Sitting of 9 August 1870

MINUTES.
— NEW WRIT ISSUED — For Plymouth, v. Sir Robert Porrett Collier, Knight, Recorder of Bristol.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* [264],
The House met at half after Twelve of the clock.

STATISTICAL RETURNS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.—QUESTION.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Committee appointed last year to consider the revision of the Statistical Returns published by the Board of Trade have yet completed their labours; and, when the result of their inquiries is likely to be made public?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In reply, Sir, to the hon. Member, I have to state that the departmental committee to which he refers reported to the Treasury in May last upon the improvements to be effected in the form of the trade accounts; as to the means to be adopted for issuing them earlier to the public, and, further, as to the organization of that branch of the Customs which deals with this subject. It was stated a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury that the Report had been submitted to the Commissioners of the Customs for their opinion as to how far it was practicable to carry out these changes, and I understand that they have within the last day or two given their opinion. It will, therefore, now
1732
rest with the Treasury to determine whether they will carry out the recommendations of the committee, so far as the organization of the Department is concerned, and until this is determined, in my opinion it will not be possible to make the improvements in the accounts which are also recommended.

THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can undertake that no further steps should be taken in the matter of the Wellington Monument until the matter can be fully discussed in Parliament, and an opportunity be given to the artist to make the explanations which are not included in the Papers laid before Parliament?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that on the 14th of April last Mr. Penrose was informed that an inquiry would be held into the proceedings in reference to the Wellington Monument, and the letter then addressed to him gave him ample notice that he might offer any explanations on the subject. On the 21st of April a letter was addressed to Mr. Stevens, the sculptor, informing him that an inquiry would be made, and that he would have ample opportunity for giving any explanations in his power. No explanation, however, was given by Mr. Penrose or Mr. Stevens that was at all satisfactory to the gentlemen who conducted the inquiry, It was not until the 20th of July last that Mr. Penrose was informed that his services as superintending architect would be dispensed with, and Mr. Stevens was informed that his contract would be annulled in consequence of his default. Both gentlemen had had ample opportunity since then of affording explanations with respect to their conduct, but they had not done so. Mr. Penrose wrote a letter which gave no explanation at all, and Mr. Stevens wrote another which appeared to make his position much worse than before. It had become necessary to hand that letter over to the solicitor of the Department of Works, with instructions to take immediate measures to enforce the rights of the Crown. The solicitor would proceed with the utmost expedition, and if the hon. Member desired to discuss the question next Session nothing could more

  1733
  effectually further his object than to have the matters that were now pending decided in the meantime by a Court of Justice. It could not be said in that case that there could be no discussion, as the question was before a Court. Care would be taken that the gentlemen involved would have an opportunity of giving the explanations which the hon. Member desired. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the proceedings would be pursued with the utmost energy and despatch.

INDIA—PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT—ENGINEERING COLLEGE.—QUESTION.
MR. PLUNKETsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to establish an Engineering College for the preparation of candidates seeking employment in the Indian Public Works Department; and, if so, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abandon or modify the present system of competitive examination for appointments in that department; and, whether it is intended to abolish the system of competitive examinations for the forest service in India?
MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply, Sir, to the hon. Member I have to say that it is intended to establish an Engineering College to be entered by competitive examination, and that it is not intended to abolish the system of competition for our forest service in India.

UNITED STATES — FURTHER TREATY OF EXTRADITION.—QUESTION.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreigh Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared, on the passing of the Extradition Bill, to negotiate with the United States for a further Treaty of Extradition, in which persons charged with embezzlement will be included, similar in character to the Treaty of Extradition between France and the United States?
MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that, as he was informed, embezzlement was included in the list of crimes in the Extradition Bill; but the Government would boar in mind the suggestion of his hon. Friend in case there should be any alteration in the Extradition Treaty between
1734
this country and the United States. There was, however, no immediate intention of proposing any.

