Sitting of 13 May 1869

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Montague John Guest, esquire, for Youghal.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Contngious Diseases Act (1866), appointed.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Trade Marks Registration.
Ordered—First Reading—Poor Law Union Loans * [128]; Petroleum * [131]; Trade Marks Registration * [126]; Witnesses (House of Commons) * [129]; Titles of Religious Congregations Act Extension * [127].
First Reading—Salmon Fisheries Law Amendment * [130].
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [114].
Committee—Report— Endowed Hospitals, &c. (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [110–124].
Report—Married Women's Property * [20–122]; Park Lane Improvements *.
Considered as amended—Irish Church [112–123].
Third Reading—Pharmacy Act (1868) Amendment * [99] and passed.

METROPOLITAN STREET TRAMWAYS BILL—(by Order).—CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, further considered.
MR. PEASE, after Clause 34, moved to insert the following clause:—
"Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any other company, body, persons, or person, shall be entitled to use on any tramway or part of a tramway, at any time after the opening thereof respectively, carriages with flange or other wheels adapted to run upon the rails, or upon the rails and other portions of the streets or street, and moved by animal power only: provided always, that no carriage licensed to carry for hire any number of passengers shall be used on any tram-way with flange or other wheels so adapted to run upon the rails by any company, body, person, or persons, other than the company hereby incorporated, except under further license from the Board of Trade, which latter license the Board of Trade are hereby empowered to grant from time to time, and the owner of such carriage shall pay to the said incorporated company such a mileage toll per carriage as shall from time to time be fixed by the said Board of Trade."
The hon. Member observed that on the second reading of the Bill he called the attention of the House to the subject of tramways, and he then stated that if he could be assured that the promoters would accept a prudent limitation of their power, so far as the narrow streets were concerned, he should nor oppose the second reading. He did not oppose the formation of tramways on principle, because he thought they would afford considerable accommodation to the public; but his object was to place them under proper regulations. There were two points on which he argued against the Train-ways Bill; one was, that it was proposed to place them in unsuitable positions; the other was, that it was proposed to grant a monopoly to two or three companies of a great portion of the public roadways. The Bill had been investigated by a Select Committee, who had refused to sanction the construction of the lines in the narrow roads; but he thought they had not sufficiently looked into the question of monopoly, and the object of his Amendment was simply to
736
allow other parties to use the tramways on paying such sums as might be settled by the Board of Trade. The power of the Board of Trade was limited to granting permission on the payment of not less than one halfpenny nor more than three farthings per mile for each passenger. Now, he objected to that provision. It was a very serious thing for the House to pass a Bill giving a company a monopoly of five or six feet of the public roads. During the discussion on the subject of metropolitan tramways, in 1861, Lord Palmerston said—
"He thought it would be a great accommodation to the public if something in the shape of tram roads could be laid down in the streets of our towns. In Milan they had a plan which was found to be of great convenience … If that could be done without any monopoly, but open to vehicles of any kind, it would, no doubt, be found equally useful in London."—[3 Hansard, clxii. 1155–6.]
He submitted that the clauses in the present Bill gave a complete monopoly to the company, for it was absurd to suppose that any persons could compete with them on the terms inserted in the Bill. In 1862, a Bill was brought in by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)—"To authorize the construction of Tramways in Turnpike Roads and other Roads in England,"—and under that Bill the toll for every carnage using the tramways for a distance greater than four miles was only at the rate of 1d. per mile, although it might be an omnibus holding fifty passengers. He had looked about for precedents and could find very few; in the Liverpool Act. however, there was a clause in the very words which he was about to submit to the House by way of Amendment. He had no interest in this matter beyond the public convenience, and a desire to increase the future usefulness of tramways to the public. No less than three tramways had been sanctioned by the Committee in different parts of the metropolis; and it was probable that in the course of a short time they would be joined together, but there was no compulsory power as to affording mutual facilities for traffic. What had the House done with regard to railways? In almost every Railway Bill for the last few years ample power had been given to railway companies to run their carriages over each other's lines. As the Bill stood there was nothing to prevent the establishment of a monopoly in-

737
jurious to the public interests; and, under these circumstances, he moved the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Clause (Use of Tramway by carriages other than those of the Company) brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. Pease.)
CAPTAIN GROSVENORsaid, the promoters of this Bill had a fair right to complain of the course which had been taken with respect to it by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease). That hon. Gentleman, calling to his assistance certain prejudices of the past, first endeavoured to crush the tramways; and, having failed in that, he now came forward to get the House to set aside the recommendations of the Committee, whose labours he had been so anxious to avert. The hon. Gentleman had not indicated the reason which had led him to adopt that course; but some light seemed to be thrown upon it by the General Omnibus Company having sent a pathetic letter to hon. Members of that House asking them to support the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be this—Carriages not licensed to carry passengers for hire would be allowed to use the tramways free from all expense, and no arrangement would be more delightful to the opponents of the Bill, because anyone who disliked the tramways would have it in his power to put a few gigantic vans fitted with flanges on the tramways, and these slow-going vehicles would completely block up the traffic, not only as regarded the company, but as regarded the public, who would stigmatize the tramways and all connected with them as public nuisances. There could be no monopoly under the Bill as it stood, for clauses had been inserted which would effectually provide against that. If this Amendment were passed people would be unwilling to embark their capital in such an undertaking, and the tramways could not possibly be carried out. He appealed to the House not to set aside the recommendations of the Committee in deference to an unreasonable hostility, which had shirked the argument of the matter before the Court appointed to deal with it.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, as Chairman of the Committee which had considered the Bill, desired to say that that Committee were unanimous in their decision, and that the most stringent restrictions against a monopoly were inserted in the Bill. There was no monopoly of the road; the only monopoly in question was a monopoly of the rails. The Committee passed the Preamble on condition that restrictions were placed on the monopoly of the rails, and the opponents of the Bill thereupon withdrew from the Committee. The Committee and the promoters were therefore left to draw up the restrictions, and the promoters suggested restrictions, which were adopted and which were more stringent against themselves than the Committee would have insisted upon. Those restrictions provided that after twenty-one years the street authorities might purchase the tramways, and that after three years other parties might be licensed by the Board of Trade to use them, and, of course, the Board of Trade would carry out that power if they thought the public did not obtain the full benefit of the tramways. The Committee had cut out of the Bill the proposal to carry the tramways through narrow thoroughfares, and had confined them to the centre of wide streets. If the clause moved by the hon. Member were agreed to, the tramways would become a public nuisance, and would have to be taken up. The case of the Liverpool tramways, to which the hon. Member had referred, was very different from those proposed to be authorized by the Bill, because the streets of Liverpool were under the sole control of the corporation of the town, who had it in their power to make any conditions they thought fit; whereas the streets of London were under the concurrent authority of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Commissioners of Police, and the vestries and road trustees. Moreover, there would be a considerable difference in the cost of the proposed tramways and that of the Liverpool tramways, for whereas the latter had only cost £2,400 per mile, a large portion of the metropolitan tramways would cost £12,000 per mile, for the Committee had imposed on the promoters the condition of paving the road used by them with granite, and maintaining it at their own expense, in order that the general public might not

739
be inconvenienced by the protrusion of the iron rail above the surface of the ground, which was the cause of the failure of Train's tramways. That was not the occasion for settling the principle of the Bill, and he hoped the House would be satisfied that the Committee had imposed such restrictions on the monopoly of the rails as would be to the interest of the public.
MR. BRIGHT: I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) will not divide the House upon this Bill. He knows perfectly well—and I believe the omnibus proprietors know perfectly well—that the House is not likely to be a good judge of details of this nature. When the Committee decided in favour of the principle of the Bill, the omnibus proprietors withdrew. They did not make opposition, or suggestions, or amendments which possibly might have assisted the Committee in concluding the details of the Bill. But the proprietors were apparently under the belief that, by retiring from the Committee, which had all the facts and all the evidence, they would have a better chance of opposing the Bill by appealing to the House, it being without the evidence. This matter has been carefully considered by the Department to which I have the honour to belong, and the opinion of the Board of Trade is that the carrying of these clauses would be tantamount to the overthrow of the tramway. There is no safeguard which is necessary that has not been put into the Bill; and I think, from the statement of the Chairman of the Committee, the House will agree that the promoters of the Bill were very willing to concede everything it was possible to concede in carrying out this great improvement for the metropolis. I do not know how my hon. Friend and I differ on a. matter of such a nature; but he will do a great disservice to the metropolis if he persuade the House to adopt these clauses.
MR. PEASEsaid, he had nothing to do with the omnibus people. He had taken the matter up on public grounds: but, after what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Motion and Clause, by leave, with-drawn.
Bill to be read the third time.

METROPOLIS—FINSBURY PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, having regard to defects in the Act of 1857 respecting Finsbury Park, he will bring in a Bill to declare the trusts for which it was passed, and otherwise to amend the same?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, that it was a very peculiar ease. By an Act passed in the year 1857 the Metropolitan Board of Works were empowered to purchase 250 acres of land, for the purpose of a park in Finsbury, and they were at the same time authorized to sell for building purposes twenty acres, which might not be necessary for the park, in order to recoup themselves part of the expense of constructing the park. The Board had to deposit plans in the office of the First Commissioner of Works, and he presumed that by so doing they were bound not to deviate from those plans without his sanction. The Board availed themselves of the powers conferred by the Act, but only purchased 115 acres, and they at present wished to deduct from that quantity twenty acres for building purposes, that being the amount they were authorized to deduct from 250 acres. It appeared that they were desirous of taking the twenty acres principally from land adjoining the Seven Sisters' Road, and the inhabitants of the north of London considered that building on that land would materially interfere with the proper enjoyment of the park. He had received a Memorial signed by nearly 14,000 persons, including ministers of all denominations, and the leading inhabitants of Finsbury, protesting against that proceeding of the Metropolitan Board of Works. His power, as Chief Commissioner of Works, over the Board had, however, been rescinded by an Act passed in the year 1858, so that he had, at present, no control over them. Under those circumstances he had addressed himself privately to his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), who always look a large and liberal view of these matters, and at a meeting of the Metropolitan Board of Works his hon. Friend moved that the land in question should not be taken from the park; but he was defeated by a majority upon a division to rescind the Resolution which had already been come to on the subject, and

  741
  the Board were now proceeding to exercise their alleged right. He (Mr. Layard) understood that right was a doubtful one. but he had no power to interfere. He was afraid that those persons who were interested in the park must have recourse to legal proceedings if they wished to test the right claimed by the Board. His sympathy was with the Memorialists, and he would be prepared to afford them any assistance in his power.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Bath, Whether it is true that the Metropolitan Board of Works have refused to rescind their resolution to sell twenty acres of the laud purchased by them for the purpose of Finsbury Park?
  MR. TITE, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that the Metropolitan Board of Works had refused to rescind their resolution to sell twenty acres of the land they had purchased for the Fins-bury Park. It was originally intended that there should be a large park on the north side of London, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were authorized to carry out that scheme, the Government undertaking to grant them £50,000 towards the expenses of the 250 acres they were to purchase. The House, however, subsequently decided that the Government should not interfere in the matter, and consequently the whole of the outlay had to be met out of the rates, and not out of the coal duties nor any public fund. The Board, thereupon, determined to buy only 120 acres, which they did, at a total expense of £90,000. That money was raised to a great extent from the poorer classes in the metropolis, and he was quite sure the House would agree with him that it would be desirable the Board should, if possible, recoup themselves, to a certain extent, out of the land that had been purchased, for a portion of their expenditure. Ten acres out of the twenty set apart for building purposes were at the bottom of the land near the railway, and to that portion of the scheme no exception had been taken. The other ten acres ran along a fine road recently laid down towards the Seven Sisters' Road, and he had always opposed the proposal to apply that land to building purposes. But when he had recently brought the question before the Board again he had been defeated by a majority of 25 votes
  742
  to 16. It appeared that the only power the Board had was a power to sell, and not to lease, and before they could make an offer of sale the park must be finished, and it must also be shown that the land was not essential to the park. That question, he apprehended, might be raised by a writ of mandamus. It further appeared that the former owner of the land had a right of pre-emption at the price of the day; but whether he would take it or not remained to be seen. If he did not, then it seemed the Board would have the power to sell in the open market; but, he found they could not demise the land for building purposes. Under those circumstances he thought that his hon. Friend and the House might feel assured that there was very little likelihood the sale of that portion of the land would take place; but that was the only assurance he could give upon the subject.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN REFORMATORY SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State? for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of juvenile offenders sent under the Act 17 & 18 Vic, c. 86, to certified Reformatory Schools, care is taken to afford instruction in handicraft trades, or whether in any such certified Reformatory Schools employment is limited to field labour?
  MR. BRUCEreplied that, as a rule, a certain number of the boys were taught handicrafts, and he was not aware that in any schools the instruction was limited to field labour. Field labour, however, did occupy the chief attention, because it was felt that for many of the boys it would be an advantage that they should emigrate to the colonies, where, of course, field labour would be of the greatest service to them.

SPAIN—CASE OF THE "TORNADO."

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any answer has yet been received from the Spanish Government to the proposal made to it by Her Majesty's Government in December last, that the case of the "Tornado" should be re-heard before a Special Tribunal,

  743
  and, if so, what are the terms of such answer; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House all Communications received by Her Majesty's Government, subsequent to the 26th of February last, from Mr. Graham Dunlop and other persons respecting the case of the "Tornado" and her crew?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that the Foreign Office had received a despatch from Madrid, stating that the Spanish Government had declined to accede to our request that the case of the Tornado should be referred to a special tribunal. The reasons for this refusal were given very fully, and those reasons would be communicated to the Law Officers of the Crown. He had that day laid upon the table of the House all the communications that had passed on the subject subsequent to the 26th of February, with the exception of a despatch from Mr. Graham Dunlop, which, though it did refer to the case of the Tornado, contained the account of a conversation with a Spanish officer, now dead. It was, therefore, thought desirable not to lay that despatch on the table with the others.

  IRELAND—SHANNON SALMON FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to construct the salmon ladders so long promised on the Shannon, and when the eel weir at Ruskey is to be removed, in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on the River Shannon of last year?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that the subject had not been brought under the consideration of the present Government, although it occupied the attention of their predecessors. Objections were then raised to the construction of these works, and no order was given upon the subject. If however, the owners who might be benefited by them would submit any proposal to the Government, and at the same time explain how they proposed to find the funds to defray the express which would be incurred, they would take those proposals into consideration, and afford any assistance to carry out their views. The difficulty hitherto had been that these proprietors were extremely anxious to have the im-
  744
  provements effected, but they did not show any activity in stating how the money was to be provided to carry them out.

  INDIA—RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copy of the Despatch recently received from the Government of India regarding the construction of new lines of Railway in the three Presidencies?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The despatch, Sir, to which my hon. Friend refers is still under consideration. There will not, I believe, be any difficulty about laying it on the table when a decision has been arrived at with regard to the matter of which it treats.

IRELAND—EXTRA POLICE IN TIPPERARY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What number of extra Constabulary have been sent to the County Tipperary, and on what districts or townlands the payment of such extra force is to be levied?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the extra constabulary sent to the county Tipperary had been distributed ass follows:—Six in the district of Cashel, ten in the district of Bansha, nine to Tipperary town, and six to Dundrum—making thirty-one in all; and the cost of this extra protection would be; charged on the districts requiring it; but what townlands wore included he was unable to say.

  PARLIAMENT—CRYPT OF ST. STEPHENS.—QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKE KINGsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What amount has been expended in the embellishments of the Crypt of Saint Stephen's; when that expenditure commenced; by whose order it was undertaken; and out of what fund the cost has been paid; and, if ever the Crypt is completed, to what use it is to be appropriated?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that £1,953 had been expended for embel-

  745
  lishments and fittings, the cost of the embellishments having been about £830. The expenditure on the crypt commenced in 1854, Tinder the authority of a Vote of that House, the works being authorized by his two predecessors, the right hon. Member for South Hants (Mr. Cowper) and the noble Lord the Member for South Leicestershire (Lord John Manners). Both the crypt and the baptistry were complete, and were ready for the use of Members if required. It was not for him to determine to what use they were to be placed; but he believed it was intended, when the repairs were begun, that the crypt should be used as a place of worship for the numerous residents in the building.

  VELOCIPEDES AND POST OFFICE SERVICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. HAMBROsaid, he would bog to ask the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that in certain parts of Wales the Post Office Mails art; now conveyed on velocipedes instead of on horses; and if this change has been found to add to the efficiency and economy of the Service?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that no such change as that to which the hon. Gentleman alluded was at the present contemplated. An experiment had been tried, or would shortly be tried, to ascertain whether in certain rural districts these machines could be used by post messengers—on roads which were, not very hilly, and were otherwise adapted for the purpose. But as the practice of riding or driving upon velocipedes did not form part of the examination by the Civil Service Commissioners, he thought it would be necessary to allow the use of these machines to be optional.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN AND GREENWICH HOSPITAL—QUESTION.
  MR. ARMITSTEADsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, What means those seamen of the Mercantile Marine who may have claims upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund should adopt to obtain their share of the £4,000 set apart by the Government for their benefit?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, in reply, that the allotment of £4,000 to the Mercantile Marine was only proposed by the Bill now before the House, and, until it
  746
  became law, seamen would not have any means of making claims. When it had passed, the Admiralty would communicate with the Board of Trade, and make arrangements under which seamen would be able to apply if they were qualified according to the regulations.

THE CLERGY AND PARLIAMENT.

  QUESTION
  MR. DIXONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he was aware when he gave it as his opinion that all persons who have received episcopal ordination are thereby disabled from sitting in Parliament, that it was thought necessary to prevent, by special enactment in the Roman Catholic Relief Act (1829) the Roman Catholic Clergy from sitting in Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must beg leave to correct the answer I gave on a former occasion. My learned Friends the Attorney and Solicitor General advise me that, according to their view, sustained, no doubt, by the existence of that clause in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, that the provision contained in the Act passed in the case of Horne Tooke would not be understood to exclude from Parliament clergymen other than those of the Established Church. If that be so, the state of the law is one of anomaly and confusion still greater than I had supposed, and certainly it ought to receive the early attention of Parliament. It is not easy to see the precise manner in which it ought to be dealt with; but it is not possible to make any attempt to alter the law in the Bill now passing.

IRELAND—LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WINGFIELD VERNERsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is or is not the case that the Lord Major of Dublin retains the commission of the peace for the year succeeding his year of office?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, in reply, that the Lord Mayor of Dublin did not retain the commission of the peace for the year succeeding his year of office. The misapprehension upon the subject had probably arisen from the fact that the Lord Mayor of Dublin pre-

  747
  sided in the Court of Conscience during the year following that of his mayoralty, but he did so not as a justice of the peace, and not by statute, but by immemorial custom.

BRITISH GRAVES IN THE CRIMEA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STOPFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for foreign Affairs, What is the total sum which has been spent on the maintenance of British Graves in the Crimea; why is or has been responsible for the proper application of such sum; and will he lay upon the Table Sir Andrew Buchanan's recent Despatch on the subject?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that the entire sum spent had been £3,291 15 s. 3d., and the expenditure ranged over a period of six years, from November, 1860, to November, 1866. It included the remuneration of custodians and watchmen, as well as repairs. He was glad of an opportunity of stating these facts, because exaggerated accounts of the expenditure had appeared in the papers. The gentlemen who had been responsible for the application of the money were the two consuls at Kertch, who had been directed to visit the graves periodically and report on their state. A small sum had also been expended by the consul at Odessa. The despatch of Sir Andrew Buchanan contained other matters than an account of his visit in company with the Prince and Princess of Wales to the Crimean graves, and therefore it would be inconvenient, to lay the despatch on the table; but he would be glad to allow any hon. Member to see that part of the despatch referring to the condition of i the graves.

CANADA—REDUCTION OF FORCES

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, under existing circumstances, he intends to carry out his plan of reducing the Forces in Canada?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, instructions had been given for the removal from Canada of a portion of Her Majesty's Forces; the order was now in the course of execution, and it was not the intention of the Government to countermand it.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, in consequence of that answer, he would beg to ask whether it is intended that those troops that remain should be left in such a state of efficiency as to numbers that they would be prepared for any emergency?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that due regard had been paid to what was required by circumstances in the re-distribution of Her Majesty's troops in British North American Provinces.

INDIA—PUNJAUB TENANCY ACT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES WINGFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a Petition has been received from the Chiefs and Landholders of the Punjaub, complaining of an Act passed in October last, called the Punjaub Tenancy Act, as an infringement of the customs of that Province; and, if not, whether he has heard that such a Petition has been submitted to the Governor General for transmission to the Secretary of State; and whether the Secretary of State for India has sent any instructions to the Governor General on the subject of the above Law?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, vague rumours respecting this Petition have reached me, as they appear to have reached my hon. Friend, but no official information has been received about it, and no instructions whatever have been sent to India.

  IRISH CHURCH BILL—PROFESSORS OF MAYNOOTH.—QUESTION.
  MR. STAPLETONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he intends to introduce any words into the Irish Church Bill to secure the life interests of the Professors of Maynooth, in accordance with the statement to that effect made by the Attorney General for Ireland when the House was in Committee; or whether those gentlemen are now satisfied that their life interests are secured by the Bill as it stands?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, on re-consideration we are of opinion that the words which have been introduced into the Bill are practically sufficient for the purpose of securing the life interests of the Professors of Maynooth, and we have not the least reason to suppose

  749
  that those gentlemen are dissatisfied with the security afforded to them.

IRELAND—RIOTS AT LONDONDERRY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whether the Government have decided in what way the promised full inquiry into the late loss of life at Londonderry is to be carried out; whether by two Commissioners appointed by the Government; and how soon such inquiry will be made?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that inquiry would be conducted by two Commissioners—eminent barristers—in precisely the same manner as the inquiry into the riots at Belfast had been conducted some years ago. The appointment of those gentlemen had not yet been made, but he hoped it would take place in the course of a few days.

ARMY—MILITIA OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the new regulation giving a step of honorary rank to Militia Officers of certain standing, Whether he proposes to take into consideration, as a qualification for such step, lengthened service with embodied regiments, as distinguished from attendance at the annual training?
  MR. CARDWELL, in reply, said, it was proposed to give an honorary rank to officers who had served a certain number of years; but no distinction was to be made whether regiments which had been embodied or disembodied.

METROPOLIS—VICTORIA PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he wished to ask a Question with regard to Victoria Park. An apprehension existed amongst the frequenters of the Park that a public-house was about to be opened within its precincts, in which spirituous liquors were to be freely sold. He should be glad to hear from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, What are the intentions of the Government, with a view to allaying this apprehension?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that he was much obliged to his right hon. Friend for giving him that opportunity of explaining a matter which had been very much misrepresented. The House was aware that Victoria Park was in a part of London inhabited chiefly by the working classes, many of whom came from considerable distances, bringing with them their wives and families, in order to enjoy a day in the Park. Hitherto the principal refreshments to be had in the Park were sour ginger beer and stale buns. The working man could not dine upon such food as that, and he thought it would be a great been to him to authorize the selling of cooked meats, and something which might furnish him with a dinner, so as not to render it necessary for him to take his wife and children out of the Park to one of the numerous small pot-houses which had sprung up round about. But it was not true that he had authorized the sale of spirituous liquors; he had, on the contrary strictly prohibited anything of the kind. Beer had always been sold in the Park. There was to be no bar drinking, and if he should hear of any case of intoxication, he would withdraw the privilege which had been accorded. He believed the real promoters of the commotion against the change were the keepers of beer-shops in the neighbourhood of the Park, who feared they would lose some of their trade by the innovation.

