He admitted that it might be necessary in certain cases for the Government to employ detectives; but those so employed should be under properly organized control, and should not be permitted to act in an irresponsible manner. But for the assistance of the Government emissaries the insurrection would have proved abortive. Those who were engaged in the insurrection had made themselves remarkable by abstaining altogether from plunder and outrage. The forbearance exercised by these people had been honourably acknowledged by the correspondents of the London Press. For instance, the correspondent of The Times, writing on the 16th of March, in referring to the attack

  803
  upon the police barrack at Delgany, when five policemen were captured, but were afterwards released, wrote—"It must be recollected to their credit that they have been merciful where mercy was hardly to be expected from them." The same sentiment had been expressed in other Lon-den newspapers. These circumstances, which were so freely acknowledged at the time of the outbreak, ought to be recollected in the hour of their humiliation and misfortune. Certain arrests having been made, the Law Officers of the Crown told the jury at the trial that it would be proved that the writings of these men partook largely of the character of Socialism in its most pernicious form, and that the operations of that revolution were to be commenced by an indiscriminate massacre of all those above the lower classes, and including the Roman Catholic clergy. Such an opinion was well calculated to prejudice public opinion against the prisoners, but it was not confirmed by any evidence whatever, not even the testimony of spies, and it was now admitted on all hands to have been utterly unfounded. The learned Gentleman who made this statement has since exculpated himself by stating that it was made entirely upon the instructions he received, and that he fully expected them to be proved. The allegation, however, was neither withdrawn nor modified up to the end of the trial, and the jury found them guilty, although no evidence in support of this conspiracy was forthcoming. The hon. Member— having read at length extracts from the Lancet illustrative of the results of the separate system upon the mental condition of prisoners; and from the Report of Dr. Macdonald, medical visiting officer of the Mountjoy Prison, remonstrating against the system of inflicting insufficiency of clothing as a punishment for refractory behaviour; and as to the consequences of the cellular system on the mental and physical condition of prisoners—proceeded to say that those who had listened to this statement would come to the conclusion that a state of penal discipline which had caused, or at all events resulted in, seven deaths within so short a period, and in one prison alone had driven four untried prisoners into lunacy, and four more into suicide, had been excessive in severity and unnecessarily aggravated by
  804
  contumelious concomitants. They had heard of the abominable outrage committed by O'Donovan Rossa upon the Governor of the prison. But who could tell the contumacious treatment which had goaded him to commit it? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had denied the other evening that O'Donovan had been subjected to the cruel punishment which had been alleged; but he had received the other day a letter from a London solicitor enclosing a statement made by Joseph Cave of 16, Cross Street, Palace Road, Hackney, who had been an assistant warder at Chatham. Cave stated that for about six weeks in the months of June and July, 1868, the prisoner Rossa was handcuffed with his hands behind him from 10 minutes past 5 a.m., until 7 30 p.m., and with his hands before him while taking his meals, and during all that time O'Donovan was confined in a solitary cell, and for three weeks was on bread and water, with alternate penal diet besides; that when the handcuffs were being put on him at first he offered great resistance, but that resistance continued only five or six days, when from the effects of the bread and water he was compelled to submit, and he was afterwards quiet. Such was the account he had received. He did not know the facts himself, but he had given the name of his informant. Now, he had not justified the Fenian conspiracy, or the insurrection to which it had given rise, nor did he attempt to justify it; but he was quite sure that there was not one who had lost his life or his liberty in that insurrection who would have saved his life or purchased his liberty by the admission that he was morally guilty or ashamed of the cause in which he sufferred. Nor would he make such an admission in their name nor his own. In conclusion he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is the duty of the Government to institute a public inquiry into the penal discipline of our Prisons, for the purpose of a better classification of prisoners generally; distinguishing the tried from the untried, and those who may be charged with offences from those who, under exceptional circumstances, may be temporarily detained without any specific charge having been preferred against them."—(Mr. George Moore.)
  MR. BRUCEsaid, that those who were in that House some fifteen years ago would recognize in the speech which they had just heard the eloquence of his hon. Friend, and also the continuance of those feelings which he was happy to say had almost entirely died out in the existing generation of Irishmen. The Members of Parliament whom they now had the pleasure of seeing among them representing Irish interests were not less patriotic than those who went before them; but he would venture to draw a distinction and say that their main efforts were directed to heal the wounds of the past. His hon. Friend, as it appeared to him, had unnecessarily devoted no small part of his speech to recalling those bitter memories and continuing to the best of his power the existence of those feelings which all in that House wished to see buried. He could not quarrel with the latter part of his hon. Friend's speech. He was not there to defend cruel treatment either to convicted or unconvicted prisoners; and if what the hon. Gentleman had stated was true, his voice would be joined with his hon. Friend's terms of strong indignation in condemning such treatment. He knew nothing about it. An unconvicted prisoner in this country, a prisoner before trial, was treated, as was well known, in a very different manner from what was described by the hon. Gentleman. Without giving any opinion as to the truth of the statements which had been read by the hon. Member, he might say that it was impossible that such occurrences could have arisen in this country. The hon. Member had given no notice of the special charges he was about to make with reference to the treatment of the Irish prisoners, which, in all fairness, he ought to have done. His hon. Friends sitting near him were as ignorant of the occurrence of the alleged cruelties alluded to by the hon. Member as he was himself. He could not say how far these allegations were true; but if he judged them by the statements of Irish prisoners in this country he should not have much faith in them. Had the hon. Member, instead of dealing with special eases, opened the question as to the proper treatment of political prisoners generally, he should have felt pleasure in dealing with the subject, but, owing to the course adopted by the hon. Member, he was precluded from doing so on the pre-
  806
  sent occasion. It was no pleasure to him to contradict the statements of the prisoners as to the effects of imprisonment upon their health, because undoubtedly the many humiliations they had to endure would necessarily have a greater effect upon their minds than upon the minds of those habituated to crime. He might, however, remind the House that, fortunately for England, we had been so far blessed that it had been unnecessary for us to make those special provisions for political prisoners that were required in other countries. In this country it was only in the case of the most reckless resistance to authority that the aid of the law was called in. If the law were administered in all its strictness there would be no difficulty in bringing under justice numbers of men who spoke against the Constitution under which we lived, and who urged their fellow-countrymen to acts of violence; but it was only in such cases as those which had occurred during the Fenian insurrection that the law was put in force. With regard to those who had been convicted and who were now undergoing imprisonment, the sentence which had been imposed upon them was that generally imposed upon felons, England having but one punishment for both classes of offenders. He admitted that such a punishment must fall with great severity upon political prisoners; but in the great majority of instances it was their resistance to the prison authorities that caused their most aggravated sufferings. Therefore, it was to themselves, and not to the law, that their principal sufferings were due. He would take the case of Burke as an example. Burke was the man who attempted to escape from Clerken-well Prison at the risk of the lives of from fifty to eighty of his fellow-prisoners, who had in no way offended him. It would be recollected that at a given signal Burke was to have sheltered himself behind a buttress in the prison yard while the gunpowder was ignited that was to blow down the prison wall, to the imminent danger to the lives of the eighty prisoners who were exercising in it. Such a man as that could scarcely j be regarded as a mere political prisoner; and yet having determined to endure his imprisonment like a man, he had conducted himself in such a manner that he had never suffered a single extra punishment. With regard to the case

  807
  of Lynch, who the hon. Member had stated had died of consumption in Millbank Prison in consequence of being deprived of his flannels, inquiries had been made into the circumstances by three competent authorities at the instance of the late Government. Of those three gentlemen, one was Mr. Knox, the well-known magistrate, who was irremovable by the Crown, and another was Mr. Pollock, the eminent surgeon, upon whom it was impossible for the Government to exercise any undue influence. In their Report those gentlemen say—
  "It is stated in the extract from the Irishman newspaper furnished to us that Lynch caught cold at Pentonville, and died from the loss of his flannels. Lynch was received at Pentonville on the 16th of January, 1866. By a reference to the daily record of the temperature of the prison, it is seen that on that day the maximum was 65 deg., day; the minimum, 57 deg., night; and at no subsequent date of that winter was the minimum temperature of the cells at night, when the prisoners were in bed, lower than 53 deg.—a temperature so very satisfactory and sufficient, that with the clothing each convict was supplied there can be no truth that Lynch's subsequent illness was dependent on cold caught from his treatment at Pentonville. Lynch made no complaint to the medical officer of feeling the cold or of the want of flannels. When a prisoner is received at Pentonville he is stripped to be examined, and, as already described, each convict was supplied with new clothing of the usual character. The supply of extra flannels was at the discretion and by the order of the medical officer. In this instance it was on his own judgment, and not at the request of the prisoner, that the latter was supplied with flannels But, irrespective of this point, Dr. Bradley's notes confirm the evidence given by Lynch himself, that he was the subject of cough on admission, and it is also evident by Lynch's statement to Dr. Campbell at Working, that long previous to his conviction he had had cough and spitting of blood. Such a history of a case satisfies us that disease of the lungs existed previous to his conviction, and that Lynch died from the effects of that disease, commonly known as consumption, and that the treatment he received in prison had no share in its production."
  As to the general appearance of the Fenian prisoners, the two gentlemen he had named reported that they were robust, strong, healthy-looking men, and that there was no case of illness existing among them. It had been said that they had been subjected to solitary confinement, but the fact was that, being political prisoners, they were subjected to less than the ordinary amount of this preliminary discipline. The House would recollect the very remarkable statement made a short time ago in that House relative to the treatment of O'Donovan Rossa—namely, that he was handcuffed
  808
  for thirty-five days with his hands behind his back, that his only food was gruel, and that he was compelled to eat this on all fours—although how he could do this with his hands behind his back he could not understand—and that his beard was encrusted with the gruel. It was said that the prisoner's statements to this effect were made in the presence of the Deputy Governor and not contradicted by him. The Deputy Governor of Chatham, who had since been promoted to Portsmouth, declared that he heard every word of the prisoner's statement, and that he did not say one word about this imprisonment or these cruelties. Two or three days ago the hon. Member gave him notice that he intended to controvert the statements he had made on this subject. He applied to the hon. Gentleman for the name of his informant, but he declined to give it. [Mr. G. H. MOORE: I had no permission to give the name.] He gathered from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that his informant was a warder who had been dismissed; but if he had supplied his name he could have made inquiries as to the reasons for his dismissal, and whether his testimony could safely be received. At all events, he had left the establishment. [Mr. G. H. MOORE: I know nothing about it.] He presumed he must have left the establishment in November, as the circumstances to which he spoke occurred between June and November, 1868. It certainly would have been more satisfactory if the hon. Gentleman had given him an opportunity of inquiring into the character of his witness. He, on the contrary, believed, in preference, the testimony of the Governor and Deputy Governor, who stated that after the horrible assault, which he had on a former occasion described, the hands of O'Donovan Rossa were manacled behind his back for half-a-day. They were manacled in front for some days; but when the manacles were taken off, he took advantage of the temporary absence of the warder to wrench off the handle of his cell and to break every article of furniture within his reach. It ought also to be recollected that the man had been guilty over and over again of daring outrages against the prison officials. Owing, however, to the lenity which had been shown him he was now one of the best conducted of prisoners.

  809
  He could not see what advantage could accrue from agreeing to the Motion of the hon. Member. No such inquiry was necessary in England. The untried prisoners were allowed to wear their ordinary dress, and were maintained by their friends if they preferred it. As to the class of prisoners who were apprehended under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, they ought to be treated as nearly as possible like untried prisoners. Sufficient security ought to be taken for their safe detention; but it was quite possible that in some of the gaols in Ireland some hardships were unavoidably imposed on them. If, however, the allegations of the hon. Gentleman as to their treatment were true, no inquiry by that House was needed to induce the Government to interfere. A question arose whether any distinction should be made between political prisoners and others. If they were a known class in this country it might be necessary to arrange their prison treatment so as to fit it to the precise character of the offences with which they were charged. Political offenders were, however, men of very different character, and their punishments could not be identical. There were, no doubt, great distinctions between the Fenian prisoners, but there had been necessarily a uniformity of punishment, mitigated to a certain extent, but not in a manner especially designed for political prisoners. With regard to the labour imposed upon them the House had the statement of the two gentlemen deputed to inquire into the subject, and the accuracy of which he could confirm. They stated that the out-door work given to them to perform was not laborious or harassing, and that so far from being injurious to health it was the very reverse. The House would have to consider what punishment should be inflicted on such prisoners. Though penal servitude could not be prolonged beyond many years without danger to health and life, yet within certain limits it was comparatively a lenient sentence. It involved labour, undoubtedly, but a life of labour was better than a life of inactivity. In his opinion these prisoners should not be subject to anything unnecessarily humiliating or degrading; but they should not be exempt from labour. The directors of prisons had the power of relieving, in some respects, from the strict
  810
  prison rules prisoners of a naturally irritable nature, on whom the strict rules might produce mischievous or dangerous results. This mitigation of the prison rules had been extended to the Fenian prisoners. They had been relieved from certain duties, venial offences had been overlooked as much as possible; they had been separated from other prisoners, and every indulgence consistent with the proper observance of obedience to orders in the performance of the labour allotted to them had been allowed. But the offences of the Fenian prisoners were, after all, very serious. They showed themselves to be men who were ready to plunge their country in bloodshed. Though he was not an advocate for unnecessary or severe punishment, nevertheless he could not assent to those offences being overlooked on the ground of the past misgovernment of Ireland. For the last fifty or sixty years, at all events, the Government of this country was engaged, perhaps slowly, but certainly slowly and steadily, in the work of remedying the wrongs of the past. He, therefore, thought the moment was very ill chosen when those misguided men rose in arms against their Sovereign. The law, then, had nothing to do but to impose on them a severe sentence. It had been observed by Edmund Burke that the reason why civil war in England was less sanguinary than in other countries was, because the conquerors always spared the humble and the low. It was upon that principle that the Government had acted in dealing with the Fenian prisoners, and had been happy to extend mercy to those who had sufficiently expiated their offence. This leniency had not been thrown away upon those who had been the objects of it, with the exception only, he believed, of two men—Americans, if not by birth, at any rate by naturalization. Those only had been retained in confinement who, from their character, could not be liberated without danger. With respect to the future of the prisoners he was prepared to recommend the extension to them of the utmost consideration consistent with the execution of the sentences passed on them. And he thought it might be possible to legislate on the subject with a view of giving to the Judge who tried political prisoners the power of distinguishing between crimes of great magnitude and those of a less

  811
  heinous character, and of passing other sentences than the uniform one of penal servitude. The subject should have the best consideration of the Government, who had no vindictive feeling in this matter, but only desired to see their punishment such as would act as a warning against others repeating these offences. He hoped the time might come when these subjects should cease to be discussed in that House; when, by a system of just and generous treatment of the people of Ireland, we might revert to that proud position this country had once occupied, when no prison in the United Kingdom contained one political prisoner.
  MR. O'REILLY DEASEreminded the Government that every one of those Fenian prisoners cost the nation as much as three able-bodied seamen, and that their best policy would be to encourage the loyal men who were at home, and to urge the disloyal men to leave the country.
  MR. DOWNINGsaid, he wished to say a few words with reference to the treatment of the prisoners, which he thought had been exaggerated. He had conversed with O'Donovan Rossa in Chatham Prison, in presence of the Deputy Governor of the gaol, who deserved all that had been said of him by the right hon. Gentleman. He had unlimited license to put any questions to the prisoner he pleased. O'Donovan Rossa did not make to him the complaint put forward in the Irishman, as to being obliged to lap his food with his hands bound behind him. He did complain of the insufficiency and quality of his food, and that the reports of his complaints were not written down from his own words and afterwards read over to him, and of his letters being suppressed. He (Mr. Downing) asked if he was guilty of the single charge imputed to him. The reply was he had been, and cried because of that very offence. He looked in good health, there appeared to be no foundation for the statement that he was attenuated or in bad health. He was suffering from nothing, he said, but a pain in his back. It was said that O'Donovan Rossa was a violent-tempered man, but he (Mr. Downing) knew him for many years before his conviction, and could affirm that he was not turbulent, quarrelsome, or ill-tempered. He had also had an interview with Burke,
  812
  who was deserving of kindly treatment. He, too, complained of the quantity and quality of his food. He was anxious to make this statement because it was supposed he had communicated to a weekly journal in London a statement relative to the treatment of the prisoners; but he had made no such statement either to a weekly or any other journal. Still, he thought the treatment of the prisoners in the different gaols was exceedingly and unnecessarily harsh, and Government would do right to adopt the first Resolution and appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the treatment of the prisoners. The prisoner Burke, it was said, had been engaged in a conspiracy which would have sacrificed the lives of some eighty persons; but, although a felon and a convict, he appeared to be a man of a high sense of honour. ["Oh, oh!"] Many honourable men were ready to enter into a conspiracy, and he believed that conspiracy had done a vast deal of good for Ireland. He had no sympathy with the objects of the Fenians. He had received from them opposition, and had always raised his voice against them. But he must say the wrongs and wants of Ireland would not perhaps have been listened to but for the course taken by these very men. ["Oh, oh!"] He was addressing his countrymen through the Press. It was necessary that what was said in that House should be read by the people of Ireland. It had been admitted even by Cabinet Ministers that but for the Fenian agitation that House would not have listened as it had to the claims of Ireland. He admitted that the Fenian prisoners had done incalculable injury to the country— they had stopped the progress of trade and commerce; but yet it must be said for them that feeling the sufferings of their country, they had the courage to act upon their convictions. He trusted the Government would grant an inquiry.
  MR. G. H. MOORE, in reply to the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that he had brought forward a number of individual cases of which he had given no previous notice, said, he had only mentioned one case which did not rest on public authority accessible to every one. That was the case of Lynch, with which the right hon. Gentleman was himself acquainted. With regard to the Resolutions, what he prin-