METROPOLIS — GOVERNMENT OF LONDON LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill next Session for the hotter government of London?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that before he answered that Question he might perhaps be allowed to make one or two observations. He did most earnestly desire, and he thought there was a reasonable expectation, that the Home Department would have somewhat more time for the consideration of its measures by the House next Session than it had had this Session. If such were the case, and he thought he might fairly assume that it would be, he held himself pledged to bring in, in the first place, a Licensing Bill and a Trades Union Bill—both of which subjects had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech—and, in addition, a Mines Regulation Bill, which for want of time, he had been unable to carry through Parliament in two successive Sessions. Among the other matters—and he was sorry to say they were numerous—which would require soon to be treated, one of the most important was that to which the Question of his hon. Friend referred—namely, the better government of the metropolis; but, important as it was, there were others hardly yielding to it in importance, and perhaps of still greater urgency. Among them was the condition of our rivers—a matter affecting not only the question of the supply of water, but also the sanitary arrangements of all our large towns. Next to that was another measure of very great importance, and forming the necessary complement of the Elementary Education Bill passed this year—he meant a complete revision of the Factories and Workshops Regulation Acts. Another question on which a Commission had been sitting for, he thought, the best part of two years was the Amendment of the Sanitary Acts; and among the further subjects requiring legislation were the Inclosure of Commons,

1735
County Finance Boards, the Turnpike Acts, the superannuation of the Police, and the Game Laws. [Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: And the Medical Acts Amendment.] That, he was happy to say, was not within his Department. He need not say that those measures alone would occupy the whole time of the House, and it was absolutely impossible, therefore, that he could do more than make a selection from them. It would be the business of the Government carefully to consider the contending claims of those various measures, and, with reference to the time which might be fairly allowed to the Home Department next Session, to say what Bills, and how many of them, could be dealt with; and he could assure his hon. Friend that the local government of London was a question which would have a foremost place in the consideration of those measures.

EXPEDITION TO OCEANICA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. RICHARDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any foundation for the statement which appeared in one of Reuter's Telegrams, dated Madrid, June 24—
  "That Spain, England, and Holland had decided to organize an expedition to Oceanica to put an end to piracy, the Spanish squadron being charged to explore the Sea of Yolo and the Philippine Islands?"
  MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that he was not aware of any expedition of that kind being contemplated.

BOARD OF TRADE, &C.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MACFIE, who had given Notice to call attention to the constitution and working of the Board of Trade and other Administrative Departments; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the great commercial and national objects which Parliament has entrusted to the Board of Trade, and others which lie equally within the Board's legitimate sphere, would be furthered if, as in earlier periods of its history, the President and Secretary had, in discharging the numerous, diversified, and yearly enlarging functions of that important Department, the assistance of weighty and experienced assessors, such as might be selected by Her Majesty on account of their acquaintance with the various industrial interests of the Empire, from within and outside of Parliament, to act together as a duly constituted deliberative Board,"
  1736
  said, he was unfortunate in having to bring that question forward in the absence of the respected and valued head of the Department to which it related, and also at the late period of the Session at which they had arrived. He believed it would be uncongenial to the House if he were now to propose his Motion, and that he would not be doing justice to the subject if he attempted it, because the opinion of the commercial Members of Parliament could not now be obtained. At the same time he wished very briefly to indicate what the proposal was which he had intended to lay before the House. It was utterly impossible that the Board of Trade, as at present constituted, could discharge all the duties that pertained to it. His proposal was that the President and Secretary should have the assistance of weighty and experienced assessors, such as might be selected by Her Majesty on account of their acquaintance with the various industrial interests of the Empire. Members of Parliament and gentlemen outside Parliament would give their services gratuitously. He would have several committees in the Department of Trade. He was convinced that such a system should sooner or later be introduced in the Colonial Department and in the Department of the Post Office, as well as in that of the Board of Trade. Having briefly stated what was the object of the Motion of which he had given Notice, he bogged to say that he would not now move that Motion, but would postpone action in the matter till another Session.

MILITIA (IRELAND.)