  ELECTION COMMISSIONS—QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to know. Whether the Royal Commissions which have been ordered to issue for the purpose of investigating the Elections at Norwich, Beverley, and other places were about to sit, because it was very important? ["Order!"] With a view to placing himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. It was very important that these inquiries should be carried on as speedily as possible, in order that if these places were proved not to have been engaged in corrupt practices new Writs might be issued during the present Session. He begged to move the Adjournment of the House.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he entirely concurred with the hon. Member that it was desirable that these Commissions should sit as soon as they

  751
  conveniently could, and he had every reason to suppose that when the Commissions were issued the Commissioners would immediately make arrangements for their sitting. But he had to inform the hon. Member that the Commissions must first be agreed to by the other House of Parliament. They would probably be agreed to by that House soon after Whitsuntide, and he trusted that after that there would be no delay.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRISH CHURCH BILL— [BILL 112.]
(Mr. Dodson, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
IRISH CHURCH BILL— [BILL 112.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved, after Clause 61, to insert the following clause:—
  (Moveable chattels belonging to see or Church.)
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the property in or the right to any plate, furniture, or other moveable chattels belonging to any see or to any Church or Chapel, or used in connection with the celebration of Divine worship therein, and where any property is vested in any Ecclesiastical or Cathedral Corporation in Ireland in trust for the poor or any other charitable purpose, the dissolution of such Corporation shall not affect the continuance of the trust, but such property shall immediately upon such dissolution vest in the representative body of the said Church, or in default of, and until the same shall be constituted, in the Commissioners for the execution of this Act, but subject always to the trusts affecting the same, and under the same supervision, local or otherwise, as theretofore, or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case will admit; and in all cases where ecclesiastical persons are at present in right of their dignities or offices entitled to be members of any lay Corporations constituted for the management of any private endowment, or are trustees for the management of property belonging to institutions of private foundation for purposes not ecclesiastical, then the persons (if any) who shall hereafter at any time discharge duties similar or analogous to those now discharged by such ecclesiastical persons, shall be entitled to succeed in their room, and be members of such lay Corporations, and to act as such taustees.
  Clause (Moveable chattels belonging to see or Church.)—(Mr. Gladstone.)—brought up, and read the first and second time; amended, and added.
  MR. BENTINCK MR. BENTINCK moved, after Clause 15, to insert a new clause (Provision for the officers of Cathedral Churches in Ireland). The officers to whom he referred seemed to have been altogether
  752
  lost sight of by the framers of the Bill; but he submitted that any person, holding an appointment which it had been the custom to give for life, subject, of course, to good behaviour, had virtually a life interest in his office. If equity were disregarded, it might be said these officers had no strictly legal title for life: but it would be very unjust, on this account, to deprive them of compensation, if the Bill made it impossible to retain them in their offices. He styled them non-capitular members in his clause because, although they did not belong to the governing Body of the Church, they were members of the foundation. They were of two classes—those appointed to some of the older cathedrals in Ireland under charter, and those appointed under special contract with the Dean and Chapter according to the customs of the Church. Thus it would be seen they held office on terms precisely similar to those regulating the tenure of non-capitular members of English cathedrals. By Clause 14, there was a power to give compensation to ecclesiastical persons other than curates; and in the early part of the clause it was provided that the Commissioners should ascertain the amount of their annual income with a view to such compensation. The Interpretation Clause, Section 68, was, in his opinion, applicable to those who held lay offices, vicars choral, and others, in cathedral and collegiate churches. But then came a declaration by the Attorney General for Ireland, and another by the First Lord of the Treasury, from which it would appear that it was not intended that any person should be included who did not hold a freehold. Now, it was quite clear that this question was very important as affecting the rights of individuals. He understood there were two objections to this clause. First of all, it was said that these persons had not an estate of freehold, and therefore could not take any advantage under Clause 14. But the right hon. Gentleman who held that opinion seemed totally to forget that there were many individuals who had not freehold offices, and yet retained their life interest under the Bill; for instance, the Professors of Maynooth. No one would maintain that they had any freehold office, neither had the curates, nor the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He would illustrate the position for which

  753
  he contended by a reference to two officers in the Cathedral of St. Patrick's, Dublin. Mr. William Murphy, for the last thirty-five years, had been master of the boys, and librarian of St. Patrick's. This gentleman held the office of Master of Song, which was of very ancient date, and was mentioned in the original charter of Charles I., in 1640. In consequence of the change in the value of money, the sum of £20, which was the salary attached to the office, was no longer able to maintain the master of the boys, and. therefore, an addition was made to it which brought if up to £100 a year. Then there was the case of Mr. Carnegie, the verger of St. Patrick's. He had served twenty-five years, and his position was analogous to that of Mr. Murphy. Under the provisions of the Bill, as it stood at present, these officers were intitled, in the one case, to £20 a year, and in the other to a small stipend, but not to the augmentation they had received; and, therefore, if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would form a most dangerous precedent with respect to the English cathedrals. He would take, in illustration of his argument, the case of Westminster Abbey. In that church certain officers were only entitled to be paid their statutable stipends. The augmentations of those stipends were derived from the fund made up of the fees taken for showing the Abbey. When it was found, some years ago, that it was impossible that these officers could be maintained by their statutable stipends, the Dean and Chapter handed over the money, which was received for showing the Abbey, to be divided among them, just as the money taken for showing the cupola of St. Paul's was now divided among the non-capitular members of that cathedral. Well, if the precedent under this Bill was established—if Westminster Abbey ever came to be dealt with in the manner that St. Patrick's was dealt with now, the officers to whom he referred would only be entitled to a very small sum indeed. Under these circumstances, he would submit that those officers who held their places by charter, and were maintained by augmentations were legally entitled to the whole of their stipends. Then he came to the second class of cases, which involved still greater hardship,—namely, where officers held their places by distinct-contract with the Deans and Chapters;
  754
  in the case of the cathedral of Armagh, and he believed also of another cathedral, for a great number of years past the office of vicars choral had been filled by persons not skilled in music, but who acted as trustees of the funds to be paid over to the Dean and Chapter for the benefit of persons who held their places on the distinct understanding that it was to be for life and on good behaviour. Persons who had held places in the English cathedrals had been induced to go over to Armagh and Dublin to fill posts better in regard to annual income, believing that they would stand exactly on the same footing as they had done in England. He had in his pocket a letter from a gentleman of the highest respectability, who was originally in the choir in Armagh, was then appointed to a place in Westminster Abbey, and was afterwards elected to a stipendiary office in Dublin, and had since been placed on the foundation there. That gentleman had been led to believe that his first situation would be precisely the same as regarded tenure as the place he formerly held in England. Another case was that of a distinguished person, Dr. Stewart, organist of Christ's Church in Dublin. Dr. Stewart assured him that if the terms of the contract had not been what he understood them to be, and what were stated to him by the Dean and Chapter, he would never have accepted the office. It might be objected that those interests were provided for by the Amendment in Clause 17, which was partly suggested by himself during the discussion in Committee. By that clause, as amended, it was competent for claimants to go before the Commissioners and state their case, and the Commissioners were vested with a discretionary power of giving them a sum of money by way of compensation, either by a single payment or by a Life annuity as they should, with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, determine. Now, as all those individuals, under the circumstances which he had stated, not only supposed themselves, but were held by those who engaged them, and the other parties to the contract, to have interests for life, or during good behaviour, he he would ask whether it was fair to say to them—"There was no doubt as to what was your understanding, and no doubt that you have an equitable title;

  755
  the onus of proof is thrown upon you; yon must go before the Commissioners and prove your case. If they think you have no case they will dismiss you, and you shall have no right of appeal; and after all, even when the Commissioners have decided in your favour, you are to be remitted to the tender mercies of the Treasury." That was a most unjust proposal. He believed the present Commissioners would be disposed to do justice; but then they were removable, and might be succeeded by other Commissioners less favourable to those claims; and last of all, they saw looming in the distance the iron hand of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of the Treasury might be unwilling to entertain those claims, which might be treated in a manner similar to the clerks of certain departments, who had great hardships to complain of lately. Therefore, he could not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite would object to the very reasonable proposition which he now humbly submitted, more especially, too, as those claims wore extremely few in number. In introducing that Bill the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said—
  "We must respect every vested interest, every proprietary right, every legitimate claim, and in every case of doubt that may arise we must honestly endeavour to strike the balance in favour of the other party and against ourselves."
  Now, as he thought, he had made out to the satisfaction of the House that the individuals to whom he referred had a just and equitable right, he called on the right hon. Gentleman to consider favourably their "legitimate claim," and. if need be, "to strike the balance against himself and in their favour."
  Clause (Provision for the officers of Cathedral Churches in Ireland)—(Mr. Bentinck,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
  MR. PIMsaid, he hoped the Government would accede to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for White-haven (Mr. Bentinck.) If these persons had not an absolute freehold right, they had certainly a fair equitable claim. Their predecessors had held their offices
  756
  for life, and they themselves had had no doubt that they would do the same. It appeared to him that that was more than a case of doubt; that the case strongly inclined in favour of these officers; and he hoped the Government would accept the clause.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he had himself already brought the case of these persons before the House, and he would not repeat his previous arguments; but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that members of the stipendiary choir at Armagh, though not the holders of freehold offices, have claims on the freehold. He would give his earnest support to the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, it was quite impossible for him to accede to that proposal. In truth, the matter had been discussed before, and decided upon by the House. It would be quite absurd to treat an organist or a singer in a choir as a freehold officer. If a singer lost his voice was he to be compensated out of the funds of the Dean and Chapter for the rest of his life? The Bill carefully drew a distinction between offices which were freehold and those which were non-freehold, and in regard to the latter category words were introduced at the end of Section 17 to give the Commissioners the widest discretion in dealing with those non-freehold officers where it was conceived that they were, or might be, deprived of any income by that Act; and that was the utmost limit to which they could in reason possibly go. Inasmuch as it was quite possible that some of those officers connected with cathedrals might be able to establish that they had a freehold office, they ought not, perhaps, to be precluded from establishing that. For instance, there was a very nice question connected with one office—that of the Master of Song in the cathedral to which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bentinck) had referred; and there was also the case of the vergers of cathedrals. What he therefore proposed to do in order to meet those cases was to insert in Clause 16, line 22, after ''Ireland," the words "or other holder of a freehold office of a similar nature connected with such church." That would enable everyone of those officers to establish that he had a freehold office if he could, and if he could not he must fall back upon Section 17.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would not press his clause at present; but he wished to correct his right hon. and learned Friend on one point. If his right hon. and learned Friend walked across to Westminster Abbey he would find a number of singing men who had freehold offices limited to the extent that he had pointed out; and it was not possible in Westminster Abbey or in any of these cases for the Dean and Chapter to deprive those singers of their places if they lost their voices. Under the circumstances, however, he would accept the crumb thrown out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PIM MR. PIM moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following clause:—
  (Compensation to ecclesiastical persons not otherwise provided for.)
  "In any case, not here in otherwise provided for, in which any ecclesiastical person shall or may be deprived of yearly income, or may suffer pecuniary loss in any manner through the operation of this Act, the Commissioners may, if they think fit, pay to such person such sum by way of compensation, cither by a single payment or by a life annuity, as they shall, with the consent of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, determine."
  Clause (Compensation to ecclesiastical persons not otherwise provided for,)—(Mr. Pim,)—brought up, and read the first time.—(Mr. Pim.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would not be in the power of the Government to accede to a clause worded so widely. Its operations extended not merely to any persons deprived of a yearly income—though that was wide enough—but to any person who might suffer pecuniary loss, and that in any manner, under the operation of the Act. The words, though confined at present to ecclesiastical persons, would, if extended to the laity, carry compensation to a tradesman who had been in the habit of supplying some rich ecclesiastical establishment. The Commissioners would carefully examine any case that might be raised.
  MR. PIMsaid, he would withdraw the clause, hoping that the Government might find it possible to adopt it in sonic
  758
  amended form providing for extreme cases.
  Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, he had communicated with the Attorney General for Ireland relative to the clause of which he had given notice for admitting the proctor of the diocesan court of Ferns, a solicitor. He understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a Bill for transferring matrimonial causes to the Probate Court would shortly be introduced, and therefore he should withdraw it.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, in moving after Clause 65, to insert the following clause—
  (Annuities not to be forfeited because annuitants do not consent to alterations in articles of Church.)
  "No alteration which may be made in the present articles, doctrines, or formularies of the said Church shall be deemed binding in law upon any person entitled to an annuity under this Act, who shall not consent thereto, or agree to be bound thereby, so as to render him liable to forfeit or be deprived of his annuity, in case of his not conforming to such alteration, and by reason thereof."
  said, he should be disappointed if any objections were raised to the principle which it embodied. Nothing could be stronger or more sincere than the declarations which had been made that in the view of the Government it was strict right and mere justice not to take away the vested rights of individuals without giving them full compensation for their life interests. As matters at present stood, no life interest of a clergyman could be taken away except for non-compliance with the conditions upon which his emoluments were held, and no one could deprive an ecclesiastical person of his freehold by imposing upon him new terms of ecclesiastical communion. The House had declared that the present life interests should be respected, but subject to the condition that the discharge of spiritual duties was also to be continuous. It was provided by the Bill that the present rules and ordinances of the Church should continue, subject to a power of alteration after the 1st of January, 1871, by the new Governing Body which was then to come into existence. Such a power of alteration was, of course, perfectly good as regarded those who agreed to be bound by it, but it should not be exercised to the detri-

  759
  ment of those who had acquired life interests under the existing condition of things. Power ought not to be given to the new Church Body to compel clergymen to perform duties different, in a religions sense, from those which they had undertaken, or to submit to new terms of communion, as the condition of continuing to receive the payments to which they were now entitled. Originally he had given notice of this Motion in somewhat wider terms; but as it was apprehended that difficulties might, perhaps, be raised by unreasonable persons as to the exact meaning of the words "discipline and ordinances." it was thought better to limit the wording of the clause to "articles, doctrines, and formularies," because these were distinct and intelligible, and comprehended everything that could be matter of conscience to an individual in the discharge of his spiritual duties. He need not vindicate the use of the words articles and doctrines, and he need not say much as to formularies; but it should be remembered that formularies might operate as exclusive tests. Take the case, for instance, of the Ordination Service, or of the Offices for the administration of the Sacraments. A change in any of those formularies might be considered by those disapproving as involving important points of doctrine. It was quite right that the future authorities of the Church should have the power of making arrangements with regard to the government of the Church; but it would be most improper that they should have the power of introducing changes, so as to take away the livelihood of men who conscientiously objected to those changes. It might be said that it was not likely such changes would be made; but there could surely be no harm in guarding against the possibility of terms being imposed which would alter the spiritual conditions of tenure of an ecclesiastical office—changes which, as matters now stood, could not be introduced. He trusted that, the House would not permit such gross and flagrant injustice to be inflicted upon individuals as that they should lose their annuities, not in consequence of any breach by them of the regulations of their Church, but because they were unable to comply with alterations of substance in those regulations which might be made without their consent.
  Clause (Annuities not to be forfeited because annuitants do not consent to alteration in articles of Church,)—(Sir Roundell Palmer,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."—(Sir Roundell Palmer.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in supposing that upon the main principle which formed the foundation of his argument, the Government were ready to agree with him. It was not to the principle, but to the mode of applying it suggested by the clause, that they objected. The Bill would, undoubtedly, effect an immense change in the condition of both the Irish Church and its clerical officers, and in their endeavour to carry out that change the Government were bound to the observance of two points which it was not very easy to reconcile, and the difference between which the clause of the hon. and learned Member brought out in its sharpest force. The first of these points was the protection of the individual rights of the clergy, whether as regarded pecuniary matters or their status. The second point to be kept in view was that this great change should be effected with as little shock and disturbance to the general community of the Church as possible. In framing the Bill, these two points had been kept in view as far as possible. The hon. and learned Member had argued with perfect truth that by this Bill they were going to place the clergymen in a position in which they would be liable to have the terms of their communion altered without their individual consent. They were subject to that liability at the present time, under the authority of Parliament and of their ecclesiastical constitution. Under the Bill, however, a new ecclesiastical constitution would be created, and the argument of the hon. and learned Member was that they should not be made liable to the action of an ecclesiastical constitution without their own consent. Some time since, in answer to a question put by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball), he had stated that in the whole of the communications which he had had from the Irish clergy no de-sire had been expressed for the particu-

  761
  lar kind of protection proposed to be given by the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause, and that, therefore, in his opinion, the feeling of the House would be that it would be better not to disturb the action of the new Body by recognizing unnecessarily an element of dissent. The truth of that statement had since been modified by what had occurred. One single clergyman, whose attention had probably been drawn to the matter by the debate upon it, had written to him asking that some protection might be afforded the clergy against the possible intolerant action of the new Body. Under these circumstances, when the hon. and learned Member placed his clause upon the Paper, he had laid that clause before persons of the greatest authority, weight, and judgment in the Irish Church, and had invited their judgment upon it. The effect of the hon. and learned Member's clause, in the opinion of the Bill, was to allow persons to join the new Body, to take part in its proceedings, to make laws binding upon others, and then to dissent from those laws themselves, and to agree to some laws and to reject others. There might be 100 clergymen, each dissenting from 100 different parts of new regulations relating to articles, doctrines, and formularies, so that there would be a different state of the law for every clergyman in the disestablished Church. This would be to carry the principle of anarchy and confusion into the new Church: toties quoties, a man might be able to obey and disobey, to assent and dissent. This, it appeared to him, would be a principle of anarchy in practice. He could understand that an existing clergy-man might lake part in the general action that would be binding upon all those who should become clergymen after the passing of this Act, and yet that he was to be at liberty not simply to retire and withdraw, but to remain, and yet dissent, from particular acts of the Body. It now appeared to him quite plain that some small portion of the Irish clergy were anxious that they should have some protection against a possible spirit of intolerance that might prevail in the disestablished Body; and, therefore, in his opinion, those who wished to do so should be permitted to sever themselves from that Body, and to give them such security for their pecuniary rights as Parliament might think
  762
  just. Some persons had suggested that the dissentients should be allowed to go on receiving a proportion of the commutation money of their annuities, while others had proposed that they should receive the whole of their annuities. Upon that point he was indifferent as long as some clear, definite, and intelligible principle were adopted. The question was not one between the State and the Church, but between the Church and its own clergy, and therefore, in no way, involved the principle of the Bill. Having submitted the clause of the hon. and learned Member to the consideration of those whom he believed to have most weight and authority in the Irish Church, he had been informed that the general opinion was adverse to it. They were of opinion that some provision should be inserted in the Bill, but that it should be of a nature to enable those who desired it to discharge themselves of their own obligations, while, at the same time, they were to have sufficient security for their pecuniary interests. Undoubtedly that was the opinion held by persons of weight and authority, and who. he felt bound to say, had been objecting parties to the Bill from the first. In the teeth of such an opinion, it was not possible for him to agree to the clause proposed by his hon. and learned Friend. On the other hand, if there was a general opinion among the body of the clergy that such a clause should be adopted it was no part of the duty of the Government to oppose it. The question raised by the clause was not one of disestablishment or disendowment. The conclusion to which they arrived was this—that there was another branch of the legislature in which the Church was far more fully represented, in which there were Irish Prelates whose own interests were involved in the clause; and probably the ultimate form of any provision to be framed would be more satisfactorily considered there than in this House. At the same time he did not decline to entertain the question in the House of Commons if it was expedient to entertain it there. He spoke in the presence of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and he alluded more particularly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin—who, he believed, were of the same opinion as he was, that the question was not ripe for decision in that House. He could not there-

  763
  fore accept the clause of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Prime Minister had accused the hon. and learned Member for Richmond of attempting to introduce an element of confusion into the future Church Body. He wished to call attention to the postulate -which the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to as- sumo in order to maintain that proposition. It was that the laity had no concern in the effects of this measure. Now, the terms on which the clergy hold then freeholds and their salaries as curates were that they should abide by the discipline and teach the doctrines of what was at present the United Church of England and Ireland. By these obligations they were bound by the law. as it now stands. These obligations were enforced by law upon the clergy for the protection of the laity from the inculcation of unsound doctrine by the clergy. The refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to entertain the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was equivalent to a declaration that no legal security was to be given to the laity of the Irish Church that the clergy who enjoy the benefices of that Church—or if this Bill pass, the clergy retaining their position for life—should not hereafter depart from the doctrines and discipline of the Church. The postulate of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was not one recognized by the Church of England, but. it was one on which the Church of Rome relied, because in the Church of Rome the clergy governed the laity, while in the United Church of England and Ireland the clergy and laity were considered equal, in their relative positions, as members of the Church, and were relatively bound by the same laws. Nothing could more forcibly illustrate the disorganizing character of this Bill than the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond. It indicated that the Church was going to be made over to a Body, of whom it was hoped that, they would depart from the doctrines held by her at the present time. It might be right to give a new Church entire freedom; but they were not dealing with a new Church. They were dealing with a Church whose clergy by their ordination vows were bound to the doctrines of the United Church of England and Ireland. Compensation
  764
  was to be given to that clergy, and therefore he thought that the refusal of the Government to agree to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman afforded the strongest evidence that the intention of the framers of this Bill was not only to disestablish and disendow, but also to disorganize the Irish Church.
  DR. BALLsaid, that before coming down to the House to-day, he had had an opportunity of learning the opinions of persons of the highest authority, and it was in favour of the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer). Since he came down the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had communicated to him the opinions which he had received, and he felt bound to say that they were those of persons of the greatest authority. This showed that on the question of the clause there was a difference of opinion among persons of the greatest weight. His own opinion was that the laity would be perfectly safe without this clause; but as the incomes paid to the clergy were paid to them for the benefit of the laity, he thought that in this case each member of the Church was entitled to say non hœc in fœdera veni, and to ask that the Church Body might be afforded the protection which the clause would give them. There was, however, a good deal of force in what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in reference to the clause being discussed and considered in "another place," where great experience and knowledge could be brought to bear upon it; but for himself he must say that if there were a division he must, in deference to those with whom he had conferred, vote for the clause.
  MR. BAGWELLthought the less this Bill interfered with the future government of the Church Body the better. He did not agree in the opinion that this question should be left to the decision of the right rev. Prelates in "another place." The Church of Ireland was in a very different position to that of Scot- land, and his opinion was that the more they were permitted to settle their own matters the easier it would be to carry out their intention of disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Church without injury to the Protestant faith. Let there not be a new Church with old

