Sitting of 7 May 1872

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance [No. 184]; Law of Rating (Ireland) [No. 187].
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Tramways Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) *.
First Reading—Consolidated Fund (£6,000,000)*; Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries* [152].
Second Reading—Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections* [86].
Committee—Report—Building Societies * [66–153].
Third Reading—Irish Church Act Amendment * [87]. [House counted out.]

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. Speaker informed the House, that he had received from Chief Justice Monahan, one of the Judges selected, pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the trial of Elections Petitions, Reports relating to the Election for the County of Kerry.
TREATY OF WASHINGTON. TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA). THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the attention of hon. Members may probably have been called to an announcement made by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Lords yesterday; and, although it had no distinct reference to the House of Commons, I think hon. Members would like to know that the same intention which Lord Granville expressed in regard to the House of Lords holds good with reference to this House also: that is to say, that at the earliest moment—it may be before Monday, I hope—we will put Parliament in possession of the state of the negotiations with America. We certainly shall feel it our duty, before the House separates for the Recess, either to lay Papers before it, or to make a statement, as may seem most conducive to the public interests, so as to enable the House to judge how far we have been acting in accordance with the views generally entertained in the country. We feel very deeply grateful for, as well as conscious of, the extraordinary forbearance by Parliament and by the whole country upon this matter. We are grateful for it as a mark of the confidence reposed in us, not as a particular
  372
  Government, but as the Government, which is charged with very great and important public interests. I trust it will be found that we have acted in a spirit which will testify that the expression of our gratitude is not a mere empty declaration, but that we have been actuated by a spirit which will meet the approval of the country generally.

INDIA—KOOKA INSURRECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the papers relating to the late Kooka Insurrection in India; and, if he has any objection to state to the House the grounds of Mr. Cowan's dismissal from the Civil Service of India, and of Mr. Forsyth's removal to another Province?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I will lay the Kooka Papers on the Table after they are complete. Mr. Cowan has, I presume, been dismissed, and Mr. Forsyth removed, for their conduct in the Kooka affair; but the despatches explaining the decision of the Government of India have not reached us, and cannot reach us for some time, the telegraph anticipating the mail by nearly a month.

TICHBORNE v. LUSHINGTON—PROSECUTION OF THE "CLAIMANT" FOR PERJURY.—QUESTION.
MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will state to the House the reason why the Government intend to use the public money for the purpose of prosecuting the Claimant to the Tichborne Estates; and why, in the case of Overend and Gurney, they refused to prosecute on the ground of its being a private matter?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman first, for a reason that will appear presently. It appears that the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney General, in 1869, in defending the conduct of the Government with regard to the refusal to prosecute the partners in the firm of Messrs. Overend, Gurney, and Co., applied three tests to that conduct, which were as follows:—Firstly, was there likely to be a conviction;

373
secondly, what was the moral turpitude of the offences charged; and, thirdly, was it likely that, if the Government did not prosecute, private persons would come forward to do so? They argued that the partners in the firm of Messrs. Overend, Gurney, and Co. had not been guilty of any great degree of moral turpitude; that the offences of which they had been guilty were, unhappily, very common in the commercial world—the difference being that in this case these practices—which, of course, no one can defend—had been productive of very widespread ruin. They argued also that these were offences on the confines of civil and criminal law, where private and public crime were hardly distinguishable from each other, and that it was scarcely likely under the circumstances that a conviction would be obtained, and that if they did not prosecute there were plenty of persons possessed of sufficient means to institute a prosecution of their own. Their expectations were justified, for a prosecution by private persons followed, and no conviction ensued. I propose to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman with reference to the prosecution of the Tichborne Claimant, keeping these three principles or tests in view. Before doing so, however, I will state one thing which distinguishes this case from that of Messrs. Overend, Gurney, and Co., and from most other public prosecutions—namely, that the prosecution was directed under the authority of an Act of Parliament by the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who tried the cause out of which the prosecution has arisen, and bound over the witnesses to prosecute. It is, therefore, very different from the Government saying that they would commence the prosecution themselves. To have taken any other course would be tantamount to refusing the assistance of the public funds to a decision solemnly arrived at by one of our highest legal authorities. I might, if I pleased, stop here; but there are further considerations. It appears to me that the case so far satisfies the first test completely, and that there is probable and reasonable ground to expect a conviction, because the claimant was himself the principal witness in the case, and the jury by the way in which they stopped it implied that they did not believe a particular statement to which he had sworn
374
—namely, his evidence with regard to the tattooing. Their decision, therefore, had something of the effect of a finding of the grand jury. Then, if we come to the question of moral guilt, supposing this person to be guilty, it is hardly possible to conceive a case of higher moral turpitude. If he is guilty, he is guilty not of mere misrepresentation, like that charged against the Overend and Gurney Directors, but of wilful and corrupt perjury on the most gigantic scale, committed, too, for the purpose of depriving an infant of his inheritance. He is guilty also, if he should be found guilty of the offence he is charged with, of endeavouring to ruin by false swearing the honour and character of a most respectable lady. And, lastly, he has, in the prosecution of his guilty ends, if so be that he is guilty, produced an amount of inconvenience and disturbance to the public service which is without parallel. There can, therefore, I think be no doubt that, considering the magnitude of the offence charged, the Government were perfectly justified in coming forward to prosecute. I can assure the hon. Member that I am not at all anxious to embark the public money in any improper ventures; but the course that has been pursued has my hearty assent. I think, too, that, if we did not prosecute, the very complexity of the claimant's machinations, supposing him to be guilty, would turn out to be his best defence, because the enormous expense that they have caused have probably placed it out of the power or out of the will of the family to bring him to justice. The issue must in some shape turn upon the identity of this person, and it must necessarily involve heavy expenditure. It can, therefore, hardly be expected that the family, who have already suffered so much, should come forward and incur this additional expenditure merely for the sake of public justice. These are the reasons why we have determined that assistance should be given from the public funds to this prosecution, and I hope it will be understood that, as far as the course adopted by the Attorney General is concerned, it has my entire concurrence.
MR. HERMON: In consequence of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that "these offences are unhappily very common in the commercial world," I give Notice that on a

375
future day I will ask him for the names of those firms which have been guilty of commercial dishonesty to which he made allusion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I stated to the hon. Gentleman what was the purport of the arguments advanced by the Government in 1869, and I stated also that I was not giving my own opinions. If he will refer to the speeches made by the Law Officer he will find the words I quoted; and I entirely decline, because I repeated those words, to be drawn into any controversy respecting their employment.
An hon. MEMBER: Whom did the right hon. Gentleman quote?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Attorney General of that day, Sir Robert Collier.

ARMY—COMMISSIONS—EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL BRISEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether candidates for Commissions in the Army, whose names were on the list previous to the Royal Warrant of July last, but who had not passed any examinations, will have any precedence over those candidates whose names may be sent in at any time previous to the competitive examinations; and, if there is to be selection for the competitive examinations, upon what principle the selection will be made?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, no precedence will be given to anyone in the competitive examinations, except as the result of proficiency. There will be no selection, but everything will be free, in the same manner as in the competition at Woolwich.

INDIA—APPOINTMENT TO THE PERSIAN MISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. EASTWICKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the nomination of a successor to Mr. Alison, the recommendation of the Diplomatic Committee of last year will be taken into consideration in whichever department of State the Persian Mission may be?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Lord Granville is not prepared to restrict the choice of a representative of Her Majesty at the
376
Court of Persia to any particular class of public servants; that choice, when occasion arises, must be determined by various considerations; and the general interests of the Empire will, Lord Granville considers, be more safely provided for by leaving that choice in the hands of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. With these views, Lord Granville has submitted for Her Majesty's approval the name of a gentleman who has been for many years conversant with the country, politics, and affairs of Persia.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS. ADJOURNMENT FOR THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that he felt perfectly certain that they would all be rejoiced to find either that the Indirect Claims had been abandoned by the American Government or that, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government had done everything in their power to protect the interests of this country. He should, however, be glad to learn, What course the right hon. Gentleman meant to pursue with regard to the holidays; whether he was going to follow the course recommended in "another place;" whether a debate was likely to occur upon this great question on Monday and the following days, or whether he would insure the rising of the House on Monday?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I presume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman classifies the holidays under the head of "direct claims." I can assure him that there is every desire on the part of the Government to treat them with every consideration. We shall endeavour to put the House before the Vacation in the best position we can with regard to the actual situation of affairs, so that it may form its judgment, not, perhaps, upon the whole merits of the case, but as to whether it will be necessary or expedient to interfere with the arrangements at present contemplated with respect to the holidays. If that be so, we shall, of course, conform to the wish of the House with regard to the postponement of the day of adjournment.

NAVY—STEERING AND SAILING RULES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  SIR JOHN HAYrose to call attention to the frequency of collisions at sea, and to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the present Steering and Sailing Rules cannot be modified so as to reduce the present risk to life and property at sea. Since the time that the House had last considered this question no diminution had taken place in the loss of life and property at sea. The risk of danger had been added to by the rapid rate of sailing of our passenger vessels. The loss of life and property had been very great, and he hoped the House would think it to be for the public advantage that public inquiry should take place in this matter. Documents already in the possession of the House showed that in 1861 there were 89 lives lost through collisions at sea; in 1862 there were 54; in 1863, 41; in 1864, the year after the passing of the regulations now in force, 91 lives were lost; in 1865, 53; in 1866, 127; in 1867, 160; in 1868, 86; in 1869 there were 118 lost in British waters and 29 in British vessels elsewhere; in 1870 there were 60 lost in British waters and 50 elsewhere. This made a total in the 10 years of nearly 1,000 lives. He did not attribute the loss entirely to the defective character of the regulations; but thought there was reasonable ground for believing that a modification of the rules would prevent much of the loss. The Board of Trade had not met all the necessities of the case, and further arrangements were necessary. The collisions during these 10 years numbered 3,662, an average of 366 a-year, or rather more than 1 a-day. The Secretary of Lloyd's stated that, although the number of sailing vessels had decreased by 9 per cent, the collisions with sailing vessels had increased by 7 per cent. The number of steamers had increased by 9 per cent, and the number of collisions by 39½ per cent. From 1831, when the old rule was in force requiring a ship on the larboard tack to give way to a ship on the starboard tack, down to 1862 when the present regulations were issued various changes had been made in the rule of the road at sea, and in 1868 a further Order in Council was issued explaining these rules and regulations and modifying them in some respects. In
  378
  1848 the first regulations was made that steamers should carry red and green lights. In 1858 the duty of carrying lights was extended with respect to sailing vessels. The last time he introduced this subject the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) was President of the Board of Trade, and he stated that these rules and regulations were passed with the consent of the Admiralty. He (Sir John Hay) had enjoyed the honour of a seat at the Admiralty, and he was well aware how the matter stood, for he had been engaged in the negotiations between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. A letter, dated February 22, 1867, signed by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), was issued, from which it would be seen that the Admiralty had received several letters on the subject, and a proposition was made that it should be seen if there could not be some changes in the present regulations. The Board of Trade did not recognize the necessity of further change, and conceived that foreign nations having adopted the regulations the disadvantages of the change would be greater than the advantages. At the request of the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) he went to the Board of Trade and was placed in communication with Mr. Gray, the very able Superintendent of the Marine Department of the Board; but no agreement was come to between them. Later in the year 1867, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) was at the Admiralty, a further correspondence was carried on with the Board of Trade; but still no agreement could be come to, and the Admiralty resolved to act independently with regard to Her Majesty's ships. He had himself placed on the Table of the House amended rules, which simplified the present rules, and removed from them words which tended to produce confusion. He, however, by no means wished to direct the attention of the House to those amended rules, to which he was not at all wedded; but he thought an inquiry by a Select Committee was desirable, and that evidence should be taken to ascertain how far a change in the existing rules would be beneficial. The amended rules which he had suggested might, if submitted to the Committee, possibly be of some assistance in guiding them to a decision.