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of Militiamen, stating date, corps, county, offence, and punishment, who had been brought before either Magistrates at Petty Sessions or any Superior Court since 1865 charged with any agrarian or political offence in Ireland."—(Mr. Stacpoole.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, without having any intention whatever of casting an imputation on the loyalty of the Irish Militia, he must, on the part of the Government, decline to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member. The Return was one which would take much time and cost a great deal of money, besides

  1737
  which it would not be possible to secure accuracy in such a Return. For all practical purposes the Return would be useless.
  COLONEL FRENCHdenied that the compiling of the Return would involve trouble, delay, or expense. There would be no difficulty in furnishing such a Return. He thought the Government acted unwisely in not embodying the Irish Militia. The Staff was kept up, but the rank and file of the force were allowed to dwindle away. He wished to know whether the Government had any reason for not calling out the Irish Militia regiments? In his opinion the hon. Member was entitled to the Return he asked for.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTobserved that yesterday another Militia question had been passed over, in what he could not help regarding as rather unseemly haste. As the Secretary for War was not in his place he should not enter upon the question of the Militia further than to express a hope that the Government would avail themselves of the favourable opportunity now afforded them to place the Militia Force in a state of efficiency, both as regarded officers and arms. It would be a graceful act on the part of the Government to call out the Irish Militia, and to bring them over into this country.
  MR. BRUCEreminded hon. Members that the question before the House was not whether it was expedient to call out the Irish Militia, but whether a certain Return, involving considerable delay and expense, should be granted. For the reasons already given he trusted that the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, more especially as he had never heard any charge brought against the Irish Militia, such as the terms of the Motion would seem to imply had been alleged against them.
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he was glad that the question of the Militia had been ventilated, even in this indirect manner. He trusted that the Militia regiments would be kept up to their full strength, and would be properly officered and armed. It would of course be very unwise to take any stops that might present the appearance of our being in a panic; but as the Militia was the force we looked to in times of peace, it might be placed upon a proper footing without leading to any improper inferences.
  MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would be the last person to cast a slur upon the Irish Militia. His only object in moving for the Return was to show that they were entirely innocent of the charges that had been brought against them. He begged to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT APPROACHES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKEmoved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, taking into consideration the late hours and heavy labours in connection with the duties of the Legislature, and the inconvenience and loss of time arising from the crowded state of the thoroughfares, Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that during the Session of Parliament Members of the Legislature may have free access to the Houses of Parliament by way of Constitution Hill to Birdcage Walk and through the Horse Guards."
  To open new thoroughfares would cause a large expenditure to be incurred; but by the method he proposed no outlay would have to be made.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, there was a good deal to be said in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member; but it would be useless at this period of the Session to present an Address to Her Majesty, because it would be impossible for an answer to it to be returned. The hon. Member had better withdraw his Motion for the present, and renew it early next Session.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he wished to make reference to what took place yesterday in the House with regard to the new Treaty. He should be unwilling to return to the constituency which he represented without saying a word upon that transaction; but what he had to say he said rather to relieve his own conscience than with the view of producing any effect elsewhere. The Prime Minister told them that the Government had placed the country under fresh obligations with regard to Continental Powers, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had eulogized the transaction, and had said the Government were adopting a wise and spirited policy.