  765
  laws. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the laity was not concerned. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Except as part of the general body of the Church.] He had, however, very great doubts whether they would be able to form a Church Governing Body at all; and, if they did, he should be still more surprised if they did not fight over every point that was under their consideration.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member (Mr. Bagwell) had solved the difficulty, for if no Governing Body were got together it could not matter whether the clause were passed or not. Agreeing as he did with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond as to the necessity for securing a provision for the clergy of the Irish Church, and strongly desiring that the present articles, doctrines, and formularies of the Church should, be regarded as binding on the Church in its new condition; still, he felt considerable difficulty about this clause, because it appeared to him to go to rather an extreme length, and because it might possibly give rise to difficulty where none would otherwise exist. The use of the word "formularies," which might, for instance, embrace alterations in the Prayer Book, might possibly afford an opportunity to some persons to avail themselves of the provisions of this clause in a manner which was not intended by his hon. and learned Friend and those who agreed with him. He was, however, rather inclined to ask his hon. and learned Friend to assent to the course which had been suggested, and to allow the clause to be dealt with by the right rev. Prelates, when the Bill came before them for their consideration.
  MR. HENLEYremarked, that the compensation which, under the 14th clause, was to be given to the clergymen of the Irish Church was intended, as he understood the Bill, to continue as long as they performed the duties at present in trusted to them. If the clergy had not sufficient protection in this direction, he should be glad to assent to anything which would tend to give security to their position; but he could not help thinking that this clause would also open the door to those clergymen, who felt disposed to do so, to retain their money and do the duty of another Church. Though desirous that the clergy should be protected from any attempts to force
  766
  religious changes upon them, he should feel safer with the 14th clause as it stood than with the clause now under discussion.
  MR. BRUENthought there could be no mistake in supposing that the duties they would have to perform would be to teach according to the doctrines and formularies of the Church of England. There was a discrepancy between the 14th and 20th clauses, which could only be explained by some such clause as that moved by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERthought, that after the opinions which had been expressed on both sides of the House, it would be wrong in him to do otherwise than defer to the suggestions which had been made, and to allow the matter to be considered after the Bill had passed through this House. He must, however, express his surprise at finding a man, of the great acuteness which his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Henley) possessed, so misunderstanding the clause and its connection with the Bill. If his right hon. Friend had read the clause in conjunction with Clause 20 of the Bill, he would not have made the observations which had fallen from him.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. BALLrose to move the following clause:—
  (Benefices of Saint Mary, Saint Thomas, and Saint George, Dublin).
  "The Commissioners shall ascertain whether the Prebendaries of Christ Church, Dublin, are entitled to any right of succession in the benefices of Saint Mary, Saint Thomas, and Saint George, Dublin, and if so, shall award to them respectively such sum in compensation for the same as shall seem to them just."
  The Chancellor of Christ Church had a right of presenting himself to a benefice in the county of Kildare, and the three prebendaries had the right of presenting to the benefices mentioned in the clause. That would not at first sight appear strictly to resolve itself into a right of succession, but they invariably exercised these rights of patronage in their own favour, and there was not, he believed, a single instance on record of their having conferred the benefices upon any but themselves. The three Commissioners who had been appointed were persons in whom the House might have perfect confidence, and this was a matter that the House might safely leave to their discretion and judgment.
  MR. GLADSTONEaccepted the clause, and suggested the amendment of it by the insertion of words to make it read, "are or are not entitled" and "if so entitled." He said there might be a risk of doing injustice if they were to settle the matter, and he wished to hand it over to the Commissioners without prejudice.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill
  DR. BALL DR. BALL moved, after Clause 82, to insert the following new Clause:—
  (Commissioners may purchase surrender or assignment of lease).
  "The Commissioners may, in order to the commutation of tithe rent-charge, purchase the surrender or assignment of any subsisting lease of tithe rent-charge made by an ecclesiastical person or corporation."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, the clause was a proper one, and there was no objection to it.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  DR. BALL DR. BALL moved the following new Clause:—
  (Compensation to trustees of Armagh Observatory).
  "Whereas the trustees of the Observatory at Armagh hold a lease of the rectorial tithes of the parish of Carlingford, customarily renewable by the see of Armagh, and under the provisions of this Bill such lease will cease to be renewable, and the a foresaid scientific institution be deprived of a portion of the annual income available for its support, it is hereby provided that the Commissioners shall pay to the trustees of the said institution such sum as shall appear to them a fair compensation for the loss of the said customary right of renewal."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the Armagh Observatory was a distinguished astronomical institution, and was one of private foundation. All the Archbishops, following the example of Dr. Robinson, had renewed the lease it held of certain tithes without any fine. Under the Bill the Commissioners would have no power of renewing that lease, and all he asked was that the Commissioners might be enabled to give such a sum as they thought fit in lieu of the customary right of having the lease renewed without fine.
  Clause (Compensation to trustees of Armagh Observatory.)—(Dr. Ball,)—brought up, and road the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the said Clause be now read a second time."—(Dr. Ball.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN), admitting the fame of the observatory, regretted that it was impossible for the Government to accede to the proposal. The trustees of the observatory could not be dealt with otherwise than as trustees of Church property; and, if compensation were given to them on the principle contained in this clause, it would be hard to say why it should not be given to every tenant holding under any see in Ireland. To carry out the clause would almost amount to the dreadful act of sacrilege. If the observatory suffered any pecuniary loss, that might be a good ground for claiming for it a grant from the Government as for a scientific institution. To do it by this Bill would be foreign to its purpose and contrary to its principle, and for these reasons the Government regretted that they could not accept the clause.
  DR. BALLhoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear in mind this suggestion, in case the observatory should hereafter make application for a grant of public money.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERrose to propose the omission, from the 10th line of the Preamble, of the words "nor for the teaching of religion." He said he could quite understand that those words had been put in the Preamble for good reasons. The Members of the Government had given certain pledges to the House and the country as to the principles on which the Bill was to be framed, and it was very natural and perfectly justifiable that they should put on the face of the Bill and in the Preamble the strongest possible expressions, to show that they intended to adhere strictly to the engagement which they had given, which, indeed, they had done. But these words grated strongly upon his feelings, and he could not help thinking they must grate on the feelings of many others. The peculiar circumstances of Ireland might be such that it might not be desirable to apply the surplus funds for the maintenance of any Church or clergy; but it was certainly not necessary for any practical purpose to declare that the funds should not be used to teach religion, as

  769
  if that were a thing bad in itself. His objection might be considered a sentimental one. They had heard a good deal about sentiment during the discussion on the Bill; and it had been justly regarded as a matter, which might sometimes have substantial weight and important consequences. But if the Government did not agree to the omission of the words he would not ask the House to divide.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "nor for the teaching of religion."—(Sir Roundell Palmer.)
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, he hoped the Government would; assent to the proposal; it would be more consistent to do so because, funds having been given to the Presbyterian Church and the College of Maynooth, it could not be said the funds were not devoted to the teaching of religion.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he had the deepest possible respect, in common with those sitting round him, for the hon. and learned Member, and the views he had expressed; but he confessed the reasons given for the alteration proposed were not satisfactory. Those reasons appeared to amount to a declaration that the omission would menu nothing; but it Mould be scarcely possible to make that omission without at least the appearance of a change of intention. As they had framed the Bill—not, of course, without many painful sacrifices made under a sense of duty—in consequence of a well-defined intention, and as that intention had not been changed, it would be impossible to omit the words ''nor for the teaching of religion" from the Preamble.
  MR. G. GREGORYsupported the Motion, on the ground that the clause under which the money could be given to reformatory and industrial school, sconnected with conventual or monastic institutions, was inconsistent with the Preamble.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the words of the Preamble afforded a part of the assurance given to the country, and it was necessary to complete that assurance. The state of the House showed that hon. Members evidently did not expect a division would be taken on the question, nor that it would be seriously pressed.
  MR. SCOURFIELDobjected to any conclusion being drawn from the state of the House, and complained that the Bill ignored all religion whatever in Ireland. He must, therefore, protest against it.
  MR. BREWERobserved on the point of consistency that, although the giving of compensation might incidentally result in the teaching of religion, the Bill itself made no direct provisions to that end.
  Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. O'NEILLdesired to limit the power of the Commissioners to some extent. At present they were arbitrary, and far greater than the powers given to any body of men in times of quiet. The Commissioners would stand in the double relation of litigant and judge—an invidious position, and unsatisfactory to those who came before them, and there would be no appeal from their decision. He hoped the House would be of opinion that this power of deciding without appeal was too large to be given to any persons, no matter how great their ability or high their character. The object of the House and of the Bill was to provide a tribunal which should command the full and entire confidence of those who might come before it, and it was with that view he wished to submit the Amendments which he had put on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, to leave out the word "whatsoever."—(Mr. O'Neill.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'whatsoever' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsupported the Amendment, believing that such powers ought not to be conferred on any body of men. The Commissioners were empowered to decide on all matters. Powers of appeal was given to the clergy and to private patrons, but no power of appeal was given to the laity. Questions might arise as to the amount of the tithe rent-charge and the boundaries of glebes and Church lands, and it would not be fair that such parties should have no appeal except to the Commissioners who had decided against them. Unless some appeal were given, as to matters of law and practice, great injustice might be done.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERpointed out that the Amendments of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Neill) were merely verbal, and would make no practical difference in the operation of the Bill. He did not think that anything would be gained by those who had any interest in the Church by giving facilities for the multiplication of litigation.
  DR. BALLconcurred in the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend. If power of appeal were given it might induce the Commissioners to restrain their liberality, in as much as they would have before their eyes the possibility of an appeal to a court which would be bound by the strict rules of evidence, and might therefore cut down the compensation awarded by the Commissioners. In his opinion anyone who was entitled to compensation had a popular tribunal to appeal to.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that Clause 10, as it stood at present, might have the effect of preventing the appointment of Archbishops and Bishops in the Disestablished Church, for the clause consisted of these sweeping words—
  "Save as herein-after mentioned, no person shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed by Her Majesty or any other person or corporation to any archbishopric, bishopric, benefice, or cathedral preferment in or connected with the said Church."
  The words "save as hereinafter mentioned" related to mere temporary appointments during the two years in which such appointments might be made. He thought the interpretation clause, so far as concerned the words "benefices fend cathedral preferments," did not exclude all ambiguity with regard to the application even of those words; and, as the words "archbishopric" and "bishopric" were not interpreted at all, when they took those words in connection with the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, he apprehended there could be no doubt that the 10th clause at it stood would absolutely prohibit, after the temporary period, the appointment of any Archbishop or Bishop of the disestablished Church. That certainly was not the intention of the Government. For the purpose of preventing the clause having the effect of prohibiting such appointments, he would suggest that after the word "corpora-
  772
  tion," in the 10th clause, the following words be inserted:—"By virtue of any right of patronage or power of appointment now existing." That would comprehend every species of patronage, Royal or other, which might prevail, but would not extend to any which might exist under the new system of the Disestablished Church. Before concluding, perhaps the House would allow him to express an earnest hope, which he thought justified by the answer given a few days ago by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the Government would think it right under the circumstances in which the Established as well as the Roman Catholic Church would be placed by this Act, not only to support the Motion made by the hon. Member (Mr. Mac Evoy), to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but to appoint an early day in the present Session, or to give other facilities for passing the hon. Member's Bill into law. He thought it would be most unsatisfactory to pass the present Bill, and at the same time to leave upon the statute book a measure like the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, to which he, for one, had always been opposed, and which had turned out as useless as it was predicted that it would prove. Unless that Act were repealed, the Disestablished Church would be prohibited by law from having any diocesan titles. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the insertion of these words in Clause 10—"By virtue of any right of patronage or power of appointment now existing."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, he was glad to say the Amendment was one which the Government could accept. It really did carry out the intention which Her Majesty's Government originally entertained in framing the clause.
  DR. BALLsaid, he had originally called attention to the difficulty, but had felt himself unable to suggest words to overcome it, and therefore expressed his satisfaction at the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, and at its adoption by the Government.
  MR. VANCEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had recommended that, as a necessary consequence of the passing of the present Bill, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act should be repealed. But he would suggest that before they decided on the repeal of so important

  773
  a measure they should wait and see that the present Bill actually became law.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHARLEY MR. CHARLEY moved to insert in Clause 18, page 8, after the word "person," in line 6, the following words:—
  "Who shall make application to them in writing to this effect, for or in respect of any rent-charge in lieu of tithes vested in or belonging to him as lay impropriator, and also the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to any person."
  The hon. Gentleman said that he had, put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government respecting the mode in which he proposed to deal with the impropriate tithe rent-charge of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, said that there was a distinction between public and private property; but it must be remembered that the impropriate tithes were originally public property, quite as much as the tithes of the Church. Could anything be more anomalous than that these tithes, to which, if to any ecclesiastical property in Ireland, the Church of Rome could show a title, and which are not devoted to religious uses, as the donors intended; should continue to be paid to laymen, while the Church tithes which, or the greater part of which, never belonged to the Church of Rome, and which are devoted, as the donors intended, to religious uses, should be merged in the land? The very name of this property suggested the mode in which it originated. First, when the grasping monks seized upon the property of the Church, paying a vicar a miserable pittance for performing the spiritual duties. Secondly, when a grasping King seized upon the property of the grasping monks, and lavished it upon his equally grasping lay favourites. The Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Cork and other Whig Peers, stood in the shoes of those lay favourites at the present day. The impropriate tithe rent-charge, he believed, of twenty-six parishes belonged to the Duke of Devonshire, and of fifteen parishes to the Earl of Cork. It was. of course, impossible for him to say whether the fact that this impropriate tithe rent-charge was not dealt with in the Bill was owing to the circumstance that the Duke of Devonshire had exerted himself to se-
  774
  cure the large majority at the back of the right hon. Gentleman. The house of Cavendish had certainly assisted as much as any noble family in the country to bring about the state of things at present existing. And it was to the fact that the Duke of Devonshire had hounded on the cry against the Church, while drawing large revenues from these impropriate tithes, that the noble Lord the Postmaster General owed the loss of his seat in North Lancashire, and the necessity of finding a more congenial seat among the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists. It was not, however, for Gentlemen upon the Conservative side of the House, and especially for members of the Bar, like himself, to emulate the revolutionary policy of Gentlemen on the other side, and to raise a cry for dispossessing wealthy Whig Peers of their property; but something ought certainly to be done to remove the anomaly of tithes continuing to be payable to laymen after tithes payable to the Church have ceased to exist. This was, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, a relic of Protestant ascendancy, and he ought, therefore, to assist in removing it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line C, after the word "person," to insert the words "who shall make application to them in writing to this effect, for or in respect of any rent-charge in lieu of tithes vested in or belonging to him as lay impropriator, and also the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to any person."—(Mr. Charley.)
  MR. GLADSTONEreminded the hon. Member that this was not a tithe Bill; it was a Bill for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, consequently they could only deal with the tithes that were in the hands of the Church. Having taken possession of those tithes on the part of the State, it was for them to settle the process by which they should make them over to the landlord; but the hon. Member referred to the impropriate tithe rent-charge, which was wholly external to this Bill. The clause, after all, would not. if adopted, settle the question, for it only provided that the Commissioners should purchase from these willing to sell; and they might still have the country patched over with impropriate tithe rent-charge, even after the provision of the hon. Gentlemen was adopted. He would not say it was not a subject

  775
  fit and proper to consider, but it was a question totally distinct from this Bill.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMER SIR ROUNDELL PALMER, moved to omit the words, in Clause 22, page 9, line 23, "but not further or otherwise," and insert "and to such further extent as Her Majesty shall think fit to authorize." Unless this Amendment wore adopted Her Majesty would have no power under any circumstances to authorize the Church Body to hold lands other than those they would hold under the Bill, and they would, therefore, not be able to invest any savings they might effect in land.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 23, to leave out the words "but not further or otherwise," in order to insert the words "and to such further extent as Her Majesty shall think fit to authorise,"—(Sir Roundell Palmer,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the subject had been discussed upon a former occasion, and a vote had been taken upon the proposal of a right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Ball) to the effect that all restraint on the holding of land in mortmain by the Church Corporation should be removed. The division had then been taken on the Amendment: but the question really involved had been whether the House should or should not affirm the clause as it stood. They had then decided by a considerable majority, in a very full House, in favour of the clause, and he did not think they would, at present, be justified in reversing that decision. In looking forward to the future ecclesiastical position of Ireland, they had to contemplate a perfect equality of all bodies before the law. If power were given, as proposed by the Amendment, to acquire quantities of land, there might be hereafter a renewal of jealousies in Ireland, arising from the extensive holding of landed property by any religious community.
  SIR ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. BALL DR. BALL moved, in Clause 23, page 10, line 5, after "made," insert—
  "But with power to the representative body of the said Church to make such arrangements in respect of the commuted value of the annuity with the annuitant, and as to the disposal of such portion thereof as shall after such arrangements be applicable to Church purposes, as shall to such body deem fit."
  That Amendment would, he believed, only carry out the general object of the clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he thought there were very good reasons why some special provision should be made for the maintenance of some, at least, of the cathedrals throughout Ireland. Considerable sums had been expended either in completing them or repairing them by private individuals, and those persons would never have incurred that outlay if they had not been under the impression that ample funds would be available for the preservation of the buildings. The late Sir Benjamin Leo Guinness had expended upwards of £100,000 on St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin. A sum of £28,000 had been expended by the late Primate on the Armagh Cathedral, and a further sum of £7,000 raised for the purpose by private contributions. The cathedral of Down had been lately repaired at a cost of many thousands of pounds; the cathedral of Cork had been restored by means of an outlay of £25,000, the greater portion of which sum was derived from a fund left by a private individual; and in Kilmore, Kilkenny, Limerick, and other places, similar works had been undertaken. It was possible that in the great cities the necessary funds would be raised by private subscription for the maintenance of the cathedrals; but he believed that in the smaller towns those edifices, not being parish churches or having any peculiar congregation, would fall into decay unless some special fund was provided for their repair. The cathedrals must necessarily fall into ruins unless Parliament did something, and he appealed to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to avert such a catastrophe taking place.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 16, after the word "therein," to insert the words "The Commissioners may by order declare what sum of money will be required towards maintaining any cathedral in respect to

  777
  which an application is made as aforesaid by the representative body of the said Church to the Commissioners, and which is of such a size as in the opinion of the Commissioners to make it beyond the means of the congregation which will probably use the same to maintain it in proper repair, and shall pay such sum to the representative body of the said Church, to be set apart by them, and applied for the purpose of maintaining the said cathedral: Provided, That the number of cathedrals towards the maintenance of which money may be contributed by the Commissioners as aforesaid shall not exceed twelve."—(Mr. Vance.)
  MR. SCOURFIELDsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Armagh. The Irish cathedrals had done much for the cultivation of Church music, and England was much indebted to them on that account. He understood that Handel's Messiah was first produced in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. SULLIVAN)said, it was quite impossible that the Government could agree to this Amendment. The question had been decided in even a much stronger form on a division when the Bill was in Committee.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken in thinking that this was the same question as the one to which he had alluded as having been decided in Committee. What had been decided was that funds were not to be given to the Church Body to maintain certain of those cathedrals as "national monuments." Irish Churchmen objected to receive the money on those terms; because they thought, that if they accepted the wages of the State for maintaining those el lurches as national monuments, their possession of them might be hereafter imperilled. As an English Churchman he thanked them, but the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Armagh was not open to that objection.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. STAPLETON MR. STAPLETON moved, at the end of sub-section 1, Clause 26, to insert words authorizing the Church Body, at the option of representative body, to vest Church burial grounds in the Guardians of the Poor Law Union, within which the same shall be situate. The clause provided for the right of way for persons resorting to the church for Divine worship; that they should not permit funerals to take place during the usual
  778
  times of Divine service in the church and otherwise providing for existing interests.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCE SIR HERVEY BRUCE moved, in Clause 27, an Amendment, the object of which was to make over to the Church Body the glebe houses free of charge in cases in which there was no building debt upon them.
  Amendment proposed, In page 13, line 4, to leave out from the word "say" to the word ''where," in line 9.—(Sir Hervey Bruce.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government adhered to the decision on this point arrived at in Committee by a largo majority.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved in page 14, line 34. after "expedient," to insert—
  "And where any person proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he has at his own cost recovered by legal proceedings for the benefit of the said Church any property which will remain at the disposal of the said Commissioners under the provisions of this Act, they may pay to him such sum in respect thereof as they may think fair and just, not exceeding in any case the value of the property so recovered."
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. BALL DR. BALL moved to add to the clause words which will authorize the Commissioners to pay to any persons the costs bonâ fide incurred in proving a private endowment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. M'MAHONcomplained that the Bill, as it at present stood, made no provision for the continuance of the salaries of the Professors and officials of Maynooth in case of illness or accident—a provision which was always secured in the case of Presbyterian ministers, and which, by an Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond, was made for the ministers of the Irish Church. The Trustees would feel themselves prohibited from doing more than what was strictly enjoined by law, while the College, with its diminished revenue, could not afford to be so liberal as it hitherto had been.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 21, line 11, after the word "sum," to add the words "Provided always, That if any of

  779
  the present officials and Professors of the College of Maynooth shall be disabled from discharging his duty by age, sickness, or permanent infirmity, or any cause other than his own wilful default, he shall receive from the Trustees of the said College an annuity equal to the amount of his present salary."—(Mr. M'Mahon.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in the communications which they had had with the authorities of Maynooth no demand of this kind had been put forward. The Government could not assent to the clause because it created rights which at present did not exist. An allowance of this kind was secured to the Presbyterian ministers by a regulation of their Church, and to the clergy of the Irish Church because they possessed a freehold, but to accept this clause would be to give the Professors of Maynooth an entirely new tenure.
  Question. "That those words be there added." put, and negatived.
  MR. MAGNIACcontended that the terms on which by the 49th clause laud was to be sold were too severe to allow the present holders in many cases to become the purchasers. He therefore moved the following clause, in which, he had adopted almost verbatim the words employed in the tithe rent-charge clauses.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 24, line 35, after the word "number," to add the words "and upon the application of any purchaser purchasing under the right of preemption as herein provided, any quantity of land not exceeding fifty acres of which he is the bonâ fide occupier, the Commissioners may declare his purchase-money, or any part thereof, to be payable by fifty-two annual instalments, each at the rate of four pounds nine shillings per centum of the purchase-money, to be secured to the satisfaction of the Commissioners."—(Mr. Magniac.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that to give a purchaser who purchased under the right of pre-emption a positive preference in pecuniary terms would be selling to him upon terms different from those in which they sold to anybody else. That was an exception which it would not be safe to adopt; and. above all, they could not accede to the Amendmendment because it required no deposit. They had required that one-fourth of the purchase money should be deposited, and it was going beyond the ordinary rules of mortgage to say that a man should become a purchaser by undertaking to pay small sums annually.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. W. SHAWdeclared his intention not to persist in a Motion of which he had given notice. He had some doubts about there being a surplus; but if he saw any chance or mishap come to the Bill in "another place," he would take care that a better chance was given for the interests of the rate-payers in Ireland being looked after.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that all the Amendments of which notice had been given having been disposed of, the House might wish to know the order of business in reference to the further progress of the Bill. It would be necessary to introduce a clause with respect to stamps upon vesting orders, and for that par-pose there must be a limited re-commitment in the Friday after the Recess; and he proposed to take the Order for Recommitment for Friday, May 28, so that it would not interfere with the third reading on Monday, May 31.
  Bill re-committed for Friday 28th May, in respect of a Clause for imposing a Stamp Duty on any Order of the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland operating as a Conveyance or Mortgage of Property.
  Bill, as amended, to be printed. [Bill 123.]

WAYS AND MEANS—CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES.

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Re-committed Resolution relative to Customs Duties on Beer read, and amended, as follows:—
  (1.) Resolved, That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Beer and Ale, as denominated in the Tariff, on importation into Great Britain and Ireland, the following Duties shall be charged, viz.:

  Beer and Ale, viz.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Mum, the barrel of 36 gallons

  1

  1

  0

  Spruce, the worts of which were before fermentation of a specific gravity not exceeding One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons

  1

  1

  0

  Exceeding One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons

  1

  4

  0

  Of other sorts, viz.:

  Beer, the worts of which were before fermentation of a specific gravity not exceeding One Thousand and Sixty-five Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons

  0

  8

  0

  781

  £

  s.

  d.

  Exceeding One Thousand and Sixty-five Degrees, and not exceeding One Thousand and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons

  0

  11

  0

  Exceeding One Thousand and Ninety Degrees, the barrel of 36 gallons

  0

  16

  0

  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be granted, charged, levied, and paid on and after the 1st day of January 1870, in and throughout Great Britain the following Duties of Excise upon Licenses to be taken out annually by the Persons who shall employ any Male Servant, or who shall keep any Carriage, or Horse or Mule, or who shall wear or use any Armorial Bearings, or who shall exercise or carry on the Trade of a Horsedealer.

  Male Servants.