  813
  cipally wanted was a public inquiry into these matters, and upon that he should divide.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, he had not expected from the terms of the Motion to he called upon to address the House; hut, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore), he would say a few words. That hon. Gentleman had said that the prosecutions by the Law Officers in Ireland had been habitually unfair. To that statement he gave the most indignant denial. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the evidence given at the prosecutions conducted by his successors, he would find they were as fair as those conducted by himself. The hon. Gentleman had thrown out a bait to catch him, but it would not do; he would defend his successors in Office as he would defend himself. What did the hon. Member say? That domiciliary visits had been paid; that floors had been torn up, and boxes examined. But had the hon. Gentleman realized the situation of Ireland in the autumn of 1865? The Government then, from information of undoubted authority, came to the conclusion that a wide-spread conspiracy against the Crown of this country was on foot, and that being so, was it not the duty of the Law Officers to try to discover it? On evidence of the clearest and most undoubted character, the Executive of the day proceeded to seize the Irish People newspaper, to arrest the staff and examine their homes, and what did they discover? The most irrefragable proof of the most wide-spread and traitorous conspiracy ever levelled at the Government of a country. He, with the Attorney General, prosecuted the prisoners, and who alleged that they did not get a fair trial? Not one of them. On the contrary, the main conspirator, in the face of the public, said—"I have got a fair trial." Therefore, he would ask the hon. Gentleman how dared he assert in that House that the prosecutions were unfair? It was the misfortune of men in the hon. Gentleman's position to try to make capital out of such things; but the man who did that was not a true friend of Ireland, but pandered to the vicious passions of those who, when convicted of offences against the law, fretted and fumed because the law was able to master them.
  814
  What did the hon. Member say to-night? That the Fenians were our masters. He denied that the law, firmly administered by the Government of which he was a Member, and administered with equal firmness by the Government which succeeded—he was a party man, and he had watched the prosecutions conducted by the late Government, and he could say that the law was justly administered by them—he denied that the law was unable to cope with the Fenians. And were they to be told on the 29th of June, 1869, that the Fenians were our masters? Little as he expected to hear that, still less did he expect that the hon. Member should rake up against Mr. Justice Keogh an exploded story, of 1853, about certain words which he was said to have made use of in the West of Ireland. That charge was made the subject of investigation in the House of Lords, and the learned Judge gave it the most indignant denial. [Mr. G. H. MOORE: Never!] He repeated that Mr. Justice Keogh had given an indignant denial to the story. [Mr. G. H. MOORE: No!] Was it fair, then, after sixteen years, to rake up these things? The hon. Member had assailed the present Solicitor General for Ireland; he had assailed the former Attorney General, Mr. Justice Lawson; he had many things to say against absent men, but he had not said a word against him who was there to defend himself. He would not have risen to say a word were it not for the strong language which the hon. Gentleman had used to English ears. He could not sit still and listen to that. He believed he had acted fairly himself, that his successors had acted fairly, and that the law had been fairly, justly, and mercifully administered.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that the question was not whether the conduct of the Judge or the Crown Officers had been to blame; but whether the treatment of the prisoners had been such as, in the words of the Home Secretary, would be impossible in England. He hoped the Government would enter upon a humane, generous, and merciful policy towards the Fenian prisoners.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 171: Majority 140.
  MR. G. H. MOORErose to move the second Resolution, and availed himself of the opportunity to deny that he had made any accusation against the Attorney General for Ireland personally. He had made the charge against all who were concerned in the matter equally. He indignantly repudiated the suggestion that he was attempting to make political or any other capital out of the subject. He begged to move the second Resolution.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, it was unlikely that after the first Resolution asking for inquiry had been negatived, the second, which was only a consequence, would be carried. The question now was what was the amount of punishment already endured by the political prisoners, and what was the feeling entertained in Ireland as to their further confinement or release. He rose, therefore, to express what he knew to be the feelings of a large portion of the large constituency he had the honour of representing. Now there was a very strong and general feeling among his constituents in favour of the release of the remaining prisoners. This feeling was not confined to those who, though not belonging to the Fenian movement, felt sympathy with their motives and objects; but it was equally entertained by those who had no sympathy whatever with them, and who, in fact, believed that the movement had done much injury to the country. There were, no doubt, a certain class in favour of continued punishment, but they were comparatively few; while the great majority of moderate people were in favour of clemency, and held the opinions that enough had been done to vindicate the law; that the prisoners still detained had suffered as much as they ought to suffer, and that their release would be an act of mercy and wisdom. He was convinced that this would be a safe course, for no evil has arisen from the clemency already extended; for although one or two released persons had abused the leniency of the Government, they were Americans. It was the policy now being pursued towards Ireland that would strike the deadliest blow to the Fenian movement; and if it were persevered in there need be no further fear of any revolutionary attempts. He would repeat that it was the general feeling and opinion of the country that the political prisoners had suffered sufficiently
  816
  for their offence, and that no real danger would result to the public peace from the liberation of those still in prison.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he could endorse the statement of his hon. Colleague (Mr. Maguire) as to the feeling in Cork and Ireland generally in this matter. He regretted that the division had not been favourable to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore), for he believed that a public inquiry would remove an erroneous idea which obtained in Ireland with respect to the treatment of the Fenian prisoners.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That Her Majesty's Government should inquire how far political offenders should be regarded as a separate class, and how far the severity of the punishment to which the political convicts in our Prisons have been already subjected may be regarded as reasonable grounds for a favourable consideration in their case,"— (Mr. George Moore,)
  —put, and negatived.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES (SALARIES).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HIBBERT, in moving a Resolution to the effect that it was expedient to increase the salaries of the County Court Judges by the sum of £300 per annum, said, that the jurisdiction of the County Courts had been extended and the duties of the Judges multiplied by a series of Acts which had been passed almost year by year since those Courts were constituted; but although it was true that an increase had been made to the salaries of the Judges as originally fixed, it was wholly disproportionate to the amount of extra work they were called upon to perform. While there had also been an enormous increase in the number of plaints coming before those Courts, there had been a simultaneous falling of in the number of writs issued from the Superior Courts, thus showing that the County Courts were in fact doing, to a great extent, the duty of the Superior Courts and the Judges of Assize. Moreover, the Registrars of certain County Courts would actually receive more remuneration this year than the Judges of those County Courts themselves. The total sum which would be required to pay the additional salary to these Judges which his Motion contemplated was not more than £15,000 a year; and he

  817
  maintained that the whole of that sum might be met in the present year from the saving which would result from the transfer to those Courts of the Bankruptcy business alone, without the necessity of extracting a single additional 1d. from the pockets of the tax-payers of the country. He concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSin seconding the Motion, said, that no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that it would be better to postpone a decision upon the question until the extent to which the work of the County Court Judges increased; he submitted, however, that it was not the amount but the kind of work; and he, with others, who agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) desired to raise the standard of County Court Judges. In 1865, when it was proposed to raise the salary of the County Court Judges, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and present Prime Minister by his observations clearly showed he intended then that the salaries of the County Court Judges should be still further raised if they had duties in Bankruptcy cast upon them. This was now about to be done, and they were, therefore, entitled to extra remuneration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, having regard to the Admiralty Act of last Session, by virtue of which an entirely new jurisdiction has been conferred upon certain County Courts, and to the Bankruptcy Bill, under which the district County Courts will take the place and perform the functions of the district Bankruptcy Courts, and with a view to secure efficiency in the office of County Court Judge, in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the judges upon whom the new duties and responsibilities may be imposed should receive an additional remuneration of £300 a year."— (Mr. Hibbert.)
  MR. AYRTONpresumed the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had brought forward the question at the late hour of half-past twelve in order to relieve his mind rather than with a hope of obtaining ample discussion of his proposal. County Courts were started twenty-one years ago in the hope that they would be self - supporting; but they involved an aggregate charge of £587,000, and the Exchequer received from them £354,000, so that the deficit was £233,000, which was due to the dis-
  818
  position of the House to listen to solicitations like that just made, and to show more consideration for officials than for tax-payers. He had heard no adequate reasons for agreeing to this Motion. Reviewing the history of the County Courts, he referred to the fact that the salaries of the Judges had been once reduced, and when their salaries were increased from £1,200 to £1,500, it was understood that that augmentation was made on condition that they should place their whole time and abilities at the service of the State, and were to abstain wholly from private practice. A salary of £1,500 a year was not only reasonable and sufficient, but very liberal for a gentleman in the professional position of the County Court Judges before accepting those appointments, and he believed that in the average of cases their previous emoluments were not more than half that amount. The hon. and learned Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Assheton Cross) wished to elevate the Judges.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to elevate the office.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, then the present Judges were to receive the higher pay without being elevated. Probably the Motion was intended to apply to future Judges; but even then he was not aware of any graduated scale of "elevation" in tone and character which could be measured by increased remuneration. He did not believe that higher pay would be likely to result in such elevation. He would remind the House that the duties of the Judges had been lightened by some of their work being thrown on the Registrars. If the House were disposed to spend more money on the County Courts, the worst use of it would be to increase the salaries of the Judges, and a much better plan would be to increase the number of the Judges, where the judicial work rendered an increase necessary. The Returns showed that they did not give up to the service of the country all the time that the country was entitled to expect from them, and in many cases they very little consulted the interests of the public, for they frequently lived at a great distance from their districts. The more this question was examined, the more certain it would appear that there was no necessity for saddling the country with this increase.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he was glad to

  819
  find that this attempt to increase the salaries of the Judges was to be resisted. They had no right to complain unless they were overworked; and if that were the case it was an argument, not for increasing the salaries of these gentlemen, though it might be a valid argument for appointing more Judges.
  MR. G. O. MORGANsaid, the question was not of the amount of work, but of the quality of the work. These Courts were at first instituted for the recovery of small debts, but now every kind of jurisdiction was assigned to the Judges.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcalled attention to the fact that the County Court Judges had already had £300 a year added to their income, in 1865, on account of the addition of Equity and Admiralty jurisdiction. The Admiralty cases were, of course, very few, and the cases in Equity, which were usually very trifling in their character, numbered only 640 last year among sixty Judges. They were now asked to increase the salaries of these gentlemen by another £300 a year, on account of duties which had not yet been imposed upon them, and on account of a Bill which was not yet the law of the land, and the provisions of which threw nearly all the work that was necessary to carry them out, not upon those Judges, but upon the creditors themselves. The demand was a most extravagant one, and, indeed, of all cases of a similar character, he had never heard one so weak.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he knew an instance where the Judge of one of these Courts lived on the shores of the Mediterranean, and' managed to perform his business by sitting at the end of one month and the beginning of another. If this proposal were agreed to it would be plain that the country was intended for the benefit of the lawyers, and not the lawyers for the country.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 102: Majority 46.

DUBLIN FREEMEN.—LEAVE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN), rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices among the freemen electors of the City
820
of Dublin. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the Bill were passed the Commissioners named in the Bill would have all the powers conferred on Commissioners by the Act of 1852. He thought that inquiry was necessary, because the Report of Mr. Justice Keogh showed that an organized system of corruption existed among the freemen of Dublin. On the Report of the learned Judge the Government had moved for an Address for the appointment of a Commission; but on technical grounds the House of Lords had declined to concur in the application for a Commission. That the inquiry which the Bill proposed was necessary in the interests of purity of election was fully shown by the Report of the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Keogh) by whom the petition was tried.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices amongst the Freemen Electors of the City of Dublin."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
COLONEL TAYLORobjected to a Bill of such importance being brought in at so late an hour (ten minutes after two), and moved the adjournment of the debate.
After short discussion,
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Taylor.)
The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 100: Majority 48.
Question again proposed.
VISCOUNT GALWAYmoved the Adjournment of the House, observing that it was a very strong measure for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to force the Bill on the House at twenty-five minutes to three.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Viscount Galway.)
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would not press the question any further, seeing that several hon. Members were opposed to allowing the measure to be brought in.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE, Bill to amend the Law relating to the abandonment of Railways and the dissolution of Railway Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]

PENSIONS COMMUTATION BILL.
Resolutions reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. STANSFELD.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
—PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Civil Offices (Pensions) * (157); Land Tax Commissioners' Names * (158); Prisons (Scotland) Administration Act (1830) Amendment * (159).
Report of Select Committee—Fine Arts Copyright Consolidation and Amendment (No. 2) * (51).
Committee—Irish Church (109), debate adjourned.

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

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  The Earl GRANVILLE informed the House, That Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to signify that she had placed at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the several archbishoprics, bishoprics, benefices, cathedral preferments, and other ecclesiastical dignities and offices in Ireland.
  Then it was moved that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill.—(Earl Granville.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he wished, before their Lordships' went into Committee, to reply to some criticisms which were passed on the conduct of the Catholics during the debate on the second reading. It was said, on that occasion, that the Catholics had shown, by their apathy, how little interest they felt in the Bill; that the Irish Catholics did not care for anything but the land question, and were profoundly indifferent to the Church question; and that the measure was fraught with danger to the peace of the country, since it would so exasperate the Protestants of Ireland as to make them waver in their loyalty, while the Catholic clergy, far from being propitiated, would only use it as a stepping stone for further demands, and would never be satisfied till their Church had won back all she once possessed. It was also said that the Catholics were acting in opposition to their principles in supporting a Bill which secularized Church property. Now, the silence of the Catholics could be easily accounted for, they having been struck with wonder and admiration at the extraordinary turn things had taken in their favour,

  687
  whereby their Protestant fellow-countrymen had condescended to propose to place them on an equal footing with themselves; they were anxious not to add any fuel to the excitement already existing in the country, trusting that the sense of justice and good feeling which had originated the measure would carry it to a successful issue. If, however, the country should after all refuse to pass the measure, there would be an opportunity of judging whether or not the Catholics were apathetic. As to the land question it was natural that men, when poor and miserable, should care more for the things which appertain to their temporal necessities than to their spiritual requirements or political privileges. At the time of Catholic Emancipation the cry always was—"We are naked and starving; give us shoes, give us bread; what will emancipation do for us?" No one, however, would pretend to say that the Catholics were indifferent to emancipation, and so it was in the present case. To Irishmen gaining their livelihood from the land, anything which would insure to them the fruition of their labours was no doubt a primary object, and, unfortunately, there did not exist in Ireland, as in England that public opinion which would prevent a whimsical agent or landlord from ejecting a tenant after he had laid out money on his property without compensation. As to the Irish Church it was an eyesore to the Catholics of Ireland, because it was the badge of conquest and of Protestant ascendancy, and the land question would not have existed had it not been necessary for the maintenance of that ascendancy to keep the rod of eviction in terrorem over the tenant, in order that he might vote as his landlord wished him. Happily, a better state of things and a juster feeling had obtained of late years, but the tradition of old times still existed. The Government had, in his opinion, done well in bringing forward this Bill, though he regretted that the land question had not been dealt with at the same time. This measure alone, indeed, would not satisfy Ireland any more than one swallow made a summer; but it would, at all events, show the feeling of England towards Ireland, and he might illustrate it by a homely illustration. John Bull might be said to have two families— a Catholic family by the first marriage,
  688
  and a Protestant family by a second, and the former, as not unfrequently happened, had suffered very severely from the conduct of their stepmother. They had had the rod, while the second family had all the sugar; the one had all the kicks and the other all the halfpence. Now, however, John Bull had come forward and had proposed, not only to lay aside the rod, but actually to give the Catholic children one halfpenny to share amongst them. Well, the Catholics, being very poor, were not indifferent to the money, but there was one thing which they valued much more—aye, more than if they had been offered a million of money — and that was the kindly feeling and the return of paternal kindness which had led to the change. If however, John Bull should put the money back into his pocket, and should hang up once more the rod in terrorem, the result would be a feeling of bitter disappointment, and the bitterness would sink deep into their hearts, so deeply that it would take years to eradicate it; for "hope deferred maketh the heart sick." The noble Earl on the front Bench (the Earl of Derby) had laid great stress on the danger which would ensue to the loyalty of the Protestants of Ireland if this measure was carried; but he had failed to consider the effect on the Catholics if it was not carried. Perhaps, however, he thought the Catholics had been so long used to disappointment that they would not take it to heart, like the traditional eels who had been so long accustomed to be shinned alive, that they rather preferred the operation. The loyalty of the Irish Protestants must, if this view were correct, be somewhat like that of a hardy plant which had been brought up in a hothouse and had grown rank and weakly in constitution, whereas it ought to be, like the loyalty of the Catholics, not a mere sentiment or political calculation, but an instinct and a religious duty. As to the Catholic Church claiming back its property, she formally renounced all claims to ecclesiastical property in England through Cardinal Pole, and in Ireland there was a tacit renunciation last year, when the Catholic Bishops met in Synod and solemnly renounced all participation in the revenues of the Established Church. As to the noble Earl's statement that in voting for this measure, which secu-

  689
  larized Church property, the Catholics were acting in opposition to their principles, he could not expect their Lord- ships to take the same view as Catholics; but it should be understood that, in their view, the property lost its sacred character when it was taken from the Catholic Church. Bearing the same burdens and liabilities, and shedding their blood on the same fields of battle as their Protestant fellow-countrymen, Catholics thought themselves entitled to a position of equality. The Irish heart was now chilled with the coldness and injustice of centuries; but Irishmen were not naturally cold-hearted, for the warmth of their affection and sensitiveness to justice were well known. Let them feel the fostering hand of a paternal Government, and be assured that henceforth the scales of justice would accompany the sword. Dark pages of Irish history could not indeed be blotted out as with an enchanter's wand, nor could they call the waters of Lethe to drown the bitter memories of past years of cruelty and wrong; but legislation in Ireland for the future must be that of inflexible justice steadily persevered in and accompanied by gentle charity, not that superficial charity which contents itself with an occasional dole, given with a more or less niggard hand, but by the charity described by the Apostle as gentle, kind, long-suffering, hoping all things, and thinking no evil. This, if steadily persevered in, would render Ireland, which through its turbulence, poverty, and dissatisfaction had become a byword and a weakness to the Empire, that which from the virtue of its daughters, the genius of its sons, and the warm feelings of the whole nation, it ought to be — namely, the pride, the glory, and the strength of the Empire.
  Motion agreed, to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Title postponed.
  Then it was moved that the Preamble be postponed.
  EARL GREY: When I gave notice of my intention of proposing to negative this Motion, it was the impression of some of your Lordships that there was some irregularity in that course, and I wish, therefore, to point out that that is not the case. The very fact, indeed, that it is necessary to move the post-
  690
  ponement of the Preamble, and to take a vote upon it, shows that the House can proceed to consider the Bill as it stands, and your Lordships are aware that in our private legislation we invariably begin with the Preamble. It is true that in public business we usually postpone the Preamble, because in most cases that is the most convenient course; but it is perfectly competent for the House to begin with the consideration of the Preamble, and through the kindness of the noble Viscount (Viscount Eversley), who, having for so many years with great ability filled the Chair in the other House, is a high authority on the subject, I have been furnished with various precedents for considering the Preamble before the clauses. I will only mention that the latest of these, and the one most directly in point, is afforded by the proceedings of the House of Commons in June, 1855, with regard to a Scotch Education Bill. It was then by common consent agreed that the Preamble should be taken first, for the purpose of coming to a clearer understanding than had been arrived at on the second reading as to the principles to be adopted. Both the advocates and the opponents of a change in the Preamble agreed in the propriety of that course, and accordingly the Preamble was not postponed, but considered before the clauses, and, after discussion, an Amendment suggested in it was rejected by a large majority. That is a case strictly in point, and it is hardly possible to conceive a Bill in which it would be more conducive to the general convenience that we should begin with the Preamble than that which is now before us. The great object of the Bill, as I understand it, is to remove a long-standing source of discontent in Ireland by redressing the injustice and inequality, involved as I think, in supporting a Church Establishment for the exclusive benefit of a small minority of the population. I cordially agree in that object; but the Bill proposes to arrive at that result by entirely stripping the Protestant Church of every shilling which it now possesses, beyond what it is absolutely necessary to give it under the strictest construction of the requirements of vested interests. Beyond what is so given to vested interests, and which could not be withheld, not 1s. is given by the Bill as it stands for the maintenance of the Church