  1739
  Now, he had always found in the past that every policy which was characterized by Gentlemen in various parts of the House as spirited had not turned out to be wise. He had a very strong conviction that there was no wise policy for this House and for the Government of this country to pursue but that of keeping entirely free from Continental entanglements. He believed the Government was sincerely anxious to keep the peace, and that the course they had taken with regard to this new Treaty had been with a view to the promotion of that object. But, as it was so contrary to what he believed to be a sound policy for this country to pursue, he was personally wholly opposed to it. The Prime Minister of France a short time ago told the world that he went to war with a light heart. It appeared to him that there were a great many men in that House and out of it who could enter upon a Continental quarrel with a light heart, if he might judge from the manner in which they had spoken on various occasions. He could not imagine anything more grave or disastrous than for this country, on any pretext whatever, to enter upon a Continental Mar. Since he had been in that House nothing had struck him more than the debates with regard to the pauperism of the country and the burdens upon the class who had to support that pauperism; and when he heard men talk lightly of going to war, he remembered that we had more than 1,000,000 paupers, and that we had 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 who had to assist in supporting those paupers, though they had themselves no more than the bare necessaries of life. The conditions on which our prosperity was based were wholly different from those which were to be found in connection with any other country. If a wall were built round France or round Germany each of those countries could live though nothing wont out of it or nothing came into it. They produced enough for their people's food; but, as we had to obtain elsewhere a large proportion of what was consumed in this country, it was far more serious for us to enter into a war than for any other country that could be named. Besides, the British Empire extended over the whole globe, and if we were to enter into a Continental war it would be felt in Canada, on the shores of Asia and Africa, and in Australia.
  1740
  He could never, therefore, speak lightly of such a possibility. He hoped the day would come when the men who met in that House would feel that their duties were confined to wise legislation for the people, and the defence of British possessions and British interests. He was as willing as any man to give his voice and vote for the protection of that which belonged to us; but he protested against Quixotic expeditions, involving this country in difficulties from which it was often difficult to escape. He did not think any Government had a right to subject the country to greater obligations, or to incur any risk of Continental war, without the opportunity being afforded for some general expression of opinion on the part of the constituencies. He did not believe he should live to see the day when any Prime Minister who was at once remarkable for intelligence and conscience would, under any pretext do anything that would involve the country in a Continental war. To put himself in order he moved the adjournment of the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON, in seconding the Motion, expressed his regret that the Prime Minister had not been able to give them more explicit information about the Treaty, and said they ought to be put in possession of such information as soon as possible. He felt considerable apprehension from the statement made by the Prime Minister last night. It was true we entered into a Treaty in 1839; but there were a variety of opinions as to the extent to which we were bound by it; and many good authorities held that we were only bound collectively, and not separately, to interfere in the affairs of Belgium. As he understood the statement of the Prime Minister, this new arrangement bound us far mere absolutely than did the old one to interfere in the affairs of Belgium, and it bound us in a very extraordinary manner, for it seemed to him we were to confine our operations to defending Belgium, and that we were not to go any further. If we went to war at all he would have us "go the whole hog." He should not perform his duty without saying that he felt much alarmed by the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government were entering into new obligations, as regarded Continental affairs, and without protesting in the strongest manner against any new engagement