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every Male Servant employed cither wholly or partially in any of the following capacities, viz. Maître d'Hôtel, House Steward, Master of the Horse, Groom of the Chambers, Valetde Chambre, Butler, Under Butler, Clerk of the Kitchen, Confectioner, Cook, House Porter, Footman, Page, Waiter, Coachman, Groom, Postillion, Stable Boy or Helper in the Stables, Gardener, Under Gardener, Park Keeper, Game Keeper or Game Watcher, Huntsman and Whipper-in, or in any capacity involving the duties of any of the above descriptions of Servants by whatever style the person acting in such capacity may be called

  0

  15

  0

  Carriages.

  For every Carriage drawn by a Horse or Mule, or by Horses or Mules (except a waggon, cart, or other vehicle used solely for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, and whereon the Christian name and surname, and place of abode or place of business of the owner, shall be visibly and legibly painted),

  If such Carriage shall have four or more wheels, and shall be of the weight of Three Hundredweight or upwards

  2

  2

  0

  If such Carriage shall have less than four wheels, or having four or more wheels, shall be of less weight than Three Hundredweight

  0

  l5

  0

  Horses and Mules.

  For every Horse or Mule (including a Horse or Pony of any sex or description or age, but not including a Foal, Colt or Filly, or Mule which shall never have been used for any purpose of draught or riding)

  0

  10

  6

  MR. HUNTsaid, he had placed some Amendments to this Resolution on the Paper. They were apparently about trifling matters; but they affected the comfort and convenience of many persons in the country, and he therefore hoped the Committee would think them worth discussing. This Resolution carried out the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to substitute license duties in the case of articles which heretofore had been liable to assessed taxes, and he approved the principle of that substitution; but the question of the scale of duties that was to be adopted in the case of the new licenses was quite a different matter from the general principle. In some of the propositions he made the right hon. Gentleman sacrificed a great many people in order to have a simple and uniform system. No doubt a simple and uniform system was a great convenience to the tax-collector, but it did not follow that it would suit the tax-payer. The right hon. Gentleman was not the founder of the school of simplicity and uniformity, because it was instituted by a gentleman named Procrustes, who, if a bed was too short for a patient cut him shorter, and if it were too long stretched the patient. He had received a few letters from his own constituents, and a good many from different parts of the country, from persons of all politics, and they all concurred in describing the Budget in this part of it as a rich man's Budget and not a poor man's Budget. There was truth in this description, for. in order to have a uniform and simple system, the right hon. Gentleman had lowered the taxes which were paid by rich people upon their establishments, and he had raised the taxes paid by poorer people. Many illustrations had been sent to him, and he would give the Committee a comparative statement of the effect upon certain establishments in one of the Midland

  783
  counties. The head of one large establishment paid, under the present system, £49; under the new system he would pay £32; so that he would save £17. The head of a still larger establishment was now taxed to the amount of £76, and would save £30. In a third instance the owner paid £51; he would have to pay £36; so that he would save £15. These were the establishments of noblemen and gentlemen; and he now came to the establishment of one who might be a tenant of a noblemen. In this establishment there were a servant under eighteen and a two-wheeled carriage and a horse; and the taxes now amounted to £1 16 s.: but under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman they would come to £2 0s. 6d.; so that the State would gain 4s. 6d. A country coal-dealer having one horse over thirteen hands and two ponies under thirteen was now taxed £1 1s., but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition were adopted he would be taxed £1 11 s. 6d. Such cases might be multiplied, for he had received numerous letters from country doctors and others, complaining that their richer neighbours were being relieved of taxation at their expense. It was rather hard that the coal-dealer and tradesman should have their taxes raised to enable the Chancellor of the; Exchequer to reduce the duty on the saddle horses of rich men; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not presume upon the fact that there was not much chance of any great outcry being raised against the change. Pleasure horses formed a very fair subject for taxation, and there was no reason for reducing; the taxation upon them: but taxes upon servants were altogether objectionable. They had been regarded as taxes on luxuries, but he would avoid them as taxes on the employment of people. The reduction in the taxes on carriages would be a relief to the carriage making trade, because people resorted to all manner of shifts at present in order to make one carriage servo the purpose of two, and tints save the tax. But there was no excuse for altering the duty on servants unless it were by way of clear remission. He thought it bad enough to tax skilled domestic labour; but the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise the tax on unskilled domestic labour. This alteration in the duty would prevent persons from taking young persons into
  784
  their establishments, and he might mention that he had more letters in reference to the difference of tax upon men and boy servants than upon any other thing. Now what was the amount of the gain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by raising the tax from 10 s. 6d. to 15 s.? According to the Returns published last year there were 85,881 as to whom the tax was to be altered, and the addition of 4s. 6d. in each instance would produce £19,323. He believed that this increase of tax would tend to prevent boys being taken as servants in places where they might learn a business, and that it would be a hardship upon employers where they were so taken. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could dispense with this £19,000 altogether; but if not, he hoped that at all events he would revert to the old tax of 10 s. 6d., instead of having the new one of 15 s. In conclusion the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to the Resolution, which would have the effect of preventing male servants under eighteen being taxed more than 10 s. 6d. each.
  Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the words "Male Servants," to insert the words "above eighteen years of age."—(Mr. Hunt.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee, but the country had heard so much about economy, cheap breakfast tables, cheap newspapers, and cheap all sorts of things for workpeople, that he wished to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to the practical effect of his Budget, and the enormous decrease in the revenue he was making by remitting the taxes of the rich. The right hon. Gentleman was creating considerable dissatisfaction by proposing in this, the people's House, to sacrifice the poor for the benefit of the rich. A Return recently presented to the House on his Motion (Parliamentary Paper 161) showed the proposed remissions of taxation for the benefit of those who could well afford to be taxed was much larger than hon. Members had any notion of. The male servants on whom duty was paid last year numbered 274,000, and 173,000 of these being above eighteen brought £1 1s. each to the Exchequer. On these 173,000 there would be a loss of 6s. each, or £52,000. In the case of carriages, which

  785
  were certainly luxuries, he found 32,000 having four wheels and two horses, upon which, the proposed remission was £1 8s. each, or £45,000. The reduction on horses would result in a loss of £102,000: because there were 195,000 horses, and the tax upon them was reduced by 10 s. 6d. each. On hair powder there was a clear loss of £1,000. The proposal respecting armorial bearings was a case of peculiar hardship, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had claimed credit for procuring a gain to the Revenue by his changes. Every man who kept a carriage; with four wheels and two horses obtained now a reduction on his taxes of 10 s. 9d., and that would bring a Joss to the Revenue of £8,000, which would have to be made good out of the pockets of the poorer classes. Armorial bearings had been taken to mean any sign or device; which a person happened to wear, whether on a seal or otherwise; and for these he had to pay a tax of 13 s. 2d. Now, adding up all the items, it appeared that there was a total of £207,000 a year remission of the taxation falling on the richer classes in regard to assessed taxes. But these classes were well able to pay, they had made no complaint, nor had they grumbled. He was quite aware it might be said that, as far as servants were concerned, Many persons not wealthy—some professional men for instance—paid their £1 1s. for a man-servant. Well, he was willing to make the necessary allowance for that in his calculation; but he found by the Returns that of all those who kept men - servants there were only 144,000 with one. That would yield about half the amount, and deducting on that head £26,000, there remained a clear remission of taxation upon the rich, who were well able to pay, of £181,000 by this Budget. He did not think many of his constituents would be gratified at that, which was a different state of things from what the Prime Minister, when among them, had led them to expect.
  MR. STAPLETONwished to draw attention to what he believed to be a slight imperfection in the otherwise admirable Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he meant the increase of small sums and odd figures. It had been observed by several persons that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech spoke of guineas and half-
  786
  guineas, though such sums had long ceased to exist either as coins or as figures of account. The duty on horses was to be 10 s. 6d.; the duty on armorial bearings £1 1s. or £2 2s. In this case an odd sum, 13 s. 2d., was got rid of, but another was introduced. In the duty on carnages the £1 1s. was introduced where there were only decimal figures before. At present the tax upon carriages drawn by two horses was £3 10 s.; by one horse, £2; by two ponies, £1 15 s.; by one pony, £1, and so on. The Committee would observe that these were round numbers. But his right hon. Friend was putting the tax upon a carriage drawn by a single horse at £2 2s. A rich man, who could afford to keep two horses and pay for them, would have a saving of £1 8s., whilst the poor man, who only put one horse to his carriage, would pay 2s. more than he did before. What he wished to impress upon the Committee was that these odd shillings did not in their net result bring into the Exchequer as much by a great deal as they took out of the pocket of the tax-payer. It cost as much to carry 6d. or 1s. through an account as to carry £1. There were many things that showed that this doctrine was very well understood by the Exchequer. For instance, the clerks' salaries were now paid monthly, but when there were odd shillings or pence they were, retained and allowed to accumulate until at last they were paid once for all in order to avoid the expense which would otherwise result from keeping the accounts; and the Secretary for War had declined altogether to pay the officers of the army on the retired half-pay list monthly instead of annually on account of the expense by employment of extra clerks. But the strongest point was this, that the Exchequer would not now receive odd sums at all from the accounting departments. All payments made by them into the Exchequer were made in thousands. He understood that since; this rule had been established there had been, along with great simplicity, very great economy in keeping the Exchequer accounts. He hoped his right hon. Friend would consider this matter, and if in another year he made another step in Administrative Reform, he would strike off these odd shillings and sixpences which had this great characteristic of bad taxes, that

  787
  they did not in their net result enrich the Exchequer in anything like the same proportion in which they impoverished the tax-payers.
  MR. BARROWthought the taxation of servants under eighteen most objectionable, not so much in the interest of the tax-payers as of the labouring man, whose eldest boy was often taken off his hands and employed from fourteen to eighteen.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. A. Cross) had characterized the Budget as being a rich man's Budget and not a poor man's, and had stated that it was viewed with dissatisfaction by his constituents. As he happened to be a constituent of the hon. Gentleman, he begged entirely to dissent from his statements. He did not gather from his hon. Friend whether he was supporting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), but presumed he was, and in that case his views were entirely inconsistent with the object of the Amendment. The Amendment, if carried, would exempt from taxation all male servants under eighteen years old, and to that extent would clearly be to the advantage of the rich rather than the poor. He entirely dissented from his hon. Friend's remarks respecting the Budget. When the Committee recollected that the abolition of the 1s. import duty on corn amounted to £900,000 a year, and that that import duty necessarily raised the average price of all the corn grown in this country, it must be evident that the advantage to the working classes from the Budget would be very much greater than to those who were in a better position in life. Nor was the reduction of the taxes then under discussion exclusively for the benefit of the wealthier classes. The reduction of the tax upon servants would have a tendency to increase the employment of servants: and that upon carriages would lead to a greater use, of carriages, and in consequence to a greater employment of labour in the manufacture of carriages. So far as he had the means of ascertaining the opinions of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman in Southwest Lancashire, they were decidedly in favour of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. MUNTZsaid, that puppies were always puppies, and men-servants never
  788
  got beyond eighteen years of age. He had seen men with grey hairs set down as eighteen. Would it not be better, therefore, to leave out eighteen altogether? He had found that there was a general objection not only to this but to all other kind of taxes. It was pleasant to hear an English Chancellor of the Exchequer recommending economy; and. when they came to one item in the Estimate he should give the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) an opportunity of showing that he was sincere.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the assessed taxes, which (hey were considering that night, and in lieu of which his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had proposed a system of license duties, affected a considerable number of the population. They fell upon their households, they came home to their consciousness and their intimate knowledge, and it was therefore not unnatural, considering the position which the right hon. gentleman occupied in the late Administration, that he should have received many communications on the subject of that part of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) had made two remarks on the Budget of his right hon. Friend. He said that its policy of uniformity justified him in giving it the name of a Procrustean Budget, and he called it in the second place a rich man's Budget. Well, there was some amount of truth—and he would endeavour to show how much—in the first of those assertions; but to the second he believed there was a complete and unanswerable reply. It was perfectly true that the idea of his right hon. Friend in proposing to abolish the system of assessed taxes and to substitute for it a system of licenses was an idea of the benefit, with reference to the ease of collection and to the probable profitableness of the tax, of the substitution of a system of licenses founded on a principle of uniformity for the assessed taxes, various and uncertain in their incidence as they had proved themselves to be. Now, the right hon. Gentleman would understand that if. per se. something like simplicity and uniformity in a tax was to some, extent to be admitted as an advantage, in this case the advantage was enhanced if they arrived at the conclusion that it was admissible to substitute a system of licenses for one of assessed taxes, because in the case of assessed taxes they

  789
  taxed a man on articles which he had in his possession, and which he had used under certain varying conditions that affected the amount of the tax which they were to charge him during the past year. But if, in place of that, they adopted a system of licenses, they dealt not with the past but with the future. They called upon the man at the beginning of the year to inform them, by a Return, of the number of articles, whether servants, horses, or carriages, which he intended to keep, and they required him to pay a license for them; and therefore it was extremely desirable, in order to facilitate the making of that Return, that they should simplify the incidence of that taxation, and render it as uniform as they could. There was that amount of truth in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that something had been sacrificed for the sake of uniformity. But it would be impossible to simplify and render uniform those taxes, or in any respect to change then incidence, without some cases occurring, and without some communications being made to hon. or right hon. Gentlemen, showing that some of those who paid those taxes before were likely to pay more than their neighbours in future. Now, if they entered into the comparative fairness of that Budget, and the existing state of things, at least they ought to look at the Budget as a whole; or at the very least they ought to look at the part of the Budget they were then discussing as a whole. But the right hon. Gentleman had not taken that course. He spoke of the saving to the rich man possessing many horses and carriages; and the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) spoke in the same strain, comparing the rich man's case with that of those who had few horses and carriages. But all reference had been omitted to certain figures which were conclusive on that subject, showing that not only if they took the Budget as a whole, but if they took the particular part of it effecting the transformation of assessed taxes into license duties, so far from being a rich man's Budget, it consulted the convenience of the pocket of the greater number who possessed limited means. If they took the assessed taxes proposed to be remitted, they were £1,167,000; while the license duty imposed amounted to £1,113,000. The difference between the
  790
  two sums was only about £50,000; but if, travelling a little further, they went on to the repeal of the post horse duty, the stage carriage duty, and the hackney carriage duty, they would find that there was a remission of no less than £293,000, affecting the convenience and relieving the expenditure of persons of limited means. Therefore, his right hon. Friend was not open to the criticism that that was a rich man's Budget. The right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment proposed that there should be no tax on male servants under eighteen years of age. Now, he thought the insight into the operation of the present law afforded to the Committee by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) was in itself almost a sufficient answer to that suggestion, and a proof of the wisdom of his right hon. Friend in adhering to his notion of uniformity and simplicity of taxation. The natural alternative to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite not to tax male servants under eighteen would be to leave the tax upon male servants above that age at £1 1s. and keep it at 10 s. 6d. for those under that age. The Budget of his right hon. Friend, for the sake of uniformity and simplicity, proposed to halve the difference, and charge 15 s. for male servants all round.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was the last person who would object to the substitution of a system of licenses for assessed taxes, and he did not believe that anything had fallen from his right hon. Friend which warranted the inference that his right hon. Friend objected to such a principle. It was, however, an undoubted fact that the proposed remission of the assessed taxes would be a been to the wealthier class, and would produce a considerable net saving to them in respect to taxation. But he could not agree with the hon. Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross) when he referred to the case of the carriage duty as illustrative of his argument. He had always been of opinion that the assessed tax on carriages operated as a very considerable restriction on that trade of the country, and that any great reduction of the tax would give a stimulus to the coach-making business, inasmuch as many gentlemen of large fortune would keep an increased number of carriages when they were no longer taxed as they

  791
  had been heretofore, almost to a prohibitory extent upon that head. He. therefore, cordially approved that part of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he would make no change in the incidence of those taxes, and would impose no new tax on servant. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would call his attention to a word which had been introduced into the Resolution—namely, "game watcher," in the place of the word "gamekeeper" formerly used. He would suggest the omission of that word, and with respect to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt), he must say that he thought the remission of the tax on servants under eighteen would be a great been to the working classes.
  MR. GREENEsaid, he was not inclined to quarrel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for taking off some of the duty on his horses; but he would impress on him the importance of that matter, as it affected the training of young servants. All who were acquainted with the training of boys in stables knew how frequently a boy was taken at nominal wages merely to learn his business; and it was not improbable that, if employers had to pay a tax on them they would refuse to be bothered with those boys.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed with the description of the tax as given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-west Lancashire (Mr. Cross), and he (Mr. Henley) having calculated its operation with regard to his payments he found he should save 25 per cent by the proposed change. Personally he should be disposed to take his hat off to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thank him, and say he was a very pleasant follow; but when he considered how it would act on persons in a lower position in life, and he found that it would increase their assessed taxes something like 100 per cent, it became rather a serious matter. It was hard that this increased amount of taxation should be put upon the class of persons to whom be referred. They were not the persons likely to be benefited by the reduction of the post horse duty and the hackney carriage duty, and he thought it was a matter well deserving the re-consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Having acted as an assessed tax commissioner, and knowing the trouble and
  792
  difficulty of appealing against a surcharge, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what penalty a man would be liable to for not making a return, and taking out a license under the proposed new system?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no persons were more glad than the Conservative Members that the 1s. duty had been taken off corn. His objection to the Budget applied simply to the conversion of assessed taxes into Excise licenses. That portion of the financial scheme of the Government would, beyond all doubt, have the effect of relieving the rich man and imposing an increased burden on persons who were comparatively poor.
  MR. READsaid, he could not agree in the principle enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by which the assessed taxes were to be converted into Excise licenses. It might be all very well to have uniformity, but it ought not to be adopted by putting a heavy pressure on the poor man, and by relieving the rich man. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) introduced the principle of licenses he said, that in order to make the duty equal, they must put the tax at a reasonable figure, and he placed the dog duty at 5s., whereas it had been previously 12 s.; but here the Chancellor of the Exchequer inflicted a great hardship on the farmer or small trader, who kept a boy. by making him pay 15 s. duty, instead of 10 s. 6d. The imposition of the extra amount of duty would have a great effect in reducing the number of boys kept, and it would tend to discourage the training of youths. A rich man who now kept a carriage and pair of horses and one servant paid £6 13 s., but under the proposed Budget he would only have to pay £3 18 s.; and if they added to it the advantage to be derived by the alteration of the armorial bearings tax the saving would be £3 5s. 9d., or nearly 50 per cent. The poor man, however, who, for the purpose of his business, was obliged to employ a lad, and to keep a pony and cart of some sort or other, would have to pay £2 0s. 6d. under the new system, whereas he now had to pay only £1, or at the utmost, £1 10 s. It was therefore essential there should be some kind of exemption. His right hon. Friend, when he introduced the dog license, made an exemption in

  793
  favour of puppies, and it was to be hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make an exemption in favour of the lads. Under the old system, the assessors acted on the principle that every man was considered honest until he was proved to be a rogue, but by the Excise a man would be considered, a rogue until he had proved himself to be honest.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), wished to state that the penalty which would be imposed under the Act on anybody violating its provisions was £20. That penalty however, would be sued for only when a person neglected to send in a declaration as to the taxable articles in his possession after a special notice had been served on him for the purpose. Then came in the General Excise Act, which permitted the magistrate adjudicating on the question of the penalty to be imposed to remit three-fourths of it, while the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would have the power to remit it altogether in such cases as they might deem proper. Practically, it would not be enforced, unless in those instances where it was shown there had been a wilful attempt to defraud the Revenue. In reply to the objection which had been urged by several hon. Gentlemen to the proposal of the Government to the effect that it would relieve the rich at the expense of the poor, he might observe that one danger which must be guarded against was that those assessed taxes might become such a nuisance that they would have to be swept away altogether. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance, if their permanency was to be secured, that they should be made as simple and as easy as possible, not only to the tax-gatherer, but to those by whom they were paid, while he thought it would be advantagous to the Revenue that they should be collected by way of license, instead of under the present system. The only way to attain that object was by uniformity and simplification; and in order to do that he was sorry to say it was necessary to take from the rich and add it to the poor. No doubt, that was the effect of the criticism of the Budget, and it was perfectly well founded. It had been said that the taxes ought to be apportioned at different prices for the same article; and so it ought, if they
  794
  merely desired to tax each person fairly and equally one with another. But when they sought to establish uniformity, which was essential to the cheapening of the tax, it could only be done in the manner he proposed. If he had left the rich man heavier taxed than the poor man, uniformity could only be obtained by increasing the amount paid by the poor. The whole squabble was about 4s. 6d., the difference between 15 s. and 10 s. 6d. It was not to be supposed that his plan benefited the rich exclusively; because-its effect would be to give increased employment to the poor, and to add to the number of boys who would be kept as servants, and who did not become full-fledged servants all at once, but must learn their trade. He would much rather have attained his object in another way—namely, by leaving the rich heavily taxed, and lightening the burdens on the poor—and in other parts of the Budget he had endeavoured to do so; but as regarded the assessed taxes he could only attain uniformity in the way he proposed; and he trusted, therefore, the House would approve of the proposition.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he fully anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to ridicule the difference of the tax on the ground that 4s. 6d. was a small amount; but if he was so well acquainted with persons in humble rank as he (Mr. Hunt) was he never would have made that observation. The effect of the tax would be that a farmer, instead of keeping a boy to attend to his nag horse, for which he would have to pay 10 s. 6d., and 15 s. for the farm servant to look after the farm horses, would make the latter attend to both. That would be a very serious matter, not so much to the man who had to pay, but to the boy, who frequently got his first start in life by getting into such situations. He should take the sense of the Committee upon the point. The Third Lord of the Treasury denied that this was a rich man's budget, because he said the Committee must not look to these assessed taxes solely, but must remember the remission of the post horse duty and the hackney carriage duty. He doubted whether the remission of these duties would touch the class to whom the hon. Member referred. Then, it was said that the remission of the corn duty to the amount of £900,000

  795
  was in favour of the poor man; but he thought it would be found that if this amount wore divided among the number of quartern loaves consumed in the country there was no coin in the realm that would denote the poor man's share. He believed that most people who kept a servant would much rather pocket that 4s. 6d. than have their share of the remission of the 1s. duty on corn.
  MR. HIBBERTthought that the question for their consideration was not whether the Budget was a rich man's or a poor man's Budget, but how it affected the general interests of the country. He liked neither the proposal of the Government nor that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt). He thought the tax on male servants was a bad tax, because he had always considered it a tax upon labour. He objected to the tax, either at 15 s. or in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The objection might be met by reducing the tax on all male servants to 10 s. 6d. He thought all exemptions bad in principle, and could not agree to exempt, as proposed, those under eighteen years of age. ["Move!"] He feared that as there was an Amendment before the Committee he should not be in Order to move another Amendment.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that if the hon. Member voted for the Amendment now before the Committee he could afterwards move to reduce the amount to 10 s. 6d.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 150: Majority 79.
  MR. CORRANCErose to move an Amendment in the second Resolution in line 9, after "employed," to leave out "either wholly or partially." He did not mean to challenge the merits of the Budget; no doubt it was a very good one if they could understand it, and would be very popular if they had not to pay tinder it; but he wanted to know what did a watcher of game, "wholly or partially." mean.
  Amendment proposed, in line 9. to leave out the words "wholly or partially."—(Mr. Corrance)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the proposed Resolution"
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had given a sort of pledge that there should be no alteration in the law in this respect. He would restore the word "under-gamekeeper" as it stood before.
  MR. CORRANCEthought the words "wholly or partially" were a trap for tender consciences—possibly to catch those who sent five-pound notes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wanted a precise definition of these words "wholly or partially" as well as of those upon whom they took effect. It was well known there were periods when employment both in town and country was scarce, and a great many were almost entirely dependant on casual jobs. If they were thrown out of employment they became pauperized, and—under the admirable operation of the Poor Laws—perhaps for life. He had no doubt these ambiguous terms in the Resolution were very convenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but even his convenience must give way when placed in opposition to the social considerations involved. Let him define exactly what these words "wholly or partially" implied—if he employed a man for a week, a fortnight, or six weeks—let it be clearly understood what was the meaning of the words. He moved the omission of the words "wholly or partially."
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the object of the words "wholly or partially" was not to catch tender consciences. According to the Board of Inland Revenue and their legal advisers there was no criterion so exact and reliable in the imposition of these taxes as the existence of the relationship of master and servant. If the words "wholly or partially" were omitted a man might be employed as a servant on a contract of service in a combination of capacities, and the question might arise as to liability to taxation in this capacity. However difficult it might be to understand the exact line of demarcation between the employment of a person as a servant and employment as a hired labourer, the distinction was known to the Inland Revenue and to the law. The object of the Resolution was to make taxation depend on that distinction, and he knew no other definition or distinction which was so exact or reliable.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he had no doubt the distinction was appreciated by the