  379
  He quoted a reply by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) to a Question put to him when he was in office, stating that rules had been framed by the Admiralty and approved of by foreign countries; but admitting that the question was one of very much interest, and that as several accidents had occurred at that time he proposed to confer with the Board of Trade and Trinity House to ascertain whether the rules could not be made more simple, especially in regard to the exhibition of the lights. Again, on May 27, 1867, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone stated that the Admiralty had been in communication with the Board of Trade on the subject, but no conclusion had been come to. In 1869 his gallant Friend Sir Alexander Milne, Commander in Chief in the Mediterranean, had written him a letter, already quoted in this House, in which the writer stated that he had always thought that certain changes should be introduced. The late Admiral Seymour, another member of the Board, also stated in this House that he concurred in the introduction of certain changes, although he admitted that no regulations would altogether avert collisions at sea. It was therefore clear that the concurrence of the Admiralty with the Board of Trade was not so entire as the House had been led to imagine. Another point he wished to call the attention of the House to was that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council objected very strongly to the explanations as they were affixed to the Regulations of 1868. A letter from Mr. Reeve, Registrar to the Privy Council, stated that when the Judicial Council asked the Board of Trade for an explanation of the rules, their Lordships replied that it was dangerous to give any official paper with an interpretation of the regulations, as the interpretation rather belonged to courts of law; so that the Privy Council objected to the issue of explanatory rules, because they might be at variance with the decisions of the Judges. Again, the concurrence of foreign nations to the amended regulations had not been fully obtained as yet. The French Government concurred with some difficulty, seeing some danger in the adoption of the rules, and the American Government had gone still further. In consequence, or he should rather say at the time of the collision between the
  380
  Oneida and the Bombay, the Government of the United States entered into a correspondence with the British Foreign Office, and the Government of the United States adopted another system of signal lights to call the attention of approaching vessels as to the intention of a vessel with regard to the helm. He would not weary the House with old cases; but he wished to show that, even at this moment, the Judges gave decisions at variance with the regulations and the explanations of the Board of Trade. In addition to the explanations issued by the Board of Trade, there were two books constantly in the hands of seamen which explained the rule of the road at sea—one of them the work of Mr. Olliver, and the other that of a gallant friend of his (Captain De Horsey). The case of the Northumberland and the Leopard was reported in The Shipping Gazette of the 23rd of April last. That case was decided at variance with the regulations and explanations of the Board of Trade. Those two vessels, the Northumberland and the Leopard, were meeting. They were not exactly end-on, and what the expression end-on meant the Judges had not yet been able to determine. When they were nearly meeting, the Leopard saw all the lights of the Northumberland; whereas the Northumberland saw only the green and the bow lights of the Leopard; and, according to the rule, the Northumberland should have kept her course, which she did, and the usual collision having occurred, the Northumberland was condemned for not having ported before. This was clearly at variance with the rule of the road as given by the Board of Trade. Since this rule had been established there had been no diminution in the number of vessels and of lives lost, while the number of collisions had largely increased. The rules of the Board of Trade required that there should be no change of course until there was a risk of collision; but he maintained that a vessel ought to take its right side of the road long before any such risk was incurred. He saw the Prime Minister in his place, and had been informed of the experiments made in his presence at Walmer and of the warm interest he had expressed in what he was pleased to term "the mute language of the rudder," and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the granting of this inquiry, which

  381
  would be extremely advantageous for the public service.
  CAPTAIN EGERTONsaid, he thought there were good reasons for moving the Motion now submitted, inasmuch as there were very great differences of opinion among naval men regarding the regulations. He himself thought the present regulations were fitted for the stupid man as well as the clever one, and any great alteration in them would tend far more to confuse people than to contribute to the advantage of the shipowner. But the whole subject required emendation. If a Committee were granted on this subject, a considerable quantity of invaluable evidence would be obtained, and some slight modifications might be suggested which might be extremely important. No complicated system of lights or fireworks would answer, because the fishing boats and other small vessels with which collisions usually occurred were sure to be unprovided with the necessary apparatus. It must be recollected that there had been a great alteration in the size and speed of vessels navigating the narrow seas since the present regulations had been framed, and that steamers of 250 feet long had been replaced by others 400 feet or 500 feet in length. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the present Steering and Sailing Rules cannot be modified so as to reduce the present risk to life and property at sea."—(Sir John Hay.)
  MR. HANBURY TRACYsaid, he was very sorry that he could not agree with the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay). No one could be more aware than he was that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had paid very great attention to this subject, and was a very great authority on the question. He thought it could not be denied that the present rules were far from perfect, and undoubtedly very great improvements might be made in them. He was also inclined to think that the theory of his hon. and gallant Friend was correct, that when ships were to the right of each other, a starboard helm ought to be used. The question appeared to him, however, not to be as to whether this or that alteration ought to be made; but whether, after the very limited experience they
  382
  had had, they were justified in unsettling the rules which all the maritime nation of the world had agreed to. He thought it ought to be remembered that it was only in 1862 that the existing rules were adopted, after a very considerable amount of correspondence with foreign Powers; and he thought it was obvious to everyone that the House would be incurring a very great responsibility if they did anything which would tend to upset an arrangement, after so short a space of time as 10 years, which had been entered into not lightly, but after long deliberation, with the accumulated experience of years—a decision which had been arrived at by the Trinity House, Admiralty, Board of Trade, Judges of the Admiralty Courts, and by the advisers of the whole maritime marine of the world. He considered the regulations, having been adopted by all foreign countries, ought to be looked upon almost in the light of an International Law. As far as he could discover no complaints whatever had been made by any foreign country, and the mercantile marine of this country were unanimous against any change being made. The great thing to be aimed at was to have as few rules as possible, and these thoroughly understood, and then to leave the matter to the common sense and seaman-like qualities of the captains. Speaking with some practical knowledge—formerly as a lieutenant in charge of a watch—he could testify that nothing was so perplexing, on a dark night, in a moment of peril, with a vessel close aboard of you, to find yourself hampered with a mass of puzzling regulations. When the existing rules were in the hands of competent seamen, he believed it was almost impossible to go wrong. During the last few days he had made inquiries of the great steamship companies, and he found that they, one and all, without a single exception, deprecated the appointment of this Committee. What they said was this—"Our captains and officers are now well up in the existing rules; if you disturb the present arrangement, you will only confuse them, and there is nothing so dangerous as a time of transition. We are quite satisfied to let the rules remain as they now are, and very much deprecate the unsettling of the question." He sincerely hoped that the House would not grant the Committee, as he was convinced,

  383
  if appointed, it would only have the effect, for a number of years, of disturbing an International agreement which, in the interests of all the maritime nations of the world, ought to be regarded as sacred, and which certainly should not be touched without very much stronger cause than that shown by the hon. and gallant Baronet.
  MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, he hoped that the Government would accede to the appointment of this Committee. They had now an enormous number of fast steamers traversing every sea, and it was very desirable that there should be an inquiry whether our rule of proceeding was right or wrong. If the Committee should report that our rules were correct it would give them additional force, and if alterations were advised, such alterations would probably soon be adopted by foreign nations. If any improvement were to be made our own country surely ought to take the initiative in the matter. He desired no relaxation, but a stricter rule as to porting the helm, for the only way of preventing collisions at sea was to adopt something of the principle by which the traffic in the streets of London was regulated.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he thought that it was of the greatest possible importance that they should grant this Committee. One thing which should be borne in mind was the extreme rapidity with which ships now approached each other—a circumstance which much increased the difficulty of forming an opinion and acting upon it when there was danger of collision. There was a general impression that the existing rules were departmental rules rather than the result of the experience of seafaring men. What they would gain by the appointment of this Committee would be an exhaustive Report based upon the opinions of the best authorities upon the subject.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend that the rules were not simply departmental ones. They were the result of considerable discussion between the Admiralty, the Trinity House, representing the Mercantile Marine, and the Board of Trade. Foreign Governments took some time in considering the question, and the French Government suggested alterations, some of which were adopted; but in the end the rules and
  384
  explanations met with the general concurrence of the Mercantile Marine and foreign Governments. He himself was at the Board of Trade at the time, and he was to some extent responsible for the rules that had been discussed that night. The credit, however, of framing the explanation of the rules was due to Mr. Gray, a most excellent permanent official of the Board of Trade. He went so far that he reduced the rules into verse—he could hardly call it poetry—which began thus—
  "Green to green, red to red,
  Perfect safety; go ahead;"
  and these lines had been translated into almost every language upon the Continent. He also gave lectures, and illustrated his subject by having boys who had green and red ribbons upon their arms, and who ran towards each other and came into collision from every point of the compass. The question of collisions was a most difficult one—something, indeed, like the warranty of a horse, where there was hard swearing on both sides, and the truth could scarcely be ascertained. The frequency of collision was attributed by some to an unfortunately increasing want of discipline in the merchant service, and to the difficulty of making sailors obey rules perfectly and promptly. When at the Board of Trade, on this question being frequently brought forward by Mr. Holland, and others, he had always defended the rules, and attributed accidents to disregard of, rather than to obedience to, them. Some years, however, had since elapsed, and it was impossible to overlook the fact that professional men of the experience of his hon. and gallant Friend all took a different view. The decisions of Courts had also thrown additional difficulties in the way, it being impossible to know whether those who obeyed the rules would be sustained by the Courts or not. He should still resist any Motion for a repeal or modification of the regulations. They had, however, been to a certain extent discredited, he thought unjustly, and an inquiry could do no harm, while it might do good. If it confirmed the rules, as he believed would be the case, the Courts would no doubt be influenced by such a result, and their future decisions would be brought into greater harmony with the rules; whereas, if alterations were shown to be necessary, the sooner they were settled

  385
  the better. He hoped, therefore, the Government would accede to the Motion; but if they did not, he should be obliged to vote for it.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEagreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Cave) as to Mr. Gray's services in this matter. It must not be supposed, however, that the rules rested merely on his authority, for they were settled in 1862, after an immense amount of consultation between all the Departments of the State interested in the subject, and they had since that time received more and more the sanction of the maritime Powers of the world. This being so, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should feel himself bound to vote for the Motion. He entirely agreed that discussion and what was called "ventilation" of a question was a very good thing; but in this case he believed that the re-opening of the subject by a public inquiry would do a great deal more harm than good. He felt that his responsibility upon this question was no light one, and he submitted to the House that however plausible and taking a Motion for a Committee might be, it was not the duty of the Government or of the House to lend itself to any such inquiry, of which the effect would be the unsettling of the minds of sea-faring men, and the throwing great doubt upon things that should not be doubted. He understood that the foundation of the Motion was the number of collisions that took place at sea. The figures, however, varied so strangely from year to year that it was almost impossible to draw any rational conclusion from them. He was informed that the increase in the number of collisions was in a large degree owing to the great increase of tonnage—that was, of the number of vessels—and that there had been no increased collisions out of proportion to the increase of tonnage. To-day the Secretary of Lloyd's Association absolutely denied to him the statement that the collisions had increased beyond that proportion, or that the rule of the road had anything to do with the increase of collisions. It was not for him (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to say what was the cause of these unfortunate collisions. Many causes were alleged, one of them being that the intense degree of competition which now prevailed, and which was greater than ever was
  386
  known before, led to greater hurry, risk, and recklessness than ever happened previously. But whatever might be the cause of these collisions, his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) did not move for an inquiry into the cause of collisions; he proposed an inquiry, whether the rule of the road at sea could not be amended? The question was, whether it would be expedient to re-open the whole question of the rule of the road at sea which was now the maritime code of every nation of the world that was of the slightest importance. The hon. and gallant Member said that he did not attribute the increased number of collisions to the rule of the road; but still he thought that the rule of the road might be improved. He tried to detract from the authority of these rules by saying that there had been a difference of opinion upon them between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, especially as to the two new rules that explained the original ones. No doubt there was a kind of misconception at first as to the two rules; but the Departments afterwards came to an entire agreement, as was shown by the Order in Council of July, 1868, making the additional rules the law of the land just as much as the original rules were. As to the Judges not being bound to pay attention to the explanations, diagrams, and so on of the Board of Trade, he must say that he believed these explanations were of the greatest possible benefit to seafaring men. As to the two additional rules, the Judges were just as much bound to regard them as they were so to regard any other part of the law of the land. Two years ago, when his distinguished predecessor at the Board of Trade—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright)—was in office, he felt it his duty steadily to oppose not only any alteration of these rules, but any such Parliamentary inquiry as would re-open the whole subject. His right hon. Friend said he thought there would be every disadvantage in appointing a Committee to inquire into a matter which all maritime nations believed had been satisfactorily settled. Everything that had happened since had confirmed the view which his right hon. Friend then took. His hon. and gallant Friend said the two additional rules had not been assented to by other parties. In that he believed his hon. and gallant