  1741
  which could complicate us in the wretched Continental quarrel now going on.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he respected the courage of his hon. Friends as he respected the courage of the minority of 5 in the Division of the other day; but, as a Radical and an Economist, he would venture to say a word on the other side. He had seen nothing of levity in the spirit with which the prospect of war had been contemplated, either in the House or in the country. Foreigners had been spoken of as if they were peculiar human beings, always ready to rush at each other's throats, uninfluenced by the elevated motives which actuated the great British people; but we should do more justice to foreigners if we regarded them as human beings and nations actuated by the same desires and feelings as ourselves; as struggling for a freedom which we had happily attained, and for an independence which we enjoyed: and if people abroad were fighting for independence and freedom, they were fighting our battle too. If his hon. Friends spoke for the "peace at any price" party, he would go beyond them, and say he was for peace at any price, even at the price of war. As to speaking of the defence of the country, where were you to draw the line of defence? If we were in any danger of being attacked, it was the greatest absurdity to sit still with our hands before us, and to make no preparations. That was not the way to insure peace; it was the way to make war probable. During this war we had been so anxious to take neither side that the result had been to hide from ourselves that which we ought to know—namely, that the war arose because the chief of the most warlike nation in Europe held his position under conditions which required him from time to time to distract the attention of his own subjects by a war with foreign countries. The House did not know enough of the Treaty proposed by Her Majesty's Government to pronounce a positive opinion upon it; but he thought they had done well to stand by a smaller nation whose existence had been threatened. If a woman or a child were attacked by a ruffian in the street, would his hon. Friends keep safely in-doors, deaf to screams for help, and declaring that they would interfere in no such quarrels? In his opinion, the Government had taken
  1742
  a wise and spirited course in endeavouring to uphold the independence of Belgium.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had asked us to consider foreign nations as being actuated by elevated motives not less than the British people; but if that were so, what right had he to assume that any foreign Power would act the part of freebooters, and would, without provocation or justification, attempt to ravage our shores? On what ground did he assume that this country was in danger of being attacked by any foreign Power? The House had no right to assume that either France or Prussia had the slightest idea of attacking us, nor was it reasonable for the Government to act as though those Powers would take such a course as would render special measures of defence necessary on our part. Even if it were so, however, were not France and Prussia in a far better position to attack us before the war than now when they were fighting each other? Something had been said about panic, and there appeared to be a panic in that House, judging from the manner in which, night after night, hon. Members had got up in their places to put all kinds of Questions respecting the state of the defences of the country. It seemed as though their usual calmness and coolness had deserted them in the belief that we were in danger of invasion. And now after all our experience of the worthlessness of foreign Treaties we were about to be involved in another. It was only the other night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer), whose distinguished position gave him great authority on these subjects, had told them of a remarkable circumstance which had naturally excited considerable attention in the country. His right hon. Friend had said that before the ink with which the Treaty of 1831 guaranteeing Belgium was signed was hardly dry, there was a negotiation between the French and Prussian Ambassadors of that day to break its conditions. And just recently there was the proposed Secret Treaty between France and Prussia which had been brought to light not by diplomatists, but by the Press, and which gave us the right to say, notwithstanding every denial and explanation, that the course pursued by France and Prussia