  797
  Inland Revenue; but he had found it exceedingly difficult, as a Commissioner of Taxes, to decide whether a man was a servant or a hired labourer. He suggested that the matter would be greatly simplified, and the principle of uniformity kept up, if they omitted the tax on male servants and labourers altogether, and left the tax on horses and carriages pretty nearly at its present amount. It would be bettor to get rid of a tax on servants subject to so much distinction, and to retain it at its present amount on such undoubted luxuries as horses and carriages.
  MR. REBOWbegged to state that he had occasion to bring this matter before the Board of Inland Revenue, and he found that "under-gardener" meant a foreman under the head-gardener.
  MR. BARNETTwished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer endorsed that interpretation. If he did it would be a great relief to many people who had to employ men in their gardens.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he apprehended that an under-gardener was a gardener working under the direction of another gardener. However, the definition given by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Rebow) was perfectly correct.
  MR. HUNThoped that whatever definition the House might adopt of an under-gardener would be plainly set forth in the Bill. According to the right hon. Gentleman's definition a man employed simply to dig potatoes in a garden was an under-gardener.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not said so. An under-gardener was a skilled labourer, employed under the direction of another gardener; and an unskilled labourer employed in a garden was not an under-gardener.
  MR. HUNTremarked that all he wanted was to have that definition put into the Bill.
  SIR HENRY HOAREwished to know what was the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a "game watcher;" and whether "mole catchers" and "rabbiters," employed under the direction of a head-keeper, were under-keepers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is withdrawn.
  GENERAL PERCY HERBERTwas disposed to move the omission of the
  798
  words "under-gardener," as a great number of persons acting in that capacity were but labourers.
  MR. HENLEYunderstood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that an unskilled labourer working in a garden was not an under-gardener, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would introduce words to make the matter clear, as the construction hitherto acted upon was not in accordance with that liberal view.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the principle of these assessed taxes was based on the distinction between service and labour. "Service" was the employment of a person with some skill or dexterity—not merely ordinary work. It was not a question of the amount of wages or of the time when they were paid, it was what a person was employed for. He could not pledge himself as to what words would be introduced into the Bill.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTasked whether a person who called a man from his farm to take a pony out of his carriage would have to pay for that man as a. helper in the stables?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, these questions could he considered when the Bill was in Committee, He thought that it was unnecessary at the present stage to carry the discussion any further. The whole of the Resolution was governed by the leading words "every male servant employed." No one could be charged for who was not a servant.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEalso thought they had better not waste time in discussing these matters, as the collection of these taxes was to be placed in the hands of the Inland Revenue, and as one uniform system throughout the country would thereby be secured instead of a variable one, differing according to the opinions of different local authorities, he would suggest that when the resolutions became law the Inland Revenue Department should issue instructions explaining distinctly on what principle these taxes would be levied.
  MR. READsaid, there ought to be some limit as to age, for it was not right that the boy who blacked one's shoes should be charged at the same rate as the most gorgeous flunkey.
  MR. HENLEYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the various definitions were made clearly, so that

  799
  there should be no difficulty in the construction of the law. It should be made so clear that no one should be brought before the magistrates on the information of the Department when there was no ground for it, as might otherwise be the case.
  MR. CORRANCE, in withdrawing his Amendment, objected to any increase of taxation on unskilled labourers.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  GENERAL PERCY HERBERTproposed another Amendment to omit the words "Under Gardener" from the Resolution, on the ground that, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, all skilled gardeners, whether under-gardeners or not, would be liable.
  Amendment proposed, in line 15, to leave out the words "Under Gardener." —(General Herbert.)
  VISCOUNT GALWAYobjected to the charge which it was proposed to impose for stable-helpers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that hon. Members opposite complained that this was a rich man's Budget, and yet they proposed the omission in that case of under-gardeners and stable-helpers, who were to be supposed to be kept by people in straightened circumstances. These things would be in the hands of the Excise, and a uniform construction of the law would come about, not from anything said or done in that House, but from the practice which would gradually spring up, and which would become uniform all over the country. He could not see that any good would be done by omitting what had always been in the Acts hitherto.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the Committee wanted an assurance that in the Bill there would be a definition of what was meant by an under-gardener.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdeclined to give such an assurance.
  MR. HENLEYthought the words ought to be defined by the right hon. Gentleman, as a guide to magistrates who might have to deal with questions respecting them here after.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the clauses of the Bill would, no doubt, be carefully drawn; but, as his right hon. Friend had said, a good deal must be left to be settled by the practice of the Board of
  800
  Inland Revenue. The practice would operate as the interpretations of courts of law operated in explaining statutes, and he did not think that uniformity was to be secured by heaping words upon words and definition upon definition in an Act of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid that the insertion of the words "stable-helper" would be a serious matter to gentlemen who kept hounds. A stable-helper was not a skilled labourer, and the right hon. Gentleman had no right to tax him.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved that the words "Game Watcher" be omitted and "Under Keeper" inserted.
  Amendment made, in line 16, by leaving out the words "Game Watcher," and inserting the words "Under Keeper."
  MR. HIBBERThoped the Motion he was going to submit would not place him in any position of antagonism to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose Budget had been received with general satisfaction. On this question, however, two opinions were allowable. The tax on male servants was one bad in principle, but if the right hon. Gentleman intended to make the tax a permanent one, it ought not to be felt to be unjust to any portion of the public. The proposal was certainly one for reduction of taxation for what might be called the richer classes; but it was an increase of taxation for the less rich class, and he trusted that the motto of the right hon. Gentleman would be justice to all. If the tax were lowered to 10 s. 6d., a much larger amount in proportion would be obtained. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would treat this matter in a generous spirit. The Budget had given general satisfaction, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not include in it any alteration of a tax which would press unjustly on any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. In conclusion he moved that the sum be altered from 15 s. to 10 s. 6d.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "15 s.," in order to insert "10 s. 6d."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, the total amount of the tax

  801
  upon servants was £220,000, and the hon. Gentleman proposed that about £60,000 should be taken off. Of this £60,000 about £20,000 would be in respect of servants under eighteen years old, and the remainder in respect of servants above that age. The Committee would, therefore, perceive the real character of the hon. Gentleman's proposition, and it would be for them to say whether it should be accepted or not. He had been charged with being kind to the rich and pressing too hardly on the poor. The question was whether a tax, which had been already reduced by 6s. on every servant in favour of the rich, should be reduced by 6s. more on every servant, two-thirds of which latter sum would go to the relief of the rich and one-third to the relief of the poor. That was a plain statement of the case which he would now leave in the hands of the Committee, merely observing that if the Revenue were impoverished by the carrying out of the proposal some other tax must be found to supply the deficiency.
  MR. RYLANDSappealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment. His hon. Friend was wrong in assuming that all the boys under eighteen years of age were employed by persons of small means.
  MR. CANDLISHopposed the Amendment, and thought the Committee could find many better ways of disposing of £60,000 than in relieving the taxes on male servants.
  SIR JOHN HAYbelieved the reason why a tax was originally put on male servants, was that their employment in a domestic capacity deprived the army of certain recruits. He should recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to omit the word "male" from his Resolutions, and let those ladies who desired the suffrage and others equalize the tax on all descriptions of servants.
  Question, "That 15 s. stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that under the proposed system a carriage with two wheels would be charged 15 s., a carriage with four or more wheels and weighing less than 3 cwt., £2 2s., and a carriage with four or more wheels and weighing more than 3 cwt. was also to be charged £2 2s. The effect of this method of taxation would obviously be to encourage the manufacture and use
  802
  of two-wheel carriages, which were more dangerous than those with four wheels. As an instance of this he might mention that many accidents were caused in Dublin by the two-wheeled cars, and in order to discourage their use the corporation taxed them as much again as the four-wheeled cabs. Any system which would influence the mode of the construction of carriages was a bad one. Great difficulty, he might remark, would be experienced in some country districts in ascertaining the exact weight of carriages, and for these reasons he moved to omit the words "having four or more wheels," in order to insert the words "drawn by two or more horses."
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 27, to leave out the words "have four or more wheels, and shall be of the weight of three hundredweight or upwards," in order to insert the words "be drawn by two or more horses."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the changes now under consideration included omnibuses, cabs, and other vehicles used for the general purposes of locomotion, and, accordingly, it was impossible to say what the effect of the proposed alteration would be. The results of the change would certainly be serious, for £l 6s. would be lost upon every brougham; and there must be a corresponding reduction upon flies at railway stations, a class of vehicle upon which taxation already had been largely diminished. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because it would entirely vitiate all the calculations upon which the taxes upon locomotion had been based, and abstract a large sum of money from the Revenue which he would not know how to make good. With regard to the weight of vehicles he had made inquiries, and found that 4 cwt. would be about the most satisfactory figure at which to place the limit, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) would accept that as a satisfactory compromise.
  VISCOUNT GALWAY, who looked upon upon gigs as very insecure, conveyances, supported the proposition before the Committee.
  Mr. SCOURFIELDsaid, that one effect of the Resolution would be to cause people to be deceived. They would purchase carriages upon the understanding that they were of a certain weight, and would find out afterwards that they were more.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE, after what had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consented to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HUNT MR. HUNT moved that the words "five hundredweight" should be inserted in the Resolution in place of the words "three hundredweight." The standard fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be very desirable for London, but it would not be suitable for country carriages. Basket carriages, for instance, were, upon an average, from 3½ to 4¾ and 5¼ cwt.; and if the standard of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were adopted, the effect would be to make the owners of pony carriages sell thorn, and buy vehicles of a more expensive description. Should the right hon. Gentleman not be willing to accept the 5 cwt., he would compromise the matter by agreeing to insert the weight at 4½ cwt.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had already advanced half-way to meet the right hon. Gentleman; but having made inquiries through the Inland Revenue, he felt that he should not be justified in going further.
  Amendment negatived.
  Other Amendments made, in lines 28 and 30, by leaving out the word "three" and inserting the word "four."
  MR. HOWES MR. HOWES moved an Amendment having the effect of reducing the duly upon carriages of less than four wheels to 10 s. 6d. By his Amendment he wished to save a small kind of pony carriage, on which the present tax was 10 s., from the additional burden proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal would make the tax on this class of carriages 15 s., whereas he had reduced the tax on the highest class of carriages from £3 10 s. to £2 2s. The Amendment which he (Mr. Howes) proposed would probably entail a loss to the Revenue of £30,000. That amount was not to be disregarded; but the adoption
  804
  of his Amendment would remove a great deal of the irritation felt by the owners of this kind of pony carriage at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman's plan dealt with them, while he reduced the tax on the highest class of carnages nearly one-half.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 31, after the word "hundredweight," to insert the words "unless such carriage shall have two wheels only, then 10 s. 6d."—(Mr. Howes.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not imagine that the Committee would accede to this Amendment. As at present proposed, every four-wheeled carriage would pay £2 2s., being but a small part of what that class of carriages had hitherto paid, but still it would pay a considerable tax; whereas every Hansom cab would pay 15 s., a. very disproportionate sum. He should have been very glad if, without producing inconvenience, he could have made these two taxes approach each other more nearly. But the effect of the Amendment would be to lower the tax on Hansom cabs to 10 s. 6d. That arrangement could not stand. It would necessitate a review of the whole question of the taxation of cabs in London. The truth was that there would be no great hardship in a tax of 15 s. The Amendment would apply to every two-wheeled carriage—to gentlemen's dogcarts, to every gig and every cab, such as gentlemen might drive about London. The tax on horses had been reduced from £1 1s. to 10 s. 6d., and the owners of two-wheeled carriages would profit very largely by that reduction without any further reduction. The Amendment would not only cause a loss to the Revenue; it would be a step in the wrong direction, because the plan that had been adopted by the Committee had been rather to raise low taxes and to lessen large ones.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HOWES Mr. HOWES moved that two-wheeled carriages, drawn by ponies under thirteen hands high, should be chargeable with the duty of 10 s. 6d.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 31, after the word "hundredweight," to insert the words "carriages with two wheels drawn by ponies under thirteen hands, 10 s."—(Mr. Howes.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobjected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would add another column to the accounts, which it was the desire of the Government to simplify. He did not feel called upon to encourage the practice of driving small ponies. More accidents occurred to pony carriages than to any other description of vehicle, and, besides, that there was a certain amount of cruelty in making an animal that cat but little do the work that ought to be performed by a horse.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he had not so much morbid sympathy for small ponies as for the owners of them. There were certain persons exercising the profession of costermongers, who were very hard worked and a very useful class of the community, who were only able to drive small ponies. It would be very hard upon them if they had to pay 15 s. for their carts.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it must be remembered that costermongers had not to pay the taxes which were paid by persons who sold the same goods in shops.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  MR. CHARLEYhoped that, during the Recess, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his attention to the Memorial which he had presented to him on behalf of a large body of cabmen, in public meeting assembled, at the Cabinet Theatre, Gray's Inn Road, who, while very thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the proposed reduction of taxation, objected to the assimilation of the duties paid by seven-day cabmen and six-day cabmen. Since the time that the two scales were adopted the number of the six-day cabs had increased in much greater proportion than the seven-day cabs, which had fluctuated: thus, in 1863, there were only 1,887 six-day cabs; in 1868, 2,356. During the same period the seven-day cabs decreased from 3,720 to 3,470. The six-day cabmen were, as a rule, a more civil class of men than the seven-day cabmen. As the comfort of hon. Members largely depended on the civility of cabmen, he might, mention that the six-day cabs were all numbered on the plate in the real, "10,000," and upwards—five figures. The seven-day cabs never had more than four figures—from 1 to 4,000. The memorialists thought that a reduc-
  806
  tion of one-seventh ought still to be made in favour of the six-day cabmen.
  MR. VANCEasked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the promise he had made here in respect of the duty on hackney carnages in Dublin?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be carried out in the Bill.
  MR. WELBY MR. WELBY moved an Amendment to exempt brood mares from duty. They were very useful animals.
  Amendment proposed, in line 36, after the word "riding," to insert the words "or a mare kept solely for breeding purposes."—(Mr. Welby.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERagreed with the hon. Gentleman that brood mares were very useful animals; and, consequently, he thought they ought not to be exempted from the duty paid for horses and for other mares.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put; and negatived.
  MR. HUNTsuggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would not be advisable to have two scales of duty for armorial bearings. If the President of the Board of Trade were present, probably he would say "armorial rubbish." as on a former occasion he had said "ecclesiastical rubbish." This was a poor man's question. The £2 2s. duty would press heavily on the owners of little pony carriages who had had their crest painted on the panel, for they must either go to the expense of having it painted out or pay the duty.
  Amendment proposed, in line 39, after the word "called," to leave out to the word "used," inclusive.—(Mr. Hunt.)
  ADMIRAL ERSKINEconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) in thinking that the new arrangement would press heavily on the owners of the humbler styles of vehicle.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could conceive nothing more absurd than the present system, by which a person with armorial bearings on his ring or seal paid 13 s. 2d., but if he had a carriage drawn by two horses, for which he paid £3 10 s. to the State, he had to pay £2 12 s. 9d., instead of 13 s. 2d., and that, too, whether he put his armorial bearings on his panel or

  807
  not. His proposal, which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think so absurd, was that a person using armorial bearings should pay £l 1s. and if he placed them on the panels of his carriage he should pay another £1 1s. in addition.
  MR. HUNT, though concurring in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the absurdity of the present system, thought it was also absurd that a man who placed his armorial bearings on the harness of his carriage should pay £1 1s., but if he placed it on the panel of his carriage, where it would not be more displayed, should have to pay £2 2s. instead.
  MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEthought it a still greater absurdity that the thirteen-and-twopenny man should have to pay £1 1s.
  MR. DALGLISHobjected altogether to the taxation of armorial bearings; he had made what, little he possessed by calico printing, and he did not see why he should not be allowed to emblazon a calico printing machine on his carriage. Why should he be taxed for it? He objected to armorial bearings being taxed, because he thought that every man had a right to develop his little ideas on his harness.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and agreed to.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEthought the proposal would oftentimes press heavily upon persons of limited means and upon widows reduced in circumstances by the death of their husbands, if they were compelled to pay £1 ls. per annum, because they desired to retain some seal or spoon upon which there was an armorial bearing. He. therefore, moved the insertion of words which would exempt from the payment of this tax those persons who did not contribute to the Revenue on account of their keeping a male servant, a horse, or a carriage.
  Amendment proposed, in line 42, after the word "used," to insert the words "by any person keeping a male servant, or a horse, or a carriage."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpresumed that it would be impossible to get through a discussion on our taxes without the irrepressible widow
  808
  being brought forward. He would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the tax was only to be paid in case the articles were "used" or "worn;" and that if they were merely kept their owners would not be liable.
  MR. M'ARTHURhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the Amendment. He himself knew several widows and persons in reduced circumstances who had plate left to them, and who would feel the tax and the visit of the Excise officer severely.
  Question. "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Re-committed Resolution, as amended, and the other Resolution, to be reported upon Thursday 27th May;
  Committee to sit again upon Friday 28th May.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT (1866).

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. BRUCE, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Act, 1866, and to consider whether, and how far, and under what conditions, it may be expedient to extend its operations, said, the Lords' Committee had recommended that the Act should be extended to eleven more military stations, and several towns had applied to have the Act extended to those localities. The Government thought the principle of the Bill should not be extended without consideration, and they, therefore, proposed that the measure should be submitted to the consideration of a Committee.
  MR. MITFORDsaid, that on the 25th of February the Government were asked in the other House, what were the intentions of the Government on the question, and the reply was that the Government would bring in a Bill. Relying on this, those opposed to the measure took no action, and now, on the eve of Whitsuntide, the House was adjourning, and no Committee could sit till the month of June. The Government should at least have taken some notice of a memorial signed by physicians and doctors, and, endorsed by the heads of Colleges at

  809
  Oxford and Cambridge, and the Vice Chancellors of the Universities. He hoped, however, that the measure would be passed.
  COLONEL NORTHalso expressed a hope that the Government would proceed earnestly in the matter, which was of the deepest importance to the troops, if not to the community generally.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the working of the Contagions Diseases Act 1866, and to consider whether, and how far, and under what conditions, it. may be expedient to extend its operation."—(Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
  And, on June 8, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. CHILDERS, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Captain VIVIAN, Marquess of HAMILTON, Mr. DONALD DALRYMPLE, Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. COLLINS, Sir JOHN SIMEON, Mr. JAMES LOWTHER, Mr. RATHBONE, Lord EUSTACE CECIL, Lord CHARLES BRUCE, Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE. Mr. MURPHY, Mr. TIPPING, Dr. BREWER, Mr. MILLS, Captain GROSVENOR, Sir JOHN TRELAWNY, and Mr. MITFORD:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

O'SULLIVAN'S DISABILITY BILL (EXPENSES OF COUNSEL, &c).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House Returns, stating the total amount of the expenses incurred by Her Majesty's Government for the payment of Counsel, and for the attendance of Witnesses and other persons on the occasion of the different stages of the Bill for disabling Mr. Daniel O'Sullivan from holding the office of Mayor of Cork, or any other office or dignity in Ireland:
  And, stating from what particular source such expenses are to be defrayed."—(Sir Percy Burrell.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  WHITSUNTIDE HOLYDAYS.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved, That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Thursday the 27th inst.
  LORD ELCHOcalled the attention of the Home Secretary to the necessity, when three or four regiments of Volunteers were brought together for exercise in the parks, of having some five, six. or eight, mounted policemen, in order to indicate to the people the line of demarcation that would he required.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he would take the subject into consideration, and see what arrangement could be made.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising, to adjourn till Thursday 27th May.

  POOR LAW UNION LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CANDLISH, Bill to amend the Law relating to the repayment of Loans to Poor Law Unions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CANDLISH, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. DILLWYN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 128.]

  SALMON FISHERIES LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to amend the Laws relating to Salmon Fisheries in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBCLL-HUGESSEN and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 130.]

  PETROLEUM BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill for the safe keeping of Petroleum and other substances of a like nature, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, and Mr. Secretary BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 131.]

  TRADE MARKS REGISTRATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to more the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the voluntary Registration of Trade Marks.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Mr. JOHN BRIGHT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]

  WITNESSES (HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN ESMONDS, Bill to enable the House of Commons to examine witnesses on oath, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN ESMONDE and Mr. BONHAM-CARTER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 129.]