  691
  when the existing interests expire. That is followed up by providing that the property thus taken from the Church shall be applied for the benefit of the people of Ireland, but with the proviso that it shall on no account be given for the maintenance of any clergy, or for any religious teaching. Now, that, in my opinion, is a mistaken and erroneous policy; but it is impossible to raise that great question of principle in the discussion of clauses, for we do not come till nearly the end of the Bill to the application of the surplus. It is only on the 68th clause that we shall be called upon to decide what is to be done with the property obtained by stripping the Church, and, in considering any Amendment which might be moved, the Committee would rather have its attention directed to any particular measure among a great variety which might be suggested for a different application of the money than to the principle which is at stake. Nor is that all. Before we come to the 68th clause there are a great variety of Amendments of which notice has been given—especially those to be moved by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—our decision upon which ought, in my judgment, to depend upon the manner in which your Lordships deal with the subsequent question of the application of the surplus. It is, therefore, on all accounts convenient that before proceeding to the discussion of the separate clauses we should settle more clearly than we were able to do on the second reading the principle which we mean to adopt. Do we mean to adopt what is commonly called the voluntary principle, or do we mean to adopt the principle that it is fit and right that some public provision should be made for teaching religion to the people? These are the great principles at issue. Now, had my noble Friend (Earl Granville) consented to begin by the consideration of the Preamble, and that had been done by common agreement, as in the House of Commons in 1855, that question would have been raised in the most direct and convenient manner by my moving the omission of the words declaring that the property is not to be applied to the maintenance of any church, or clergy, or to the teaching of religion. Although, however, he is not prepared to accede to that course, it comes to very much the same
  692
  thing, for as I ask your Lordships to begin with the Preamble for the mere purpose of moving this Amendment, you will, in deciding whether or not you will postpone the Preamble, be really deciding whether or not you are favourable to the Amendment. Having stated thus much with regard to the question of form, let me now call your attention to the grounds which I venture to contest the policy on which a great part of the Bill is founded, and which is expressed by the words in the Preamble to which I object, and my reasons for holding it to be inexpedient to lay down the rule that no public provision whatever shall be made for religious instruction. In my opinion the principle commonly known as the voluntary principle is, as a general system of policy, a mistaken one; and, I regard its application to Ireland, in the present circumstances of that country, as liable to special objection. With respect to the general principle of policy, that no provision whatever ought to be made for the teaching of religion to the people, I cannot refrain from observing that, of late years, we have heard much of an exultant tone of triumph on the part of the advocates of that principle, and a sort of contumelious assumption that they only are right, and that those who hold the opposite opinion are benighted adherents of exploded notions; but when I come to ask what there is to justify this assumption of superior wisdom on the part of these modern philosophers, I cannot help concluding that their bold assumption of the soundness of the principle they maintain rests upon an exceedingly slight foundation of general reasoning, and that their attempts to support it by appeals to experience have been signally unsuccessful. As far as I have been able to understand the arguments of those who contend against any public provision for religious instruction, they resolve themselves into these —They say that those who require religion ought to pay for it; that it is not just to make those who may be indifferent to, or who may disapprove the religious instruction which is afforded bear any share of the expense; that it is unfair for one denomination to be encouraged at the expense of the others; and that just as men can be left to provide for their other wants, so the demand for religious instruction will produce the supply. Now, I submit that in such argu-

  693
  ments some material considerations are left quite out of sight. We all admit that Governments exist to promote the welfare of those who live under them, and that the great object of Governments is to promote, as far as possible, the happiness and welfare of those over whom they rule. Well, has religion, I ask, nothing to do with that welfare? I am not speaking of the benefit of religion to individuals, but I am speaking of it as a means of maintaining civil society. It is not only one of our greatest ecclesiastical writers, who has said in a well-known and eloquent passage that there is "a politic use in religion;" all statesmen and legislators, including those caring little for religion personally, have with one voice expressed the same opinion, and have declared that for the security of civil society, for the welfare of States, it is of the first importance that there should exist among men a general conviction that they are not subject only to human laws, which they may hope to evade or break with impunity, but to a law of higher authority, a law which they cannot hope to break with any chance of escaping a just retribution. That has been the opinion of all statesman and legislators; and I ask, then, whether the State has not a great interest in the diffusion of religion, and whether it is not just that a part of the general property under the control of the State should be applied to this purpose? We do not exempt a man who professes to be fond of filth from the payment of rates for the cleansing and sewerage of a town; and it is equally just that all men, whether they value religion for themselves or not, should concur in a system by which a part of the wealth under the control of the State is applied in instilling into the minds of the population a belief in God, a sense of religion, and a firm conviction of the existence of those Divine laws which they cannot break without danger to themselves. To provide the means of teaching religion, which is acknowledged to be the only sure foundation on which order and civil society can rest, is as legitimate an object for the employment of part of the wealth belonging to a State as any other purpose of general utility. As for the argument that it is unfair to one denomination of Christians to give it less encouragement than others, I could never see the force of it. I quite admit
  694
  that no part of the population ought to be subject to any disabilities or any disadvantages on account of the religious opinions they may entertain; but how are men, who are allowed to seek religious instruction for themselves, wronged if, by some public provision, means are taken to supply instruction to the poor and indifferent, who would not seek such instruction for themselves? There is no injustice whatever in this, and it appears to me to be an argument not creditable to the true Christian feeling of those who use it that any Christian sect should say—"We would rather have the great mass of our fellow-subjects left in ignorance and indifference to all religions than they should be taught Christianity in a form which we do not entirely approve. Though we admit that the essentials of Christianity are the same in all sects, though we admit that the great moral law is reverenced equally by all, still we would rather that a number of our fellow-subjects should be left in ignorance of the most elementary truths of the existence of a God and of responsibility in a future state, than that they should be taught those great essentials of religion, accompanied with some speculative opinions in which we do not entirely concur." That argument is totally contrary to the true spirit of Christianity. But we are also told that there is no necessity for the State to interfere, since the want of some religious instruction is so deeply felt by mankind that you may trust to their supplying themselves with it, just as they attend to their physical wants. Now, that argument appears to me to be contradicted by all experience. There is no danger of men forgetting their physical wants. The danger is rather of their being too anxious for those things which are necessary to supply those wants, and to gratify their animal inclinations, and of their attempting to obtain those things by means which are not justifiable. But with regard to their spiritual wants the case is otherwise. We know that those who are in the greatest want of religious instruction are precisely those who are most ignorant that they want it. It is necessary, therefore, that some means should be taken to arouse them, and to call their attention to the perilous position in which they are placed by neglecting their spiritual welfare. When, moreover, the argument in favour of

  695
  voluntaryism is attempted to be supported by a reference to experience its fallacy is still more obvious. The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) demonstrated beyond all contradiction on a former evening that the manner in which the experience of Scotland had been quoted in support of that system was altogether fallacious; but what has made the greatest impression on my mind is the experience of that great Republic which is commonly brought forward as a triumphant proof of the success of the voluntary system.
  Let us consider what the effect of leaving religion entirely to voluntary efforts has been in the United States. I have never visited that country, and cannot judge by experience of my own; but it is fairer and safer to judge by what we can learn from native than from foreign authorities, and it appears to me that if there could be any doubt of the advisability of having some means of religious instruction beyond that provided by the voluntary principle, that doubt would be removed by appealing to the experience of the United States, as its results are described to us by the Americans. Judging exclusively from what is to be gathered from American authorities, I do not doubt the great religious activity which exists in the United States, that there are many churches and many clergy; but I venture to say, that if you look carefully at the accounts given to us of the state of religious instruction in that country, you will find reason to conclude that it is chiefly provided for the rich and for those who are anxious for it, while the poor and the indifferent are to a great extent neglected. Your Lordships have probably seen from time to time in American newspapers, accounts of a singular proceeding which annually occurs in a place of worship in one of the principal cities of the United States. The seats in that church are put up to competition, and are bought for prices, I believe, as high as people pay in this country for opera boxes. Now, it is not exactly in accordance with our notions of religion that the services of the greatest preachers in that country should be devoted in this manner to those who can afford to pay most for them. I may also refer to the exclusive and unchristian practice of not admitting coloured men to seats in their best chapels, and I was very much struck by the argument
  696
  offered by an American, who gave as a reason for being so exclusive that coloured persons were excluded from clubs in England. That is not exactly my notion of the way in which the word of God should be taught to the people. I think that a system under which there are chapels where the select and wealthy classes exclusively enjoy the advantage of the instructions of a most able and eloquent divine is not to be preferred to ours, where we see the special services in St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey attended by a vast crowd, as large as those buildings will contain, and where, without payment or favour to any, all who desire it can receive the instruction of the most eminent preachers of the day. I prefer a system by which in every parish in the land there is a person whose special duty it is to search out the indifferent and careless, and to urge them, as they value their future happiness, to receive religious instruction—a system by which instruction is freely offered to the parishioners, to one by which instruction is only given to those who pay for it. I may be told, indeed, that I am describing a state of things which does not exist, and that free instruction is not provided in every parish for all the parishioners. But why is that the case? Simply because our system of endowment is not in proportion to the growing wants of our population; not because the system is wrong, but because it is incomplete. The theory of our system is right, and though, unfortunately it is not carried into complete operation, that theory and system are, to my mind, infinitely to be preferred to those of the United States. Moreover, the inadequacy of the instruction provided under the voluntary system is not its worst element. My Lords, it is impossible to read the accounts which appear in American newspapers of the manner in which public worship is conducted in that country without being struck by the fact that the entire dependence of the clergy on their flocks has had an injurious effect in various ways. I could easily give quotations in proof of this, but I am anxious to spare your Lordships' time, and, therefore, instead of reading extracts from books and newspapers, I will only mention the substance of what may be learned from them. We are told that the natural effect of the system of competition by which the clergy are paid is that the services of the

  697
  Church are made as attractive as possible to the congregation, and it is notorious that the pulpits of America are degraded to the purposes of party warfare in a manner to which, even in times of the greatest excitement, we are happily strangers in this country. Week by week, in the pulpits of the United States, political harangues are delivered under the guise of sermons, and, what is still worse, the clergy shrink from denouncing, as they ought, with the independence and severity which they ought, those sins to which the people are most prone. There is one remarkable instance of that, which is so undoubted, that I cannot refrain from calling your Lordships' attention to it. I refer to the conduct of all the Churches in America, with hardly an exception, with regard to slavery previous to the outbreak of the great civil war. I challenge anyone to contradict me when I say that for some years previous to that outbreak nearly all the Churches avoided expressing that opinion on the subject of slavery which, as Christians, it was their duty to declare. My Lords, slavery is a state of things so clearly and palpably contrary to all the precepts of Christianity that, in my opinion, it is utterly impossible to find any excuse or palliation for those Churches which have tampered with so great a sin; yet we know that many Churches in America deliberately and elaborately defended slavery, with its worst abominations, as it existed in America, and that those which did not defend abstained from condemning it as they ought. And, my Lords, this was by no means confined to the South, where slavery actually existed, but it extended to a great extent through the North, where the profitable trade carried on with the South by merchants and manufacturers, through the continuance of slavery, made them unwilling that the system should be abolished. Whether, therefore, you look to general reasoning or to experience, you have a right to conclude that it is for the general good of a nation that there should exist some provision for the teaching of religion to the people, so that its ministers may not be left entirely dependent on their flock; and if that is true as a general system of policy, it is more especially true with regard to Ireland. The withdrawal from Ireland of that public provision for the teaching of religion which has
  698
  hitherto existed would be attended with very unfortunate results.
  In the late debate I called attention to some of these results, which I need not recapitulate. I shall only say that I endeavoured to show that if you were entirely to withdraw from the Established Church the means which she now possesses, the probable effect would be that, in the course of a few years, when the present incumbents had died out, the scattered Protestant population of Ireland would be reduced to this position— they would be unable to obtain any religious ministrations, and would have to choose between dispensing with such ministrations altogether, conforming to the Roman Catholic religion, or emigrating, any one of which would be a grave misfortune for Ireland. This is what would be most likely to happen; but I am willing to admit the possibility that, by subscriptions in this country means would be found of continuing, to a great degree, the religious instruction of the Protestants of the South and West of Ireland. But supposing this to be accomplished, it would by no means remove the objections to which I have been referring, —leaving the Protestant Church entirely destitute of any endowment — because your Lordships must remember that, in order to obtain those subscriptions which would be its only resource, it would be absolutely necessary that means should be taken to keep up a high degree of religious excitement. This would be done by addressing the controversial passions and feelings of the Protestants as against the Roman Catholics, and I do not think that that would be for the benefit of the people of Ireland. Already a very large sum has been subscribed for the purpose of carrying on Protestant missions in the West of Ireland, and I do not hesitate to say that, strongly as I adhere to the Protestant religion, I deeply regret that this should have been done. I cannot but deplore, with the late Rev. Mr. Robertson, of Brighton, in a very beautiful sermon, the existence of "these fierce associations which think only of uprooting error," for, as he remarks—
  "There is a spirit in them which is more of earth than Heaven, short-sighted, too, and self-destructive. They do not make converts to Christ, but only controversially and adherents to a party. They compass sea and land. It matters little whether fierce Romanism or fierce Protestantism wins the day, but it does matter whe-

  699
  ther or not in the conflict we lose some precious Christian truth as well as the very spirit of Christianity."
  I am persuaded that to extend this system—that to encourage in this country the collection of subscriptions for this purpose—and that to make the supply of religious instruction to the scattered Protestant population of the South and West of Ireland depend on the keeping up of a state of religious excitement both in England and Ireland, would be disadvantageous alike to Roman Catholics and Protestants, and, above all, to Christianity. I am, therefore, firmly of opinion that, when proceeding to remove the real grievance of the Irish people— the maintenance of a wealthy Church Establishment for the exclusive benefit of a small minority of the population— we should not go further and entirely deprive that Church of all its means for the teaching of religion in the future. I say this because, with the exception of a paltry sum of £6,000 a year from private endowments, nothing whatever is left by the Bill for the maintenance of the Church when the present incumbents die out. [The Marquess of SALISBURY: Hear!] To that I entirely object. For more than forty years I have been an ardent advocate of reforming the present state of things in connection with the Established Church of Ireland. I said what I am now saying, when those who are now foremost in leading the attack upon the Church, andarecrying—"Down with it, down with it; let not a stone be left," were foremost in the fight for maintaining all its abuses and inequalities. I said so then; I say so now. But I have always been for reform, and not for destruction.
  My Lords, with that feeling I, for one, shall be prepared to support in Committee Amendments which may be proposed with the view of preserving to the Church, after its connection with the State has ceased, some fair and moderate provision for the continuance of its religious teaching. With that view I shall support, if they are moved, the Amendments of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury); but I would suggest for his consideration that it is doubtful whether these provisions go quite far enough, and whether they could not be made to assume a more convenient form. I doubt whether if all the Amendments of the most rev. Pri-
  700
  mate were carried we shall leave to the Church necessary means for continued usefulness, and I see much danger in those Amendments. I confess to a dislike for the provisions of the Bill—and I shall not dislike them less after the Amendments of the most rev. Primate are carried—which declare that all private endowments shall remain belonging to the Church. When I consider the difficulty of determining what are private endowments, especially if we are to look back not only 200, but 300 years— when I consider that extreme difficulty and the probability of much litigation through appeals to the Court of Chancery provided for by the Bill, I cannot help fearing that these provisions may in the end turn out to be more profitable to the legal profession than to the Church. I would suggest to the most rev. Primate whether, in the clauses relating to private endowments, it would not be better to provide that out of the surplus which it is supposed will remain to the Church, after paying vested interests, a certain sum should be set aside to cover all these private endowments. Whether this be done or not, however, I trust your Lordships will insist before this Bill leaves the House that it shall contain some provision for the Church, so that it shall not be left in a state of absolute destitution when it ceases to be established. And, my Lords, what I say for the Established Church I say also for the Presbyterian; nay more, I say when I look at the small grant known as the Regium Donum, and think of the good it has done, and the great benefit Ireland has derived from the instruction of the Presbyterian Church, which, without the continuance of this wise system, could hardly be expected to be maintained, I, for one, altogether deny the policy or expediency of the provisions in this Bill, which go to destroy the system of the Regium Donum. To use the language of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) in his able speech the other night, I regard this as a truly shabby proceeding. But if we are to take this course —if we are to show our disinterested regard for religious equality in Ireland by putting into our own pockets what we have hitherto paid under the name of the Regium Donum for the Presbyterians, then I say out of the property of the Church we must in some

  701
  way or other make provision for the Presbyterians as well as for the Church of England.
  My Lords, I hold it to be, as I have said, absolutely necessary for the good working of this measure, that we should provide in some manner for the continuance of the Protestant Churches; but let me add, I advocate this upon one condition. I could not be a party to making an increased grant to the Protestant Churches unless the same principle is extended to the Roman Catholics. My Lords, if you shut out the Roman Catholics you will neutralize all the good you may expect your Act to produce. You would do more than this. The Roman Catholics, under the present state of things, acquiesce from custom in what has long prevailed, and offer slight remonstrance against the injustice which they feel is done them by keeping up the rich Protestant Establishment, and paying the Presbyterians out of the Parliamentary grant. But if we begin afresh in this course; if we re-enact this injustice; if we, on abolishing the existing state of things, once more revert to the unjust principle of exclusion; if in putting an end to the Establishment of the Protestant Church we make some permanent provision for both the great Protestant Churches, and altogether exclude the Roman Catholics from any similar advantage, I believe the sense of injustice will be far greater than it is now. Therefore, greatly as I should lament to see the Bill pass in its present shape, still I believe it would do less injury if passed unamended than if we were to amend it in the narrow spirit I have been deprecating. However, I believe it will be quite impossible for your Lordships to do so. I cannot for a moment believe that the other House of Parliament will consent to such one-sided Amendments as would endow the Protestants and do nothing for the Catholics. They would say, and say with truth'— "You have destroyed the whole utility of the Bill," and proceeding to deal with the Amendments, I am persuaded they would reject them. And what is more, I say they ought, under such circumstances, to reject them. I insist, therefore, that if we are to make provision for the Protestant Churches, we must not neglect the Roman Catholics. But quite independent of this consideration, quite independent of the desire to secure some
  702
  better permanent provision for the Protestant Churches—I consider it to be of the highest degree of importance that something should be given to the Roman Catholic Church. It is stated in the Preamble that "the property of the said Church of Ireland, or the proceeds thereof, should be held and applied for the advantage of the Irish people." That, I believe, is a sound and just principle; but if it be adopted, we must consider how the property may be best applied to the advantage of the Irish people; and if you consider the question in this light you cannot help giving something to the Catholics. You ought, I maintain, to afford to the poor people of Ireland some assistance towards the maintenance of their Church. My Lords, I am told by those who have carefully inquired into the matter that the maintenance of their clergy at this time forms one of the heaviest burdens of the people of Ireland. I am told that the payments which they are expected to make amount, in the case of even a poor person, to no less than 1½ per cent of his earnings, and this deduction has to be made from the miserable pittance which he is able to obtain for his own maintenance. With regard to some of the more wealthy, a case was mentioned to me in which the payment made by a farmer to the Church amounted to no less than 5 per cent upon the profit which he got from his farm. It would, therefore, be a great assistance to the poor of Ireland to give something towards the support of their clergy. How it should be done is another question.
  In the Amendments placed upon your Lordships' table a plan is suggested of providing for building parsonage houses and purchasing small glebes for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland out of the proceeds of the Church property. My Lords, I entirely agree with that proposition. I believe it would confer, at a moderate expense, and in a manner most free from objection, the greatest benefit upon the Roman Catholic clergy and people. Considering the self-denying habits of the clergy, and how little is necessary for their maintenance, a small plot of land on which they can feed a cow and grow potatoes will be a most valuable addition to their incomes. But this is only one out of several modes of granting assistance to the Roman Catholic Church which have been