  387
  Friend was entirely mistaken. In the Papers which had just been laid upon the Table of the House, it would be found that there was transmitted to the Foreign Office an Ordinance of the German Empire, passed at the end of last year to prevent collisions at sea, and which Ordinance embodied the whole of our rules, including the two additional and interpreting rules. All the maritime nations in the world would be surprised if after a solemn inquiry Parliament abrogated rules which they had adopted, with which they were satisfied, and with respect to which they had made no complaint. Nothing, indeed, would surprise them more than to find that the Parliament of England had come to the conclusion that the subject was beset with doubts and difficulties, and that the rules were capable of serious change and improvement. Of course, he did not mean to deny that any particular set of rules might in some respects be improved; but he maintained that it would be most unwise to unsettle rules which had been adopted by all maritime countries for the sake of the slight improvements that had been indicated by the Proposer and Seconder of the Motion. The opinions of gentlemen in this country who had a right to be heard on the subject were adverse to the proposed inquiry. The Papers which would be laid before the House in the course of a few days, showed that Lloyd's Salvage Association had strongly expressed an opinion in favour of the existing regulations, as had also the Irish Steampacket Company, and Mr. Gray Hill, the secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association. That very day a gentleman of high authority on a matter of this kind—Mr. Harper, the Secretary of Lloyd's Salvage Association—had called upon him and expressed an earnest hope that he would not agree to the appointment of the Committee proposed by the hon. and gallant Baronet. Mr. Harper stated his belief that the rules were for all practical purposes complete, and that even if some slight improvements might be made in them, frightful danger might arise from introducing uncertainty and confusion as to the rule of the road at sea into the minds of the seafaring population, who had to act upon that rule under the most critical circumstances. Mr. Harper concluded by saying that his opinion was
  388
  shared by the 50 or 60 nautical men connected either with the Royal Navy or the Mercantile Marine who were members of the Association. With these facts before him, and having regard to the view taken by his predecessor, it would be impossible for him to advise the House to enter upon the inquiry.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he had heard the decision of the right hon. Gentleman with great regret. He was not prepared for any hesitation on the part of the Government to go into an inquiry upon this question. He would undertake to bring hundreds of men who would tell them that the present rules of the road at sea were the cause of the loss of a large amount of life and property annually at sea. In respect to the decisions of the Courts of Law upon those matters, he would remind the House that those Courts did not always decide in accordance with the regulations that had been laid down. If a master followed precisely the rules laid down, he would very often lose his ship instead of saving it. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman dissented from this statement; but he (Mr. Bentinck) had had 30 years' practical experience afloat, and from his own experience he could quote hundreds of cases in which vessels were lost by adhering rigidly to those rules, and vessels that had escaped by departing from them. In the face of all those facts he thought that the right hon. Gentleman incurred a very grave responsibility in refusing his acquiescence to this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman assumed the doctrine of infallibility in respect to those rules when he said that they were so good that they could scarcely be improved, or, if they could, the danger of so improving them would be much greater than any benefit arising from such a change could possibly be. He (Mr. Bentinck) would undertake to produce evidence before a Committee to show that the observance of those rules was the cause of great loss of life and property. It was the commonest expression in the world for seamen, in speaking of the observance of those rules, to say—though using a somewhat coarser phrase than he did—"It was going to the infernal regions by Act of Parliament." Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman opposite told the House that they ought not to assent to this inquiry.

  389
  What could be the objection to this Committee? If his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) could not make out a case for the alteration of the rules, there would, of course, be an end of the question. If, on the other hand, he succeeded in proving his case, then it would be admitted that the time had come for an alteration of the laws. In refusing this Committee he considered that the right hon. Gentleman was taking upon himself the consequences of the loss of a large amount of life and property.
  MR. CHILDERS, having taken some interest in this question, wished to state why in his judgment it would be inexpedient to institute an inquiry at the present time. This was not an English question only—it was a question which concerned the whole world, and it was most desirable that Parliament, or the Government of any particular country, should not take any step which would be in advance of public opinion. Now, he ventured to state that the inquiry proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Hay) would be considerably in advance of public opinion. He believed the great majority both of shipmasters and of shipowners were satisfied with the present regulations; and even among those who were not thoroughly satisfied he had reason to believe that no very definite opinions would be found, and certainly nothing approaching to agreements as to the amendments to be made. It would thus be a misfortune, even in the interest of the view taken by the hon. Baronet, to appoint a Committee which could only hear imperfect and crude evidence, and therefore come to a lame conclusion upon a subject which, if a Committee was appointed, could not be re-opened for some years. It had been stated that the Board of Trade and the Trinity House were opposed to change in the existing state of things, and he could, of his own knowledge, add that the permanent administration at the Admiralty, including Admiral Richards, Hydrographer to the Navy, held a similar opinion. Under such circumstances, he thought it would be a pity to enter into a premature discussion of this question, and that it would be better to let it stand over until they had more positive evidence to bring forward. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion.
  MR. GRAVESconfessed that, upon this occasion his sympathy was, to a large extent, with the Board of Trade. They had been for some years educating themselves up to this point. We had been the pioneers of this question, and nation after nation had adopted our rules. Our fishermen around the coast understood every one of our signals. Nothing, however, but the strongest evidence of the inestimable advantages of another system would justify us in making any change. Although he did not consider our system a perfect one, nevertheless he had seen nothing better up to that moment. He was strengthened in this view of the matter by the representations he had received from his constituents. He, however, should not object to a mere inquiry into the causes of the collisions which had occurred. Those collisions had not certainly diminished, if they had not increased. Those collisions, and the great loss of life occasioned by them, formed, in his mind, a strong ground for inquiry. He did not see that much mischief would come out of such an inquiry. But as the Government, who were responsible for the administration of our maritime affairs, had seen fit to take another course, he should doubt the prudence of his hon. and gallant Friend in pressing his Motion to a division.
  SIR JOHN HAYregretted he could not acquiesce in the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves). If the Government had expressed any intention to institute an inquiry he would have withdrawn his Motion; but as they had not done so, he must ask the opinion of the House upon it.
  Question put, and negatived.

ORDNANCE SURVEY (ENGLAND).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. WREN-HOSKYNS, in rising to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice, hoped that the House would not be startled by a rather sudden transition from the marine topic they had been discussing, to one that related chiefly to the land. It was now 10 years since the last Committee on the Ordnance Survey, as it was still called, had presented their Report, and he would wish to call the attention of the House to the progress of the survey, and especially to its

  391
  present state in this part of the United Kingdom. Nearly a century had elapsed since the triangulation of the kingdom was commenced by General Roy—in 1784—which, after occupying upwards of 70 years in its accomplishment, was carried across the Channel in 1858 by Sir Henry James, and united with those of France and Belgium during the three following years. It was a splendid and costly national work, and one which had taxed to the utmost the patience and skill of the engineering service, and so perfect in result that it left nothing to be desired, except that it should be made the best and earliest use of. It seemed strange that those who had borne the chief burden of paying for it should hitherto have enjoyed the least share of its fruits. He need not tell the House that the chief expense had been incurred when the triangulation was completed—once done, it was done for good and all, and was equally available for every part of the kingdom. In order to obtain a map of any part of the country, any one or any series of these triangles could be filled up by a detailed survey, of mathematical accuracy, and upon any scale. What, however, had been the use made of it as regarded England? Would it be credited that the only map we had of this country, south of Lancashire and Yorkshire, was the old 1-inch map of which the first sheets were published in 1796!—a map which was full of errors of detail from the first, owing to an inexperienced and inefficient staff quite new to the work, which, had it been originally perfect, the mere efflux of time would have rendered obsolete. Its inaccuracies were described by Sir Henry James himself to the Committee of 1861, as "perfectly astounding in character." The history of the matter was this. Just as the work had reached the northern counties, in 1825, a Government survey of Ireland became immediately necessary. Taught by the blunders and defects of the 1-inch scale map in England, the Government determined on a 6-inch scale for Ireland. It proceeded at first with appalling slowness, but ended in a genuine triumph—a map being produced which was admitted by the first judges of Europe, assembled at the Statistical Congress at Brussels in 1853, to be the finest piece of topographical art ever seen in any country. At this Congress the whole subject of national maps, or
  392
  cadastres, formed a subject of active discussion; and the unanimous conclusion of the statists there assembled from each country—including Mr. Farr, who was appointed by the Registrar General to represent England—was in favour of a scale of 12–500th of a mile, commonly known in this country as the "25-inch scale," to which it nearly corresponded. It was originally proposed by the great astronomer, Laplace, to Napoleon, and adopted in France in 1807, and had the advantage of giving, within a fraction, a square inch to the English acre. The Emperor recommended that it should be accompanied by a smaller map—tableau d'assemblage—which, singularly enough, nearly corresponded with the scale of our Irish survey. These two scales were accordingly used in proceeding with the long interrupted map of England, throughout the northern counties, and for Scotland; the original map of all the other English counties still remaining as backward as ever. In the last and in the present Session, he (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns) had put the question to the Government, when we might expect "justice to England" in this matter, first through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in whose Department the survey then was, and again of the Chief Commissioner of Works, to whom it had since fallen. The answer he got was the same on each occasion in succession, that the survey would not be completed for 15 years. This reminded him of the experience of some travellers in Wales, who, in answer to each inquiry on the road, found they were further from their destination. But the question was really a serious one. The 6-inch map of Ireland, admirable as it was, had actually gone through revision in a less period than that; indeed, Sir Henry James had stated in his evidence that even the best maps required revision every 14 years. Yet our old 1-inch Ordnance map of the last century still remained, literally, a book of blunders, uncorrected; and, worse than that, a sort of "father of lies," for all the numerous progeny of local maps that were copied were based upon it. He could not help asking—"What enemy hath done this?" It looked like a conspiracy of neglect. It could hardly be called a question of expense, for the sale of the maps repaid a large share of the expenses of publication, and the main

  393
  work and cost had been encountered when the triangulation was completed 90 years ago. It had been given in evidence that nearly £3,000,000 had been uselessly squandered upon partial maps for Tithe Commissions, Charity Commissions, Poor Law Commissions, Inclosure and Copyhold Commissions, all of which would have had one perfect and indisputable reference had the Government cadastral map been carried out in England. The Land Tenure Report, presented last Session but one, had shown every civilized country but ourselves possessed of a cadastral map to accompany the registries of title, define the boundaries, and simplify the conveyance of land. Sir Richard Griffiths' letter to the Royal Commission of 1858 had attested its value in Ireland as almost beyond description for all the purposes he described—for registration, for determining questions of conterminous property, settlement of disputes between landlord and tenant, and tenant and labourer, equitable adjustment of rating and taxation, drainage, sanitary matters, besides geological and hydrographical inquiries, and road and railroad engineering, for the elective franchise, and the Landed Estates Court. Yet here we were at the end of nearly 80 years from the commencement of the work, with 27 English counties and the whole of Wales without any reliable survey, and with the prospect of half a generation to wait before we were to be on a footing with Ireland and Scotland in this matter. Even the Isle of Man had got its cadastral map, and could laugh at Wales and England; while in the last meagre Blue-book of the annual "progress"—as it is humourously called—of the cadastral survey we find, in place of half-a-dozen English counties, that—
  "Jerusalem and Mount Sinai are completed, and the map of our Army's route in Abyssinia, as far as Magdala, well advanced."
  It was stated by Sir Henry James, 11 years ago, that the survey could be completed at a cheaper rate, and in a shorter time, according to the amount of the sum voted—
  "If the annual vote was £150,000, it could be finished in 12 years for £1, 800,000; if the vote was only £90,000 a-year, it would take 21 years and cost £90,000 more."
  The latter was accepted by the penny wisdom of an English Parliament; and half the longest period had elapsed to
  394
  find us still 15 years from the end. Unfortunately, the forms of the House would preclude the Resolution which it had been his intention to move, but which he hoped had been sufficiently indicated to the House. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Her Majesty's Government be urged, in view of the promised Bill for the Transfer of Land, to give their earliest attention to the completion of the Cadastral Map of England."—(Mr. Wren Hoskyns.)
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Member had by his speech no doubt explained enough to the House to satisfy them that this was a subject that could not be disposed of easily or summarily. It was one that had engaged the attention of Parliament at various intervals during a period of 88 years, and which had entailed upon the country an expense up to this time of £3,255,000, and that in the result they had only just arrived at one complete 1-inch map of the United Kingdom. During that interval Parliament had again and again discussed how the survey should be carried on. The first system adopted was condemned on account of its imperfections, it having produced maps on which reliance could no longer be placed. No doubt considerable improvements had since taken place, and we could now compete in that respect with any other country. The result of those intermittent, and he might say those fitful discussions of this question, had been to lead to the adoption of three scales of maps—namely, the 1-2500th—commonly called the 25-inch—the 6-inch, and the 1-inch. The intention was to complete the highly populated parts of the country on the 25-inch scale, and the other parts in which hills and heaths abounded on the 6-inch scale. The hon. Gentleman regretted that the survey did not proceed more rapidly. According to the Return for 1870 there was a staff of 1,800 persons, including the military, engaged upon it. There was a great difficulty, even if it were desirable, in suddenly increasing very largely an establishment of that kind, every man of which worked in relation to every other, and must have special knowledge and training. It could only, therefore, be increased, if at all, gradually and by adding a certain number of men every year.
  MR. WREN-HOSKYNSobserved that Sir Henry James stated that he could finish a map in 12 years for one sum, which he mentioned, and another in 21 years for a different sum, and that the latter was preferred.
  MR. AYRTON: No doubt Sir Henry James, if he had been allowed 10 years ago to organize a larger staff, might have been able to proceed with the work more rapidly. But reference was now made to the existing staff, and to the difficulty connected with an increased rapidity of the present survey. It was also necessary to consider the annual expense of the survey, to which there was necessarily a limit. Having regard to the demands that were made for the maintenance of the Army, the Navy, and every other branch of the public service, unless the taxation of the country were indefinitely extended, a certain sum must be allocated for this particular purpose; and the Government were of opinion that £100,000 a-year was sufficient to set apart for the prosecution of the Ordnance Survey. He confessed his inability to follow the argument of his hon. Friend when he contended that a rapid survey might be secured for a small additional outlay.
  MR. WREN-HOSKYNSexplained that Sir Henry James could complete the map in 12 years for £90,000 less than the cost of the map for 21 years.
  MR. AYRTON: That sum did not go far in an expenditure of £2,000,000. It was purely an arithmetical question. For example, with an additional outlay of £12,000 a-year you would gain, in proportion, about a year, or little less, in the completion of the survey. The expenditure of £100,000 a-year had been the limit sanctioned by successive Governments. They had to spend about £1,300,000 more on the survey, which, at the rate of £100,000 per annum, it would take 13 years to complete. Again, there would be a danger in employing an enormous staff on such a work with the prospect of their being speedily discharged, because in that case the men would feel very little interest in their work, and the efficiency of the establishment, now so universally recognized, might be impaired. He could not, therefore, hold out the hope of any great diminution of the time required to finish the survey. All things considered, there was no great cause for dissatisfaction
  396
  with the progress made. The Government were much interested in the prosetion of the undertaking, because it was most desirable for many public purposes to have an accurate map of the country on a large scale. Again, if too long an interval elapsed between the commencement and the conclusion of the survey, the constant changes occurring in reference to land would render the earlier maps comparatively valueless. They could not have an accurate map of the whole country unless they employed some standing body to revise and rectify it according to the changes occurring from year to year. The establishment in Ireland for that purpose, and the revision of the valuation, cost £25,000 per annum; the corresponding charge in the case of England must necessarily be very large indeed, and statutory powers would also be required for the purpose. Before embarking in such an expensive enterprise the matter would demand very grave investigation. With regard to the facility for transferring land, his hon. Friend thought that would be afforded by a 25-inch scale map of the whole country. He now held in his hand one of the books of reference for a single parish, that he had taken at random. The parish, he found, contained 12,459 acres; there were in it no fewer than 2,299 separate plots marked, with the quantities scheduled. There was the basis of every single plot of land, with its area; but not the least information was afforded as to how those plots were brought together in separate holdings, or as to who were the owners. Without such information as that, he could not understand how the land survey might be made the basis of any improved system of land transfer. Having heard the various arguments brought forward in the House for giving facility in the transfer of land, he had come to the conclusion that hon. Gentlemen were on the wrong scent altogether when they confined themselves to the mere machinery connected with the transfer; for the real difficulty was that which arose from the state of the law. As long as they had a law which allowed all kinds of interests to be created—present and prospective—which separated the freehold title from the possession, the possession from the right to the possession, and which gave rise to all kinds of difficulties affecting occupation, so long would the