  TITLES OF RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS ACT EXTENSION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HEADLAM, Bill to extend to Burial Grounds, the provisions of the Act of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of Her present Majesty, chapter twenty-eight, intituled "An Act to render more simple and effectual the Titles by which Congregations and Societies, for purposes of religious worship or education in England and Ireland, bold property for such purposes," ordered to be brought in by Mr. HEADLAM and Mr. PEASE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock, till Thursday 27th May.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Hillsborough after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Recorders' Deputies * (105); New Parishes and Church Building Acts Amendment * (106).
Report—Government of India Act Amendment (94–104).
Third Reading—Civil Service Pensions * (53), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£17,100,000) [32 Vict. c. 8]; Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) [32 Vict. c. 9]; Colonial Prisoners Removal [32 Vict. c. 10]; Merchant Shipping (Colonial), 1869, [32 Vict. c. 11]; Naval Stores [32 Vict. c. 12]; Militia [82 Vict. c. 13].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Order No. 179. sect. 1. suspended (according to Order); and the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House, extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess at Whitsuntide.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Duke of Argyll.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 94.) REPORT.
  Amendment reported (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHcommented on the impolicy of disturbing arrangements in important affairs only a few years after those arrangements had been made. Now, he was not aware that any circumstances had arisen which should induce the Government to bring forward this measure, making great and important alterations in the Government of India. That Government had been established after great deliberation first in the House of Commons and afterwards in their Lordships' House. It was only eleven years since that great measure had passed, and he had not heard of anything that had happened since that time from which it could be inferred that the system then established had in any way obstructed or seriously delayed the course of Public-Business; on the contrary, he had always understood that the Council of India was regarded as an admirable vehicle for the conduct of public affairs. He could see no reason therefore for this important change. The great object of the Act of 1858 was to render the members of the Council independent by giving them a tenure of their office for life. The framers of the present Bill seemed to have a fear of the undue longevity of the members of the Council, and therefore proposed to alter the life tenure by making the members elective for ten years, with power of re-election tinder peculiar circumstances for five years more. Now, there was no doubt a great advantage in having an infusion of fresh blood into the Council of India, as well as in other institutions; but he did not believe that would be gained by giving a tenure of office for ten years, for in this case an appointment for ten years must be much the same as an appointment for life. Therefore, the change was not, as far as he could see, accompanied by any corresponding benefit. He did not understand the grounds on which the noble Duke proposed to make these great alterations in the Government of India. Alterations made in important matters in rapid succession must tend to impair the confidence of
  690
  the public in the legislative wisdom of Parliament. It seemed to him as if they were treating the great interests of the country as children treated a house of cards. No sooner was a system got into working order and was promoting the public good than a Minister came forward to suggest great and extensive alterations. It seemed as if a Constitution was intended for nothing else but to be mended. He believed this was highly prejudicial to the public interests. It destroyed confidence in public men; and therefore he must say "Not-content" to the measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the professed object of the Bill was to provide a quicker succession of Indian councillors, and he concurred in the desirability—India being in a condition of such rapid change—of having councillors possessed of recent knowledge of the country. He proposed, however, that instead of effecting that object by the means proposed in the Bill—that the Council should be partly elected and partly nominated—all the members should be nominated directly by the Crown, and would move an Amendment having that effect. This suggestion he offered on the second reading, but the noble Duke did not appear to understand him, his reply being that though he could work with a smaller Council he saw no need to reduce its number. Now, he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not himself think the number too large, bearing in mind that much of the routine work must be done by them; but it would be more consistent with the practice in other Departments of the State that all these officers should be appointed by the Crown. This was the opinion of Lord Palmerston and of Lord Derby at the time the system was first proposed; and the opinion which was ultimately adopted, that a portion of the Council should be elected, was adopted only for the sake of getting rid of what was, at the time, a great political difficulty. It was considered highly desirable that a change so important in the constitution of the Council of India should not have to encounter the opposition of the Directors of the East India Company, and to get rid of their opposition the present plan, which was their suggestion, was adopted. But the reason for this state of things had long passed away, and he would not act upon the

  691
  opinion originally entertained by all the statesmen of the day if he would not take the advice of the late Viceroy of India (Lord Lawrence), who sat behind him, and provide in this Bill that the Crown, through the Secretary of State, should nominate all the members of the Council.
  Amendment moved to omit "elected or."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he agreed with the noble Karl (the Earl of Ellenborough) that it was undesirable, unless there were strong reasons for it, to make extensive changes in settlements of important questions effected at a comparatively recent period. On this ground alone he would object to the Amendment of the noble Marquess. He attached some value, moreover, to the provision that part of the Council should be elective rather than nominated by the Crown, for he thought the elective principle materially contributed to the importance of the office, and the estimation in which retired Indians held it. While not desiring to increase the emoluments of the office, the Government were anxious not to detract from the consideration in which it was held; for distinguished men were often induced to accept it on that account rather than out of regard to mere pecuniary considerations. He was actuated by this further argument—that the elections by the Council had hitherto worked extremely well, as was shown by the names of the gentlemen who had been elected by the Council during the last ten years. Passing by those members who were elected by the old Court of Directors, who, though distinguished men, were, of course, elected on other grounds, he found that the first gentleman elected was Sir Henry Durand, undoubtedly one of the most able servants of the Indian Government; the second was General Baker, an officer who had rendered the greatest service, as he was sure his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Halifax) would give evidence, in all the difficult questions arising out of the amalgamation of the two armies; the third, Sir Robert Montgomery, one of the most distinguished servants of the East India Company, who furnished most valuable information to the Secretary of State with regard to matters connected with the Punjaub and the North-West Pro-
  692
  vinces; and the fourth, Sir Frederick Halliday, who was Lieutenant Governor of Bengal during the Mutiny, and gave important assistance to the Viceroy. When there were four elections successively of men of such eminence, he thought they might safely say that the system of election by the Council must be working well. A suggestion had been made by his noble Friend (Lord Lyveden) that persons appointed councillors should have returned from India within five instead of, as at present, within ten years. Now, suggestions of this kind at first sight appeared plausible: but under such a rule Sir Frederick Halliday himself would have been shut out from election, he having been nine years home—so that the Council would lost one of its most valuable Members. The Government had fully considered the question, and, acting very much on the principle laid down by his noble Friend, that no adequate reason could be shown for changing the system, they had decided not to accept the Amendment.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, that the Bill had undergone no discussion in Committee, in consequence of the impatience of the House to proceed to an exciting personal and party question; and though there was, consequently, the more necessity for considering it fully at the present stage, he feared that another impending personal question would exercise the same untoward influence. He hoped, how ever, that the noble Marquess would press his Amendment, for both Lord Palmerston and Lord Derby originally proposed to place all the appointments in the hands of the Crown, and the present arrangement was only adopted in order to propitiate the East India Company to the passage of the Bill. It was no answer to say that very good men had hitherto been elected by the Council; that was not necessarily the result of self-election which led to an indecent canvass in the Council itself. Men equally good, if not better, had been appointed by the Crown, and there was no reason why the Crown should not nominate in this as in other cases. He was still of opinion that gentlemen appointed should not have left India longer than live years, for things were changing so rapidly in that country that recent experience and information were highly essential. In his opinion, the limitation

  693
  of the term of office to ten years would be a decided improvement, for it would secure an infusion of fresh blood.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he regretted that the Bill had passed through Committee in so perfunctory a manner, owing to the anxiety of their Lordships to proceed to a personal or party discussion, and hoped it would now be discussed with due attention and care. He did not wish to exaggerate the question, whether the members of the Council should be elected or appointed by the Crown, into undue importance; for hitherto the best men had been put into the Council, however appointed; but he deprecated any measure which would diminish the independence and self-respect of that body, for a strong Council might be of great service to a Secretary of State in giving him the support requisite to resist the pressure of parties in this country—a pressure not always applied in a way conducive to the benefit of the people of India. He had no fears of the Council becoming too subservient, but he was jealous for their independence; for during his own experience as Secretary of State, he remembered several questions on which English interests or feelings were, to a certain extent, opposed to Indian interests. With regard, for instance, to the question of contracts in which the ryots of Bengal were so deeply interested, and by which their welfare might be so vi-tally affected, a feeling existed in this country which, had it been acted upon, might have led to the most serious consequences. A strong independent Council was of great value on that occasion. He agreed in the desirability of obtaining, from time to time, an infusion of new blood, for things in India were changing so rapidly that persons who had long left the country were, as a rule, of less ser-vice than those conversant with the existing state of things. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) was mistaken in supposing that a ten years' term of office was equivalent to appointment for life;, for only one gentleman of those placed on the Council in 1858 had since been removed by death. The shortening of the period of absence from India would unduly fetter the choice of the Secretary of State or of the Council—and it must be remembered that there was no obligation to select gentlemen who had beer absent nearly ten years.
  694
  and, in fact, most of the councillors had returned home within a much shorter time. If the qualification were limited to five years' absence a most desirable man might be excluded on account of no vacancy occurring within that period. He himself first introduced the principle of nomination by the Act of 1853, for he had found that the election which was then in the hands of the holders of East Indian stock, being carried on by personal canvass of the shareholders, the best men were by no means invariably chosen. That might be a proper mode of selection, however, when the East India Company was a commercial body, but when it had become a political, rather than a commercial, body, it appeared to him indispensable to secure in some other way that the best men from India should be appointed. The members of the Council had as strong an interest as the Secretary of State in adding to their body the best men, and they had not elected any person whom he should not himself, had he been Secretary of State, have been quite ready to appoint. Indeed, he was bound to do justice, both to the Council and to the successive Secretaries of State who had preceded and succeeded him, and who deserved the highest credit for their selection of the fittest and most able men.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he agreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the election by the Council being part of a compromise with the East India Company, no reason now existed for its continuance. He thought that the Bill conflicted with a great principle which should always be borne in mind—the principle that every person in the service of the State in India should look to the Crown alone for the reward of his services.
  LORD LAWRENCEbelieved it would be better for the Council themselves, and bettor for India that all the members of the Council should all be nominated by the Crown, rather than that a portion of the Council should be elected by the members themselves. It was obvious to his mind that, whatever might be the sense of responsibility of a Council of fifteen members, that of the Secretary of State must be still greater; the Secretary of State was mainly responsible to Parliament and the country for the working of the government of India,

  695
  and, therefore, so far as information went, he would always consult the different members of the Council as to the best man he could select: while the fact of the nomination being in his hands would give the best security for the best man being nominated. He thought also that there was an evil inherent in a Council elected by the members of the Council; that gentlemen who aspired to a seat at their Board would canvass the members for their support. It was not desirable to place councillors in a false position and encourage that tendency. The nominations by the Council and by the Secretary of State, he would admit, had hitherto been equally good; but, in the long run there would be a greater security for obtaining able men if the latter had the entire selection. As to the qualification, he thought the field of selection would be unwisely limited if confined to men who had not returned from India more than five years. It was true matters in India were in a transition state, but that transition was by no means, so great as was generally supposed. Certain changes were coming over India; but the feelings, sympathies, and aspirations of the people were very much what they were formerly. Were they themselves consulted, he believed they would prefer the selection as councillors of men of long standing in the service, rather than of younger men.
  LORD CAIRNSadmitted that there was great force in the argument that we ought not needlessly to interfere with a Constitution which had been settled by Parliament only ten years ago; but the existence of this Bill was a proof that in many cases the Constitution was to be interfered with, and therefore went far itself to answer the noble Earl's objection. Then, surely, when dealing with the tenure of office it was advisable to consider whether any other improvement could be introduced. No doubt the choice of councillors by the Council had so far been everything that was desirable; but he agreed with the noble Lord the late Viceroy of India that a priori the best system was that which made the Minister of the Crown answerable for the appointment of members of the Council. He thought he might venture to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they should take that view, if upon no other ground, for the reason that it would only be revert-
  696
  ing to the view taken by the Government of Lord Palmerston and the Government of Lord Derby in 1858. The introduction of the element of election by the Council themselves was a matter forced upon the Ministry in consequence of the strong feeling which the East India Company had upon the subject. The Secretary of State being answerable for the good government of India should also be responsible for the nomination, and he hoped that after the expression of opinion by the House the Government would accept the Amendment.
  EARL GREYsaid, that but for the Council the Secretary of State would practically be without any check; for Parliament was too much occupied with other matters, and was too ignorant of the real state of India and its varied wants, to be able to interfere with advantage. Indeed, when it had interfered it had rather done harm than good. As for his Colleagues in the Cabinet, the general business of the Government was so exceedingly heavy that there was little hope of their considering a great Indian question with a real knowledge of the points to be decided. Moreover, under our form of government the Secretary of State for India must inevitably sometimes be a person of comparatively small experience and knowledge of Indian affairs—so that it was obviously a hazardous experiment to in trust him with almost unlimited powers in disposing of great questions. For these reasons nothing ought to be done to impair the independence of the Council, or the impression which existed both here and in India of its independence. He was persuaded that the power of electing a certain proportion of their own body had an important effect, and as the present system admittedly worked well, it was unadvisable to change it. While admiting the desirability of obtaining members possessed of recent information, he objected to fettering the discretion of the Council and the Secretary of State by fixing the limit of five years' absence from India; and he hoped the Government would consider the suggestion made on a former evening by the noble Lord (Lord Lawrence) by adopting a more liberal system of retiring pensions. It was good policy to induce the best men to join the Council, and also to provide against their remaining in the Council too long, when unfitted mentally or

  697
  bodily for the efficient discharge of their duties.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he still thought the balance of argument was in favour of maintaining the present arrangement. If the House insisted on giving this additional patronage to the Government, they would, of course, still go on with the Bill, but it was right that the sense of the House should be taken upon it.
  On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 89; Not-Contents 53: Majority 36.

  CONTENTS.

  Cambridge, D.

  Stratford de Redcliffe, V.

  Dublin, Archp.

  Templetown, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Chester, Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Oxford, Bp.

  Bristol, M.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Salisbury, M. [Teller.]

  Tuam, &c, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Bolton, L.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Albemarle, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Cairns, L.

  Annesley, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

  Churston, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Derby, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Devon, E.

  Colonsay, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Denman, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Do Ros, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Digby, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Dunsany, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

  Heytesbury, L.

  Home, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Kesteven, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Portarlington, E.

  Monson, L.

  Romney, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wilton, E.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Wharncliffe, L.

  698

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Hatherley, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Sydney, V.

  Abercromby, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Belper, L.

  Grafton, D.

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

  Saint Albans, D.

  Dacre, L.

  Ailesbury, M. [Teller.]

  De Mauley, L.

  Camden, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Harris, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Houghton, L.

  De Grey, E.

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

  Effingham, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lurgan, L.

  Granville, E.

  MontEagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Grey, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Panmure, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Leicester. E.

  Minto, E.

  Penzance, L.

  Morley, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Powis, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Russell, E.

  Portman, L.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Eversley, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Halifax, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Taunton, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was unwilling to stand in the way of the important discussion on the Notice Paper, but he wished to obtain their Lordships' opinion with reference to a point which was discussed on a previous evening, but upon which no vote was taken. The present powers of the Secretary of State in regard to expenditure were, as that debate had shown, extremely doubtful. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) maintained that the limitation of the power of the Secretary of State to spend money did not really limit the executive and administrative power of the Secretary of State, and in that view he was supported by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; while the contrary view which he (the Marquess of Salisbury) adopted was supported by his noble and learned Friends (Lord Cairns and Lord Chelmsford). The power was thus, at all events, a matter of considerable doubt, and any Secretary of State for India who acted upon the opinion expressed by the noble Duke might have the opinions of his noble and learned Friends flung in his

  699
  teeth; he would be thought to have transgressed his power, and might be further exposed to the unpleasant consequences attaching to a Minister who spent the public money without any Parliamentary power or authority to do so. He desired that this ambiguity should be removed; and, as he thought there ought to be some distinct definition of the law on this subject, he would propose a clause to the effect that the Secretary of State should be authorized to make no grant out of the revenues of India; that he should be authorized to make no increase of pension, or to pledge the revenues of India for any future year; and, most important of all, that he should not be able to engage the revenues of India, through his Colleagues, without the consent of the majority of his Council. Beyond these points, however, he proposed that the Secretary of State should be responsible to Parliament alone. At the same time he did not think that there was any essential difference between the noble Duke and himself.
  Moved to insert the following clause—
  "Whereas doubts have arisen as to the powers of the Secretary of State over the expenditure of the revenues of India, and whereas it is expedient that such doubts should be removed; be it enacted as follows:—Section 41 of the said recited Act for the better government of India is hereby repealed. The expenditure of the revenues of India, both in India and elsewhere, shall be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council, but no grant of such revenues, or any part thereof, no increase in the pay or pension of any person in the service of Her Majesty, and no contract or engagement charging or involving the appropriation of such revenues for a period of more than a year from the date of such contract or engagement, or involving any payments to any other Department of Her Majesty's Government, shall be made without the concurrence of the majority of votes at a meeting of the Council."—(The Marquess of Salisbury).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLregretted that he could not accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, which, if it removed any existing difficulty or doubt, would only substitute others in its place. The present law was that no grant or appropriation of the revenues of India could be made without the consent of the Council. That prohibition prevented the Secretary of State from giving direct orders for the handling of money, but did not prevent him from ordering a service in India for which money was to be paid. He believed he was betraying
  700
  no confidence in adverting to the origin of the doubt in this matter. A great many members of commercial bodies in this country urged upon the noble Marquess—as they had since urged upon himself—the expediency of ordering a survey of the country between Eastern India and China for the purpose of making a telegraph and a railway. It might be expedient, as the noble Marquess thought, to have a knowledge of the intervening country. But the Government of India took a very different view, and his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) represented that the contemplated project might entail political complications, and expressed a strong opinion against an expenditure which would impose a considerable burden upon the tax-payers of India. The Council in this country backed the representations of the Government of India, and resisted the survey. He believed that the noble Marquess, notwithstanding, had his own way, and that the Council eventually did not resist his will, but assented to an order for the survey of the country. Considerable expense was incurred; and his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence) afterwards renewed his remonstrances as to the danger of bringing the Government of India into contact with the border tribes. When those remonstrances reached this country, Sir Stafford Northcote was Secretary of State, and the survey was given up. The matter had been under discussion since he (the Duke of Argyll) had been at the India Office, but on no considerations would he over-rule the Government of India in such a matter. The noble Marquess said, that, under the present law, the Secretary of State could not order such an expenditure on his own authority, and he desired so to alter the law as to confer that authority upon him. But the definition of the financial power of the Secretary and Council by the proposed clause was open to great objection. It left the Secretary of State absolutely free to engage for any amount of service, and to pay for it out of the revenues of India. It would not prevent him from engaging a whole army of engineers, and paying the expense without consulting with his Council. It would prohibit him from increasing the pay of any existing office, but it did not prohibit him from creating any number of now offices. He could not add £5 to

  701
  the salary of any existing office, but he could create any new office with a salary of £5,000 a year. The words of the Amendment—"no contract or engagement charging or involving," would give rise to infinite ambiguity. Did they mean a contingent or necessary "involving?" The whole paragraph was full of ambiguity and difficulty, and on its very front and face it gave a power to the Secretary of State which Parliament never intended he should possess. The words—''involving payment for more than a year," he believed had been introduced to meet an objection he had himself stated the other night to the noble Marquess. He pointed out to the noble Marquess that, as his Amendment stood, the Secretary of State might charge on the Indian revenues the whole of the British Navy serving not only in the Indian but in the Chinese seas; or, by an arrangement with the War Office, he might double the rate of pay of the Queen's troops in India. The words were therefore added—"or involving any payments to any other Department of Her Majesty's Government." lint if there was no agreement with the "Department," the Secretary of State would not be prevented by the words from making the payment. He (the Duke of Argyll) was at present negotiating with the Admiralty about the expense of the naval service in the Persian Gulf, and they were likely to come to an agreement on the subject; but, under this clause, without coming to any agreement with the Admiralty, he might order the payment of £100,000 or £200,000 or £300,000 for those ships. The actual balance in hand in bank of the Indian revenues ranged from £8,000,000 to £12,000,000 sterling, and it would be possible, under the Amendment of the noble Marquess, for the Secretary of State to pay the whole cost of the Abyssinian War without the consent of a majority of his Council. That was an absurdity which Parliament never could assent to. This Amendment would give rise to doubts and difficulties infinitely greater than those which could arise under the simple and straightforward wording of the present law, which was perfectly consistent with our Constitution. He seriously appealed to the House to consider the position of the Secretary of State for India with reference to money matters. He ventured
  702
  to say the power of the Secretary of State ought not to be materially increased Already it was the greatest power possessed by any Minister, because it was practically unchecked and uncontrolled, except by his Council—he might squander millions before the people of India were aware of the fact; and it was most important that he should be obliged to consult his Council before he dealt directly with matters involving large expenditure. He hoped their Lordships would not adopt the Amendment of the noble Marquess. He did not think that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), if sitting in a judicial capacity, would adhere to the interpretation he gave the other day.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Duke had made himself a sort of posthumous Hansard to the Indian Council, by referring to matters which had been discussed by the Council two years ago, which were not on the records, and to which there were no means of referring. The noble Duke referred to the question of the survey of Eastern India frontiers for the purpose of insinuating some degree of censure upon him the Marquess of (Salisbury).
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he had not at all intended to imply any censure on the noble Marquess. If he differed from the Government of India on a very important question he had quite a right to do so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, in reference to telegraphs or railways, he had not sent any despatch directing that any step should be taken that would compromise the peace of India in any way, and he assuredly had never manifested any liking towards a telegraph across the Burmese territory. He thought it an inconvenient practice in any Minister of the Crown to refer to matters affecting the conduct of his predecessor to the record of which he could not appeal. With regard to the interpretation which the noble Duke had put on his Amendment he would only make one remark—that the noble Duke had entirely changed his opinions on the subject. On the first reading of the Bill the noble Duke gave them a very interesting disquisition on this subject, and used these words—
  "It follows from this argument—which I believe to be well founded both upon the historical facts of the case and the words of the Act—that the

  703
  Secretary of State is supreme in all matters what- ever, except simply such matters as were included under the principle of the financial veto of Mr. Pitt—that is, direct grants or appropriations of money to persons either hero or in India which might be made for purposes of political jobbery. That I believe to be the state of the law; and if it be, I need hardly say that it makes the Secretary of State practically supreme in all matters, whether they do or do not cost money."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 1074.]
  Was that language consistent with the speech which the noble Duke had made to-night? He had not put this Amendment on the Paper to alter the law. If the noble Duke desired that the Council of India should stand in the same position as the House of Commons, he had no wish to make any alteration. His only desire was to give effect to the principles the noble Duke had himself expressed and to clear up any doubt with respect to the power of the Secretary on this point. If he had succeeded in converting the noble Duke he was satisfied, and would withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that the noble Duke had now asserted a doctrine wholly different from what he had formerly expressed. Originally the noble Duke claimed for the Secretary for India a power to spend the whole revenue of India by ordering services in India for which the Governor General should be desired to pay, and then preventing any veto on the accounts when they came home. However, the proposition now advanced by the noble Duke was a totally different one, for he said that it was impossible to suppose that by the law as it stood the Secretary for India could have such extensive power to spend money. The noble Duke had certainly learnt, something by the discussion, and he hoped his knowledge would be followed by some useful result.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: Bill to be read 3a on Friday the 4th of June next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 104.)

POLICE SYSTEMS OF SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MINTOrose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee of last Session on the Police Systems of Scotland, and to ask the Government certain Questions in connection with that subject. It was a general impression that these systems were ca-
  704
  pable of considerable improvement. The Select Committee, which he moved for last year, embodied in their Report certain recommendations to which he would shortly refer. In consequence of the existence of public prosecutors in Scotland, the police of that country had to perform certain duties which did not devolve on the police in England, and which took up a great deal of time, and required considerable training for their due discharge. But it was a curious fact that no system of superannuation for the police should exist in Scotland; and the first recommendation of the Select Committee, which he trusted the Government would take into consideration, was that a plan of superannuation should be established in respect to the Scotch constabulary. The next recommendation of the Select Committee had reference to the amalgamation of different constabulary forces. A number of small boroughs maintained independent bodies of police of their own; and in some towns two or three separate police forces were kept up. The Committee recommended that some of these bodies should be amalgamated with the county police, and that in eases where there were several distinct bodies of police in towns they should be joined together. The Committee were of opinion that the payment by fees, for certain duties, should be abolished. The Committee pointed out that the duties of the Procurator Fiscals and the chief constables sometimes conflicted; and recommended that their respective duties should be better defined. Upon another point the Select Committee thought it better that the Police Committee should have a veto upon the appointment of additional constables, instead of leaving it to the chief constable. Again, the chief constable was now liable to dismissal by the Police Committee, and the Select Committee recommended that this dismissal should not be made except with the sanction of the Secretary of State. On these points he should be glad to hear the views of the Government.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that as regarded the subject of the superannuation and retiring pensions, there could be no doubt that, in order to render the police efficient, some fund of this kind should be provided; but Dr. Parr's statement, as to certain superannuation funds in this country, was enough to

  705
  show how much care was necessary in dealing with this question. It was under the consideration of the Government, and would receive attention and favourable consideration. With regard to the consolidation of the borough police with the county force, it certainly appeared that in several cases the existing system did not work satisfactorily. Be-fore the Select Committee there was evidence of the inconvenience arising from the maintenance by small boroughs of police of their own: but the subject was one of great delicacy, for local bodies felt a jealousy of any invasion of their rights, and interference was ill-received in such a case. By Section 61, in the Act of 1857, a permissive power was given to the boroughs to amalgamate their police with the county force. Over twenty boroughs had availed themselves of that; power; but thirty-two boroughs, sixteen of which contained a population of under 5,000, still retained their own police. The next point was the relations of the chief constable with the Procurator Fiscal. The complaint was that the Procurator Fiscal, in the discharge of his duties, had the power of giving orders to the individual members of the force, independently of the chief constable under whose order and disposition the force was. That, no doubt, might occasionally cause some confusion—particularly when the Procurator Fiscal omitted to give notice to the chief constable. This appeared however to be very rarely the ease. But, it seemed to him (the Earl of Morley) that if the department of the public prosecutor was to work satisfactorily in Scotland, it was necessary that the constables should be, to a certain extent, under the orders of the Procurator Fiscal, who, with the sheriffs, were the persons who really worked the criminal law in Scotland. Cases might occur where, in conducting an inquiry on the spot, it was impossible to communicate with the chief constable, and great delay would occur if the Procurator Fiscal were obliged to send to the chief constable before he could direct the constables to assist in collecting evidence. At the same time, the duties of the Procurator Fiscal should be performed with the least possible interference with and derangement of the police force, and notice should be given to the chief constable wherever that was possible. The present system worked
  706
  harmoniously in almost every part of Scotland; and, that being so, it was not the intention of the Government to make changes which would weaken the power of the Procurator Fiscal, and might impede the ends of justice. His noble Friend had also adverted to the question of police appointments. That question was under the consideration of the Government, and he trusted the noble Earl would be satisfied with that assurance, and with the explanation which he was enabled to give him on the other points which he had brought under the notice of the House.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that the efficiency of the police force of Scotland was considerably impaired by the circumstance that the prospect of a superannuation allowance was not held out to them. The result was that the men looked upon the service as a temporary refuge until they could find something better to do. A well-considered system of superannuation would tend greatly to keep experienced officers in the force. He was glad, therefore, to hear that the subject was under the consideration of the Government. There were, he might add, in the counties numberless small boroughs which had little police forces of their own; and he would suggest that all boroughs having a less population than 2,000 should be compelled to amalgamate their police with the counties. If that were done, a better system of police would, he felt confident, be secured. With respect to another point, which he admitted to be one of some delicacy, he might state that he thought there was a growing desire on the part of the sheriffs and the Procurator Fiscal to acquire a greater control over the police in the counties than they ought to have. The view which he took of that question was that, while the force should be subject to the orders of the sheriff in those instances in which there was occasion to employ them in the detection of crime, they should be placed generally under the control of the Police Commissioners—for he did not suppose that the sheriffs and Procurators desired to interfere with the disposal of the force to a greater ex- tent than they found necessary for the due performance of their own duties. That was a point which he hoped the Government would take into consideration.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  Moved, "That the House do now adjourn to Monday the 31st Instant."— (Earl Granville.)