  703
  suggested, it will be a question of great importance and some difficulty which of these modes should be preferred, and this is not the right time for considering it; but I venture to put it to your Lordships that it is our duty not to let this Bill pass without including in it some provision for the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, and also for the clergy of the Protestant Churches in Ireland. I am persuaded that this is a policy which would be best for the future peace and welfare of Ireland; but let me point out that it is hardly less important with reference to British interests. Some of the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have treated with scorn the notion that the passing of this Bill would bring danger to our own English Church. They have said, and said truly, that there is a difference between the positions of the two Churches; but while I fully recognize that difference, and I concur in the opinion that it would be possible to alter the existing arrangements in Ireland without inflicting any injury upon our own Church, I deny that this would be true of the measure proposed to us. I submit to your Lordships that the Bill, as it now stands, would carry with it an element of serious danger to the English Church.
  Let me remind your Lordships of the able argument adduced on a former evening by a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), who showed, in a manner which to my mind was conclusive, that while the Bill professes to establish religious equality it fails to do so. He told you that while you professed by this Bill to accomplish the object of relieving the Roman Catholics of Ireland from the grievances under which they had hitherto laboured, you fail, and for this reason — in England the religion of the majority is provided for by the State; in Scotland there is a provision for the religion of the majority; but in Ireland, where the majority is Roman Catholic, there is no such provision for the clergy. The right rev. Prelate further said, and said with truth, that this Bill would not be long in operation before the Roman Catholics of Ireland would urge, with irresistible force, the doctrine that what was good for Ireland was good for England, and that if in Ireland the majority was Roman Catholic and nothing was given to them in aid of religious instruction, the
  704
  same rule ought to be applied to England, where the majority is Protestant, and, indeed, the Bill would leave the Irish Roman Catholics under the same stigma of inequality as they had been placed in hitherto. That argument is to my mind irresistible. When I consider what the state of things at present is—when I consider how certain it is that an attack is about to be directed upon our own Church in England, when I look at the declarations of the Liberation Society and of Mr. Miall as to the objects they have in view — I confess it does appear to me to be a suicidal policy to put into their hands the fatal advantage of being able to appeal to a Parliamentary declaration in favour of the voluntary principle, and at the same time to assure them for their allies the majority of the Irish population, the Catholics and the Presbyterian Protestants, who will be all alike left destitute, who will regard the Bill as an unmitigated evil, and will have the strongest temptation to join in dealing out to us the measure we have dealt out to them. They will join with the voluntary party in enforcing upon England the rule we have enforced upon Ireland. This danger is, to my mind, the more serious, because I cannot forget that a person of great power and influence in this country—no less a person than the present Prime Minister —in a very remarkable pamphlet which he published not long ago, entitled A Chapter of Autobiography, has laid down principles and stated arguments which, if followed out to their natural and logical conclusion, necessarily would lead to an attack upon the Established Church in this country, and to the establishment of the voluntary principle here as well as in Ireland. When I consider how rapidly that right hon. Gentleman's political and religious education has gone on, and that it is but a few years since he entertained very different views upon this subject, I can hardly doubt that, if we pass this Bill in its present shape, before many years have gone by—probably before many months have gone by — we shall see that right hon. Gentleman at the head of the same combined force which he now leads, in which Catholics are united with anti-Catholics, pupils of Cardinal Cullen and Archbishop Manning, with followers of Mr. Miall, and of the Liberation Society, and he will, at the head of that

  705
  somewhat motley party, conduct an assault upon our Church similar to that he has made on the Irish Church. This is why I cannot assent to the passing of this Bill in the form in which it gives these advantages to our opponents. Look, my Lords, how different the case will be if you consent to amend this Bill in the manner which I venture to suggest; if you strike out of the Preamble those obnoxious words, and then introduce clauses and provisions which give something to all the three great religious communities in Ireland. If you do that, how totally reversed our position will be. Instead of having a solemn Parliamentary affirmation of the voluntary principle, you will have furnished a Parliamentary declaration that it is right a portion of the public wealth should continue to be employed in the teaching of religion. Instead of having opposed to you, with the voluntary party, the whole of the Irish population, you will, in all probability, have a great part of that population interested in maintaining the principle that is opposed to the voluntary one; and you will have them for allies instead of opponents. I ask you whether that will not make a material difference?
  Upon these grounds I venture to press upon you, not only for the interests of Ireland, but also for those of England and Scotland, that we should amend this Bill in the manner I have pointed out. I am sanguine enough to believe that a majority of your Lordships concur in the opinion I have expressed as to what would really be the best mode of dealing with this question. Those of your Lordships who watched the course of the late debate must have been struck by this circumstance—that there was hardly any noble Lord who spoke, whether against the Bill or for it, who did not either directly assert or indirectly imply this opinion—that the Bill would have been better if it had made some provision for the various Churches in Ireland. That opinion was generally implied by noble Lords, not excluding some of my noble Friends on the front Bench opposite. Unhappily, that opinion was coupled with another, that, while undoubtedly it would be better to do something of this kind, it was impracticable. I venture, however, to submit that if your Lordships are satisfied that a different arrangement from that pro-
  706
  posed by the Government would be essentially better for the public interests and the public welfare, it is your duty not too hastily to assume that that better arrangement is impossible. No step has yet been taken to prove that it is impracticable, and I do hope that if we are now to refuse this policy of giving something to the different religious bodies in Ireland, its impracticability will be more completely shown. As far as I can infer from some obscure hints in the speeches of noble Lords, I believe that it has been considered impracticable, because it is assumed that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not accept anything from the property of the Church; that the Protestants of Ireland would not approve of the offer being made; and, lastly, that the people of England and Scotland are so decidedly opposed to such a policy that it would be impossible to carry it out. I venture to question all those assumptions. I do not believe they are any of them true. I am quite aware that the Roman Catholics have declared that they would not accept stipends for their clergy from the State. Formerly they would gladly have done so. When the House of Commons, in the year 1825, resolved that such a provision should be made, the Roman Catholic prelates and laity were prepared to acquiesce in the arrangement, as part of the plan of emancipation then proposed. Unfortunately, that arrangement was defeated by the rejection of the Emancipation Bill by this House, and for many years past the feeling of the Roman Catholics of Ireland has been decidedly against accepting any stipend. But though it is quite certain that they would not consent to their clergy becoming stipendiary, it is equally certain that, as yet at least, neither the Catholic Prelates nor the laity have expressed any such opinion against accepting houses and glebes. And I would say further, that if we were certain that the offer would be declined, it would be no less our duty to make it, because the fact of our distinctly placing these glebes and houses within reach of the Roman Catholics would remove any difficulty which there might be in the way of making provision for our own clergy. The Roman Catholics have a perfect right to say—"There must be equality between the two religions;" but they have no right to say that that equality

  707
  is to be arrived at by reducing both to a common destitution. If they refuse to accept a been which will not in the slightest degree affect the independence of their Church, they have no right to object to our making a similar offer to the clergy of the Established Church. I know it is true that many of the Prelates, the clergy, and the laymen of the Church in Ireland object to any such arrangement. I know that the feeling against it is very strong in the North of Ireland; but even on this point I know that there is great division of opinion. There are still many persons among the Protestants of the North of Ireland who believe that some provision for all the Churches would be the most desirable and the fairest way of arriving at a settlement of this great question. That I believe to be a growing feeling; and I am persuaded that, after the heat and excitement of the conflict have subsided, the bulk of the Protestants will be far better contented if they find some moderate provision made for their own religious instruction, even though a similar provision should be made for the Roman Catholics also, than they will be if they should be left, as this Bill proposes to leave them, in a state of entire religious destitution. I am so confident of the opinion of the people of Ireland upon this point, that I would willingly leave it to their decision. I am sure that their votes would be in favour of giving something to all the Churches, instead of leaving them all destitute. But then, my Lords, we are told that it is impossible to do this—that the feeling of the people of England is too strongly against such a proposal to hope that it would be successful. I would venture to answer the objections of those who make use of this argument by quoting the words of a very high authority—the w6rds of Mr. Bright himself—
  "The Nonconformist people of England and Scotland should bear in mind that the whole of this property which is now in the possession of the Established Church of Ireland is Irish property. It does not belong to Scotland or to England; and it would be a measure intolerable and not to be thought of that it should be touched or dealt with in any manner that is not in accordance with the feelings, and the interests of the people of Ireland."—[3 Hansard, cxc. 1661.]
  Now, I say it would be indeed intolerable, and not to be thought of, that an arrangement which has for many years been advocated by the most enlightened
  708
  friends of Ireland—which at this moment the vast majority of your Lordships know in your hearts to be best calculated to bring back religious peace to that country—that such an arrangement should be rejected because a portion of the people of England and Scotland choose to say— "We will not endow error," as they are pleased to call the religion held by their fellow-subjects in Ireland. This argument is used by men who clamorously demand a Bill which is confessedly a measure of revolutionary violence, because they say it is necessary to establish the great principle of religious equality. But I would ask what respect for the rights of conscience is shown by these men, who are not ashamed to denounce as idolatry a religion which is held by three-fourths of their Irish fellow-subjects and by a majority of the Christians throughout the world? For it must not be forgotten that the Roman Catholics acknowledge the same code of morality and the same first principles of Christianity as we do. I am no less firm in my adherence to Protestantism than any of your Lordships, but I condemn those who denounce the Roman Catholic religion as idolatry, not because I agree with the Roman Catholics, but because I hold that they have as good a right to their opinions as we have to ours. I say that if you desire to adopt any other principle as the basis of your legislation you ought never to have repealed the Penal Laws. It is utterly impossible that the representatives of Ireland and England can sit in the same Parliament, and work together harmoniously in passing laws for the common good, if you are in legislating to act upon the assumption that the Roman Catholic religion is false and idolatrous. I say it is now too late to adopt that principle. You have for years recognized and encouraged the Roman Catholic Church in Canada and the colonies; you have for years provided out of the funds of the British Treasury for the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in the Army, the Navy, the prisons, and the workhouses, and it is now too late to say that, in dealing with this great question of the Irish Church, you must act upon the assumption that the Roman Catholic religion is false and idolatrous, and that it would be wrong for you in any way to connive at its support.

  709
  My Lords, I venture to say that, after all, the truth has never yet been put before the country. The constituencies have never had it put before them to decide whether it is just or not, in dealing with Irish property, to consult the feelings of the Irish people. That is a plain question; but neither party has had the moral courage to put it to the constituencies. On the contrary, both sides have imputed to each other as a crime the intention to make some concession to the Irish Roman Catholics. Last year, with a view to the approaching election, it seemed to be a contest between the two parties which should go furthest in imputing to its opponents and in disclaiming for itself a disposition to do justice to the Roman Catholics. Each party sought to affix as an indelible reproach on the other the contemplation of such a thing. I am persuaded that if a more honest course were adopted —if it were put before the people of England that justice to Ireland and the true interests of the Empire required that the question should be settled in this way—the answer to that appeal would be a satisfactory one. And, my Lords, I have so much reliance on their sense of justice and on the inherent force of truth that I feel convinced that if we legislate upon the principle I am advocating the people will ratify our legislation. In conclusion, my Lords, I have only to say that by adopting my Amendment you will merely declare that your Lordships do not concur in the propriety of laying down as a principle that no part of the surplus funds of the Irish Church ought to be applied to religious purposes. I have thought it my duty in moving my Amendment to state how, in my opinion, that surplus ought to be dealt with; but, if you adopt my Amendment, it will not follow as a consequence that you concur in my opinion as to the particular mode of disposal. The only thing you will decide, in adopting my Amendment is that you do not think it right to declare that the whole of the surplus property of the Irish Church, after meeting the demands for vested interests, should be employed for secular purposes, and not for the higher object of religious instruction. The only decision you would give would be that it is desirable the property which has hitherto been given for the great object of promoting the religious in-
  710
  struction of the Irish people should still' though by other modes, be applied to that object.
  Amendment moved to negative the Motion for postponing the Preamble.— (The Earl Grey.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, your Lordships may be aware that I labour under a difficulty as to the conduct of your Lordships' business in this matter. I am painfully sensible of the fact that Her Majesty's Government do not command a majority; but, even if they did, I should still be desirous to take that line which, in form and manner, would be most convenient for the greatest number of your Lordships. But, my Lords, as far as I have been able to gather, the course which the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) proposes we should take is not felt to be the most convenient for your Lordships. My noble Friend has had an opportunity, before your Lordships are fatigued by a discussion of clauses, to repeat arguments which you have often heard from him on a question in which he takes a great interest. I think, however, that if there was doubt in your Lordships' minds before the noble Earl commenced, the speech he has just delivered is not very much calculated to make any change in your Lordships' impressions on the subject. I put aside the question of imputing unfairness in their motives to both sides of the House; but I think the arguments used by my noble Friend in support of his Amendment were not such as to induce many of your Lordships to support him in this political conjuncture. I know that many of your Lordships have strong opinions on the subject of the Amendment of which my noble Friend the noble Duke on the cross-Benches (the Duke of Cleveland) has given notice; but I believe that there are noble Lords who would support that Amendment, but who will not be inclined to follow the noble Earl in the course he proposes to take. On the part of her Majesty's Government I must enter my strongest protest against the description which the noble Earl has given of the Bill, and I must add that the line he has taken, after the manner of the ancient astrologers, in casting the horoscope of the present Prime Minister is not very well calculated to enlist us in support of his proposition. The noble Earl at considerable length went into the

  711
  question of concurrent endowment of the different creeds in Ireland. I shall not shrink from stating the reasons which make it impossible that Her Majesty's Government can agree with my noble Friend in that principle. When I do so I will use simple and plain arguments, which I think will be considered intelligible even by those who do not agree with us. I will not make use of arguments such as some of those employed by my noble Friend, and which seemed to have been put up merely for the purpose of being knocked down again. I think your Lordships will agree with me that if there be any mode of clearing our proceedings with reference to this Bill it would be desirable to adopt it. Your Lordships dealt with the Bill as a whole on the second reading; but on looking through the Amendments, and taking them in the aggregate, I think that they not only go to every part of the Bill—to all its provisions—but also to its principle. Now, with regard to these endowments, I saw it stated in a paper the other day that the deductions from the surplus fund which would be made if all the Amendments were adopted would amount to something like £4,000,000. Since then I have had the curiosity to go through the Amendments, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual amount. I find that the deductions proposed by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns) would amount to £400,000; those of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) to £352,000; those of the noble Earl who spoke the other night (the Earl of Limerick) to £500,000 —making£1,252,000. Then, coming to the Episcopal Bench, the proposition of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) would take £830,000; that of the most rev. Primate near me (the Archbishop of Dublin) £600,000; that of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) £930,000; and that of the most rev. Prelate who presides over the Northern Province (the Archbishop of York) £1,375,000. With what we propose these deductions would absorb £13,000,000 out of the £16,000,000 which constitute the entire of the funds of the Irish Church. We then come to concurrent endowment. The noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord Westbury) proposes to take) £3,000,000, which just disposes of the entire of the surplus; "but my noble Friend at the table (Earl
  712
  Russell) proposes to take £4,500,000. If his alternative plan should be adopted, when my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) comes to propose his loans for the Irish peasantry he will find a deficit of £1,500,000. [A laugh.] Well, there seems to be a difficulty here, and I do not think the proposition of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey) will help us out of it. I hope we shall learn in the course of the debate the Amendments that will be supported, to give to the House, and through the House to the country, some guide respecting our proceedings and the probable result. I agree with the noble Earl that it is quite in our power, though it is not the practice, to at once deal with the Preamble; but I do not think we ought to do so, unless it is shown to us that there would be a manifest advantage in our doing so. I must say that I do not think the case of Private Bills, in respect of which the object is to save money to the promoters, is one which should influence us when we are dealing with a great Bill, such as the one now before your Lordships. The noble Earl says it is very desirable to know what principle we are to go on, and he says that if we have before us the question whether concurrent endowment shall or shall not be adopted, that will make everything intelligible. It is all very well for the noble Earl to tell us so; but if I recollect rightly, that portion of the Preamble was as much opposed by noble Lords who object to concurrent endowment as by those who strongly support it. A division, therefore, upon that point would not advance us in any degree in ascertaining what the feelings of your Lordships were for or against concurrent endowment; and besides, there is this great disadvantage of which your Lordships will, I think be sensible. It was urged by noble and learned Lords that we should be very careful as to the mode of our proceedings. And I can conceive nothing less conciliatory towards the House of Commons, than at the very outset, to destroy one of the principles of the Bill, instead of discussing the merits of particular Amendments when we come to them. I do not think it necessary to say more to show my objection to the course proposed, and to express what I think is the feeling of the House. I hope my noble Friend will consent to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: I think your Lordships' House and the country are very much indebted to the noble Earl (Earl Grey) for the speech which he has made. The noble Earl thinks for himself; he has the gift of expressing his thoughts in vigorous English language; and he has the courage to say "what he thinks and what he desires to say. I think, therefore, that we owe him a great debt for having brought before this House, and through this House before the country, one most important view of that great question which is now before us. I cannot say that I agree with the noble Earl in thinking that it will be convenient to divide upon the issue that he has raised. I earnestly trust the noble Earl will listen to what has fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Granville) behind me; and while he perceives that, in bringing before the House and the country, at so early a stage of the Committee's deliberations, this great and important proposition, he has gained the only point which he can now attain, he will likewise see that in forcing a division he will really make his own defeat almost certain, and will not truly ascertain the opinions of your Lordships. Upon the great issue, however, which your Lordships care most about, I would ask permission to say a few words. If you consider that the question of the disestablishment of the Irish branch of the United Church is not settled, then, I should say, there is a fundamental objection in limine to any proposal for dividing its property with other religious bodies. But I agree with what was said in such eloquent language by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) the other night, that the decision of the country upon that point has been taken, and is irreversible. But, admitting the right rev. Prelate's propositions, I come to a different conclusion as regards my vote. When your Lordships were kind enough to allow me to urge my view with regard to the Suspensory Bill, I endeavoured to impress upon the House that the issue then to be decided and to be sent for that purpose to the constituencies was nothing less, and could be taken for nothing less, than whether we should maintain an Established Church in Ireland or not. I then urged every objection that occurred to my mind against such a course, and I retain every objection which I then urged. I believe
  714
  that the disestablishment of the Irish Church will not tend to appease Irish discontent; but instead of doing so will give to Irish opposition to the Union with Great Britain the increased violence which comes from a taste of success without the satisfaction of the appetite. But the question of disestablishment, according to my humble view, is a settled question. I maintain that it was the question which was referred to the constituencies; it was to it that the answer of the constituencies was returned; it was so far confirmed by the resignation of the late Government; it received additional sanction by the appointment of the present Government; and, therefore, in point of fact—let us who dislike the conclusion deny it as we may—it is a settled matter. Holding that opinion, I wished very much to have it stated upon the second reading of the Bill. It may be known to many of your Lordships that it was my intention to do so; but the accidents of debate shut me out from the opportunity of making this statement, and, therefore, I held myself incapacitated, as a Bishop of the Church of England, from giving the vote I should otherwise have given, no opportunity of stating the grounds on which I did so having presented itself. Holding disestablishment, then, to be a settled point, one great difficulty is removed out of the way of considering the main proposition of the noble Earl. And what is the difficulty which remains? There was one argument upon which the noble Earl touched, but it did not seem to me a very convincing argument—the disinclination of many very good, very wise, and very resolute and determined men to yield assent to any manner of endowment of what they consider erroneous doctrine. Is that a sufficient answer? I ask your Lordships to consider what appears to me to be the fundamental difference between an established religion and that which is merely endowed. I hold that establishment consists in its essence, not in the payment of the clergy, higher or lower, but in the recognized form of teaching which the State has assumed to be its representative in the religious instructions of the people. Then I say, while a Christian country could not consent, without the deepest guilt, to establish any erroneous form of teaching, and could not consent to let