  397
  man coming into possession of property with such complications attached to it be at a loss to know what it was he really possessed. If the completion of the survey would facilitate transfer, this was an additional reason for expediting the work; but he feared that it must, under present circumstances, take some years, and could not be materially accelerated without risk of diminishing the accuracy and value of the maps. He hoped that, considering the promise of the Government to deal with the question of transfer as soon as they could, and their consequent interest in accelerating the survey, his hon. Friend would be satisfied with having called attention to the matter, and would not ask the House to adopt the Resolution.
  MR. GREGORYregretted that, after the time and money which had been devoted to the survey and the little result at present to be shown for it, the right hon. Gentleman had not given a more satisfactory assurance. It was hardly creditable that this country should not have as complete a survey as continental countries had. If any further outlay or any augmentation of the staff was requisite, the expense would be to some extent recouped by the sale of the maps. Before becoming a Member of the House he had some experience in preparing Private Bills, and never had any difficulty, even in winter, in obtaining the requisite plans and sections of important projects. This question had some bearing on the transfer of land, but this was scarcely a proper occasion for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. In spite of our complicated system of conveyancing, there was always plenty of land in the market, but the investigation of title and the absence of good maps certainly added to the expense of transfer. He hoped to receive the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite to a Bill which he had introduced on the subject.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he was not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the survey would occupy 13 years longer, and that the portion first commenced might then have to be begun over again. It would surely be more economical to expedite the work, so that it would not so soon become useless. As to the difficulty of finding the requisite staff, this was a question of money, for plenty of talent existed in
  398
  the country if a demand was made for it. A thoroughly good map was essential to greater facilities of transfer; and, on the Continent, where conveyancing was much easier and less expensive, such maps existed. They could not expect to have an easy transfer of land while they had the existing complications in connection with the title of land. The Commission of 1857 said that but for prejudice there was no reason why the transfer of land should not be as simple as the transfer of stock or ships. Fifteen years had elapsed and they were now no nearer a solution of this question than ever. In transferring personal estate they transferred the corpus, leaving the trust outside. The Bank of England, for example, would not go into the question of trusts, the only question with them being, who was upon the register. But in the case of land, speaking generally, all these elaborate trusts were affixed to the title, so that unless all the persons interested were settled with, the land could not be transferred. As long as this system existed the difficulties and expense attending the transfer of land would continue. They must either forbid the creation of these complicated interests—a measure for which the House did not seem prepared—or they must divorce the equitable from the legal interest in land so that the corpus might be transferred perfectly, and the equitable interests made to depend not upon the land, but upon the personal integrity of the trustee. In some way or other, in every European country the transfer of land was easy and inexpensive. It was strange that this country should be a remarkable exception, and all the stranger because most of the Members of this, and all the Members of the other House, were deeply interested in the question. There must be a thorough measure of reform, and for that purpose there must be a thorough map. Much could not be said for a survey which had been 80 years in progress, and had cost £3,000,000, having little to show for it. It ought to be got out of hand at once, for it was a matter of vital interest to poor as well as rich. He had lately cited a case in which a comparatively poor man bought a small piece of land for £20, and the legal expenses were £10. No blame attached to the lawyers employed, who were men of the highest respectability, and did

  399
  not charge a fraction more than was necessary. Such a state of things was intolerable. The transfer of stock cost nothing; but a man of moderate means was practically precluded from investing in land, because he really did not know what the transfer would cost him, and, moreover, did not know after all whether he should have a good title.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would not enter into the question incidentally raised of the transfer of land, because it was undesirable to commence an incidental conversation on an intricate question arising out of a matter which was not before the House. It was impossible for anyone in speaking offhand on so large a topic not to commit himself to more or less than he desired to express. With a regard for the scientific as well as the legal and social well-being of the country, he must join with those who urged the Government to push on this work of the national survey with less consideration for mere economy and more zeal for the general convenience of the people. At the same time, he could not press the Motion with any expectation of seeing the undertaking finished, for he saw no end to the work, which was no sooner done than it must be begun again. Every new street, every new house, every squire who dug a new pond and threw down a hedgerow falsified the Ordnance map. On this ground, and in order that the initiatory standard might be reached, the work should be pushed on, while the question of staff ought not to stand in the way. By the introduction of the competitive system, with its contingent of failures, a large class of proportionably educated, but unemployed, and therefore discontented people had been created; and in the Ordnance survey means of honourable employment might easily be found for persons of this class of sufficient education and good character. There was no fear that the map would not be a marketable commodity. According to the report recently presented from Sir Henry James, his department was remunerative, both in its English maps and its reproductions of historical documents, and in surveys such as those of the Holy Land; and if the 25-inch scale were carried all over the country, the prime cost of so noble a map would, he was satisfied, be more than met by the demand. It was not creditable to us if
  400
  in a realm of such small area they did not provide the means of carrying on a survey on a uniform scale all over the country. When the map had been completed, and a Government organization established for altering it as it became requisite, he would recommend that it should be made by Act of Parliament a legal document of primary necessity. If to every deed or will dealing with an appreciable area of country the corresponding sheets of the Ordnance map were attached, with such manuscript additions or alterations as were needed to make the documents self-explanatory, legal and scientific proceedings would be greatly simplified. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. There were, no doubt, difficulties in the introduction of estate boundaries; but he did not understand why the name of the owner of every distinctive piece of land having an appreciable boundary should not be engraved upon the map; and he was convinced that such an addition would naturally add to the practical value of the survey.
  MR. WREN-HOSKYNSobserved that after the discussion which had taken place he should not divide the House, feeling confident that the Government would give the question their best consideration.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ELECTION OF ALDERMEN).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. HEYGATErose to call the attention of the House to the partial and unsatisfactory operation of the Municipal Corporations Reform Act in the Election of Aldermen, and to move a Resolution. The hon. Gentleman said, that the subject with which he had to deal was admitted by all reasonable persons to be a grievance. By the Corporations Reform Acts of 1833 and 1834 it was provided that, in addition to the councilmen to be elected for the wards, a certain number of aldermen were also to be chosen. But instead of intrusting the election of aldermen to the burgesses of the wards, the Act of Parliament relating to the subject gave it entirely to the councillors voting together. Every member of the Council was competent to vote for any number of persons not exceeding

  401
  the number of aldermen to be elected. The result was that a bare majority of the councillors in every borough could elect the whole body of aldermen, the latter being one-third of the number of councillors. The consequence was that, unless the councilmen chose to give to the minority some sort of representation, they could unfairly exclude them from all share in the upper ranks of municipal honours. By that means a large number of gentlemen who from their position in society and the taxes which they paid were best entitled to take part in the municipal affairs of the country were altogether excluded from the management of local concerns. The object of the original division of boroughs into wards was to do that which in the election of aldermen had signally failed—namely, to give a fair representation to all the different sections of the community, and if that had been done no complaint would have been made. It was not enacted that aldermen should be distinctly assigned to certain wards; but that was done as a matter of custom, and aldermen were generally understood to represent the wards to which they had been assigned. He was far from imputing to any corporation, though some might of late years have been extravagant, any charge of general mismanagement; but what he did say was this—that there were corporations which gave all their municipal honours as a reward solely for political opinion. The Municipal Corporations Reform Act, while removing many abuses, had failed to effect an alteration in that respect. In discussing this question in 1835, Lord Melbourne cited from the Report of the Corporation Commissioners the following passage:—
  "Now let us look at the Corporation of Leicester…. From the Mayor to the humblest servant of the Corporation, every office has been filled by persons of the Corporation, or so-called Tory party, to the total exclusion of all who entertained different opinions, however wealthy, however intelligent, however respectable. Now, let me ask your Lordships, what do you think of the working of such a system as this?"—[3 Hansard, xxix. 1347.]
  He regretted to say that the government of towns where the balance of parties was all on one side was still carried on with all the political exclusiveness described by Lord Melbourne. To his knowledge, very great objection had been raised to this political exclusiveness, especially in a town which he had in his
  402
  mind; but, unfortunately, the protests that had been made had been unavailing. He did not think the community would have gained all that they had a right to expect from the passing of the Municipal Corporations Reform Act unless a more satisfactory mode of conducting the election of aldermen was provided. It was said that the minority must bow to the majority, and he would not dispute the principle. In that House of about 650 Members, supposing there were 450 on one side and 200 on the other, the majority must rule; but the House would not so readily respect the decisions of the majority if the same mode were adopted in the House as was prevalent under the present constitutions of the municipal corporations in England and Wales. He only asked that the aldermen should represent their boroughs as fairly as the councillors did, and that both political parties should be proportionately represented by aldermen chosen from among men of property and influence. It was not difficult to find a remedy for this unjust state of things; and, indeed, as long as it was put a stop to he was indifferent as to the precise mode that was adopted to get rid of it. There were three remedies which suggested themselves to his mind for the grievance of which he complained. They might either commit the election of aldermen to the burgesses themselves or the different wards, so that every district should be fairly represented by its alderman and by its councillor. That was the first and simplest proposition, and in that way the London aldermen were elected. Or they might commit the election of the alderman of each ward to the councillors of each ward, and in all boroughs of any size that would be an easy mode of election. Or the election might be conducted on the cumulative system of voting, which was coming greatly into fashion. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to give the House some satisfactory assurance on the subject. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the present mode of electing Aldermen in Municipal Boroughs by the vote of the Town Council is unsatisfactory, and fails to secure a fair representation in each Borough on the Aldermanic Bench."—(Mr. Heygate.)
  MR. WHEELHOUSEregretted that a question of so much importance did not excite more interest in the House, for it was a question of no mean importance to the good government of the country, and it was desirable that the greatest amount of local interest within the boroughs should be brought to bear on local matters. The fact of a man being a Whig or a Tory, a Radical or a Conservative, could not be a reason why he should be best able to supervise the minute arrangements of a borough. Lord Ellenborough, in a speech upon this subject, had spoken of the professed object of dividing boroughs into wards to be to give to all classes of the community a fair chance of being equally represented. If that had been the object of the Act, it had lamentably failed. What had invariably happened under the present law was that a majority of town councillors were but too often elected on political principles only, and then the majority of town councillors, aided by such aldermen as did not then go out of office, elected aldermen exclusively from one political party, and so the opinions of the burgesses were neutralized. The fact was that the burgesses should elect the aldermen; but the objection to that was that it would destroy the double character of the corporation corresponding to that of Parliament. The second suggestion was that the councillors of each ward should elect their own aldermen; but the manifest objection to that was that the aldermen so elected would merely increase the political strength of the councillors electing them; and nothing could more completely defeat the intentions of those who framed the Municipal Corporations Act. The third suggestion was that aldermen should be elected by the cumulative votes of the burgesses; hitherto, cumulative voting had been eminently successful wherever it had been tried; and the probability was that in this case it would result in the election of the best men. Nothing could be worse than the present system, under which it would take six years to correct a mistake, and in that time irreparable injury might be done by a self-willed majority. In Leeds, as in many other boroughs, the aldermen and the mayors had been elected exclusively from the predominant political party; and the consequence was, that while some of the
  404
  best townsmen had been excluded from office on account of their politics, the position of aldermen had been held by men on whom it never ought to have been conferred. There was another question—how far political partizanship regulated the giving of offices. It was perfectly possible that might not have been intended; but he should like a Return to be made showing how certain persons had been elected to certain offices; what was their qualifications for that office; and how far they had always voted for the political party in power. He knew aldermen who had become rate collectors; and, in fact, the offices of alderman and town councillor had become a sort of harbour of refuge for people of a certain political phase or class, and offices were, in far too many instances, conferred upon such people as political partizans only. He was, therefore, very much obliged to his hon. Friend for bringing this subject before the House. What he said the other night with reference to the borough of which he spoke applied with ten-fold force to a municipality so large as that of Leeds. In almost every municipality in the North of England the corporations were supposed to be Liberal, as it was called. Why? Not always because the people so desired it. So far as town councils were concerned, the elections fairly represented both sides; but in the corporation the minority was not merely swamped, but the minority was turned into a majority by the mere action of the aldermanic votes. Six years was too long a time to allow that state of things to exist without change. He, therefore, seconded the Motion.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he hoped the very dismal picture they had just heard of the working of municipal institutions was to some extent due to the personal experience and misfortunes of his hon. Friend, and that all was not quite so bad as he had represented. At all events, it was remarkable that this grievance had been so long pent up; for, so far as he recollected, with the exception of a slight discussion the other night, this was the first time they had heard of it. Ever since he had been in office he had continually received applications from various boroughs through-out the country to bring in a Bill to deal with the question of re-division of wards, on the ground that the balance