  1743
  was open to grave suspicion. But according to the Prime Minister, the Government had practically given up a Treaty under which the independence of Belgium was guaranteed by the five great Powers, for a separate Treaty with the two very Powers whose agents so recently had been negotiating an infraction of the former Treaty. It appeared that under the terms of the new Treaty if one of the belligerents were crushed and its military forces destroyed, we were to fight alongside that crushed Power, against the victorious Power, should the latter invade Belgium. That was not a satisfactory position. The hon. Member for Leicester seemed to think we ought to defend every small and independent State against aggression: why, then, did we not interfere on behalf of Schleswig-Holstein, of Hanover, and the Duchies and Archduchies which were crushed out of existence by Prussia and by Italy? Did those Sovereigns not excite the sympathies of his hon. Friend? [Mr. P. A. TAYLOR: Certainly not.] No; he was perfectly well aware that his hon. Friend rejoiced at the downfall of those petty sovereignties; but that was entirely inconsistent with his argument, as those were small and independent States very much in the position of Belgium. He (Mr. Rylands) did not wish to raise the question as to what this country ought to do in the event of Belgium being attacked. There was really no danger of Belgium being attacked, and he thought the question of the independence of that country ought to be left till the eventuality arose, and Her Majesty's Government ought not to be induced by all this clamour about Belgium to take a step which placed us at so serious a disadvantage. As far as he could judge, the now Treaty was a foolish Treaty, and he must express his deep regret that after all the misfortunes brought upon us by our Continental engagements, the Government should be negotiating another Treaty which might be disadvantageous to this country. It was to be regretted that under our constitutional arrangements there was no power in the House to discuss the provisions of a Treaty until they were carried into effect. It was unfortunate that in the secret recesses of the Foreign Office, Treaties should be hatched, by which the Government bound not only this but future generations, under circumstances
  1744
  which he feared might at a future time result in some great and terrible disaster. He could not say that he thought the eventuality contemplated by the present Treaty was likely to occur; but if it did occur, and if we were called upon to defend Belgium by allying ourselves with a crushed Power against an army and a nation flushed with victory and conquest; if in the interest of the 4,000,000 of the population of Belgium, our own 30,000,000 of people were involved in all the horrors, privations, and sufferings of a protracted war, then he ventured to say that the authors of this Treaty would be condemned in the page of history, and the evil results of their present action would blot out all the good winch had been done up to this period by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he hoped that the debate would not be further prolonged. It was extremely inconvenient to discuss such a subject in the absence of the Prime Minister, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as well as in the absence of Members of the Opposition, with only one or two exceptions. An opportunity would be offered for the discussion of the now Treaty to-morrow, when his right hon. Friend would be present, and in the meantime he did not consider it expedient on the part of the Government to enter into the discussion. In reference to a remark of the last speaker as to a general disregard of Treaties, he desired to point out that there was a great difference between Treaties just entered into and those which had been greatly modified by events that had occurred since they were concluded. He believed the conduct of the Government in regard to the new Treaty was eminently calculated to maintain the independence of Belgium, and to preserve the country from the horrors of war. It was from no "lightness of heart," but with a sincere desire of the Government to do their duty, to preserve the honour of this country, and to avoid war, that the Treaty had been proposed; and he could assure the House that it was not hatched "in the secret recesses of the Foreign Office;" but that it was adopted on the full responsibility of the Government, acting in accordance with what they believed to be the almost unanimous desire of the country.
  SIR HENRY LYTTON BULWERsaid, he did not reply to the remarks of his hon. Friends below the Gangway, because he quite concurred with the Home Secretary that in the absence of the Premier and of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) this was not the time for discussing the new Treaty. At the same time, he did think it exceedingly desirable that before the House separated there should be some further opportunity of discussing the Treaty, which was at present very imperfectly known to Members.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought that an opportunity ought to be given to the House to express its opinion on the present conjuncture of affairs, or else it would have no opportunity of speaking at all. During the last 20 years the country had spent nearly £400,000,000—about half the amount of the National Debt — to place and to preserve the country in security, and the House ought to have an opportunity of knowing whether, in case of our being involved in war, proper provision had been made for the public security. The Government had promised to preserve neutrality; but the policy they had hitherto acted upon had operated in favour of France. Lord Russell had once laid it down as a principle that the only foreign policy that England was called upon to recognize, or that she had ever recognized, was one which was calculated to promote civil and religious liberty throughout Europe, which meant the maintenance of Protestantism. But Protestantism was in danger as long as they allowed the Jesuits to exercise their machinations. All the wars that had desolated Europe of late years were attributable to the action of the Jesuits. He regretted the absence of the Prime Minister, and hoped that the Government would be able to satisfy the House that the policy the Executive proposed to follow would prove satisfactory.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," — (Mr. Jacob Bright,)—put, and negatived.
  MR. BRUCEmoved the adjournment of the House.
  House at rising to adjourn till To-morrow, at half after Twelve o'clock.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill for promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing certain enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 264.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading—Stamp Duties* (295); Stamp Duties Management* (296); Inland Revenue Acts Repeal* (297); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* (229); Greenwich Hospital* (244); Pensions Commutation Act (1869) Amendment* (274); Oaths of Allegiance on Naturalization* (299); Expiring Laws* (306); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)* (309); Joint Stock Companies' Arrangement* (302); Truck Commission* (304); Sanitary Act (Dublin) Amendment* (303), and passed.
Royal Assent—Gun Licences [33 & 34 Vict. c. 57]; Paupers Conveyance (Expenses) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 48]; Evidence Further Amendment Act (1869) Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 49]; Medical Officers Superannuation [33 & 34 Vict. c. 94]; Siam and Straits Settlements Jurisdiction [33 & 34 Vict. c. 55]; Wages Arrestment Limitation (Scotland) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 63]; Settled Estates [33 & 34 Vict. c. 56]; Dublin City Voters Disfranchisement [33 & 34 Vict. c. 54]; Shipping Dues Exemption Act (1867) Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 50]; Vestries (Isle of Man) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 51]; Extradition [33 & 34 Vict. c. 52]; Sanitary Act (1866) Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 53]; Passengers Act Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 95]; Curragh of Kildare [33 & 34 Vict. c. 74]; Magistrates, &c. Election (Scotland) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 92]; Life Assurance Companies [33 & 34 Vict. c. 61]; Factories and Workshops [33 & 34 Vict. c. 62]; Forgery [33 & 34 Vict. c. 58]; East India Contracts [33 & 34 Vict. c. 59]; Brokers (City of London) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 60]; Married Women's Property [33 & 34 Vict. c. 93]; Petty Sessions Clerk (Ireland) Act (1858) Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 64]; Larceny (Advertisements) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 65]; British Columbia [33 & 34 Vict. c. 66]; Army Enlistment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 67]; Absconding Debtors [33 & 34 Vict. c. 76]; Juries [33 & 34 Vict. c. 77]; Tramways [33 & 34 Vict. c. 78]; Elementary Education [33 & 34 Vict. c. 75]; Post Office [33 & 34 Vict. c. 79]; Census (Ireland) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 80]; Meeting of Parliament [33 & 34 Vict. c. 81]; Canada (Guarantee of Loan) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 82]; Constabulary Force (Ireland) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 83]; Public Schools Act (1868) Amendment [33 it 34 Vict. c. 84]; Sheriffs (Scotland) Act (1853) Amendment, &c. [33 & 34 Vict. c. 86]; Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose, &c.) Act (1860) Amendment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 87]; Telegraph Acts Extension [33 & 34 Vict. c. 88]; Foreign Enlistment [33 & 34 Vict. c. 90]; Queen Anne's Bounty (Superannuation) [33 & 34 Vict. c. 89]; Militia Acts Amendment [33 it 34 Vict. c. 68]; Clerical Disabilities [33 & 34 Vict. c. 91]; Turnpike Acts Continuance [33 & 34 Vict. c. 73]; National Debt [33 & 34 Vict. c. 71]; Statute Law Revision [33 & 34 Vict. c. 69]; Pedlars Certificates [33 & 34 Vict. c. 72]; Gas and Water Facilities [33 & 34 Vict. c. 70]; Norfolk Boundary [33 & 34 Vict. c. 85]; Sewage
1730
Utilization Supplemental [33 & 34 Vict. c. clvi]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental (No. 2) [33 & 34 Vict. c. clvii]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [33 & 34 Vict. c. clviii]; Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 3) [33 & 34 Vict. c. clvix].