  715
  itself be represented as a teacher of religion by anything which it did not in itself believe to be the teaching of the true religion, because it would otherwise be making its own representative in religious teaching one whom it denied to be a true religious teacher, the consideration whether we ought to give to different religious teachers sums of money, even from the State funds, stands upon wholly a different footing. We are all perfectly familiar with the fact that in our great Eastern dominions the State administers funds belonging to heathen chapels. And the State does right, for Christianity does not call upon you to commit injustice to a man because he is a heathen. It would be the greatest weakness if we made these men official exponents of religious teaching, if we authoritatively instructed the people in their own falsehoods. But it is not mixing ourselves up with falsehood if we let them have that to which the rules of justice entitle them, although these may entitle them to teachers who shall instruct them falsely. And then apply this rule to your Roman Catholic brethren in Ireland. There is no Member in this House who feels in his own religious convictions a deeper sense of the evils of that part of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church which differs from the teaching of our own Church; but, still I say this —that teaching is, in its main element, the teaching of our common Christianity; and if our Roman Catholic brethren will not be taught in the purer form, that I, for one, should desire, but will only receive it in the form that they themselves choose to accept, then, I say, the second great objection to dealing with this question as proposed by the noble Earl seems to have no real basis. But, is there not, on the other hand, a great deal to recommend it? If disestablishment is settled, as I believe it to be, then I think it follows that it is impossible for us to give the whole of what now belongs to the Established sister Church to the disestablished Church. And while I differ greatly from this Bill, as to the amount which I should wish to see given to that Church, while I agree that the amount proposed is altogether beneath her just claims, and while I assert that every principle of right ought to lead us to be more generous to her, I cannot forget those words
  716
  of Lord Bacon, in which he says— "They have deprived Christ's wife of a great part of her sustenance; it were reason, then, they made her a competent dowry." I think that principle applies eminently in this case. Even if the case were one of a common separation of those who have been united in marriage, you never suffer the husband to send his wife away and not to consider what is a just return for the past sodality, or without providing for her as a wife differently from what he would do for one who had no claim upon him. I maintain that upon every principle, not upon liberality alone, but even of right, there should be a larger allowance by far than is given to the sister Church. But you cannot, I think, assert that disestablishment has been agreed upon, and at the same time give to the sister Church the whole of her present endowments; there must be more or less a residue, and the question is, how this is to be disposed of. A great deal, undoubtedly, is to be said in favour of such a scheme as that put forward by the noble Earl in opposition to a mere scheme of secularization. We have heard a good deal about sacrilege; but I cannot help agreeing with my right rev. Brother that there has been a good deal of mystification. We have heard much about St. Ambrose, and probably those of your Lordships who do not profess to be adepts in this class of studies may have thought they were passing through a dose of the Fathers. But the question does not turn as it seems to me altogether on the authority of St. Ambrose. A greater than St. Ambrose has said—"I will have mercy and not sacrifice." A greater than St. Ambrose justified David and his companions, when, in their dire necessity, they ate the shew bread which it was not lawful for any man to eat but for the priest alone. I think, therefore, that if nothing more is meant than that this law of mercy in its highest exercise may justify the State in taking from the direct endowments of religion for other merciful works, that which has been set apart for the direct service of religion, it is what every one of us must admit, and it is what Hooker has laid down, when in the abundance of his argumentation he pointed out in what the great sin of sacrilege consisted. But if we go beyond that, and say that there is no such thing as sacrilege, no such thing as the giving

  717
  of goods to God—that it is nothing more or holier than any ordinary act of charity—that money given to the poor is really given to God—that there is no such thing as sacrilege, from all that I entirely differ. I would remind your Lordships how Hooker goes on to show that they are great introducers of sacrilege who, by means of gentle palliatives, lead men unawares to commit it; and I am afraid that those who have listened to nothing but our late debates may be led to imitate rather Belshazzar in his treatment of the golden vessels of the Temple than St. Ambrose. Take from the present Established Church in Ireland a portion of its property, and, instead of applying it to secular apply it directly to religious uses; give, as has been suggested, manses and glebes to those who minister, not according to our rites, but who are our fellow-Christians in Ireland, and I believe you will be adopting a far safer course to keep this country aloof from the dangers of sacrilege than if you were to devote to entirely different purposes that which has hitherto been set apart for the worship of God. I feel indeed that the deaf, and the idiot, and the blind stand in the forefront, and seem to ask of us some part of this surplus; but at their back are the owners of the broad acres of Ireland, whose duty it now is to minister to their necessities, and who—if the funds of the disestablished Church are appropriated to spiritual purposes — would still have to put their hands into their own deep pockets towards their support. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that the proposition made by the noble Earl tonight is well worthy of the consideration of this House—worthy of being discussed to the uttermost — and that you should not decide what your own course about it will be without having weighed thoroughly all that is to be said on the matter. And that makes me the more anxious that the noble Earl should not hasten to a division upon it; but that time should be given to allow the present discussion to sink into the public mind. Then, at a later stage in the progress of the Bill, when it becomes a practical measure, the proposal of the noble Earl may be put, and the opinion of the House with respect to it pronounced with greater advantage. It seems to me to be for another reason a
  718
  matter of considerable moment that your Lordships should adopt this course. I was deeply anxious that we should give a second reading to this Bill, because I wished to see this House do that which I think it is eminently qualified to do—lead the public opinion of this great country. Now, that function it cannot perform if it sets itself diametrically in opposition to public opinion whenever it happens to have pronounced its verdict on any great question. But it seems to me that it is almost impossible to limit the power that it has of leading the opinion of the country upon anything upon which that opinion is not irreversibly pronounced — if only it will take its own place, calmly, deliberately, and without any hurry let the country know the reasons with which it it is actuated, and the motives by which it is swayed. This House I believe to be in some respects more eminently representative of the nation than the other House of Parliament; more eminently representative, though, perhaps, it may seem paradoxical to say so, because it is less immediately representative. It represents more perfectly, it appears to me, the general resultative opinion of the country. Those who are returned to Parliament by different constituencies, to a certain extent, no doubt, represent the opinions of those constituencies. They give to them an overbearing representation in the other House, in consequence of which that House is not representative in the same degree as this of the nation at large. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the town representation in the Lower House wholly overshadows the opinions and representation of the entire country besides. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that a House composed like that of your Lordships—of men possessed of the highest education, of men who have passed through various learned professions, who have had personal acquaintance with commerce—is in a better position to represent the resultant and deliberate opinion of the Nation than the immediate representative House itself. In order that that should be so, however, it is necessary that you should not set yourself in direct opposition to the decision of the country; that you should not be biassed by any threats, and that you should deal with the great questions submitted to you in a brave, calm, and

  719
  deliberate spirit. In taking this course you will, I think, best consult, the interests of the country, the honour of this House, and, at this moment, the future welfare of that true Church which we shall, I trust, see arise in Ireland. It will, in my opinion, be far easier to secure to that Church a due share of her present revenues if you listen calmly to such arguments as have been laid before you to-night than if you hastily decide that such a course is impossible. For my own part, I look to the future of the Church in Ireland with every hope. I cannot join in the despairing language concerning it which is used in some quarters. I feel the greatness of the shock impending over her — the greatness of her loss in being disestablished. I am no advocate of Free Churches, and it must, I am confident, be a heavy blow to a Church not starting in the freshness of its youth, but which has long learnt to lean to a great degree on State aid, to have her endowments suddenly withdrawn. I can understand the sinking of heart among her people, but I do not doubt, at the same time, that there is besides all this in store for her a great resurrection. The difficulties of the Church have hitherto been too frequently the secret of her history to permit me to entertain any fears upon this grant. Never have riches flowed in upon her so abundantly as when she has not asked for them and has laboured for her God in poverty. Nor do I think, my Lords, there is anything in the Irish character which need make us apprehensive for the future of the Irish Church. Is there not, on the contrary, everything in that character which should lead us to hope for her success? Have they not a natural devotion of spirit to anything that they undertake? Has not Ireland been of old known as the Island of Saints; and may we not rest satisfied that the disestablished Church will make good its claim to its apostolic parentage? This, at all events, my Lords, is my hope for the Church of Ireland. I do not for a moment suppose that the gentry and the owners of the property in that country will suffer her to sink merely for the want of those temporal advantages which are necessary to help her on in her mission. I trust that we may yet see brighter days for our sister Church, bound to us as she will still be
  720
  by every tie of Christian brotherhood— one in doctrine, one in discipline, one in instinct, and that we and they, in the several spheres God has committed to us, may labour and labour successfully in our great cause. One thing seems to me to be clearly an advantage. If this trouble were to be prolonged—if it were to be repeated month after month and year after year—if, mingling with the striving to spread the truth there were also to overtide the Irish Church the lust of a mere worldly victory—then we might well despair of her future. But I trust that when this crisis is passed her future may be clear. I see —and I trust your Lordships see—the dangers that must beset the Reformed Church if she were to be engaged in long political struggles; how, necessarily, there must grow up out of such a struggle party zeal, and contest for preeminence, and how her Protestantism might thus degenerate into dogma and form, and therefore I do trust that this amendment of the measure—if such, in your deliberate judgment, you should esteem it —which may leave our Irish brethren with larger resources of their own, and with less of antagonism and hatred from the other side than would otherwise have been possible, may be adopted by your Lordships, thereby really strengthening in her difficulty this our sister Church. There is one thing of which I am convinced — that while an Establishment is to a particular Church in many ways a blessing unspeakable, no Church which cannot stand without an Establishment is worth being established. I, for one, refuse at once and altogether to believe such an imputation against the Irish Church. Much as I lament that which has come upon her, I believe that she will prove —when all has been done which can be done to lighten what I consider a most unhappy blow — I still believe she will prove herself to be the true Catholic Church of Ireland, rising in the greatness of her love, and leavening, more than she has yet done, the bulk of the population.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to explain that, in the remarks I made on the second reading of the Bill, I not only never denied the greatness of such a sin as sacrilege, but that I have a very distinct notion of its nature; and that,

  721
  as the question has been publicly asked, I believe that in the course of a very few days it will receive a public answer. My Lords, I cannot refrain from regretting that a most unfortunate accident deprived me of the company of my right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Oxford) in the Lobby at the late division; but I am delighted to hear that he was present with me in the spirit, though not in the flesh. Before sitting down, I cannot help expressing my deep sympathy and entire agreement with the sentiments of the noble Earl on the cross-Benches (Earl Grey); and I may, perhaps, be allowed to remind your Lordships that it is now a little more than twenty-four years since the principles so ably enunciated and maintained by the noble Earl were really, in substance, sanctioned and adopted by your Lordships' House, on the occasion of the grant to Maynooth. In that debate I had the honour to take a part; and it will be always a satisfaction to me to remember that I then faintly and poorly, but very earnestly, expressed the same sentiments. I have never since changed that opinion; and I believe that there is in the country a very strong and a growing current of thought in the same direction. I am aware that, although there is this strong current of thought in its favour, there is also a strong feeling against it; but I am quite sure that the one is only temporary, and that the other is likely to be permanent. I agree with my right rev. Friend, in thinking that there is one great mistake in the measure. I entirely approve it, so far as it was intended thereby to establish religious equality in Ireland; but I wish that it had been an equality of power and advantages, and not an equality of general destitution. Before sitting down, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a short extract from a letter written by a gentleman who signs himself "A Catholic Priest," who is said to be a most distinguished theologian of the Church of Rome, and who deals with almost every part of this question. In a few sentences, he expresses his opinion on the subject of voluntaryism and endowment. He says—
  "To cast suddenly adrift from her moorings the Protestant Church of Ireland would fling her into a "sea of troubles." About that, as a Churchman of another creed, I may, perhaps, be supposed to be indifferent; but I am not. I do not think that state of things would be the slightest
  722
  advantage to us — probably, quite the reverse-while, on the other hand, it would be too likely to produce such spasmodic efforts in righting herself, and to create by the severe tension such a fanatical spirit as would very mischievously disturb the calm and peace of the country, and which, were it only on that account alone, a wise statesman would avoid."
  LORD CAIRNS: I do not rise now to recur to any of the topics which were germane to the discussion on the second reading of the Bill; nor would it be convenient that, in stating my view of the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), I should now deal with his arguments—stated, I need not say, with his usual ability—in support of the proposition which he desires your Lordships to adopt. I rose rather for the purpose of facilitating the progress of business in Committee, and of offering what appears to me a sufficient reason why we should not accept the Amendment of the noble Earl. I fear that the noble Earl has not been the only person who has departed from the usual practice of the House on this occasion, because the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), in objecting to the postponement of the Preamble, took the opportunity of going rapidly through all the Amendments on the table, and of making for your Lordships' convenience a calculation as to the amount of money which would be required to satisfy every one of these Amendments, coming as they do from various quarters of the House. Well, I can only say, that if the calculations of the noble Earl in respect to the other Amendments are not more accurate than what he has made with regard to those that stand in my name, he will find that his arithmetic is extremely deficient. In one respect I think that the noble Earl will be gratified. He hoped that the Government would know what Amendments would be supported in this House, and I have not the least doubt that before the discussion closes he will ascertain that. With regard to the present Amendment, we are asked to depart from the usual practice of postponing the Preamble. But it seems to me that if we depart from that practice we may be in a position of considerable difficulty. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) says that an alteration in the Preamble will not be sufficient, and must be followed up by clauses with reference to the disposal of the surplus property of the Church. But suppose

  723
  that your Lordships assented to the proposal of the noble Earl, and, after altering the Preamble, decided against an alteration of the clauses in the sense contemplated by the noble Earl, what would be the consequence? The House would have altered the Preamble in the expectation of clauses which were to follow, and then would have rejected these clauses. We should be unable to go back to the Preamble because we had passed it, and should send out of Committee a Preamble which was not consistent with the clauses. It seems to me that that is quite a sufficient reason for adhering to the usual practice on the present occasion; and I hope that the noble Earl will not think that I am going beyond my province if I suggest to him that, at the commencement of a discussion which will last for a certain length of time, it will be desirable not to divide the Committee upon the proposition he has made.
  EARL RUSSELL: I hope the Amendment of my noble Friend (Earl Grey) will be withdrawn, though I by no means regret that the subject has been brought under the attention of your Lordships. But a departure from the usual course of postponing the consideration of the Preamble till the clauses had been settled would be productive of considerable inconvenience. I should be glad to know on what data my noble Friend (Earl Granville) bases his calculations with regard to the Amendments proposed. After satisfying the claims of the Irish Church, it was estimated that there would remain a surplus of some £7,000,000, and I proposed that in that case a portion of the surplus should be expended in providing glebes and manses for the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic clergy. What is especially wanted for the government of Ireland is moral influence. No one can deny that in this country there has been for centuries a reliance on the just and impartial administration of the law. In Ireland, however, this was far from being the case. Not many years ago no person could be appointed to the office of sheriff unless he were a Protestant; and it was well known that the Protestant gentry were hostile to the Roman Catholics, and that the latter believed there could hardly be a fair trial in a court of justice. Now, moral influence is always connected with religion in Ireland. Nay, I even go fur-
  724
  ther, and maintain that moral influence prevails not only in the Established Church, but in the Roman Catholic Church also; for, although the clergy of the latter communion may sometimes preach disaffection, they also likewise preach moral doctrines, which are of the greatest use for the support of authority. I hope, my Lords, that when we come to the clauses in which these questions arise you will not despise the question of moral influence in the government of Ireland. I feel quite sure that there is nothing more needed in Ireland than that influence, and if you take away— as you will do by the disestablishment of the Church—an influence which, as far as it goes, is a good influence, on behalf of morality, you ought not to disregard altogether the advantages to be derived in the same direction from another religion. In conclusion, I have only to express a hope that my noble Friend will not press his Amendment to a division.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: I also hope my noble Friend (Earl Grey) will not think fit to take a division upon his Amendment. In his speech my noble Friend adverted to one subject which has pervaded to a considerable extent the debates in this House as far as they have hitherto gone. I allude, my Lords, to the slur which has been studiously thrown upon the voluntary principle for the maintenance of religion which prevails to so considerable an extent in this country. I think the noble Earl who opened this debate expressed his opinion that it was a most dangerous thing to leave the religious teaching of a people to the voluntary efforts of individuals, and he stated, moreover, that such a proceeding, when recourse had been tad to it, had been invariably found to entirely fail. I differ entirely from the opinion of the noble Earl, and I differ, not only from his opinions on the matter, but from the opinions expressed the other night by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, when he told us that the efforts to maintain religious ordinances by means of voluntary contributions from the people had entirely failed in that portion of the country with which I am more immediately connected. I believe I am the only member of the Free Church of Scotland who sits in your Lordships' House, and I should, indeed, deem myself a recreant