  405
  of wealth and population had altered. What was the grievance of the case before us? The election of aldermen by a majority of the Common Council. A very great portion of legislation had been directed to extend the powers of corporations, and it would be a grievous thing if the most important members of those bodies were to be elected without reference to their fitness for their respective offices, but merely on account of their political opinions. It was undoubtedly the fact that in a great many cases there were aldermen representing both sides of political opinion, and he was constantly receiving evidence of the efficiency, vigour, and zeal with which the affairs of various municipalities were conducted. One of the remedies suggested by the hon. Member for the evil of which he complained was, that the selection of aldermen should be direct by the burgesses themselves, and much might be said in favour of that proposition; but it was, no doubt, the object of the framers of the Act, in leaving the selection to a body of men already themselves elected by the ratepayers, to bring into the municipal government men of influence who would not expose themselves to the risk, annoyance, and expense of a popular election. Another alternative which had been suggested was that the Common Councilmen of each ward should elect the aldermen for that ward. He thought it would be very difficult to carry out any such arrangement. The third proposal was that the system of cumulative voting should be allowed in these elections. No doubt a great deal could be said in favour of that proposition; but it might be objected to it that it was founded on the recognition of the fact that politics played a principal part in the election of the aldermen of corporations, and upon the consequent desire of the hon. Member to obtain a fair representation of political opinion. Now, he did not think that politics ought to enter into the view of Parliament in dealing with this question. What was wanted was, not to secure the ascendancy or proper representation of this or that political party in the borough, but to obtain the best possible representation of the intelligence and public spirit of the locality. The present system had been in force for 40 years, and Parliament ought scarcely to be called upon to condemn it
  406
  as a failure on almost the first occasion that its attention had been directed to the question. He would suggest to the hon. Member that, instead of pressing the present Resolution, he would adopt a better mode of testing the opinion of the House on the subject by bringing in a Bill, and thereby submitting the matter to the House in a definite shape.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, that on looking over the Notice Paper he found on it Notices of Resolution which ought never to have been brought before the House. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that when an hon. Member disapproved of an Act or any part of an Act, the proper course for him to pursue would be to introduce a Bill for its repeal, instead of wasting the time of the House by the discussion of abstract Resolutions. He would not discuss the question whether the Municipal Corporations Act had worked well or ill; but he objected to the horrible, the terrible waste of time which was caused by the discussion of Resolutions like that now before the House.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he did not think the time of the House had been wasted in discussing the subject which he had brought forward. Having succeeded in obtaining a discussion on an admitted grievance, he was satisfied, and would now, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRELAND—LORD LIEUTENANCY OF CLARE.—RESOLUTION.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he rose with deep regret to move the Notice which stood in his name. The Notice was in the following terms:—
"To call attention to the appointment of Colonel the Hon. Charles White to the Lord Lieutenancy of the county of Clare; and to move, That this House has heard with great regret that a gentleman has been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Clare who has never resided in that county, who is a stranger to its Magistrates, and who does not possess that local knowledge of the county and its residents essential to the proper discharge of the important duties of a Lieutenant of a County, and that this House is of opinion that such an appointment is of evil example, and ought not to have been made."
Under any circumstances, it was a most disagreeable duty for any Member of Parliament to have to bring forward a Motion in condemnation of an appointment made by the Executive

407
Government; but on the present occasion this duty was particularly disagreeable to him, because the gentleman named in the Motion was a personal Friend of his own, and the Government whose act he challenged was one under which he had served, and which still retained the confidence of the party to which it was his pride to belong. But there were occasions on which personal feeling and party allegiance must give way to a sense of duty, and he was satisfied that the great majority of the House—no matter into what lobby they would go when the division bell rang—would be of opinion, when the debate was over, that he could have adopted no other course than the one he was now pursuing, when all private remonstrance had failed to prevent the making of the appointment of which he now complained. For his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel White) he entertained the highest esteem. During the time he had been a Member of that House he had shown that he possessed abilities of no ordinary nature, and if ability was the sole qualification, there could be no objection to his appointment to the Lieutenancy of Clare. It was not on personal grounds that he objected to his hon. and gallant Friend's appointment. He objected to it on the ground that he was not qualified to be appointed to that high office, and that his appointment could not be justified by custom or usage. The office of Lord Lieutenant of a county was an office, as the House was aware, of a very important character. The Lieutenant of a county had practically the appointment of the magistrates of the county, for though legally the Lord Chancellor appointed them, he acted only on the recommendation of the Lieutenant. He had also the selection of Deputy Lieutenants from the magistracy whenever vacancies occurred, and though his duties with respect to the Militia were last year very much curtailed, he had still the nomination to first commissions of gentlemen who entered that force. The office was one of so much patronage and social rank that it was naturally an object of honourable ambition, and when a vacancy occurred it was the duty of the Executive to select a fit person for it Now, what ought to be the qualifications which a Government anxious to discharge its duty should have in view
408
in selecting a Lieutenant of a county? He must, of course, be a man of character and integrity and he thought it would also be generally agreed that he should be a man of property in the county, and a man of position in the county—and of such position, that the appointment, if it did not satisfy every one, should at least commend itself to the general good sense of the county. He should also be acquainted with the resident gentry, for he would otherwise, when applications were made to him for the appointment of magistrates or Deputy Lieutenants, be obliged to lean on the opinions of others, instead of acting on his own judgment. If possible, moreover, he ought to be a resident in the county, for a resident Lord Lieutenant could exercise a great influence. He could soften a good deal of that asperity which naturally arose in the course of party contests, and by exercising a liberal hospitality he might bring together people who would not, perhaps, meet except at the neutral board of the County Lieutenant. He would now inquire whether his hon. and gallant Friend possessed those qualifications? On the 22nd of April Lord Inchiquin, who had for many years with honour to himself and advantage to the country, discharged the duties of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Clare, died, and much speculation naturally ensued as to who would be his successor. Many names were mentioned and their various claims canvassed; but he could assure the House that among those names his hon. and gallant Friend was never mentioned. In the county of Clare he was only known as a younger son of Lord Annaly—as an officer in the Guards, living in London, and attending at London or Windsor, or wherever his regiment was stationed, and Member for Tipperary. When, after a time, the rumour began to circulate that he was to be appointed, it was treated as a joke, more particularly because at the same time it was also rumoured that the Vice Lieutenancy was to be conferred on a gentleman well known in Ireland and also in that House, and a particular friend of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn). ["Name!"] He referred to Mr. William Lane Joynt. When subsequently it became known that the rumour was no joke, and that his hon. and gallant Friend was to be recommended to the Queen for the Lord Lieutenancy

409
of Clare, although he did not possess a single acre of land in the county, had never resided there, and was a total stranger in it, the news not only created a sensation, but also a feeling of deep indignation, and it was considered that the appointment was an insult to the county and to its resident gentry. Upon the assembly of Parliament, after the Recess, his hon. Friend the Member for Kerry (Mr. H. A. Herbert) asked a Question of the Prime Minister, and he must say that a more extraordinary answer was never returned. At present he would only refer to one part of it—namely, that in which the right hon. Gentleman stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Kerry, that there was no legal qualification necessary for a Lord Lieutenant of a county in Ireland. Now, that might, perhaps, be strictly the case in point of law; but he should be able to show that a qualification was contemplated by the Legislature when it passed an Act establishing Lieutenancies in Ireland, and that pledges were given to both Houses by the Government of the day that that qualification should be for ever maintained. In England the Lieutenancy was a common law office, which had existed from the reign of Mary, and Hallam stated in his Constitutional History that it had generally since that time been filled by a Peer or gentleman of large estate in the county. In Ireland, however, up to 1831, no such office existed. Up to that time there was a Custos Rotulorum in each county in Ireland, who partly discharged the duties now devolving on the Lord Lieutenant of recommending magistrates, while there was one, two, or three Governors, according to the size of a county, who discharged the duties with regard to the Militia. It was thought by the Government of Earl Grey, in 1831, that this system of county government in Ireland was a bad one, and that the English system should supersede it. A Bill was accordingly introduced by the Government in that year and was passed into law (1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 17); and the 17th section of that Act showed, he thought, what the intention of Parliament was as to who should be a Lieutenant of a county. That section provided that whenever any Lieutenant of a county should be absent from Ireland, or in any case of sickness or other disability should be unable to
410
act, it might be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by warrant to appoint a Vice Lieutenant during his absence or disability, and on return of the Lieutenant to Ireland he was to notify the fact, and thereupon the Lord Lieutenant would revoke the appointment of the Vice Lieutenant. This, he thought, was a declaration by the Legislature that nobody should be appointed a Lieutenant of a county in Ireland who was not a resident in Ireland. The intention of the Government and of the Legislature of that day was more clear when tested by the declarations made in debate. On July 4, 1831, Lord Melbourne, who had introduced this Bill into the House of Lords, in moving the second reading, said its object was to establish in each county in Ireland an officer through whom there would be a settled communication between the Irish Government and the magistracy of the county—a responsible person of known property, local knowledge, and integrity, who—among other duties—would inform the Government as to the qualifications of persons to be appointed to the Commission of the Peace.—[3 Hansard, iv. 644.] Again, the Duke of Wellington, on the second reading, said—
"He would particularly direct the notice of Government to one point as most essential, which was, that the persons intrusted with this power should be resident generally in Ireland. So important did he consider this that he would like an Amendment to be introduced into the first clause of the Bill requiring that no person exercising the power of recommending magistrates should quit the country without the permission of the Lord Lieutenant; and, when such permission was given, such person should not leave Ireland until he had appointed a deputy (subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant) to act for him in his absence."—[3 Hansard, iv. 949.]
Earl Grey said on the same occasion—
"With respect to the qualifications of those persons, no doubt they should be of high character and rank, and above all, as suggested by the noble Duke, residents in the country. He had considered whether it would be possible to introduce into this Bill any limitation or provision to compel the Lords Lieutenant to reside in the country during the period of their appointment; but there was great difficulty on that point. In the first appointments, undoubtedly, residence would be an indispensable qualification, and he trusted the same qualification would be required under whatever Government the country would be placed…. The clause proposed by the noble Duke might be effectual, but it would place an extraordinary power in the hands of the Lord Lieuteuant of Ireland, which might at some time be tyrannically