CENSUS BILL.

  COMMONS' REASONS.
  Commons' Reasons considered, (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF MORLEYmoved, that their Lordships do not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons disagreed. The principal of those Amendments was that made by their Lordships providing for what had been termed a religions Census.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that while Parliamentary practice required the House of Commons to assign Reasons for disagreeing to an Amendment, it provided no means of inventing good Reasons where none existed. In the present case they had, therefore, been obliged to assign two Reasons as bad and insufficient as could be imagined—namely, that an inquiry into religious opinions would be objectionable to a large number of people, and that the expense involved in it was not worth incurring. After the course which the Government and the House of Commons had adopted it was useless to press the matter; but he only hoped that when any question arose as to the number of adherents of various religious denominations in England, it would not be again suggested, as had been done on former occasions, that those who opposed this Census were able to number themselves by millions in this country.
  Motion agreed to: the Amendments to which the Commons disagree not insisted on.

THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD DENMAN, in pursuance of a Notice, asked what was the estimate for the new Courts of Justice, and whether that estimate included the £20,000 lately voted for clearing the site? He observed that Sir Richard Malins, in the House of Commons, had declared that the Consolidated Fund must supply funds for the clearing of streets, while only two Courts were necessary, in Lincoln's Inn. He contended that this enormous expenditure

  1731
  was quite unnecessary, and he was sure that their Lordships would pause before they gave unlimited power to any architect, by departing from the course which had been adopted by the late Earl of Derby as to the Courts of Justice Building Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied, that the estimate was £750,000 and that there was no reason to suppose that it would be exceeded. The £20,000 voted for clearing the site was on account of this sum.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Twelve o'clock.