  725
  member of that Church if I did not repudiate a condemnation which I not only know to be unjust, but which I think I can even convince the most rev. Primate himself is some what ungenerous. The Free Church of Scotland has been cited as an example of what voluntary efforts can do by the Prime Minister in one House of Parliament, and by my noble Friend below me (Earl Granville) in the other, but to the tribute which he paid to the voluntary exertions of the Free Churchmen of Scotland the most rev. Primate undertook to give a most stern and steadfast denial. Now, I wish to ask the most rev. Primate whether he founded that denial upon an account contained in a pamphlet which was widely circulated? That pamphlet contains, as was stated by the noble and learned Lord opposite, (Lord Cairns) a speech which was delivered in the Presbytery of Glasgow, and the noble and learned Lord very naturally asked why that speech was not answered. Now, the noble and learned Lord was a Member of the House of Commons before he took his seat here, and I would ask him whether he has never seen some wearisome and tedious speaker get up in the course of a debate, whereupon Member after Member would vanish from the arena, while even the reporters closed their note-books. Such was the fate of that speech in the Presbytery, and in revenge it was published by the individual who made it, and circulated with a preface by another member of the Free Church. Such is the history of that speech, which contains one of the most unfair attacks I ever read upon the Free Church of Scotland. I will not now make, except from documents which cannot be contradicted, any statements with regard to what that Church has done in prosecuting the principles for which it parted from the Establishment and in maintaining and furthering its views of religion. From these documents it will appear that instead of being an utter failure, the Free Church of Scotland has been a signal success, and, therefore, the Irish Church, if disestablished and disendowed, need not despair of being able to do what the Free Church had done, not only in Scotland, but over the whole of the Queen's dominions. In 1843 a number of ministers of the Church of Scotland determined, for reasons into which I will not now enter, to sever their connection with
  726
  the State, and to surrender the endowments which they were receiving from the State. At that period the number of established ministers in Scotland was between 1,100 and 1,200, and of these no fewer than 474, led by men of the greatest repute, thought fit to go out from the Established Church, and, deserting their livings and foregoing their endowments, to form the Free Church of Scotland. Since 1843, the number of ministers has increased to 740 upon the rolls of the Church, and 204 not upon the rolls, while in the same period 900 churches, 650 manses, and 600 schools have been erected. The Free Church have also built and furnished, with a full professorial staff, three Colleges for training men for the ministry, and established a library containing many thousands of volumes, some of them of a very rare description. They have also built a hall for meeting in their General Council— an edifice which is second to none in the great City of Edinburgh. All these are facts which cannot possibly be denied. But I wish also to bring under your Lordships' consideration the means which the Free Church has subscribed for the purpose of carrying out her objects. Since 1843, that Church has subscribed for her different objects no smaller a sum than £8,500,000. So far from her revenues decreasing, they have been year by year increasing. In 1863–4 those revenues amounted to £343,000; in 1865, they were £380,000; in 1866, they were £369,000; in 1867, they were £395,000; and. last year they were £421,000. That Church shows not only an increase of yearly revenue, but a gradual increase of her ministerial charges, which I think ought to be an encouragement to all who may be called upon to maintain the ordinances of religion by voluntary efforts. But, in addition to all that, we have belonging to the Free Church at this moment property or assets to the amount of very nearly £2,000,000. We have funded for the uses of our various schemes £350,000, and we have—by the organization which it was the good fortune of the Free Church to receive at the hands of Dr. Chalmers—not a single interest in that Church, whether it be the widows, whether it be the aged and infirm ministers, whether it be the working clergymen, whether it be missions at home or missions abroad—we have

  727
  not one of those various interests which is not better attended to than when they were joined to the Establishment. Now, these facts, I think, entitle me to say that, so far from being a failure, this instance of a Church being erected by the voluntary efforts of those who belong to it is a proof of what men can do if they will only do it for the maintenance of their religion; and no Church that cannot support, and so justify, its own religion will ever thrive or ever command respect, whether it be in connection with the State, or whether it stands on its own responsibility. Within the pale of the Free Church of Scotland hundreds of thousands of the people of that country at present worship the God of their fathers according to the Reformed faith, and what is more, that Church has extended itself to foreign climes, to India, and to the colonies under Her Majesty's dominions. Her best blood is devoted to missionary labours, and her work abroad is not less valuable than that which she does at home. I trust, therefore, that it will not go forth to the public that this effort on the part of the people of Scotland has been an entire failure. I deny that it has been so in any respect whatever. I am afraid that those who have an interest in traducing that Church have imposed upon the most rev. Primate by a one-sided statement; and I trust that these facts, every one of which is taken from the public records of our Free Church, will convince him that he has, unintentially I am sure, cast an unjust stigma upon her. Why, the most rev. Primate has himself appealed to the voluntary exertions of his people. He has instituted in London one of the noblest schemes for Church extension which modern days have witnessed. What would he have said of me if, on the authority of a pamphlet published by some grumbling curate, and prefaced by some bilious rector, I had condemned his scheme, and told the world that it was an entire failure, when, by searching the public annual records, I might have found evidence of the contrary? I think the most rev. Primate would have said that I had been led away by erroneous information, and was mistaken in my conclusion, and I trust that he will make to me the same admission that I would have most readily made to him in that case. I trust, my Lords, that the ex-
  728
  ample of the Free Church of Scotland will not be lost upon the Church in Ireland when she may be disestablished and disendowed. I am quite certain that if the members of the Irish Church will but earnestly prepare themselves for the change that is coming they may place themselves in a position which will command the respect of all who shall behold them in their disestablished state. I am convinced, my Lords, that if they will only put their shoulders to the wheel, and do that of which my countrymen have set them the example, the alarm as to their not being able to stand or exist as a Church without the aid and support of the State will be found to be wholly groundless.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My noble Friend who has just sat down has shown that which I was quite aware of—namely, that the Free Church of Scotland has made extraordinary efforts, that she has realized a large sum of money. This I most cordially grant; and I should be very sorry if the remarks I made on a former occasion should have given offence to my noble Friend or to the Church to which he belongs. But when I said what I did I held in my hand a pamphlet which was published with a preface by one of the leaders of the Free Church and one of the original seceders with Dr. Chalmers. That pamphlet contained two statements; the one was that the Free Church had drifted altogether away from the principles of Dr. Chalmers, going into the voluntary principle, instead of maintaining, as nearly as possible under altered circumstances, the principle of establishments as held by that distinguished divine. The other statement was that this gentleman, one of the original seceders, and still a leader of the Free Church, was of opinion that the voluntary principle, whatever it might do in large towns, however large might be the sums which it drew from the people, was unable to to sustain the ministers in poor and scattered parishes, and therefore the voluntary system failed where its help was most needed. What has just fallen from my noble Friend does not disprove these statements. What I want to say now, however, has reference to the postponement of the Preamble. I wish to bring forward one point which I think has not yet been touched. There is a difficulty about

  729
  this Preamble because it declares a thing which is not true. We are not entering upon the Preamble, and, therefore, I shall not dwell upon this matter; but I would allude to the fact that all through this discussion it has been taken for granted that, if the policy advocated by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) is not adopted the money must go to purely secular purposes. Now, my Lords, that is not correct. The surplus money, according to this Bill, is to go, in the first place, for the maintenance of the College of Maynooth. Is that a secular purpose? £500,000 is to be appropriated for this purpose. Therefore, so far as the Preamble says, that none of the money is to go for the purposes of religion, it is false. Again, an enormous amount of the residue of the Church's property is to be devoted to the instruction of deaf and dumb people, and the like. Who teaches these deaf and dumb people? Some of the money is also to go to reformatories. What is the number of these reformatories which are distinctly under the management of Roman Catholic priests? I say the question has altogether drifted away from that which we were at first led to suppose it was. The question now is, whether the Bill as it stands before us, proposing to give £500,000 of the Church's money for the maintenance of the College of Maynooth, and to distribute many millions for the maintenance of asylums, Colleges, and reformatories, almost all of which are under the management of the Roman Catholic clergy, is the best way of dealing with the funds of the Church, or whether some better plan may not be devised — such as the noble Earl has sketched out, or such as the other noble Earl (Earl Russell), or the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland), are going to propose—namely, that the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian clergy shall at least have houses to live in—the question is, whether there is any religious objection to doing that when you have got over the religious objection by giving a large portion of the funds to Maynooth and other institutions now under the management of the Roman Catholic clergy? If you are going to give this money to the Roman Catholic clergy, pray say so, and do not pretend that it is not going to them when, in fact, it is proposed by the Bill that it shall be placed under their direction. For
  730
  these reasons I shall be prepared to support the Amendments of which the noble Duke and the noble Earl have given notice.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I rise merely to put the most rev. Primate right upon one point. He observed that in compensating Maynooth the Bill did that which is inconsistent with the Preamble; but what does the Preamble say? It says—
  "That after satisfying, so far as possible, upon principles of equality as between the several religious denominations in Ireland, all just and equitable claims, the property of the said Church of Ireland, or the proceeds thereof, should be held and applied for the advantage of the Irish people, but not for the maintenance of any Church, or clergy, or other ministry, nor for the teaching of religion."
  Now, I maintain that, according to this, you are to satisfy on principles of equality all just claims of the several denominations of Ireland, and the Government say that one of the just and equitable claims which must be satisfied before you dispose of the surplus is compensation for the grant to the College of Maynooth, a proposal which is not inconsistent with the Preamble of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF BANDONrose to make a few observations, as he had been prevented from making a speech on the Motion for the second reading.
  EARL GRANVILLEremarked that, although the noble Earl was of course at liberty to make what observations he pleased, he was not in Order in announcing that his remarks referred to the Mofor the second reading.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, he had no intention of making the speech he intended to deliver on the second reading, but he wished to say a few words on behalf of the Protestants of Ireland. He held this to be a measure of the greatest injustice, for it transferred the funds of the Protestant Church to purposes which would be placed under the management and control of the Roman Catholic clergy. The noble Lord (Lord Dalhousie) who lately spoke, had given them a glowing description of the work of the Free Church of Scotland. But there was a great difference between the condition of the Free Church—who, believing that they were treated with injustice, had voluntarily gone and left the Church—and the Church of Ireland, who had their churches taken from them, and who were left altogether desolate. He referred to a speech made

  731
  formerly in the House of Commons by the present Prime Minister, to the effect that the tithes were the local funds of the Church, given to maintain religion in each particular parish; and that anyone who took them for other purposes was, in his mind, little better than a public plunderer. He might quote many other opinions to the same effect. His sole object, however, in rising was to say that he had had the honour to preside at two large meetings of the Protestants in Ireland, and he could assure their Lordships that the Protestants of Ireland felt that the greatest injustice was done them by this Bill, and the greatest injury. Although it was true, as they had been told, that the Protestants had not so expressed themselves last year, they were most decided in their denunciations of the Bill now; and the reason for their comparative silence last year was that they could not believe Parliament would do them the injury Government contemplated by this Bill. The right rev. Prelate said disestablishment had been agreed to by the country; but what did the country mean by disestablishment? Was the question at present at issue clearly put before the country? Was it put before the country that the disestablishment of the Church implied the undoing of the work of the Reformation in Ireland, and that the practical effect of disestablishing the Church of Ireland would be the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in that country? It was all very well for noble Lords who took part in the debate to talk as they did of the state of Protestantism in Ireland; but let those who possessed property in that country, without the advantage of seeing it, contrast their position with that which would be the position of the Protestants in Ireland if this Bill passed. They would hear the last toll of a bell which would tell them of a departed minister, and that the parish church, connected with all their dearest associations, would be closed for ever. They were constantly asked—"If you reject this Bill, what will you do with Ireland?" He had often said in that House—"Pray leave Ireland alone.'' Ireland would not be conciliated if this Bill was rejected—the Protestants regarded it as a measure of injustice, and the Roman Catholics cared nothing about it. The Roman Catholic clergy might desire the destruction of a rival
  732
  Church, but the country did not care about it. ["Question!"] In conclusion, he would implore their Lordships, as they valued the future peace of Ireland, to bear with him while he cited the opinion of an illustrious Prince who was once heir to the proudest throne in Europe. The late Duke of York, upon his lying bed, called upon us to develop the resources of Ireland, to depise agitators, and give her the Bible.
  LORD WESTBURY: There are one or two minor points which I will shortly notice before I enter upon the important question which your Lordships will have to consider. We have heard a long episode in reference to the Free Church of Scotland. I have heard that question dressed up with great pomp of oratory. It is said—"Look at the Free Church of Scotland; they went out of the Establishment, and they prospered; let us send the Irish Church out of the Establishment, and it will prosper." Such is the logic of Her Majesty's Government. The Free Church sustained a great injury, but its energy enabled it to surmount its difficulties. Do the like injury to the Irish Church, and depend upon it it will show like energy. There is another topic on which I will only touch. There has been a long controversy touching the conduct of St. Ambrose, and whether in applying the vessels of the Church to secular uses he had been guilty of sacrilege. What might be the opinion respecting St. Ambrose in the days when he lived I do not know; but, I must say, with the modern ideas of property, that if St. Ambrose had been brought before me in equity I should not have hesitated to find him guilty of a breach of trust, and to make him refund the property. I will, with great deference, remind your Lordships of an old proverb which says —"You must not steal leather to make poor men's shoes." That is what the Government are doing; they have stolen the leather of the Church of Ireland, but, sensible of injustice, they propose to cut it up into poor men's shoes. I pass on to say I think we are much indebted to the noble Earl who initiated this debate (Earl Grey). I am for this reason—there are several circumstances which will govern the consideration of many of the Amendments your Lordships will have to discuss; and I think we shall make short way with some of

  733
  them if we first ascertain and understand properly the principles on which we are to act, and then endeavour to discover the true mode and extent of their application. That was the object of the noble Earl in proposing this substantive Motion on the Preamble. True, it is usual to postpone a Preamble; but why? Because" it generally runs thus —"Whereas, it is expedient to make an alteration in the law, or expedient to enact certain provisions;" and. whether a man can assert that it is expedient or not must depend upon the provisions of the Bill. Of necessity therefore you refer to the provisions of a Bill before you say whether it is expedient to pass it. But have we got such, an innocent and unpretending Preamble here? The Bill is consistent throughout. It begins with a Preamble of extraordinary injustice, and, I will say, wickedness; and, having commenced in that character, it preserves its consistency to the end. The words which the noble Earl has selected contain a substantive proposition such as is not generally found in a Preamble, the object of a Preamble being that you may determine whether it be right or not to accept the principle involved in the Bill, and, when you have discussed it, that you may proceed to the consideration of the clauses of the Bill. In this instance there are three things involved in the terms of the Preamble—firstly, that the Church of Ireland shall be reduced to the voluntary principle; secondly, that the Church of Ireland shall be deprived entirely of her property, and that that property shall be applied to uses inconsistent with the objects of the donors of it —namely, to secular uses; and thirdly, —and this is the most important, and but for it I would not have risen—whether we are not bound to fulfil an honourable obligation, and to make some provisions for the Roman Catholic clergy. On the question of the voluntary principle I need not detain your Lordships. How we can possibly think it would be wise or fitting to strip the Church of Ireland in order that she may pass through the fire of the voluntary principle is something I cannot at all understand, nor have I heard one reason, either of justice or policy, why this should be done. I want to pass away from that to what we have now the opportunity of doing, and that is fulfilling the moral obligations which those who
  734
  went before us deliberately constructed —namely, to make a State provision for the Roman Catholic Church. I will go no further back than 1792, when a proposition was made, for the first time, to endow the Roman Catholic Church at the expense of the State. That proposal was rejected by him with indignation. But what Mr. Burke shrank from is now adopted by Her Majesty's Government. His mind revolted from the proposition that you should take away the property of the Church, even if you did so with a good object. The matter remained in that position till the year 1799. In that year, on the consideration of the treaty for the Act of Union, Lord Castlereagh obtained the consent of the Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, on the stipulation that they should receive a provision out of the funds of the State. They gave their assent and the Union was complete, but the promise on your part was never fulfilled. Now, my Lords, that stands recorded. You have now a glorious opportunity of redeeming the promise that was then given. Are you not now bound to do so? Was it not expedient and just at the time of the Union, and is it not still more just now, when you have the opportunity to fulfil the promise which you then made and from the performance of which you then slunk away? Now, the matter stands beyond possibility of doubt. You will find from a speech of Lord Castlereagh, in 1801, and from the Parliamentary debates of 1810, that Lord Castlereagh obtained the generous forbearance of the Roman Catholic clergy upon the renewed promise that the original contract should be completed. Testimony was borne to that fact over and over again in Parliament Lord Castlereagh, in a speech in 1810, said—
  "Upon the ecclesiastical part of the arrangement, he was authorized, in the year 1799, to communicate with the Catholic clergy. It was distinctly understood that the consideration of the political claims of the Catholics must remain for the consideration of the Imperial Parliament; but the expediency of making some provision for their clergy, under proper regulations, was so generally recognized, even by those who were averse to concessions of a political nature, that a communication was officially opened with the heads of their clergy upon this subject."—[1 Hansard, xvii. 193.]
  It was true that the clergy at that time refused to receive this provision, because they said it must be accompanied by Catholic Emancipation, but that did not