411
exercised. He trusted that residence would be enforced, if not by a provision of the Bill, at least by whatever executive power might be in existence when the appointment was made."—[Ibid. 951.]
On the Report a clause was brought up by Lord Melbourne—the clause he had read—carrying out, as far as the Government thought they could safely do so, the suggestions of the Duke of Wellington. The Secretary for Ireland at that time, who had charge of the Bill in this House, was Lord Stanley, who said—
"This Bill would, he was convinced, tend greatly to promote the residence of the nobility and gentry in Ireland. Every Lord Lieutenant of a county when he left Ireland would be obliged to appoint a Vice Lieutenant, who, during the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, would execute the whole of the patronage. This would be a direct encouragement to the Lord Lieutenant to reside in Ireland."
In the following year, when a Motion was made complaining of one of these appointments, Lord Stanley again said—
"The object of the Government in bringing in this Bill had been to appoint persons residing in or contiguous to the county over which they would preside, who by their influence in the particular district, and by their residence, would be better able to attend to the interest of Ireland."
These passages, he thought, bore out his construction of the Act—that if a local qualification was not prescribed in the words of the Act, yet the intention of the Legislature was that no person should be appointed Lieutenant who had not at the time a bonâ fide residence in Ireland. He challenged the Government to prove that his hon. and gallant Friend had such a residence. If so, where was it? Where was he rated? Where were his servants? Where did he pay his income tax? On this ground alone the appointment should not have been made. Then what had been the custom since the passing of the Act of 1831? Out of 32 persons first appointed under the Act only six did not reside in the county in which they were made Lieutenants, and not one was without a residence in Ireland. From that time, as far as he was aware, every Lieutenant of a county had been a resident in Ireland, and nearly all had been residents in the county in which they acted. He did not say that residence in the county was indispensable; but he should cite some very high authorities to show that it was highly desirable. At the time when the present Secretary for
412
War (Mr. Cardwell) was Chief Secretary, and the Earl of Carlisle Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a question arose in reference to the Lieutenancy of Londonderry; and in a debate which was originated by the Earl of Belmore in the House of Lords, Lord Carlisle said—
"I hold, moreover, the primary qualification for the office of Lord Lieutenant to be that of residing in the county; and it is well known that the noble Marquess referred to (the Marquess of Waterford) not only never resides in Londonderry, but resides in the county of Ireland that is most remote from Londonderry."—[3 Hansard, clviii. 1644.]
Then, defending the appointment of Mr. Lyle to the office, he said—
"Mr. Lyle has been for 15 years a Deputy Lieutenant of the county of which he is now made Lieutenant. He has regularly attended the noble juries, and he is intimately acquainted with the business, and with the gentry, and with the best interests of the county in which he resided."
Though he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) did not go so far as to say that the law required residence in the county to which a Lieutenant was appointed, he did contend that such residence was most desirable. The first ground on which he impugned the appointment of his hon. and gallant Friend was that at the time of his appointment he had no residence in Ireland at all. His next ground of objection related to the possession of property in the county. No one denied that the possession of property in the county to which a gentleman was appointed Lord Lieutenant ought to be a necessary qualification for holding that office. But at the time the Prime Minister recommended his hon. and gallant Friend for the appointment of Lord Lieutenant of Clare the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hold a single acre of and there. He might say, in passing, that the Act directed that the appointment of Lieutenants of counties in Ireland should be made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but the First Minister seemed to have taken the present one upon himself, and at the time he was appointed his hon. and gallant Friend was not the owner of a single acre in the county to which he was appointed. The First Minister stated this fact expressly in answering the hon. Member for Kerry—
"I hope," said the right hon. Gentleman, "I shall be able to answer my hon. Friend in a manner which will give some satisfaction to him…It is true that I have recommended to Her Majesty's Government for the Lieutenancy of the

413
county of Clare my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary (Colonel White)."
The House would recollect this answer was given on the 23rd of April. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded—
"Whether he is a Justice of the Peace or a Grand Juror of the county I am unable to say, because I have had no opportunity since the Notice of the Question was given of speaking to my hon. and gallant Friend on the subject; but I quite agree with my hon. Friend in what I take to be the substance of his Question—namely, that although there were not any legal conditions, yet there were attached to the office substantial conditions which it was most desirable to secure, and, moreover, that next to the qualifications of character and competent ability are the qualifications of property and residence….. My hon. Friend is aware that, although the hon. and gallant Member for Tipperary has not been down to the present time a landed proprietor in the county of Clare, his father, Lord Annaly, has hitherto been possessed of large estates in the county. Lord Annaly has determined to transfer forthwith to his son the absolute possession of those estates. That intention—and I hope it will not be thought a colourable qualification—having been announced to us spontaneously by Lord Annaly as a family arrangement, there still remains the question of residence. But we have also received an intimation that it is his (Colonel White's) intention to reside upon the estate. I believe there is a residence for all purposes that are necessary, and consequently we do not hold it would be necessary to inquire as to qualification, and into the amount of accommodation which the present residence affords, or whether my hon. and gallant Friend intends putting additions to it. I am not able to say whether the transfer of these estates in point of law has been absolutely completed; but substantially, both as to residence and property, my hon. Friend may consider the transfer as entirely and finally made."
Now, he ventured to say that this was one of the most extraordinary statements ever made by a Minister in this House. The right hon. Gentleman submitted to Her Majesty for the appointment the name of a gentleman who, he admitted, was not qualified by property to act as a Lieutenant of Clare. It was true a promise was made that he should be qualified; but he would ask what right had a Minister of the Crown to put the Lieutenancy of a county into a family settlement. It was most extraordinary that the Queen's Sign Manual should be put to a document in order that a family arrangement might be carried out for transferring estates from a father to a son. As he had said, the first question which he would submit was this, had his hon. and gallant Friend a residence in Ireland? He had not, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to prove that
414
he had now or at the time of his appointment. In the second place, he submitted that his hon. and gallant Friend was not qualified, because at the time of his appointment he did not possess any property in Ireland. But assuming that residence in Ireland was not necessary; that actual property in Ireland was not necessary; and that a promise of property to be acquired was sufficient, he came to this question—which he considered a vital one—had his hon. and gallant Friend that position in the county at the time of the appointment which entitled him to be made a Lieutenant of Clare, and which would commend that appointment to the good sense of the county? What was the position of his hon. and gallant Friend in the county of Clare? There was no doubt that Lord Annaly did possess or had possessed considerable property in Clare; but it was not ancestral property. The noble Lord possessed ancestral property in the counties of Dublin and Longford, and he believed in other counties in Ireland, but none in Clare. His sole connection with that county was that 22 or 23 years ago Lord Annaly purchased property in Clare which had belonged to the Duke of Buckingham, and he had increased it by other property since acquired. But Lord Annaly never lived in the county nor any of his family. In 1859 there was a General Election, and Colonel Luke White came forward as a candidate for the county of Clare, not to defeat a political opponent, not to recover the county for the Liberal party, but to oust the Liberal Member for the county, Mr. Macnamara Calcott. The White family were new to the county, but Colonel Luke White was declared the sitting Member. A Petition was presented by Mr. Macnamara Calcott against his return. It was heard by a Committee, of which the present Lord Derby was Chairman, and the hon. Member for Berks (Mr. Walter) and the hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) were Members, and the decision of the Committee was that Colonel Luke White was not duly elected, and that the election was void; and Colonel Luke White was disqualified for standing for the county on the ground that he had, by his agents, been guilty of bribery and treating. Mr. Macnamara Calcott started again for the county,

415
and was opposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Tipperary. In the contest that ensued his hon. and gallant Friend was beaten by a majority of 2 to 1. Not satisfied, however, with his defeat, his hon. and gallant Friend petitioned the House against the return of Mr. Macnamara Calcott, but the Committee decided that Gentleman to be duly elected. From that day to this he ventured to say his hon. and gallant Friend had never been inside the bounds of the county. Such was the connection of the White family and of his hon. and gallant Friend with the county of Clare. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. A. Herbert) had asked whether his hon. and gallant Friend was a magistrate for the county. One reason for asking that question was that being a magistrate was considered to be the qualification in England for the office of Custos Rotulorum, which office was now united in Ireland with the Lieutenancy of the county. Blackstone stated that the Custos Rotulorum was always selected from among the justices of quorum, and was appointed on the grounds of his high character and acquaintance with the county business. But his hon. and gallant Friend was never a Justice of Peace of the county of Clare, or a Grand Juror—he never was a Poor Law Guardian, or even the governor of a lunatic asylum. In a social point of view his hon. and gallant Friend was equally a stranger to the county. He was not a member of the County Club or of the County Hunt. He was, in fact, a total stranger to the county—he had not a relative or connection in it, even if such matters were judged according to the custom of Scotland—where the relationship extended to the 131st cousin. It was a serious thing when they came to consider that a perfect stranger, who knew nothing of the county, and whose justice he had never administered, should have been put at the head of the county magistrates. The other point which Lord Carlisle considered essential for the position of Lieutenant of a county was that he should have a residence in it. He now challenged the First Minister to show that the hon. and gallant Member had any residence in Clare. On this point the answer already quoted was very curious. It ran—
"There still remains the question of residence. But we have also received an intimation that it is his (Colonel White's) intention to reside upon the estate."
416
Of course, if the hon. and gallant Member had said he would give up his position in the Army, abandon the delights of London life, and go and reside on his father's estates in Clare, no doubt he would do it; but it would certainly be a strange thing for him to do, at his time of life, and with the position he occupied in the Army. The answer continued—
"I believe there is a residence for all purposes that are necessary, and, consequently, we do not hold it would be necessary to inquire as to qualification and into the amount of accommodation which the present residence affords, or whether my hon. and gallant Friend intends putting additions to it."
The hon. and gallant Member, he believed, had no residence in the county of Clare at all, and if a month before his appointment to this office a letter had been addressed to "Colonel the Hon. Charles White, County Clare, Ireland," he assured the House it would have been returned to the Department so well presided over by the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell)—the Dead-letter Department of the Post Office. He had since heard it said that Lord Annaly had a residence in the county of Clare, which, of course, would be transferred with the estates; and the name of it was given as Annaly Lodge, Broadford. For many years he had represented the county of Clare in this House, and until within the last week he never heard of Annaly Lodge, Broadford. On referring to Thom's Directory, he found mentioned there as residences of Lord Annaly—Woodlands, Clonsilla, county Dublin; Rathcline, county Longford, and Totness Park, Sunninghill, Berks; but Thom did not mention any residence in Clare, and he was glad to see the Attorney General making reference to that authority, as he would find there no mention of Annaly Lodge. Burke's Peerage, and Lodge's Peerage gave the same residences as Thom; and neither of them mentioned Annaly Lodge. The rate-book showed that this lodge, at which the Lieutenant was to dispense a generous hospitality—with all its greenhouses, stabling, &c.—was valued at £13 a-year. As the First Lord of the Treasury had accepted an invitation to Ireland he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would visit Annaly Lodge. The truth was, that eight or ten years ago Lord Annaly, or his agent, thought it expedient to build a small shooting lodge in Clare; and although