  STATE OF IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I rise, pursuant to notice, to inquire of my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies what course the Government mean to pursue in regard to two very important subjects—namely, the increase of crime and outrage in Ireland and also in regard to the laws relating to the Tenure of Land in that country? I have deferred doing so to the last moment in order that they might have full time to take into consideration the accounts which they might have received from Ireland, and the present aspect of two most serious questions connected with that country. The first of those questions has reference to the state of crime and outrage prevailing in Ireland—the other relates to the position of landlord and tenant. In dealing with the first question I must say that I do not blame the Government for the crimes and outrages which have been committed in a few counties in Ireland. I have generally observed that, when an active political agitation has been set on foot in Ireland and has been suppressed, it has been followed by that other means by which the Irish farmers and peasantry belonging to the Ribbon conspiracy endeavour to attain their object—namely, the atrocious crimes of murder and assassination. We know that, owing to the efforts of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Kimberley), when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Abercorn) who succeeded him, the Fenian conspiracy was entirely defeated, and men congratulated themselves that the efforts of the Government had been successful. Then the perpetration of crimes—of these private murders—has followed in the usual course on the failure of the political conspiracy. This is no ground of blame to Her Majesty's Government, but it is a state of things which appears to mo to demand their serious attention. Crimes of this nature have, as your Lordships' are aware, a great tendency to spread. When atrocious criminals who commit them have been arrested and punished a lull usually follows in the particular district in which they are
  708
  perpetrated. But when, on the other hand, the crime remains undetected, when the authors of these crimes have remained concealed, there is usually a great increase of crime, until the matter is forced on the notice of the Government of the day. There was such an increase of crime in Ireland in 1847—and especially of agrarian crime—and Sir George Grey, who was at the time Secretary for the Home Department, introduced a Bill for the purpose of suppressing it. We had some hesitation at that time in introducing such a Bill, because the year before the House of Commons had rejected Sir Robert Peel's Bill for ft similar purpose. That Bill was very similar to the Peace Preservation Act now in force; but it contained clauses, copied from the Whiteboy Act, enabling the Government to punish persons in districts which had been proclaimed for sending threatening letters, and for other offences tending to foster insurrection. The third reading of that Bill was supported by a great majority in the other House of Parliament, Mr. Bright being among its advocates. Some time after Sir George Grey stated that the Act had been completely successful, and in 1855–6 it was renewed, but with the omission of the clauses to which I have just referred. I cannot doubt that Her Majesty's Government and the local Government of Ireland are doing everything in their power to discover the perpetrators of the crimes which are now being committed in that country. Those crimes have increased in number, and have extended to other counties besides Westmeath and Tipperary, and the murderers have not been discovered. Now, Her Majesty's Government, might have followed the example of other Governments and introduced measures which would have been effective for securing peace; for, as Sir George Grey most truly said in 1847, all Her Majesty's subjects have a right to the protection of life. My noble Friend will no doubt endeavour to give a satisfactory answer on this subject. He will probably say—what is certainly true—that means are being taken to discover the criminals and bring them to trial, and that if this cannot be done Her Majesty's Government will consider what other measures may be necessary. I will now pass to the other and more anxious subject to which I propose to call the attention of the House and of the Government—namely,

  709
  the laws relating to the tenure of land in Ireland. It seems to me, my Lords, that at the beginning of the Session Her Majesty's Government might have taken into consideration the propriety of adopting one of two courses with reference to this subject. They might have come to the conclusion that this Session ought to have been devoted to the purpose of considering the laws and the questions more especially relating to Ireland, with a view to the settlement of the most important of those questions; and no one can doubt that among those questions the two most important relate, the one to the Church of Ireland, and the other to the tenure of land in that country. I think myself that they might have postponed the consideration of Endowed Schools, of other questions re-la-ting to Education in Great Britain, and of the subject of Bankruptcy, in order to give the entire Session to the fair consideration by Parliament of the great-questions remaining to be decided in regard to Ireland. On the other hand, the Government might have declared that, while they would take into consideration any measure which would secure compensation to the tenants in Ireland, and which would maintain at the same time the rights of properly, it was not their intention to introduce a measure on the subject of the tenure of land during the present Session. I say that cither of these courses might have been pursued with perfect propriety on the part of the Government. For my own part, I confess I should have preferred the former: but it was for the Government to decide which they would adopt. Unfortunately, however, there was a third course open to them—namely, to permit every kind of hope to be held out to the tenantry of Ireland, which could tend to shako that security of property, which Sir George Grey and Sir Robert Peel said in 1847 ought to be maintained, and yet, not to submit any measure for the consideration of Parliament. I think that an unhappy course; but it is the one which the Government has chosen. When I say this I must be understood as referring to the late deliberations and debates in the other House of Parliament. I am of opinion, my Lords, that in these days no technical rule should interfere with our discussions if we think proper to discuss statements which have been made in the
  710
  other House. In former days, as is well known, the House of Commons were very jealous of the publication of any reports of their debates and proceedings. Indeed, I myself am old enough to remember a person being brought to the bar of that House, by the Sergeant-at-Arms, because he was found taking notes in the Gallery. But now-a-days, we know that there is a full and wise publicity with regard to these things. Everybody knows next morning what has been transacted in either House of Parliament—the reports of our proceedings are spread all over the country, and are known to every person who takes any interest in the political affairs of the kingdom. Therefore it is a more mockery to say that what is known in every hovel in Ireland and every cottage in England should not form the subject of debate either in this or the other House of Parliament. For my own part. I am not anxious to refer on the present occasion to any declarations which may have been made in the House of Commons, but I do wish to refer to plans which have been propounded in speeches which have been carefully revised and published in a collected form as the speeches of the present President of the Board of Trade, and which are now well-known throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) went over to Dublin some time ago, and both there and elsewhere propounded and explained plans of his own for the settlement of the Irish land question. He named a certain number of persons as being absentee proprietors. The list was not wholly correct, though substantially accurate. The right hon. Gentleman professed to have a great regard for the rights of property; and I must say he desired that those persons should have full compensation for the property which they hold, and that their land should be sold again among the farmers and occupiers. At the date to which I have already referred—namely, in 1847—Sir George Grey said that the tenant-occupiers ought to receive fair compensation; and Sir Robert Peel followed up that declaration by expressing his opinion, that where an occupier built a house and was deprived of his holding he ought to have full compensation for the expense, time, and labour which he might have bestowed on the building of that house. These two statesmen, though belonging

  711
  to opposite parties, were quite agreed upon that principle. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies alluded the other day to a statement made by Lord Stanley in the House of Commons, and declared that he was quite ready to accept the principle of full compensation to the tenant-occupier. But, my Lords, this plan of Mr. Bright has for its object the displacement of a great number of proprietors of land in Ireland, and the substitution of small occupiers in their stead. That, my Lords, is a change so vast that it is hardly to be contemplated without a great deal of examination; and yet it has been proposed without examination, without any decision on the part of the Government, without, as far as I know, any deliberation by them on the subject. It has been stated from the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons that such is the object which one Member of the Cabinet has in view. With a people like the Irish that is exceedingly dangerous. My noble Friend has just spoken in regard to a Report made by a Committee some time ago with regard to various subjects, and among them one which has been brought under consideration in this and the other House of Parliament—namely, the Law of Hypothec in Scotland. We know this subject excites a good deal of attention in Scotland; but we know also that there would be no great anxiety or agitation if a remedy for the existing evils were not proposed in this Session, or the next, or even in the Session after. We know, on the other hand, that the people of Ireland are naturally excitable, and will look, not to the way in which the object is to be accomplished, but only to the proclamation that the property now held by the proprietors, whether they be absentees or residents, is to be transferred to the poorer occupiers. With or without compensation, these occupiers will endeavour by agitation and excitement to attain that object. That is not a kind of agitation which the Government ought to encourage. The declarations made in former days by Sir George Grey, as Secretary of State, and by Sir Robert Peel, as head of the Opposition, pointed to an object which, no doubt, required very great attention and deliberation as to details, but which was practicable and attainable. But one had to turn over a little
  712
  in one's mind the object which the President of the Board of Trade was aiming at in order to form some conception as to what would happen if the Cabinet adopted his views. Generally speaking, the smaller occupiers are not in possession of much capital, and would hardly be able to lay out much money in the acquisition of land. The President of the Board of Trade proposed that 20 per cent above the probable value of the land should be paid to the holders of estates, and when I read the plan of some time ago I think it was stated that some £5,000,000 were to be placed in the hands of Commissioners, and lent to the small occupiers in order that they might buy out their landlords and place themselves in possession of the land. We are told that the President of the Board of Trade spoke only for himself. I have no doubt that that is perfectly true. But I wish that others had also spoken for themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, can speak for himself most effectively, as we have lately seen. I wish he had spoken for himself on that occasion, and had given his opinion in regard to that advance of £5,000,000 from the public Exchequer, to enable the small occupiers of Ireland to buy up the land. Because, although the rights of property are to be respected—as I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade really intends to respect them, for I have the most perfect faith in his honesty—what we have to consider is, how this plan is to be carried into effect. And we have to look—your Lordships are bound to look—not only to its bearing on the objects to which I have referred—namely, the preservation of peace and security in Ireland, but also to its bearing on the improvement of Ireland. We all know—we are all happy to subscribe to—the statements made last year by Lord Mayo, and also made since then, I think, by my noble Friend, who at the time was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that there has been within the last thirty-five or forty years a gradual progress occurring in that country—a progress, interrupted, indeed, by violence and crime—a progess not continuous, but still a progress—due partly to measures which have been passed by Parliament, and due partly to the general course of social improvement in Ireland itself, which is most gratifying to those

  713
  who desire the future welfare of that country, and who wish to see her become a strong part of the United Kingdom. In a work written by the late Mr. Senior, who gives a very instructive account of conversations which he had with various proprietors in Ireland, the writer mentions one gentleman who said that he had a small property in that country, which had at one time sixty-seven tenants upon it. The potato famine came; many of the tenants were unable to pay their rent; he gladly excused them, and gave them some money besides to enable them to emigrate. Many of them willingly emigrated: and, instead of sixty-seven tenants, the number was now reduced to twenty-two, who, on an average, held twenty acres of land each. Now, I think, that was a beneficial operation. It was advantageous for those who emigrated, who were no longer in a land where they could not obtain food for their maintenance; and it was also for the good of those tenants who remained on the estate, and who could cultivate their twenty acres profitably and successfully. Let us suppose that some of these farmers of twenty acres each, tempted by the prospect—one of the most tempting prospects that can be offered to any man, whether in this country or in Ireland, or anywhere eke—namely, that of being a freeholder of a certain piece of land—suppose that some of these farmers with twenty acres obtained the command of that land, that they became owners in the place of the gentleman who is now receiving the rent, and who undergoes the trouble and the danger—which are neither slight nor few— attendant on the possession of property in Ireland—suppose, I say, that they have their twenty acres each, paying their rent and purchase-money to the Government, I ask, what has been a very common custom in Ireland? It has been a very common custom for these small fanners, instead of saying—"I have twenty acres: it is the lowest that I can cultivate at a profit," to say—"I have four sons; I will divide my farm among them. They shall each cultivate five acres." Now, imagine that the tenant has become possessed of the land. He has still to pay annually the sum which the President of the Board of Trade thinks that he ought to pay in order to become ultimately the owner of the land. Well, whom is he to pay it to? To the
  714
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have advanced the money, and he must go to those four men, having five acres a-piece, and ask from them, not only the ordinary rent which the man with twenty acres originally paid, but the rent increased by 10 per cent, or whatever it may be, to enable him to get the fee simple of the land. Will Ireland be improved by such a process? Do you tell me that would be a progress towards civilization and the improvement of Ireland? I unfortunately recollect, and recollect too painfully, the scenes which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) must remember better than I do, which occurred in 1832 and 1833, when the Government took upon themselves the duty of collecting the tithes throughout Ireland, and when the sum collected with the aid of a large force of dragoons, infantry, and police fell infinitely below the cost of its collection. And if such was the difficulty of collecting the tithes by the Government, tell me what would be the consequence, what would be the aspect of Ireland, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer collecting sums from all these petty people, in order to do what was just in respect to the rights of property, and at the same time to enable these small occupiers to become possessors of the soil? I conclude, then, from all we know of this plan, that the plan is entirely visionary, It would be a pleasant thing, my Lords, if we could, with regard to our political affairs, create such scenes as we see upon the stage, when that which one moment was a dark wood with a robber's cave is turned the next minute into the most smiling landscape with happy peasants peacefully pursuing their avocations. But although, my Lords, that is a very agreeable effect to witness at the theatre it is not one which we can produce in this House by the utmost efforts of legislative wisdom. We know that the improvement of Ireland is only to be worked out painfully and laboriously—yet, I trust, successfully. And I feel persuaded that unless the Government discountenance every such visionary plan, unless they determine to act forcibly and firmly, unless they show a bold front—as they have done in that small matter of the Mayor of Cork—unless in regard to the greater matter to which I have referred they resolve to grasp the nettle

  715
  firmly we shall not have that peace and. security in Ireland which we all desire to see. My Lords, I have therefore felt it a duty incumbent upon me to ask my noble Friend what is the course which the Government mean to pursue; because I do feel that—against their wishes, against their persuasions, meaning to do nothing but what is fair and honourable—if they allow this agitation to spring up in Ireland, and supposing Parliament to be prorogued with the whole land question of Ireland left open. Parliament may meet next February with things taken out of their hands; and it will end in the Government saying—"We own that what is proposed is against our views; but you see what the popular feeling, what the current opinion is in Ireland; we did not wish it to come to this conclusion, but we are forced to yield to it, and we can only ask you to concur in it." I hope the government will take a firmer course in this matter. I am quite sure that those who have been concerned in the government of Ireland, whether as Members of the Cabinet in England or as Lord Lieutenants and Governors of Ireland, will feel that there is some force in the observations I have made, and that the great anxiety which exists in reference to this subject should, if possible, be relieved.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, any statement proceeding from my noble Friend, either on a question of administration or of government, must come with great weight and authority; but I own I do a little regret that my noble Friend has been prevented from attending the debates in this House, which I think have been renewed three or four times, on this particular question; because I think, as we have always declared on this Bench, that the frequent recurrence of these discussions, without any practical result, has not a good or soothing effect. And. more than that—whereas many of your Lordships thought-it necessary that this subject should be fully ventilated and discussed—I know myself that there are individual Peers on—if I may use the phrase—the three sides of the House who think that object has now been fully attained. The noble Earl has asked me exactly the question which has been put to me at least three times before. He has asked what Her Majesty's Government mean to do in regard to land tenure in Ireland.
  716
  That question has been put, and it has also not been put. A noble Lord on my side of the House, and a noble Lord on the other side, both gave notice of such a Question, and both withdrew it, because they felt that it was disadvantageous for the purposes of justice that the Government should go into detail in regard to any measure of a repressive character. It is perfectly impossible for me to state more on this subject than I have done—that Her Majesty's Government, where-ever they think it judicious to do so, are with the greatest earnestness enforcing all those powers which the very Act of Parliament to which the noble Earl has referred, confers upon them. I will only say one word more, and I am not sure that it is wise in me to say so much. The noble Earl says that Her Majesty's Government ought to legislate. We may possibly introduce—although I give no pledge on the subject—sonic provisions to give greater speed to and facility to the Lord Lieutenant acting under the powers of the Peace Preservation Act. That I hope will be the case. But when the noble Earl talks of the omission or insertion of clauses from the Whiteboy Act, I wish to point out to him that the difficulty is not that there is no power to punish, but the great difficulty—which is no new one, for it has existed for many years past—is to get evidence to convict those whom you ought to punish, and until you get that evidence it is idle to talk about strong legislation. The noble Earl then suddenly diverged to another point—I think it must have been a new excitement and a new pleasure to my noble Friend to be so warmly cheered through the whole of his speech from a quarter from which he is not accustomed to receive such marks of approbation—the noble Earl went on to ask the intention of the Government with regard to the tenure of land in Ireland. Now, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was charged the other night with confining his newspaper reading to the metropolitan journals. But I think my noble Friend can hardly have read our debates—which have never been better reported than during the present Session—if he is not aware that I have already answered this Question two or three times, and that I have given the only answer which it is possible for me to give on behalf of the Government. The noble Earl says that

  717
  we ought to have taken one of two courses. He says that we ought either to introduce a land measure, or to say at once boldly that we do not mean to do so. Now, it is not once, but night after night that we have had discussions on this question. We have been asked by the noble Lord on the cross-Benches, and we stated that it was practically impossible to legislate this Session, and that opinion was backed by other noble Lords on the opposite side of the House. Now, my Lords, I say that, whether they are right or wrong, when a Government state that, in their opinion, it is impracticable to legislate this Session, and when they are backed up by several leading Members of the Opposition, it practically puts an end to the question. This is no new doctrine. I have always understood that a Government are bound to announce the principal measures which they mean to introduce; but I have never yet heard that they are expected to volunteer a catalogue of the measures they do not mean to introduce, But however that may be, as soon as the question was put whether we intended to legislate on the subject this Session we gave one unvarying answer—that we had no intention of so doing. The noble Earl then went into the question as to whether it was wright or wrong to have constant discussions in one House of what is passing in the other. I admit the distinction which was drawn a few nights ago by a noble and learned Lord whom I do not now see in his place (Lord Cairns), that the statements of a Minister of the Crown on a matter of great importance in one House may be taken up in the other, and a question put upon it whether that statement is to be understood as representing the intentions of the Government. But when the noble Earl proposes to abandon the Rides and Orders of this House, and that we should be perpetually discussing what passes in she Commons while they are discussing what passes here, I must say that I totally differ from him, and am not convinced by the illustration he has given. He has made a long and laboured attack upon one particular Gentleman who made a speech to which ha objected. The noble Earl has been misinformed. Mr. Bright's plan was never submitted to the Cabinet—it was propounded by him three years ago; and on a previous occasion I distinctly stated in a very candid way—
  718
  and not sparing Mr. Bright—that his was not a plan that had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I differ from the noble Earl as to the object of that plan, for it is not in the slightest degree a substitute for any measure having reference to the Relations between landlord and tenant. It was at the most something of a side plan. It may be good or bad, but, whatever faults it may have, it makes absolutely no invasion upon the rights of property even when interpreted in the strictest possible manner. The noble Earl attempted to make fun of the Chancellor of the Exchequer advancing money 10 tenants in order to enable them to buy the fee-simple of their land. But every word of this applies to the plan brought forward by noble Lords opposite, by which they proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should advance the money of the British tax-payer to enable the tenants to make improvements even when not authorized by the landlords. If the one is absurd, so is the other. I feel myself utterly unable, and I am not authorized by the Government, to give any opinion on the part of the Government upon the plan of Mr. Bright. We have from the first said that we will not take any single plan into consideration until the whole matter is before us. The noble Earl wishes me to go further than the declaration I made the other day. I only say that I was struck by the fair manner in which a noble Earl (Earl Grey) on the cross-Benches affirmed on a former occasion that our declaration of the principle on which we proposed to legislate was as explicit as it was possible for a mere declaration to be. But that noble Earl added that the only satisfactory declaration would be the measure itself, for there is hardly a clause in such a measure which may not vary the character of the Bill. I think, therefore, with great respect to the noble Earl, and without disrespect to any other portion of the House, that I must content myself with adhering to the declaration I made the other day, because I do not see how it is possible to make any other.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I shall detain your Lordships for the shortest possible time on a subject of so much importance. I have abstained from taking any part in these discussions; but. I must say I think that the noble Earl who has introduced this question was fully justified in calling your Lordships' attention to

  719
  it before the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess. And although my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies says that this question has already been brought forward three or four times, the justification of renewing it is that on neither of these occasions have your Lordships received any satisfactory answer to a very plain question. Speaking of myself, I may say that I have for the last five-and-forty years had the management, and for a large portion of that time the possession, of a property—not a large property, but, at the same time, not an inconsiderable property—in the heart of one of the most disturbed districts in Ireland. It adjoins the Limerick Junction, which, as your Lordships are aware, was on the last occasion of disturbance the seat of the principal portion of the insurrection. During the whole of that time I am happy to say that I have never had a serious dispute with my tenants; and when an occasion of the gravest character has arisen I have always succeeded in vindicating the law, and this to the satisfaction of the tenants themselves. During these forty-five years—I will not say that I have laid out the fee-simple of the property upon the land, but I have laid out a very considerable sum year by year. For several years I received no return from this property, and I am not in the receipt of a larger amount of rent now than I was forty-five years ago. But my satisfaction arises from the knowledge that the bulk of my tenantry are now in a very different condition from what they then were, and up to this time I have every reason to believe that they are perfectly satisfied and contented with their position. But I am bound to say that the language which is now heard all round that properly—language founded upon the expressions made use of by an important. Member of the Government—such as that after next year, after 1870, no more rent is to be paid—I say that such language and the encouragement it has received tend to shake the minds of the most attached tenantry and to violate and destroy the security of property. I agree with my noble Friend (Earl Granville) that it is desirable, as far as possible, to avoid recriminations and controversies as to what has passed in "another place": but we must admit that when declarations are made by a
  720
  responsible Minister of the Crown it is right to ask the Ministers of the Crown in this House, whether they concur with their Colleague, and whether he is authorized to speak on behalf of the Government?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I did not object to that.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am not an advocate of the Mayor of Cork. I should have been quite prepared to join the Government in any exceptional—I would almost add in an unconstitutional—measure for the removal of a man whose language and acts rendered him unfit for his office. But the language and acts of the Mayor of Cork derived considerable sanction from the acts and language of some Members of Her Majesty's Government. ["Oh, oh!"] The noble Earl is shocked, and so am I. I am not for a moment palliating or vindicating the language of the Mayor of Cork; but Her Majesty's Government a very short time ago thought fit promiscuously to release a great number of people who, with great difficulty and serious danger to the constabulary and honest inhabitants of Ireland, had been found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. The Mayor of Cork attended a meeting to celebrate—what?—the release of the principal of these Fenian prisoners, who had been guilty of most atrocious conduct, and to rejoice in that act of Her Majesty's Government as a just, charitable, and merciful act, which threw back on the country some of the most dangerous characters. I say I do not palliate the language of the Mayor of Cork; but far be it from me to say that the Government were free from blame in taking that step which was the subject of congratulation by the Mayor. The Mayor of Cork—the late Mayor of Cork I should say, for I am happy to hear that a new Mayor has been appointed of a different character—the late Mayor of Cork comlained that his language—most improper and pernicious language, deserving the strongest condemnation—had been misinterpreted; that he never intended encourage or promote assassination; that, on the contrary, he deprecated it. He was misinterpreted—I do not believe he did. Well, I think Mr. Bright may have been misinterpreted too. I do not believe he intended to stimulate to acts of violence against the landlords of Ire-