  735
  release this country from the engagement which they made. Upon this subject Lord Sidmouth said—
  "He was clearly in favour of a provision for such of the priests as would accept it; and he thought that there was a time when they would have received it from him (alluding, no doubt, to Lord Castlereagh's negotiation in 1803). He considered that it would effectually bind them over to keep the peace, and prove themselves faithful subjects."
  My Lords, have you forgotten that, in the year 1821 the House of Commons passed a vote in favour of State provision for the Roman Catholic clergy by a large majority, and although that State provision has never been made, the policy then declared by the House of Commons has never been met by any counter declaration? I wish this matter had been taken up by the noble Earl on my right, because he would have enriched it with the personal knowledge which he has had the opportunity of gaining during his many years' acquaintance with the principles and sentiments, the settled opinions and the firm persuasion of the leading political men of the time. Now, these are things that ought to be borne in mind when we are coming to the discussion of a variety of clauses in which the principle of making State provision is dealt with in a very niggardly way, and sometimes in a way which will, I am afraid, scarcely answer the purpose intended. What is the purpose intended? Is it not that you should satisfy the Roman Catholic clergy that they are being dealt with justly, in a manner that will exempt them altogether from the debasing obligations which they now so frequently incur in their relations to their flocks? Now, anybody looking at this Bill would naturally say that the Government did not know what to do with the money at their disposal. They seem to have poured it into channels where, to say the least, it is superabundant, unnecessary, and uncalled for; but if we examine the matter more closely we shall find that this plan has been selected because it holds out so many inducements to refrain from offering opposition. I do not, however, wish to dwell upon this. What I desire to dwell upon is that you have now a glorious opportunity to redeem the national honour by placing your Church and your country in a state of religious peace. This is preferable to the encouragement of those charitable objects to which you
  736
  are about to give these enormous sums of money in the most uncalled for manner. Now, I have a few other observations to make with reference to the taking away of the property of the Church. I entirely agree with the definition which the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) gave of the word "established." Establishment does not imply any Church, building, or glebes, but establishment implies the religion, the form of faith, the mode of worship, the doctrine, the discipline, and the ordinances of the Church which the State selects to be the means of affording the consolation of religious worship and teaching. But when we are told that the country assented to disestablishment, I ask did the country agree to the abolition of the Protestant religion and the Protestant form of worship? I maintain that the country did not so understand the word. It mixed up with the real question of disestablishment the taking away of the material possessions of the Church. In that sense I grant that the country did pronounce a verdict that the quantity of the goods which have been gotten in the hands of the Irish Church should not remain there, but should be made the subject of a more just and equal distribution. That I believe really to have been the decision of the country, and if you carry it out in that spirit all good and religious men will second your efforts. Now, I venture to offer an observation with regard to the great fallacy that pervaded the speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), who spoke of the property as if it were the property of the existing Church. But the property belonging to the Irish Church, save only those gifts made to her in her present form, is no less the property of Christianity in Ireland. I pray you again to permit me to protest that the Church's title — that is, the title of Christianity to the property originally given for the maintenance of Christianity — is an indefeasible title. Nothing consistently with justice can take it away as long as there is a Christian population in the country. You may have misapplied it; you may have misappropriated it, but the title remains, the right remains, and the duty of Parliament remains to redress the inequality—to take away that which a particular body has gotten, but which

  737
  does not belong to it, and to distribute and appropriate it equally. "Equally" does not mean in equal amounts, but in amounts proportionate to the just claims of the different religious denominations in Ireland. If you recognize that principle, you recognize a true one. It is the one constantly acted on in courts of justice in the analogous case of bequests to charities. If that principle be recognized, undoubtedly the Roman Catholics are entitled to a very considerable portion of those funds; the Protestants of the Established Church are also entitled to a very considerable proportion of them; and the Presbyterians are entitled to a considerable portion of them. Does not this principle of distributing these funds among the different religious denominations recommend itself to every right-minded man, and may not your sense of justice and your feeling of charity be abundantly gratified by such a distribution? The reformatories and asylums to which it is proposed to give the funds of the Irish Church may be very good institutions; but first of all do justice by distributing the property according to right; and, if you have more than is wanted for purely religious purposes, dedicate the balance to those institutions if you like. My Lords, I have to complain that in this debate undue prominence has been given to the clergy when the distribution of the property has been spoken of. I am sure I should be doing great injustice to the right rev. Prelates, and great injustice to the clergy as a body, if I were to suppose for a moment that they claimed the property for their own sakes. I am sure they regard themselves as what they are—the media through which this property is applied for the benefit of the people. The members of the Episcopal Church in Ireland want to have churches to worship in; they want to have the consolations of religion administered to them by their clergy, and they want to have their churches and their clergy maintained out of funds which, not the State, but the piety of men in former times, supplied in order that the people might have those religious consolations. The clergy are the ministers and servants of the recipients of that money. The hierarchy are not opposing this Bill because you are taking their property, but because you are robbing their flocks, and taking from those flocks the benefits to which
  738
  they are justly entitled. I have spoken on this subject because I believe it to be the question really before the House. The noble Earl by his Amendment asks that the Preamble shall not be postponed, and he does so in order that the vote of the House may be taken on the propriety or the impropriety of certain principles asserted in that Preamble. I think your Lordships are under a deep obligation to the noble Earl for having given an opportunity of discussing these matters at so early a period in Committee on the Bill
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: The noble Earl who moved the Amendment (Earl Grey) stated that the people of England are in favour of concurrent endowment; but the right rev. Prelate who spoke after him (the Bishop of Oxford) stated, and I think with equal confidence, that the people of England were not in favour of concurrent endowment. I only rise to express my great regret that we had not the benefit of both their votes in favour of the Amendment of the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. If that Amendment had been carried the people of England would have been afforded an opportunity of expressing an opinion on concurrent endowment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in the first place, I do not wish to allow this discussion to come to a close without making an observation on the remarkable calculations which at an earlier period of the evening proceeded from my noble Friend on the Treasury Bench (Earl Granville). What my noble Friend did was this—He took a number of independent Amendments, several of them rival ones—in which proposals are made for dealing with the surplus, and putting them altogether, he naturally brought out a sum in excess of the whole of that surplus. Taking the result, he said—"See how unreasonable the House of Lords is! "I do not know whether my noble Friend has ever had the misfortune to hear a debate on a Budget. If so, he must have heard rival financiers make proposals all of which taken together would have disposed of an amount equal to four or five times the amount of the national revenue. If my noble Friend's calculations were applied in such a case, all the proposals of all those financiers would be condemned as he has condemned the Amendments this evening. Another

  739
  fallacy which, the Government seems to have laid hold of is this, that what is given by the Bill as a pure matter of justice—as an inevitable act of justice— in the way of compensation for life interests, and what the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Dublin) and I myself propose to have given to the curates, ought to be set down as so much given to the Church. The Government do not seem to remember that the clergy are not the Church, but the servants of the Church. If it should ever happen, in the vicissitudes of political affairs that the distinction now drawn between corporate property and private property should be found too flimsy, and that proceedings should be taken to disendow my noble Friend himself, and if he should set up in mitigation that he is no longer a young man and ought not to be turned out on the world, he may be told that life interests have been scrupulously regarded, that his gamekeepers will receive a pension, and that his butler will be taken care of. My noble Friend may then remember with regret the arguments now used by himself and his friends against the Irish Church. I thought it right to enter my protest early, because no doubt we shall have a great many calculations from my noble Friend; and though I can hardly hope to do anything towards his education, I will venture to express a hope that in future he will avoid that sort of arithmetic. I trust he will avoid the obvious fallacies of such calculations. I entirely demur to his estimate of the financial results of the Amendments on the Paper. I believe it to be enormously exaggerated. Of course, the schemes of concurrent endowment are rival schemes, and I believe that the amount involved in the Amendments would not reach more than half the sum estimated by my noble Friend. I quite concur with my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) that this is not the most convenient opportunity for expressing an opinion on concurrent endowment; but much has been said on the subject in the course of this discussion, and as I think that in a crisis like the present each man is bound to contribute his opinion, I shall not shrink from stating what is mine. I differ entirely from the noble Duke who has just sat down. As long as the property of the Church was preserved to the Church, I would have opposed any endowment
  740
  of the Roman Catholics, not because the money would have been paid to the Roman Catholics, but because it would have taken from the Church; but now that it seems to be agreed that a considerable amount of property is to be taken from the Church, I think that whatever good there is in this measure—and there is very little good in it—will be destroyed except something of that kind is agreed to. In the first place, as to the matter of title. The title of the Protestant Church is a title derived from a possession of three centuries, and from prescription; but you have in part set it aside, and what title comes next? The title that preceded that of the Protestant Church. I cannot accept the justice of the phrase "concurrent endowment." That phrase would convey to others the idea that we, a Protestant State, were prepared to tax ourselves and out of our own resources to contribute to the support of that which we believe to be error in religion. Now, that is not my impression of the operation which we are invited to perform in the present instance. The property of the Irish Church is not the property of the State in the sense in which the taxes levied by Parliament are its property. The money with which we are dealing is rather trust money to be applied to trust purposes. If you swept all this money into the Exchequer, and paid the soldiers and sailors of your Army and Navy out of it, there is no moralist in this country who would deny that you would be doing a great wrong. That being so, the framers of this Bill have sought, as far as they thought possible, to apply it to purposes analogous to those for which it was originally intended, and it is clearly therefore admitted on all hands that the funds of the Irish Church are not the property of the State in the sense that you may devote them to any purposes which you may please. They constitute property which you feel bound to apply within a somewhat narrow grove, and in applying it you are not dealing with the property of the people of this country, or endowing either what you deem to be truth or error. You are applying it according to your conception of the trusts under which it is held, and the only question, it seems to me, which we have to consider is, whether it is more for the benefit of the people of Ireland that a portion of it should be devoted to

  741
  the support of lunatics or of Roman Catholic priests? If the question were put to me, I frankly confess that I should prefer that the money should be applied for the benefit of the Roman Catholic priests instead of being given to lunatics. I may add that a question of the gravest policy seems to me to underlie that which we have been discussing to-night. You tell us that this Bill is a great message of peace to Ireland. What is the use of a message of peace, if you refuse to apply this money for the religious purposes most acceptable to a large portion of the people? It would be equivalent to telling the Roman Catholics—"We are willing to strip your rivals of their property, but so utterly do we detest your religion that we prefer having recourse to any sort of device — to invent imaginary lunatics — to adopt any sort of fantastic expedient, rather than apply any part of it to the support of the ministers of that religion?" I quite understand the feeling of the Roman Catholics, as expressed by my noble Friend (the Earl of Denbigh), but you must regard rather their ultimate feelings than those to which they give expression at the present moment. When they remember the way in which this Bill was framed, do you think they will be disposed to look upon it as a message of peace to Ireland from England? I cannot help fancying they will be of opinion that it is a very Irish mode of conciliating Ireland. But there may be one cause for congratulation amid the many causes of sorrow and dismay which the passing of this Bill will bring with it, and that one is, that it may make the Roman Catholics of Ireland a contented people, if the Roman Catholic priests, as is done by the priesthood of every other religion, will only exert themselves to render them loyal to civil government. For my own part, I would give up many privileges to attain that end, and those who would refuse to introduce into the Bill any provisions calculated to secure that object would, in my opinion, deprive themselves of the only good excuse for bringing it under our consideration. As to the particular scheme which should be adopted, I would merely observe that that of the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland) seems to me to possess the greatest advantages. But on that I shall say nothing further now. I would merely, in conclusion,
  742
  express a hope that the noble Earl (Earl Grey) will not press his Motion to a division. It is always inconvenient to take a division at one and the same time on a question of form and principle. In doing so you may rank against yourself in the same Lobby those who differ from you in principle as well as those who object to your Motion in point of form.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEexpressed his entire concurrence in the opinion that the Preamble of the Bill was open to objection. The words which he proposed to omit from it simply amounted to a statement that there being a certain surplus out of the property of the Established Church at the disposal of Parliament that surplus might be appropriated to any other purpose in Ireland except the teaching of religion. Now he, for one, could not see what advantage there would be in setting out with such a statement as that, and he could not help regarding it, to say the least, as being entirely uncalled for. For his own part, he might add, he had always endeavoured to promote, as far as lay in his power, religious equality in Ireland; but it had never occurred to him that that desirable end was to be attained by the wholesale destruction of the Protestant Church in that country. When the question was broached last year, he did not, he must confess, understand—nor did he pretend yet to understand—the full scope of the word disestablishment; but he certainly thought that the scheme which was brought forward would have been somewhat more in consonance with the expressed wishes of the Irish people. He quite admitted that in order to place the inhabitants of Ireland on an equal footing there could be no more simple mode of proceeding than to take from all of them everything they possessed; but then he should have expected to have found more ingenuity displayed in a measure dealing with a great subject. Of statesmanship or ingenuity he saw, however, no evidence in the present Bill, although much labour had, no doubt, been expended upon its details. The voluntary principle once adopted could not be confined to Ireland, and every argument used in the course of the present or former debates was in a sufficient degree applicable to the Church in England. When it was asserted that the Roman Catholics or Presbyterians in Ireland would not ac-

  743
  cept glebes for their clergy, he could not bring himself to accept the statement implicitly. No doubt a very large and energetic body in the North of Ireland supported the principle of "No surrender;" but every man of experience or judgment in Ireland, for several years past, had been of opinion that some provision for the Roman Catholic clergy would be the best possible mode of meeting existing difficulties. Everybody to whom he had spoken admitted that such an arrangement ought to be made; but some said it was impossible, and others that it was too late. He should like to know why it was either impossible or too late to do that upon which the great majority of educated people in England who had paid attention to Irish affairs were agreed in opinion. Various Amendments had been suggested, contemplating the same object which he himself had in view, but adopting different methods of procedure. When the proper time came he should gladly fall in with any arrangement which was best calculated to effect the common object. Of this he was persuaded, that the present was the best and probably the only chance which would be offered to the House of conciliating the people of Ireland, and he sincerely trusted that it would not be allowed to pass.
  EARL GREYsaid, he still retained the opinion that the proper time to declare whether the surplus funds of the Church should be applied to secular or wholly to religious uses was upon the Preamble of the Bill; but, as it appeared to be the prevailing opinion that the convenience of the House would be best consulted by raising the question at a later period he should not press his Amendment.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative: Preamble postponed accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Dissolution of legislative union between Churches of England and Ireland).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYmoved the Amendment of which he had given notice for extending the time at which the operation of the Bill would commence from 1871 to 1872. This course, the most rev. Primate said, he adopted at the instance of those who best understood the position of the Irish
  744
  Church. It was hardly possible to suppose that the formation of a new Church could be accomplished within so limited a period, and some time would also be necessary for effecting an alteration in the law of marriage.
  Amendment moved, line 27, to leave out ("one") and insert ("two.")—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  EARL GEANVILLE: I perfectly admit that the date ought to be as far off as is absolutely necessary; but I likewise feel with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford), who spoke earlier in the evening, that delay in such matters is calculated to be very disadvantageous to the Irish Church. In all ordinary matters much less energy is shown where there is any long interval to elapse than when pressure is immediately felt, and I think this observation especially applicable to the state of the Irish Church. The future of that Church must depend upon the cordial feeling of the laity acting with the clergy; and if that feeling is allowed to cool down for two years and a-half the result, probably, will not prove as favourable as if we adhered to the date, which was not adopted without very grave consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. As to any arrangements which may have to be made with regard to the marriage laws, it seems impossible to believe that this could not be accomplished in the course of the next Session of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked if the Government would then bring in a Bill on the subject?
  EARL GRANVILLEreplied, that it would be the duty of Government to do so.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, the principle of this measure having been determined upon, the time fixed for the actual disestablishment ought not, in the interests of the Church, to be postponed longer than is really desirable. But, then, the question is, what is the really desirable period to fix? In this respect I do not think the Government stand committed, for the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister stated that, although the Government after consideration had arrived at the conclusion that January, 1871, was the best period to fix, they would not object to alter it if any reason could be advanced for doing so. Having considered the reasons given for altering

  745
  that date, I am bound to say that they are not only satisfactory to my mind, but that great weight must be attached to the opinions entertained by the Irish Churchmen themselves upon the point. These persons, while not desiring to postpone the date unnecessarily, are in favour of the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, and that ought to weigh with your Lordships. One point which weighed with the members of the Irish Church, in causing them not to seek to postpone the date of disestablishment unnecessarily, is this — No vested interests can be created after the passing of the Bill, although there will be a clause providing for the commutation of those interests which are vested. Consequently, the longer the period of disestablishment is postponed, the larger the number of existing interests that will fall off, and the fewer will be the vested interests remaining to be commuted. A desire for delay, accordingly, is not one which is likely to be rashly entertained by the friends of the Church, since it must operate financially against its interests. Your Lordships must remember that the first work which the Church will have to undertake—a work which cannot be spoken of in too serious terms —is the re-construction of itself as a free and disestablished Church, a work only to be undertaken after mature deliberation, consultation, and advice, and after ascertaining the opinions entertained not merely by some central body, but through the various dioceses of Ireland. For myself, I do not think it possible to suppose that the whole of that can be done satisfactorily or completely in a shorter space than a twelvemonths. But it is not till after the central body has been constituted that this body will be in a position to deal with the Commissioners and incumbents as to the commutation of life interests. It is all-important, when the day arrives for the final disestablishment of the Church, that all the arrangements should be complete, so that the new Church may spring into action with whatever re-construction over the face of the country as to incumbencies may be agreed on. For the purpose of dealing with the various incumbents, who are something like 2,000 in number, another space of twelve months is absolutely necessary. Thus, the interval of two years asked for by the Amendment of the most rev. Primate,
  746
  would seem to be not only reasonable, but, in the interests of the Church, absolutely indispensable.
  LORD DENMANprotested that the vote to postpone disestablishment till 1872 did not bind him to support disestablishment. He regretted very much that some of the Spiritual Peers had admitted the principle, and he felt certain that if the country were appealed to that this measure would not be approved of by those capable of judging. When, in 1866, the Reform Bill was objected to by a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in "another place," because the franchise went so low as £7 rental, the right hon. Gentleman—whom he had just seen on the steps of the Throne — had expressed his fear that Bishops, the oldest part of the Constitution, would be excluded from the House of Lords; but he (Lord Denman) felt confidence in the constituency who, according to the franchise proposed to be given to Leeds in 1821, after Grampound was disfranchised, should pay scot and lot —not be paid for by their employers, but of their own free will—and he was sure, judging from the speeches in debate, that even if Bishops should each say Nolo Episcopari, that the Irish Spiritual Peers, of whom possibly one now on the English Bench (the Bishop of Peterborough) might have been one, would be greatly missed in this House. The question would be raised in Committee, but he was sure from what he had learned in travelling about lately, and from the fact that several most influential and experienced Members of the late Parliament had lost their seats, some having been rejected more than once, that the sense of the country was against disestablishment.
  THE DUKE OF LEINSTER: I trust that no alteration will be made in the clause as it stands, for the result will be only to keep the country for another year in hot water.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I will endeavour to compress my ideas on this clause into almost as few words as those of the noble Duke. I own to considerable doubt as to the wisdom of this Amendment, because I do not think it advisable to prolong a period of difficulty and of pain to the Irish Church. At the same time I am staggered by what I have heard—namely, that it is the de-

  747
  sire, the strong desire, of the Irish Church to have a little further extension of time in order to complete its arrangements; and I am assured, on authority which I can hardly doubt, that that anxiety proceeds not from any desire to embarrass the progress of the measure, but from an honest desire to give effect to the provisions of the Bill when it shall become law. For this reason, in spite of my own doubts on the subject, I should not be prepared to say "No" to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate.
  On Question, That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 74; Not-Contents 130: Majority 56.

  CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

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

  Clermont, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Dacre, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  De Tabley, L.

  Leeds, D.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Somerset, D.

  Foley, L. [Teller]

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Camden, M.

  Hastings, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Hatherton, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Keane, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Lismore, L.(V. Lismore.)

  Cottenham, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Ducie, E.

  Monson, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Mont Eagle, L.(M. Sligo.)

  Granville, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Minto, E.

  Petre, L.

  Morley, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Russell, E.

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

  Sommers, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Falmouth, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Halifax, V.

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

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Stafford, L.

  Stourton, L.

  Belper, L.

  Sudeley, L.

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

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Camoys, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Carew, L.

  Truro, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Wentworth, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Chesham, L.

  748

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Durham, Bp.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Marlborough, D.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  London, Bp.

  Richmond, D.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Wellington, D.

  Tuam, &c, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Abinger, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bateman, L.

  Tweeddale, M.

  Blantyre, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

  Amherst, E.

  Bandon, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Churston, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Clarina, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Devon, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Erne, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Crofton, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Grey, E.

  Denman, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Harrington, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Dunsandle and Clanconal, L.

  Home, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Lucan, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Morton, E.

  Grantley, L.

  Mount Edgecumbe, E.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Nelson, E.

  Portarlington, E.

  Hartismere, L.(L. Henniker.)

  Powis, E.

  Romney, E.

  Headley, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Lyttelton, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Verulam, E.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Northwick, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Penrhyn, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  Doneraile, V.

  Rivers, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Saltersford, L.(E. Courtown.)

  Gough, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Saltoun, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Scarsdale, L.

  Hill, V.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Lifford, V.

  Templetown, V.

  Sherborne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Bangor, Bp.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Sinclair, L.

  749

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Sondes, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

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

  Wynford, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, he had given notice of a proviso to be added to the clause, to the effect that nothing contained in the Bill should prevent anyone now or hereafter to be ordained by the Irish Church from holding preferments in England and Wales, if he should have obtained the consent in writing of the Bishop of the diocese and of the Archbishop of the province. He had, however, received excellent counsel on the subject, and it was his intention not to move the proviso until the bringing up of the Report, when he should be able to present it in an altered and improved form.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested the desirability of inserting in the clause some description or definition of the formularies of the Church of England, for it was very uncertain what formularies the new Church of Ireland would adopt.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he had given notice of a Motion to omit this clause altogether, because it did away entirely with the Queen's supremacy; whereas, in his opinion, it was of very great importance that the Queen's supremacy should be maintained in all cases, ecclesiastical as well as civil, throughout her dominions. He also held that the Queen's supremacy was necessary, in order to regulate and control the new Church, which was to be founded upon the ruins of the old Church. The right rev. Prelate who had addressed their Lordships this evening, had expressed a hope that the new Church would be one in discipline and in doctrine with the Church of England. He also hoped that such might be the case; but, in order to attain that result, it was of very great importance that the Royal supremacy should be preserved as the great security for the unity and oneness of the United Churches of England and Ireland. He further objected to the clause, because its Parliamentary language destroyed the union between the two Churches. But it could only do that by dissolving the 5th Article of the Act of Union, which Article was, in his
  750
  judgment, an essential part of the Act itself. This had been already stated to their Lordships by himself and other noble Peers, and no answer had yet been given to the objection. He wished to enter his protest against the clause; and, if there were any chance of success, he would certainly divide the Committee against it.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDexpressed a hope that the noble Duke would divide the Committee, in order that those who, like himself, felt strongly upon this subject, might have an opportunity of recording their vote against it. The clause was, in reality, contrary to the very principle on which the Bill professed to be based; for the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland would destroy the equality which existed between the different denominations in Ireland, and would establish the Church of Rome more firmly than it was established at present. The Church of Rome was already an established Church in that country, in all essential particulars. What, he would ask, were the essentials of an Established Church? First of all, there was supremacy, which, unquestionably, existed in the Church of Rome. The second essential of an Establishment was the appointment of officers. Now, everyone was aware that, in spite of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, of 1850, the Pope had continued to appoint in this country officers with territorial titles, from cardinals downwards, and these officers occupied a more independent position than any Archbishop or Bishop of the Established Church. Well, would any Roman Catholic assert that the Established Church was degraded by Her Majesty's appointment of Dr. Trench to the archiepiscopal see of Dublin, any more than his own community would be degraded by the Pope appointing Dr. Manning to the archiepiscopal see of Westminster? The two cases were, indeed, strictly parallel, for in Ireland the Protestant Church was in a minority, while in England the Roman Catholic Church was in a minority. He wished to speak, more by way of protest, than of argument; but he would point out that the third point of an Establishment was the right of appeal. It was well known that every Roman Catholic could carry his cause to Rome, as the final court of appeal; and at the present time, the Prelates, clergy, and laity of the

  751
  Irish Established Church could carry their appeals to the Queen in Council. The Bill would, however, take away that right. The professed object of the Bill was to secure the equality of all religions in Ireland; whereas, this clause established the most fatal inequality of the Protestant Church. The Church of Rome would be like the ivy, which would continue to cling to the wall to which it had clung for centuries; while, in the case of the Protestant Church, it was proposed to tear down the ivy from the wall, and bid it to grow up for the future without any support.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, if his right rev. Friend intended his speech as a protest, he might have chosen a better form of protesting, while, if it was intended as an argument, it was an entirely fallacious one. He differed from his right rev. Friend on this point, although he agreed with him that the disestablishment of the Irish Church was a great misfortune. When he heard the argument of his right rev. Friend he was lost in astonishment, for according to it the Roman Catholic Church was at the present moment the Established Church of England, Ireland, and Scotland. But what was the meaning of an Established Church? It was a Church with which the State had so identified itself that the courts of that Church were the courts of the Queen. How, then, could it be said that after the passing of that Bill the Roman Catholic Church would be the Established Church of Ireland? It would be so in no sense whatever. The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland would be enabled to appeal privately to Rome; but the sentence of no one of its courts would be taken up by any court of Great Britain and administered as being the decision of a court. The disestablishment of the Irish Church was a great evil; but to tell them that the evil of it was that it would leave the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland as an Established Church was nothing more than a play upon words, and was simply trifling with their Lordships.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lichfield) would not divide the Committee on the clause. After the second reading of a Bill was affirmed, it was usual to go into Committee to consider the clauses, and amend them if amendment was desirable, but not to attempt to defeat the
  752
  very principle of the Bill. He felt that so strongly that, although for reasons which were satisfactory to themselves, he and others had refrained from giving any vote on the second reading, yet if the right rev. Prelate persisted in dividing the Committee, he would most assuredly give his vote for the retention of the clause.
  THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDexplained that he had not said he would divide the Committee against the clause, but that if the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) did so he would go into the same Lobby with him.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he felt as strongly as any of their Lordships on the proposed disestablishment of the Irish Church, and had expressed his objections to it in the debate on the second reading. But the House having decidedly affirmed that principle by its vote on the second reading, he thought it would be most improper now to agitate that question again.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the view of the noble Duke and those who agreed with him seemed to him to be the very essence of Erastian tyranny, because while it would deprive the Irish Church of every advantage of establishment, it would leave her subject to all the disadvantages, all the bondage, and all the fetters arising from establishment. He hoped the Irish Church when disestablished would enjoy entire freedom to unite herself with, the Church in England or not as she might choose.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he would divide against the clause.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he hoped his noble Friend would even yet change his intention. If there was anything whatever decided by the division upon the second reading it was the question that was contained in that clause, and he must certainly enter his protest against taking over again upon single clauses divisions on questions which had been already decided on the second reading. For himself he agreed in most of that which had been said against the clause; but if a division upon it were pressed by the noble Duke he could not accompany him into the same Lobby.
  THE EARL OF COURTOWNsaid, that he, in common with many other Irish Churchmen, while deeply deploring the separation of Church and State in Ireland, was strongly of opinion that if that

  753
  separation took place it must be thorough, and that they should be entirely free from any State control. He had before him a Resolution which was passed almost unanimously at a large meeting of the Standing Committee of the Irish Church Conference, which expressed those sentiments.
  On Question, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Constitution and Powers of Commissioners.
  Clause 3 (Appointment of commissioners).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved, in line 11, after "person," to insert "being a member of either of the said Churches, or of the said United Church."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 (Quorum of commissioners).
  VISCOUNT MONCK VISCOUNT MONCK moved, in line 24, to substitute for "two commissioners at least," "the three commissioners," with a view to insure that the Commissioners should have the assistance of the legal member of the Commission in hearing appeals.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5 (Appointment of officers) agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 6 (Salaries and expenses).
  EARL GREYasked whether Mr. Justice Lawson was to receive a salary of £2,000 a year in addition to his salary as a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the salary was not to exceed £2,000 a year.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that all the expenditure would be under the control of the Commissioners of the Treasury, and all persons appointed by the Commissioners, as clerks, actuaries, surveyors, and to other similar offices, would be so appointed subject to approval by the Treasury.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he had not the slightest confidence in the Commissioners of the Treasury as controllers of expenditure which did not come before the House of Commons in the annual Budget.
  VISCOUNT MONCKremarked, that the Commissioners would have their accounts overhauled by the Board of Audit as well as by the Treasury.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Board of Audit would not check the accounts; it would see only that the officer appointed was not paid more than the salary fixed by the Bill. He had the greatest respect for the Commissioners; they were, as they had been described, very respectable men, and received very respectable salaries; but, that there might be some cheek upon them, he moved the rejection of the fourth sub-section of the clause, which provided that "all incidental expenses of carrying this Act into execution" should be paid by the Commissioners.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, the better course would be to postpone the clause until the information as regards salary was furnished. He moved that the clause be postponed.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would obtain the desired information as speedily as possible.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid, that the clause having been amended it could not now be postponed.
  VISCOUNT MONCK VISCOUNT MONCK moved an addition to the fourth sub-section of Clause 4, making it read as follows:—
  "All incidental expenses of carrying this Act into execution, including such outlay as the Commissioners may deem reasonable incurred by any person in proving his claim under this Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  Several noble LORDS declaring themselves Not Content,
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid that, considering the majority which appeared on the last division, he would not trouble their Lordships to divide. He appealed to their Lordships to consider whether they would reject the clause altogether when all the information that was desired could be supplied on the Report?
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, they were really fighting about nothing. A question had been put which required an explanation to be given, and he understood the noble Earl was not in a position to inform the Committee as to the official position of one of the Commissioners and the arrangements that were to be made as to his official salary. They could

  755
  well pass the clause with the understanding that a satisfactory explanation should be given afterwards.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Powers of commissioners.)
  LORD WESTBURY LORD WESTBURY moved, in line 8, leave out ("they may deem it expedient or") and insert ("it may be"). Line 10 after ("the") insert ("due"). The noble Lord commented upon the character of the court that was to be created, and the extent and variety of the jurisdiction it would possess, and he expressed the opinion that the noble Lord who was to be one of the Commissioners (Viscount Monck) would accept the proposed limitation of the almost unlimited and uncontrolled discretion of the Commissioners.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the clauses were taken from the Encumbered Estates Act, which constituted a peculiar tribunal for trying cases which were limited in their duration. It was, of course, expedient that the powers of this Act should expire within a short time and if the noble and learned Lord thought the words necessary which he proposed, he could see no objection to them.
  Amendments agreed to.
  LORD WESTBURYproposed to amend the clause by striking out from the matters with respect to which the Commissioners should have the powers of the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, the power of punishing persons "guilty of contempt."
  LORD PENZANCEreminded their Lordships that every court in the kingdom which was a court of record, and had the power of investigating questions by the examination of witnesses, required to be furnished with the means of preserving order. The power of committing for contempt was inherent in every court of law in this country. It was not conferred by statute, but was in the very nature of things. It was now intended that the Commissioners should enforce the attendance of witnesses, conduct their investigations with all the solemnity and decency attaching to a judicial tribunal, and yet his noble and learned Friend proposed to deprive them of a power which was possessed by every coroner and every quarter sessions in the kingdom. He trusted their
  756
  Lordships would not consent to the Amendment.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he could not agree with his noble and learned Friend. The power which was proposed to be conferred on them did not extend only to the preservation of order within the court, but to the publication of a libel. Now, it was quite possible that the proceedings of the court might occasionally be the subject of observations which might not be agreeable to the Commissioners, and which they might consider to be contempt. If that were to happen and an individual were committed for contempt of court, he would not have his ordinary relief of Habeas Corpus, for the court before which the writ was moved would have no means of inquiring into the nature of the contempt. They must take the contempt on the authority of the Commissioners. He was therefore unwilling to give this new court the power of committing for contempt.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded the House that this was a court instituted to administer justice between several parties, and if the House were to refuse it the power which every other court in the kingdom possessed they would place it in the position of not being able to discharge those duties which they were all anxious it should discharge. He would remind their Lordships that among the Commissioners was one eminent Judge who, from his experience, knew well what was the proper exercise of that power, and two others who were all members of the Church of England. It was surely going too far to say that these gentlemen would exercise their power in an arbitrary manner; that they were not to be trusted with a power with which every other court in the kingdom was trusted; that it would not be safe to put into their hands powers without which the due administration of their functions could not be carried on. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) had suggested that they might commit for contempt on account of remarks made in a newspaper. Now, undoubtedly, foolish remarks did sometimes appear in the newspapers, though he thought the Judges were more foolish who took notice of them. But he would put a case which might more frequently occur, and which would be much more detrimental to the interests

  757
  of justice—he meant the use of improper remarks tending to excite prejudice against suitors in the court. He had himself occasion more than once to commit parties for that offence in the Court of Chancery, and he would appeal to their Lordships if that was not much more likely to happen in Ireland. But, besides that, the Commissioners ought to have the power of preserving order in their own court, and it would, indeed, be singular if their Lordships were to refuse to these Commissioners the power which was possessed by every coroner in England.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he wished to add his opinion to that of his noble and learned Friend. He would remind their Lordships that this was not a question which affected the merits of the Bill. It did not go into the question of disendowment or disestablishment; it was only to give the Commissioners a power without which it would be impossible for them to execute the duties which this House was about to impose upon them. It should be remembered that the proceedings of the court would be all in public, and this would be a security for their proceeding with decency and propriety. If this power were not given it would be in the power of parties to insult them, to describe their conduct as prejudiced and partial, and they would have no power to put an end to these discreditable scenes. He could not therefore vote for the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, he would not say a word on the question of law, but he must make a few remarks on behalf of those for whom he was deeply interested—he meant the clergy. Their Lordships must remember that this was a court of a peculiar kind. In ordinary cases the Judges had to decide between two opposing parties, having no interest themselves in the trial. But in the present case it might well be that the suit to be tried was between a clergyman on the one side and the Judges themselves on the other, as the Commissioners would be anxious to secure as much property as they could for the surplus. In the place of the present Commissioners they might have others who might possibly attempt to enforce harsh decisions. They might also construe into contempt the conduct of a curate from the country, who too strongly pressed
  758
  his case. It should also be borne in mind that this power of commitment for contempt might be exercised in private as well as public. The most rev. Prelate, for instance, might be summoned before a Commissioner in the back parlour of an inn, and if anything were said that was displeasing to the Commissioner the Archbishop might be committed for contempt. He most earnestly, but respectfully, protested against the granting of such a power.
  LORD CAIRNSagreed that it was a very serious thing to confer such a power without knowing who the future Commissioners might be. It had been said that the Encumbered Estates Court had such a power; but the members of that court were lawyers of considerable experience. Their business also was really judicial business, and it was a court sitting in the face of day. The Commissioners, however, would not for the most part of their time really be a court at all, and their principal business would not be forensic but official business. The noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) had stated that the power of committal would have the effect of keeping a check on letter writing to the newspapers whilst a case was pending, and that a coroner's court possessed the same power. He (Lord Cairns) denied that any coroner had the power of committal that would affect a person who wrote to the press, and that was a power that he should not like any coroner's court, or the proposed Commissioners to possess. He would propose that if the power were given at all, the contempt for which there could be a commitment must be committed in the face of the court whilst sitting as such.
  LORD WESTBURYobserved that there was no obligation upon the Commissioners to sit in public, and any one of them might sit and commit for contempt persons who appeared before them. It would be a very serious thing to give power to commit for words written or spoken out of court, and especially if any one Commissioner could exercise that power.
  LORD PENZANCEsuggested, as a solution of the difficulty, the Amendment of the clause by the insertion of words giving the power to commit for contempt "in the presence of the Commissioners, or any of them, sitting in open court."
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WESTBURYsuggested that there should be an appeal from the Commissioners to the Court of Chancery.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed this, on the ground that it was desirable that these matters should be settled with as little delay as possible. If an appeal to the Court of Chancery were allowed, it would imply an appeal to their Lordships' House, and this would involve much delay.
  LORD CAIRNSthought it desirable that the view of the noble Lord (the Lord Chancellor) should be adopted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Forms of application, and general rules).
  LORD WESTBURY moved, in line 42, after the word ("same") insert—
  ("Any person aggrieved by such general rules, or any one of them, may apply to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, by Petition to be served on the Commissioners, and the Lord Lieutenant in Council may annul or vary such rules, or any of them.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that these clauses were taken from the Encumbered Estates Court Act.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, his noble and learned Friend was in error in supposing that the clause in the Bill had been taken from the Incumbered Estates Act. That clause distinctly provided that any rules made by the court should not come into force till they had been approved by the Privy Council, and enrolled in Chancery.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not previously aware of the words read by his noble and learned Friend, but he had no objection to adopt them.
  Clause amended accordingly, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9 (Duration of office, and restriction on sitting in Parliament).
  LORD WESTBURY LORD WESTBURY moved in line 7, to leave out "ten" and insert "five;" and in line 9, after the word ("Parliament") insert—
  ("But Her Majesty shall have power, by Order in Council, to direct that the Commissioners shall continue to hold their office for a further period not exceeding five years.")
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the question had been carefully gone into as to the probable length of time required for the work of the Commission, and it was believed to be utterly impossible that the affairs of the Commission could be wound
  760
  up in so short a period as five years. The Commissioners had undertaken to do their best in dealing with a most difficult question, and his conviction was that, after the business was really over, they would not wish to prolong the duration of the Commission.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, it was agreed on all hands that the Commissioners could not have been better chosen, and there need be no hesitation in retaining their services as long as was thought necessary.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Prohibition of future appointments) agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past Twelve o'clock A. M., to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.