417
it was roofed in, it was never finished; there was no furniture in it; and, of course, no member of the family had ever lived in it. True, there was a park or shooting woods attached to it; but the valuation of these, deducting the valuation of the lodge, was £35 10 s. Was he not justified in bringing this appointment before the House? The gentleman appointed was most estimable in private life, and he deeply regretted that it was his duty to make these observations about him. "Some are born to greatness, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them;" and in this case the hon. and gallant Member had a position thrust upon him which he had no right to occupy, and for which he was perfectly unqualified, by want of residence in Ireland, by want of residence in the county, and by his being a perfect stranger to the county, and therefore totally unfit to discharge the duties of the office. Was it surprising that the gentlemen of Clare indignantly resented this appointment? They entertained, too, another objection which ought not to be overlooked by the House. Nothing was more dangerous to a Monarch than to have it believed that there was some person behind the Throne who ruled and directed everything. Nothing was more injurious to the Government of Lord Melbourne than the supposition that he acted under the influence of O'Connell, who was then a Member of this House. In modern times a Government had lost prestige because it was supposed to be influenced by a Member of the House not a Member of the Cabinet. A feeling existed in Clare that the real Lieutenant was another person. ["Name!"] It was not necessary to give the name; but he had no objection to state openly that the feeling in the county was that the real Lieutenant would be Mr. William Lane Joynt, Crown and Treasury Solicitor for Ireland. The county gentry had expressed their indignation in these words—
"We, the undersigned magistrates and Deputy Lieutenants of Clare, have heard with deep regret that Colonel the Honourable Charles White has been appointed Lord Lieutenant of this county. While recognizing in the fullest manner the right of the Executive Government to appoint any person they may think fit to be Lord Lieutenant of a county, we cannot but express our opinion that the person appointed to that high office should be connected with the county by residence and local
418
knowledge of its magistracy and gentry. Colonel the Honourable Charles White has up to this time never resided in this county; he is not a magistrate or grand juror of it, and, being a total stranger to its residents, he must be entirely dependent on others, in the discharge of his duties, for local information. On these grounds we respectfully protest against his appointment to the office of Lord Lieutenant of this county, and call on our representatives in Parliament to take such steps as they may think proper to make this our protest known to Her Majesty's Government and to Parliament."
This protest was signed by 16 out of 19 Deputy Lieutenants of the county, and by 69 out of a magistracy numbering substantially between 90 and 100; in addition to which other names were coming in every day. In the face of this protest, he asked whether he was not fully justified in bringing this matter before the House? But this was not all. In pursuance of a requisition signed by Deputy Lieutenants and magistrates of the county, the High Sheriff of the county convened a public meeting of magistrates at Ennis, which was held last Saturday. This meeting was attended by 34 magistrates, and a resolution was passed expressing disapproval of the appointment of Colonel White, with but one dissentient. If Colonel White had friends—he did not mean personal friends, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman had no personal enemy, but if he was backed by any among the magistracy who approved his appointment—it would surely have been easy for them to have come forward and said so by their votes in a meeting of their own body openly convened by the High Sheriff of the county and as openly held. He was sorry to detain the House; but there was another branch of the subject to which he must refer. The appointment of his hon. and gallant Friend was defended out-of-doors on very curious grounds, one of which was that the White family had done good service to the Liberal cause in Ireland. He did not deny that the White family had rendered services to the Liberal cause in Ireland. The history of the election contests they had been engaged in, if written down in a book, would make a most curious and entertaining volume. The counties of Dublin, Longford, Leitrim, and Tipperary had witnessed battles fought by the White family on behalf of the Liberal cause. In the county of Clare they had also fought, but there it was not in support of the Liberal cause, but against a

419
Liberal candidate. The family had not confined their attention either to county constituencies or to Ireland, but had visited the boroughs of Carrickfergus and Kidderminster, of which last borough the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have a very grateful recollection. He did not dispute the claims of the White family to recognition by the Liberal Government. By the universal sanction of everyone who knew him the head of the family was raised to the Peerage, and was now in his old age surrounded by troops of friends; but why should another member of the family be rewarded by elevation to an office for which he was not fitted? If the family had not been sufficiently rewarded, why not make Lord Annaly a Viscount or an Earl—he would not go further, because Marquisates were reserved for the successful negotiators of treaties, and he did not think all the eloquence of the Crown and Treasury Solicitor in Ireland would be sufficient to induce the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn) to recommend the noble Lord for a Dukedom. If there was no other means of showing respect to the White family, he, for one, should not object to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary (Colonel White) being raised to the Peerage alongside his father; and if that was not a sufficient reward, let him be made Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, an office which was about to become vacant, or Vice Chancellor of the Queen's University in Ireland, a post which was not at present vacant, but which his hon. Friend (Sir Dominic Corrigan) might, no doubt, be induced "spontanously" to give up if proper language was used. All he objected to was the attempt to reward any member of the family by appointing him to an office he was not fitted to fill, and for which there were so many eligible candidates. He did not think it necessary to run through the whole catalogue of eligible persons; but as he had himself recommended one, he might mention his name. He alluded to Colonel Francis Macnamara, a descendant of one of the oldest families in the country, the owner of an estate more ample than that of Lord Annaly, a man who voted for the Liberal cause in that House for three years, and whose father held the county of Clare for
420
the Liberal party during 22 years. He could name many other gentlemen who were also eminently well fitted for the office. Why not have appointed his hon. and gallant Colleague in the representation of the county (Colonel Vandeleur), who would be admirably well suited for the post, although he sat on the Conservative side of the House? If there was a proper person for a Lord Lieutenancy who held the opinions of the Government of the day, by all means let him be appointed; but the absence of such a man was no justification whatever for the appointment of an utter stranger. In the debate on a Motion brought forward in that House on the 13th of April, 1869, in reference to the appointment of a Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) used the following words:—
"I am sure the House will not place me in the invidious position of having to go through a catalogue raisonné of the gentlemen in the county of Cumberland who might possibly be fit for the office of Lord Lieutenant; but I may say that their claims were thoroughly examined into, not in the light of party interests only, but with a due regard to the public weal. I have always been anxious, when in office, never to recommend any person to a high post under circumstances which would not command further confidence; and I should not have hesitated, in this instance, to have recommended a gentleman professing Whig politics, if it had been in my power to place before Her Majesty a name which should have immediately been recognized as an unimpeachable appointment. It is not a very easy thing to find a Lord Lieutenant, especially when the number from whom to choose is limited. There are gentlemen in the county who have estates, but who are not resident, and gentlemen who are resident, but have no estates.…So far from not having given the matter full consideration, I took pains to make myself acquainted with the general opinion of the county of Cumberland upon the subject, and I cannot see that I have been deceived in this respect."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 736–7.]
In the case, also, of the appointment of a Lord Lieutenant for the county of Londonderry, the gentleman who was appointed differed in politics from the Government of the day. Another argument that had been used in favour of the appointment was that it was desirable to destroy the old régime in the county of Clare, under which "no Papist need apply" to be placed upon the Commission of the Peace. He regretted deeply the use of such language, and disbelieved entirely that the mere fact of a gentleman being a "Papist" would,

421
under any circumstances, cause his being chosen for the magistracy. He at any rate was not animated in any way by considerations of party politics; but desired simply to see that done which would be most to the advantage of the county which he had the honour to represent. The fact was, that out of 32 Lieutenants of counties, 22 were Liberals, so that there was no political reason why a Liberal should be selected for the Lieutenancy of Clare. He apologized to the House for the time he had detained them. He did not consider that the Resolution in any way interfered with the Prerogative of the Crown, this patronage being really exercised by the Ministry. It was casting no slur upon Her Majesty when he asked the House to say that this was an appointment of evil example which ought not to be followed. It tended directly to absenteeism—it tended to disparage the local gentry—it told them—"You may discharge all the duties of your station and act as magistrates and grand jurors; but when the highest honours of the county become vacant you are not fitted to fill them, no matter what may be your title, wealth, or position; and we will put in a stranger over your head," That was not the way to govern Ireland. It was not governing Ireland according to "Irish ideas" when absentees were appointed and the local gentry, who acted in times of difficulty and danger, were passed over. He had brought forward this subject with great regret and pain, for the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose appointment he questioned was a personal Friend of his own, and possessed influence in Clare. It was not a pleasant thing to attack an influential supporter of his in his own county; but he had felt it his duty to do so, and having done his duty must now leave the House to do theirs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House has heard with great regret that a gentleman has been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Clare who has never resided in that county, who is a stranger to its Magistrates, and who does not possess that local knowledge of the county and its residents essential to the proper discharge of the important duties of a Lieutenant of a County, and that this House is of opinion that such an appointment is of evil example, and ought not to have been made."—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the House will agree with me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has brought forward his Motion in a speech of great ability, though we may perhaps think it might with advantage have been somewhat curtailed. I am quite ready to admit that he has, on the whole, treated what must have been to him a painful subject in a temperate and moderate spirit, excepting a few allusions which might, I think, have been omitted. He has given us some details, which were scarcely necessary, as to the history of the White family, the elections they have contested, and the claims he thinks they thus possess upon the Government. But, on the other hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given us a great deal of interesting and valuable information, both respecting the institution of Lieutenants of counties, and the history of the families in the county he knows so well. I do not in the least underrate the importance of the Motion he has brought before the House. To a certain extent, I am perfectly aware, it is a Vote of Censure upon the whole Government, and it is a most direct Vote of Censure upon the Irish Government, which I represent. I say I do not underrate the importance of the Motion; but I hope it will not be thought that I am guilty of any disrespect either to the right hon. and learned Gentleman or to the House, if I do not emulate the length to which he ran, but attempt to dispose of a very simple matter in a short and very simple way. The question before the House is really not whether Colonel White is the most fit of all the candidates for the Lieutenancy of Clare; but whether he is a properly and duly qualified candidate. So far as I can make out, his qualifications are impugned upon three grounds. The first objection is, that when appointed to the office he was not possessed of any property in the county; secondly, it is said that he is not now, and has not been, a resident in the county; and thirdly, that he is not possessed of any local knowledge of the county or the magistracy. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is himself obliged to admit, as to the first of these objections, that the possession of property is not a legal qualification. About that point there is no doubt. Her Majesty's Government are quite as willing

423
to admit, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman can be, that property in the county is an essential though not a legal qualification for the office. As far as I am aware, however, it has never been held that the actual possession of property is essential, if the person appointed were known and recognized as heir to large estates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can hardly be ignorant of the fact that in several instances the, eldest sons or heirs to large estates have been appointed without the smallest objection by anyone. In this way the present Duke of Rutland, then Marquess of Granby, was, I believe, appointed Lord Lieutenant of Lincolnshire. Though not then possessed of any property in the county, he was no doubt perfectly qualified as the heir to large estates there, and well acquainted with the county. A more recent appointment was called in question in this House. On the resignation of the late Lord Lonsdale, his nephew, Colonel Lowther, was made joint Lieutenant of Cumberland and Westmoreland. He was heir to his uncle; but as far as I am aware, was not possessed of property in either county, and the case is a strong one because, though the appointment was questioned here, not one word was said about the absence of a property qualification. Colonel White was designated by Lord Annaly as heir to large estates in Clare, and we, therefore, considered that, so far as a property qualification was essential, that condition was entirely fulfilled. On this part of the subject the right hon. and learned Gentleman made an allusion which I think cannot be justified. He intimated that property had been transferred to Colonel White, in order to give him the necessary qualification. That insinuation is, I am happy to say, entirely without foundation. I should not have thought it necessary to mention the circumstances unless that insinuation had been made but I happen to know that some little time ago, during the lifetime of the late Lord Lieutenant of Clare, who was in extremely bad health, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland asked Lord Annaly whether, in the event of a vacancy, and in the event of his being considered an eligible candidate, he would desire that the Lieu tenancy should be conferred upon his eldest son, Colonel Luke White; and a that time Lord Annaly informed my
424
noble Friend that the Clare estates would be left to his second son, Colonel Charles White. No more was said about the matter at that time; but this fact disposes of the insinuation that the appointment of Colonel Charles White had anything to do with his inheritance of these estates. The second objection to the appointment is, that Colonel White has not hitherto been a resident in the county. I consider this the most important objection, and it seems to me the only point upon which an explanation is really required. I am quite willing to admit that residence is an essential qualification for the office of Lieutenant of a county. Indeed, I go further than the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes on this point. He says that residence in Ireland is an essential qualification, while residence in the county is only desirable. Now, a man may reside in Dublin, and may be no more fit to discharge the duties of the office than if he resided in London. But residence in the county, if not a legal, is, I think, an essential qualification; and upon this point the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Government thought it necessary to institute an inquiry. There was a difficulty in the filling-up of this appointment. No doubt the absence of residence in the county was an objection to Colonel White. That was stated both to Lord Annaly and to Colonel White, and we received assurances from them which were satisfactory. The promise of my hon. and gallant Friend was as good as anything more formal, and we received from him an assurance that as, by the act of his father, he had been made one of the largest landed proprietors in the county of Clare, he intended becoming a resident proprietor, and to reside in the county during a part of the year. I acknowledge that my hon. and gallant Friend did not express any intention of giving up either his position in the Army or his seat in this House; but I should be surprised if holding a commission in the Household Troops or a seat in this House should be any disqualification for the post of Lord Lieutenant of a county. Of course, these duties would take up a considerable portion of my hon. and gallant Friend's time; but having the distinct assurance of my hon. and gallant Friend that he will reside during a portion of the year in the county, that is sufficient. The