  721
  land. I do not believe that the Government intend to encourage a partition of the land of Ireland, or to exterminate the landlords; but when a Member of the Government holds such language as he has used, declaring that Ireland Trill I have no peace till the land of Ireland is transferred from the Protestant and absentee landlords to the occupiers of the soil, that language is dangerously liable to misinterpretation; I fully believe it was misinterpreted, just as the language of the late Mayor of Cork was misinterpreted. Well, then it is said that people in high position should be very careful of what they say. So you said with regard to the Mayor of Cork. He was a man in authority, and it was the more requisite that he should be cautious in his language and conduct. But the same thing holds true of Mr. Bright. He is an independent Member of the Government—and noble Lords will excuse me if I say it is popularly understood that Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone are the Government—and I say that he, a Minister of the Crown, a man in high station, should be very careful not to hold language, capable of being misinterpreted by a population so excitable and impulsive as the Irish. I will not refer at length to Mr. Bright's project—I believe it is entirely disavowed by the Government; but it was put forward by him since he became a Member of the Government; and I have no hesitation in saying that, if it were adopted, it would throw the whole of Ireland into convulsion. I ought to know something of the tenantry of the South of Ireland; I know how easily they are misled—I know their good qualities—I know also their feelings on the land question—and I know how easily they may be misled by a project for recovering what they consider their rights. The peasant of Ireland imagines that he is about to be restored to lands which he believes are his by right, inherited from his ancestors, and from which he is unjustly kept out by the landlords. And when a Minister of the Crown recommends a scheme the object of which is to put them in possession of what they consider their rights, in opposition to the rights of the landlords of Ireland, the peasantry go far beyond his language in the meaning they put upon it. Mr. Bright proposes, not to exterminate the landlords of Irelands, but to purchase from them
  722
  their rights at their full value. First of all, it is difficult to know what the full value of land in Ireland is or will be after the measures supported by Government are carried into effect. For my own part. I would prefer retaining my land, and occupying it—if I am allowed to do so—by my own tenants to parting with it to the Government; but if it be the project of the Government, as it is announced, to purchase the rights of the landlords, and to undertake the subdivision of their property in farms of such size as they think desirable, I can only tell them, before they take that course of proceeding, they had better largely increase the military and constabulary of Ireland: for every one who knows anything of Ireland knows that in the South and West of Ireland it is with the greatest difficulty that the most painstaking landlords can induce their tenants ever to alter the course of a ditch—a bank, with a ditch on either side—broad enough to drive a car along it, and running in every direction but a straight line—it is with the greatest difficulty the tenantry can be persuaded to adopt a give-and-take line, giving them more than their own. because they think it a violation of their rights of occupation. Let the Government purchase my rights—I dare say I shall have a good bargain if I sell, which I am not disposed to do. I would recommend the Government to be very careful how they buy up property under these circumstances, for where so many small interests exist—it may be the occupation of only half-an-acre—there is great danger, in such a scheme, of universal disturbance, convulsion, and bloodshed. I do not charge the Government—God forbid I should—with the intention of introducing any of these evils; but I want solemnly to warn them of the danger of allowing one of their Colleagues to make use of language that may have that effect. It is quite impossible that they can allow such language, unreproved and unrejected by them, without the greatest danger. They may say it is not used with their consent; but what we ought to require from them, for the sake of the peace and security of Ireland, is such a declation of their princples as may amount to a total disavowal of such revolutionary suggestions; and that whatever relief they may be able to give to the tenant—

  723
  which I certainly do not object to—shall be consistent with justice, and that, at all events, they will maintain and uphold the rights of property and of the landlords in Ireland. But they must bear in mind that at the present moment the great difficulty the landlords have to contend with is that they have not the power possessed in England of improving their estates by any new distribution of their property. I have had my property for forty-five years, but I do not say that I have done what I should have wished for its improvement. How could that be accomplished, when I find my farms broken into by three, four, or five different occupiers of three, four, or five acres each, in respect of which I do not mean to say I have not the right by law to consolidate the holdings if I please, but a compulsion is put on me to prevent it? However a landlord may be disposed to improve his property, the great difficulty is the removal of those who are a nuisance upon it. A great deal is said of granting leases. Some of my tenants have leases already, and when the holding is over ten acres I should not object to grant a lease for twenty-one years: but my belief is that in the South of Ireland tenants would rather not have leases, because, if you grant a twenty-one years' lease, the tenant would undoubtedly hold it for that term; but, at the end of that time, he does not wish to recognize that the landlord has a right to let the land to anyone else. That being so, I say there is the greatest possible danger in any language held on the part of a Minister of the Crown which encourages the people to believe that you are about to take some great measure for the re-distribution of land in Ireland, which shall give back to the occupier what he thinks his right to the soil of which the landlord has deprived him, and which shall remove the Protestant and absentee landlord from the property. My noble Friend has referred to the catastrophe at Ballycohey. My own estate adjoins Ballycohey where the late murder was committed. When that property was in the market, I was applied to, although a Protestant, to purchase that property. I declined. Mr. Scully purchased it. and we know what was the result. My Lords, I did not intend to trouble you with any observations on this occasion, but I could not avoid adding my testimony to the dangerous effect
  724
  which is being produced by the language and conduct, and not only by the language and conduct, but by the reticence of the Government; and my belief that their continued reticence must necessarily, to a great extent, increase the insecurity to life and property which unfortunately now exists in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should not have troubled your Lordships with any observations on the present occasion, did I not feel it my duty to protest solemnly against the language we have just heard from the noble Earl. The noble Earl said, and he said with great truth, that men in authority should be careful as to their words. Now, though the noble Earl no longer occupies a responsible position as a Minister of the Grown, yet from the high position which he has so long occupied, from his great knowledge of Irish affairs, and from the authority with which he speaks in this House, I think I shall not be going too far when I say that the noble Earl also should speak with some caution when he addresses your Lordships. But I put it to the House, and I put it to the noble Earl himself, whether it is fair, in the first place, in a side way, to compare my Colleague, Mr. Bright, with the Mayor of Cork—whether it is just to say that the language which Mr. Bright held in the House of Commons a few nights ago is comparable to the language which the Mayor of Cork held on the occasion which gave rise to the proceedings against him? My Lords, I utterly deny that the slightest comparison can be introduced. What did my right hon. Friend say? He said he had a plan, and that that plan would lead to certain improvement in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I beg pardon. I referred to former expressions of Mr. Bright, in which he said that if Ireland were 1,000 miles to the West the people would take the thing into their own hands, and the result would be the extermination of the landlords. I do not say that that language was intended to imply violent measures against the landlords, but that it was language upon which it was possible that a people like the Irish might place that interpretation.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I beg the noble Earl to remember that he drew a distinction; and a very just one, between men not holding offices under

  725
  the Crown and men holding such offices; and he said that if Mr. Bright had used the language to which he referred as a private individual it would not have mattered. The language to which he now says he meant to allude was used by Mr. Bright in a private letter addressed to a private individual, and which was published without his consent, and much to his regret. I put it to the House, therefore, whether it is at all just to bring against the President of the Board of Trade, us a responsible Minister of the Crown, language which, at all events, he used as a private individual. I again say, my Lords, that the language of the Mayor of Cork, which was language apparently approving of assassination—though the Mayor subsequently explained away that meaning—is not language which can be compared to any used by my right hon. Friend; and I venture to appeal to every Member of this House, to whatever party he may belong, whether he believes that such an attack as has been just made upon Mr. Bright is a fair one, or is one which will have the sympathies of any man inside or out of this House, on cool reflection: and whether Mr. Bright, who has conferred great benefits on the country, and who exercises great influence, has ever done anything laying himself open to such imputations? The noble Earl then proceeded to say that Her Majesty's Government had encouraged the Mayor of Cork by releasing certain Fenian prisoners. Well, I do not make the same protest against that argument. If the noble Earl likes to say that Her Majesty's Government were mistaken in advising Her Majesty to release certain Fenian prisoners, no one can object to his doing so. But, in the first place, the noble Earl is so eager to make this attack upon us, that he really—if he will allow me to say so—greatly over-stated the case. He spoke of an immense number of Fenian prisoners who had been let. loose. The immense number was forty-nine. Then, he said they were the worst offenders who were liberated; but I venture to tell him, as a matter of fact, that the worst Fenians are still in custody, and that those who were liberated were not the worst. Now, I ask whether, if it is thought expedient by the Government to advise the Crown, upon grounds which at all events seem to them suffi-
  726
  cient, to release a certain number of Fenian prisoners, that is to be made a ground for the accusations brought against us by the noble Earl—namely, that we directly encouraged the Mayor to use language which on the face of it is approving of assassination?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I did not speak of the language the Mayor of Cork used but of the fact of the Mayor of Cork presiding at a meeting upon the occasion of the release of the Fenian prisoners.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I certainly understood the noble Earl to refer to the language which the Mayor had used. To all that falls from the noble Earl with respect to Ireland I listen with the greatest attention, because on that subject he not only speaks with authority, but with great knowledge and experience, and I attach great value to his words. A great deal of what he said as to the present condition of affairs in that part of the country where he has property—property that is. I believe, extremely well managed—only showed the extreme difficulty and danger that attends the dealing with this question of the tenure of land, and also shows how in speaking of this subject even the noble Earl himself may use language—no doubt unintentionally—which may tend as much, perhaps, as any language used by Mr. Bright himself to encourage the peasantry in entertaining extravagant expectations. He said, that the position of the tenant-farmers there, from causes that he need not mention, rendered it almost impossible to remove them from their farms. Now, there is no doubt that this may be more or less a fact; but coming from the noble Earl as a description of the state of affairs there, it certainly may lead many people to think that although the Government may not advocate such measures as fixity of tenure, yet that practically fixity of tenure prevails at present in the South of Ireland, and is likely to prevail there. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I believe that nothing would be more unwise than for me to add anything to what was said by my noble Friend (Earl Granville). We adhere to our intention not to legislate on this subject this year, and I maintain that our declaration that such was our intention was an explicit one, and ought to have been sufficient to have

  727
  prevented the Question put by my noble Friend (Earl Russell) this evening.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I need scarcely attempt any apology for speaking upon this question, which the noble Earl (Earl Russell) brought forward so ably, and which has been answered in a manner so little satisfactory by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). I can confirm the statement of the noble Earl, that the present position of things in Ireland is calculated to excite alarm for the security of life and property. But I regret to say that the records in the public papers by no means come up to the full amount of alarm and intimidation prevailing in that district which, consists of the counties of Tipperary, Limerick, and also of the great part of King's County and Meath. I may say that alarm is almost universal in the whole of the South and West of Ireland, and that there are the gravest apprehensions that the present disturbances may extend yet further. I feel no wish to draw any undue comparison between the present and the late Governments, for I feel that this is a case too serious for party rivalry; but I feel also that the present condition of Ireland offers a lamentable and deplorable contrast to that prevailing at this time last year. What, then, my Lords, are the causes of this sudden outbreak- of alarm in Ireland, after a period of many years so singularly free from crime of this sort that it was the subject of general congratulation, both in ordinary society and by the judicial authorities at the different county Assizes, I do not at all agree with the supposition of ray noble Friend (Earl Russell) that it is a consequence of the Fenian movement, for I believe that those engaged in the Fenian movement are not by any means of the same description as those who are engaged in these agrarian outrages. The number of persons engaged in agriculture who joined the Fenian movement was very small. I think, however, that we need not go far for the causes—causes which I will presently allude to in connection with the speeches and professions made by prominent Members of the Government at the late election—after I have briefly traced the period of the rise and progress of the outrages. It was stated by the noble Duke, who spoke the other night that the attack upon Mr. Scully was the
  728
  commencement of the outrages; and it has been stated elsewhere by the present Secretary for Ireland that the present Government on coining into Office found that those outrages had been going on for a long time, and were then in full force. My Lords, I give both those assertions the most complete denial; and I will prove to your Lordships, first, that the attack on Mr. Scully had no reasonable connection with the outrages that occurred live months later; and, secondly, that at the time that the late Government left Office, and the present Government succeeded them, there had not been heard a whisper of such agrarian outrages as we now hear so much about. And, first, as to the attack upon Mr. Scully—which occurred, not as the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated, in September, but on the 14th of August. Murderous as the attack was, and the subject of the severest reprobation and punishment that the law could inflict, it was a nature totally different to ordinary Irish agrarian crimes. It was an armed defence against an armed attack in open day, and it had none of those characteristics—the stealth and secrecy—which are met with in ordinary agrarian murders. No case in the least degree resembling it has occurred since; and, in fact, no case resembling it ever occurred before, except in those instances to which my noble Friend referred in former years, when it was thought necessary to levy tithes by the assistance of an armed force. I say that this attempt to fix the outrage upon Mr. Scully as the commencement of a series of outrages of a totally different nature, which began five months after and have continued without intermission to the present moment, is a perversion of the facts and a complete misapprehension of the nature of these disturbances. To the assertion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that his Government found these outrages in full force, I give the most complete denial. During the two and a-half years that the late Government held Office, with the exception of the outrage on Mr. Scully, there was only one case of agrarian outrage resulting in death—that of Mr. Featherstonhaugh; and not one whisper had been heard, when the present Government came into Office, of those agrarian outrages of which we hear so much now. The first case that occurred took place after the

  729
  accession of the present Government, after the election and the result of it had been known, after most rash and ill-advised speeches from certain prominent Members of the Government, which speeches produced a fatal effect upon the excitable nature of the Irish people. The death of Mr. Baker, which occurred on the 31st of December, was followed by other murders and outrages in appalling succession. I think that I have shown your Lordships that there is no foundation for the statement of the Secretary for Ireland, that the present Government found these outrages in full force, but that, on the contrary, with the exception of the outrage in Mr. Scully's ease, five months before, there had not been the slightest attempt 1o commit such crimes. A noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), who is not in his place tonight, stated the other evening that the disturbances now existing were owing to the lax way in which the late Government had carried out the law in the case of Mr. Scully. Perhaps those noble Lords on the opposite side who complained of our laxness will be so good as to enlighten the House as to the firm and prompt manner in which they have suppressed similar agrarian outrages. I am sure that the House will be much indebted to any noble Lord on the other side who will explain the peculiar mode in which, with such complete and signal success, the present Government have suppressed agrarian outrages in Ireland, have enforced the law and punished offenders, and have succeeded in imparting a general confidence in the perfect security of life and property in Ireland. The further we examine the case the more distinct becomes the evidence that these outrages have arisen entirely since the accession to Office of the present Ministry, and that their origin is owing solely to the dangerous feeling which the rash and ill-advised speeches of prominent Members of the Government have aroused in a section of the Irish people. We do not blame the mere fact of the present Government not having brought in a Land Bill, but we consider, and the country considers, that they are open to the gravest censure in that when they knew that they could not by any possibility bring in a Land Bill, and when they had no intention whatever of doing so, they, notwithstanding, did not scruple, for party and ad captandum pur-
  730
  poses to hold out promises of such a radical change in the tenure of land as have excited the wildest expectations in Ireland. Nor is that all; for invectives—I might almost call them denunciations—were littered by prominent Members of the Government, expressed in the most solemn language and with all the eloquence they are masters of, in reference to what they termed the longstanding grievance of the Irish people, and to the baneful effects of Protestant ascendancy and Protestant landlords upon the country. I think the expression was that "Protestant ascendancy was the Up as tree that must be rooted up." Can you wonder that words like those should have taken hold of that portion of the Irish people, for whose benefit they were especially intended? Expressions so rash and inconsiderate as these can only be accounted for on two grounds: either a complete and entire ignorance of the feeling of the Irish people—of which, by-the-way, the present Government professes to be the only true exponent; or by a determination, regardless of all consequences, to secure votes at the hustings by professions which they knew could not be performed, and by indications of a policy full of hazard to the social state of Ireland. I leave the noble Lords on the opposite side to elect which of those was the motive for the line adopted by prominent Members of their party. Whatever it was, however, they have incurred a most grave and serious responsibility for a state of society in Ireland of which I fear that we have seen neither the last nor the worst. I believe, I repeat, that these outrages have arisen solely and immediately from those rash and inconsiderate speeches by the President of the Board of Trade, by the Prime Minister, by the Home Secretary, and other prominent Members of the Government—speeches which, I admit, have been partly misapprehended, but yet speeches that ought never to have been made—speeches such as we have never been accustomed to hear, and I hope we never shall be accustomed to hear from expectant Ministers of the Crown. It is all very well to say that this or that word was not used, or that this or that sentence was misunderstood—the sense remains the same, and no effort whatever was made to contradict it when it was made the means of securing votes and victo-

  731
  ries at the hustings. Those very professions which are now sought to be evaded are those which were paraded with exultation by the Liberal journals in this country, and were copied and enlarged upon by every so-called national paper in Ireland, no attempt whatever being made at the time by any Member of the Government at either explanation or contradiction. I have no doubt that many Members of the Government now regret the consequences of their own acts. The conduct of the Government towards Ireland resembles nothing so much as that of a physician who, in total ignorance of the constitution and complaint of his patient, has prescribed severe and sweeping remedies, and is astonished to find not only the original disease aggravated, but fresh diseases, of which there were no previous symptoms, showing themselves. These, my Lords, have been The results of the policy of which it was said that it was to bring; peace and civilization, equality and security, to Ireland. I have no wish, however, to approach this question in a party spirit or with other than the most earnest desire to see the return to a better state of society; and I would urge the Government to adopt the only course which is now left them for the suppression of these outrages and the restoration of public, confidence. That course must be two-fold; first, that which is self-evident and has already been alluded to by my noble Friend, the exercise to the uttermost of all the powers that belong, or that can be given to, the Executive for the suppression and punishment of these outrages; and secondly, and conjointly with it, such a full, sincere, and prompt repudiation by the Government, of the sense that has been attached by a large portion of the people of Ireland to the words so rashly spoken on the hustings, as will convince even the most credulous that, the Government of this country is determined at all hazards to maintain the integrity of property and of law, as well as the security of life. By such a course you may alienate some of your present supporters in Ireland—you may lose some of those party votes for which you have paid so high a price—but you will be following the only course which is now left you for bringing about a renewal of tranquillity and order, and of security for life and properly in Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, that the stolid obstinacy of Her Majesty's Government in the course they were adopting with regard to Ireland was already having its evil influence upon that country. The recent outrages had greatly lessened the value of property. He held in his hand a record of the attempted sale of some property in the county of Westmeath, in the Incumbered Estates Court, which showed that at a public auction only £700 was bid for an estate of 370 acres, which was valued before the agrarian outrages commenced at £8,000. The Government relied upon the Peace Preservation Act as a means of repressing these outrages; but the result had proved that they were leaning on a broken reed; while the immediate effect of the outrages had been—in the county of Westmeath—to reduce the value of property, and to make owners glad to dispose of it at almost any price. The Government were constantly repeating that no evidence could be procured for the purpose of securing the conviction of those by whom these terrible crimes were committed; but all who knew anything of Ireland knew that unless there was a strong Government capable of protecting witnesses, persons who gave evidence would stand in the utmost peril from the Ribbonmen, in danger of having their animals mutilated, and of being themselves and their families brutally beaten and outraged. They might rely upon it that no evidence would be forthcoming until the hand of the law made itself felt for the punishment of those who broke it, and the protection of those who assisted in bringing offenders to justice. But the present Government could not—did not—do anything for the protection of his unfortunate country, because they were tied down to "the Brass Band," because they were bent upon securing, at any cost, the success of their Church Bill.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that the state of Ireland undoubtedly was—as he feared it was likely to be for some time to come—well worthy of their consideration; but if they looked at the outrages which had lately been committed, he failed to discover any grounds for the panic that appeared to prevail in some quarters. Many of the murders that had been lately perpetrated in that country were not, as far as he could see, attributable to agrarian causes. In the case of Mr.

  733
  Baker, his murder was committed by a man of notoriously Lad character, who was always quarrelling with somebody, and who was just the man, in any county, to perpetrate such a crime. Mr. Anketell, the Mullingar station-master, was shot by one of the servants of the company, but on a personal grievance that had, and could have, no possible connection with the land. Captain Tarleton was a very small proprietor, and he fell by the hands of one of his labourers, who pretended to no rights of ownership; and the murder of Mr. Bradshaw had been attributed by some to personal jealousy. None of these crimes showed any symptom of being the result of an organized system of agrarian outrage. He did not deny that much was said and done in Ireland that was deeply to be deplored; but those who knew her history well knew that at certain times crimes of this description became abnormally prevalent; to a certain extent they might perhaps be owing to the suppression of the Fenian movement. A few years ago, when the desperate men of that party wore looking forward to a revolution or a general rising, they held their hand: but when a happier prospect dawned upon Ireland, when all honest and sensible persons began to admit that her connection with England must, indeed, continue, but that it need not be inimical to her happiness and prosperity, then those ill-disposed and desperate wretches gave a vent to their vicious passions, and took to the dastardly trade of secret assassination. That, in his opinion, accounted to a great extent for the present unsettled state of things in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF BANDONsaid, that the condition of Ireland must indeed be considered unsatisfactory, when in a city like Cork they discovered such deep laid traces of disloyalty and sedition. Anyone walking through the streets of Cork would behold what was outwardly the most prosperous city in Ireland; but below the surface there was a deep laid conspiracy, and he had been informed that three-fourths of the inhabitants were supposed to be disaffected to the British Government. He was glad the Government had at last taken action with regard to the atrocious language of the Mayor of Cork, but regretted that they had not taken proceedings against that functionary at an earlier date. He thought one of the main causes of the
  734
  present disturbances in Ireland was the liberation of the Fenian prisoners. He regretted that Her Majesty's Government refused to give an outline of their views with respect to the land question. A plain declaration—which would go into no details—would calm the excitement that now pervaded Ireland on the subject, and would inform them whether it was really intended to disturb the foundations of property in that country. He agreed with the noble Lord who said that their Lordships wore entitled to hear a declaration on that point before coming to any discussion upon the Irish Church Bill. They were told at present, that as nine-tenths of the soil in Ireland was owned by Protestant landlords, they ought to be able easily to support their Protestant Church; but what was the argument worth, if next year the land was—under some pretext, and in some form or other—to be transferred to the Roman Catholic tenants? The state of Ireland paralyzed and stopped all the progress of the country; and it prevented capital flowing into the country. Being closely connected with Ireland, and almost constantly resident in that country, he had ventured to call the attention of Parliament to its condition.
  Motion agreed to.

  NEW FAMISHES AND CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Bill to amend the New Parishes Acts and Church Building Acts—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of YORK; road 1a. (No. 106.)
  House adjourned accordingly at a quarter past nine o'clock, to Monday the 31st Instant, Eleven o'clock.