425
third objection to the appointment is, that my hon. and gallant Friend does not possess any knowledge of the county, or any acquaintance with the magistrates. I presume, however, the explanation I have given on the question of residence will almost answer this point also. We admit that my hon. and gallant Friend does not at present possess a knowledge of the county; but we submit that it is not required that a Lieutenant should have knowledge of the county as regards the past, or even that he should have present knowledge of the county, but that he should be in a position to possess such knowledge in the future. The Lord Lieutenant of a county is not required to write a history of the county over which he is called to preside. His duty is to make himself acquainted with the magistrates, and with the persons who are eligible to be magistrates, and with those also who are eligible for commissions in Militia regiments, that he may judge of their fitness for the posts they seek. If the pledge given to us is acted on—as I have no doubt it will be—residence in the county will give knowledge of the county, and enable my hon. and gallant Friend to watch the interests of the county. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the debate on the Lieutenancy Bill, and he quoted a passage from a speech by Lord Grey which did not tell very much in his favour. Lord Grey attached so much importance to residence, that he questioned whether it would not be expedient to introduce a clause in the Bill making it imperative. We entirely concur in Lord Grey's view; but Lord Grey did not require that the Lord Lieutenant should have resided in the county, but that he would reside there. It never occurred to Lord Grey, or to any other reasonable person, that previous knowledge of the county was essential, as long as there was a reasonable assurance that future residence would enable the holder of the office to acquire the necessary knowledge. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to assure us that Colonel White was not objected to so much on account of personal unfitness, as from the fact that the real patronage of the county would fall into the hands of the Treasury Solicitor, Mr. Lane Joynt, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman alluded as the shadow which stood behind
426
the Throne. This shadow seemed greatly to haunt the imagination of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Upon one occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman applied to me with reference to the appointment of a governor of a lunatic asylum in the county of Clare, and when there was some slight hesitation about appointing the right hon. and learned Gentleman's nominee, he wrote an extremely indignant letter to me, saying he knew the question of the appointment had been referred to Mr. Lane Joynt, whose shadow would stand behind the Throne. In my reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I assured him that not a single word had been written or spoken to Mr. Lane Joynt upon the subject, and he assured me on that occasion that he was perfectly satisfied. I hope that upon this occasion he will be satisfied with my assurance, when I tell him that not one word has been said or written to Mr. Lane Joynt upon this subject, either by myself or by any other Member of the Government. I hope the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel White) will, if he addresses the House at a later period of this debate, give the right hon. and learned Gentleman equal satisfaction, by his assurance that in the administration of the affairs of the Lieutenancy he will act upon his own opinion, and not allow himself to be overshadowed by the terrible spectre which haunts the imagination of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I cannot leave this correspondence without recalling to the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in one of his letters he laid down the principle that appointment to the governorships of lunatic asylums was the undoubted privilege of the county Member. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks the appointment of the Lord Lieutenancy is also part of the undoubted patronage of the county Members. He did not say so to-night in as distinct terms as he laid down the other principle in the correspondence I have referred to; but I must demur to both with equal decision. Now, Sir, I do not know whether the House desires me to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the other candidates for the office. ["No, no!"] I can assure the House I will gladly abstain from doing so. The next point to which I have to refer is the reference

427
made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to what he describes as a protest signed by the county magistrates against the appointment of Colonel White. I have seen no protest; I do not know anyone who has; I have seen a report in the newspapers of a meeting on the subject; and that meeting does not seem to me to tell in favour of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We were told there was great excitement in the county, and that the magistrates had met to protest against the appointment. But that meeting was attended by only 32 gentlemen, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not inform the House the number of magistrates in the county of Clare.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, there were 150 on the roll, and between 90 and 100 resident in the county.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: But out of the 150 on the roll only 32 met to protest against an appointment which we are told is universally regarded as an insult to the magistracy of the county. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says the resolution was carried unanimously, and asks why, if the feeling were not general, no opposition had been raised against the protest. But it is hardly reasonable to expect that the supporters of the gentleman appointed would attend a meeting called to condemn the appointment. I am not surprised that the solitary gentleman who did attend the meeting in the interest of my hon. and gallant Friend did not secure a seconder; and I must say he is a friend who is more to be commended for the warm of his attachment than for his discretion. I do know something about the magistrates who attended the meeting, and I am informed that a considerable number of them were not magistrates possessed of any property whatever in the county, but were merely agents of others, and gentlemen whose opinions therefore could not be regarded as of very great weight. But when the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks by whom this protest was signed, I should like to hear from him or from some of his Friends, by whom it was prepared, and whether it emanated from the county of Clare or from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends. I am quite ready to admit that there is dissatisfaction in the county on the subject of this appointment;
428
but I do not believe that that dissatisfaction originated in the county, nor that it originated in the county, and was transferred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as the mouthpiece of the county. I believe—and I am sorry to say it—that it originated in a feeling of disappointment—I will not say of anything else—on the part of certain hon. Gentlemen who are a great deal nearer to this House than the county of Clare. I believe it originated much more in London than in the county of Clare. If that be the true explanation, as I believe it is, of all this business, I can hardly imagine that this House, although it likes to take up a great number of multifarious subjects, will deem it to be part of its functions, or one of its bounden duties, to redress the wrongs of gentlemen who might think they have a claim to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Clare superior to that of my hon. and gallant Friend. If it can be shown that my hon. and gallant Friend is in any way unfitted for the post he holds, I can understand the House taking up the matter. But it has been acknowledged in an ample manner by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that every personal qualification that is required for his position is possessed by my hon. and gallant Friend. I have shown that in our opinion—and I hope also in the opinion of the House—the Lord Lieutenant of Clare has all the substantial and legal qualifications that are necessary; and I trust, therefore, the House will not make itself the means of redressing the fancied wrongs—for I cannot allow that they are real wrongs—of any hon. Gentleman who may think that he has been passed over in this instance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that this matter of the appointment of Lords Lieutenant of Irish counties is one which is vested by Act of Parliament entirely in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Now, my noble Friend the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is perfectly ready to take the responsibility of the appointments he has made of Lords Lieutenant of counties in every case, and especially in this case. It is true that these appointments are of such importance that my noble Friend never makes one of them without consulting my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and I may here say that my right hon.

429
Friend is perfectly prepared to take any responsibility that may belong to him on this question. The real responsibility, however, practically rests with my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and he is quite ready to bear it. I could have desired that my noble Friend had an opportunity of defending in the House of Lords his appointments, in the same way as the late Lord Carlisle, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, once had of defending his; but as the statement of his case has devolved not on him, but on me, I may be allowed to say what my noble Friend could not have said of himself—and that is that I conscientiously believe there never was a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who has acted under a greater sense of responsibility, or with greater care and attention in regard to all appointments, than my noble Friend has done ever since he became Lord Lieutenant. I do not believe that any Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ever took more pains than he has taken to make himself personally and locally acquainted with that country, and with every county in it—the most remote as well as those near to Dublin. I also do not think that any of his predecessors have taken more pleasure in the discharge of the duties of his office. I think he esteems it a great honour to hold the high office he fills. I am certain he has a feeling of pride in the execution of its duties, and that he would not wish to continue one moment in that position if the House of Commons asserts—as it would assert by assenting to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that he is capable of making a corrupt or an unworthy use of the patronage which is attached to it.
MR. HERONsaid, he wished to state the reasons why he must vote against the Motion. He entirely disagreed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had made it, both as regarded the law he had laid down in reference to his Motion, and also as to the expediency of the Motion itself. He maintained that in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland, the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county being regulated by statute, there was no qualification attached to that office, and that gentlemen had been repeatedly appointed Lords Lieutenant in all three parts of the United Kingdom by previous Governments who had
430
neither residence nor property in the counties over which they were placed. He would enumerate the case of the Earl of Mansfield, who was made Lieutenant of Clackmannan by Lord Derby's Government in 1852; the case of the Earl of Dalkeith, who was made Lieutenant of the county of Dumfries in 1858. Sir Graham Montgomery who was made Lieutenant of Kinrossshire in 1854; and the Earl of Wemyss had been made Lieutenant of Peeblesshire in 1853, having no residence there but the Castle of Nidpath, which for years had been in ruins. Was it, he asked, intended to issue a Commission to inquire whether property and residence in their counties existed in regard to all Lords Lieutenant appointed either by Lord Derby's, Lord Aberdeen's, or any other Ministry, and rightly appointed, as he assumed, because no exception had been taken to their nomination? His own opinion was, that the Motion had been thrust upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman by three owners of property in Clare, who considered themselves entitled to the appointment. References had been made to the elections in which the White family had been engaged from the year 1812 to the present time; but the election proceedings of that family had proved of some use, he believed, to the cause of Catholic Emancipation. On the part of the Irish Roman Catholics he begged to express his satisfaction that the family of Colonel White, who had stood by their cause in the time of Catholic Emancipation, had at length had its claims recognized. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had no objection to the appointment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman on either personal or public grounds. It must, therefore, be upon local grounds that the right hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the appointment, and those grounds must be founded in the belief that Colonel White would abuse the trust that was placed in him by permitting Mr. William Lane Joynt actually to make all the appointments which were nominally made by the Lord Lieutenant. He was satisfied that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not be guilty of such conduct. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had been assailed most unhandsomely on this occasion, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, while declaring that he only made this Motion

431
on public grounds, had condescended to enter into the meanest personal details. Everyone knew that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would discharge his duties with honour and with great ability; and under these circumstances he trusted the House would not allow to succeed a Motion which was instigated by political hostility, by political rivalry, and by political disappointment.
MR. H. A. HERBERTwished to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Tipperary (Colonel White), that in the remarks he was about to make he was actuated by a feeling of public duty, and not by a wish to annoy him. He must, however, say that he did not like the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been made the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Clare over the heads of the magistrates who had lived for years in that county, and who must, therefore, possess a knowledge of those who lived in it which he necessarily could not have. While admitting that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had discharged his duties in the Army and in that House with great ability and energy, he could not help being influenced in his judgment as to the expediency of the appointment by the fact that he had not possessed any property in the county at the time he was selected by the Government to fill the office, and that he was not then a resident in Ireland. No doubt his father meant to leave the property to him; but supposing the father were to die in the meantime intestate, there would be a Lord Lieutenant for Clare without any property in the county. Absenteeism had given rise to great evils, and the Government were wrong in encouraging it, by appointing an absentee to such an office. He was glad to hear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to reside in the county; those who knew him as well as he did would acknowledge that he was a good fellow; but he doubted much whether he would reside there—although he said he would—for a sufficient time to enable him to acquire that knowledge of the people, which was requisite for the holder of the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county.
MR. STACPOOLEsaid, that the appointment of an absentee to this office had given rise to considerable excitement in the county, a feeling which was not confined to the magistracy, but was
432
generally entertained by the people at large. The people of Clare did not like to have a man whom they had scarcely seen put over their heads. The hon. and gallant Member for Tipperary (Colonel White) had stood for the county in 1860, when he had opposed a Liberal candidate, and when there were expressions used which he did not like to repeat. As an ex-magistrate of Clare, he begged to enter his protest against this appointment.
MR. OSBORNE: I wish to say a few words upon this subject, not because I am particularly well acquainted with the county of Clare, although I know that the hunting to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded is the worst in Ireland, but because I am a constituent of my hon. Friend—and I call him "my hon. Friend" not in the sense in which he has been so called to-night by some of his "damn'd good-natured friends." ["Order!"] Are hon. Members not aware that it is a quotation? If The Critic is an improper book to quote from, I apologize to you, Sir, for having used the expression—I call him my hon. Friend, not because I take a particular interest in Clare, but because I am proud of the hon. and gallant Member for Tipperary, because I know his good qualities as a man and his ability as a Member of this House. While I can do full justice to the feelings evinced on this occasion; while I know the sensitiveness which has been evoked by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole), who was a candidate for this office; while I acknowledge the disinterested manner in which, feeling that disappointment keenly, he has thrown up the Commission of the Peace of that county; while I do justice to the motives of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for that county; while I acknowledge the variety of information which, through the means of this Paper, he conveys to the House, the multitudinous Motions which he puts upon it; and while I admire his great ability in every respect—more especially in having lately extracted the longest answer from the Attorney General that ever was given; while I still more admire the paternal ingenuity with which he contrived to make away with his own legislative bantling by performing the "happy despatch" upon it on a late occasion, I regret that in this instance he

433
has been seduced, by what I call the parochial animus, to make this great storm in the House about a very little matter. I regret it the more from one in his position, considering his descent and his politics, and I think I may address him in the words of Cassius to Brutus—
"Brutus, I do observe you now of late:
I have not from your eyes that gentleness
And show of love that I was wont to have.
You bear too stubborn and too strange a hand
Over your friend that loves you."
I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have borne so heavy a hand on the present occasion. He did not in the whole course of his very carefully-elaborated speech say a single word to show that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary is not a fit and proper person to be appointed Lord Lieutenant of the county of Clare. If the Hon. Charles White is a fit person to represent the interests of the great county of Tipperary in this House, much more is he fit to reign over the magistrates of Clare, and appoint those strange creatures called Deputy Lieutenants, of whom I could never yet make out the use. There is an old proverb which says that if one Irishman is put on a spit there will immediately be found two more to turn him. Of the justice of that proverb we have had an example to-night. An attempt has been made to throw discredit on the White family, on account of the money which they have spent in elections; but my right hon. and learned Friend ought to be the last person to deal in any expressions of that kind. He alluded to the election for Clare in 1859. Has he forgotten that great election for the same county which shook the fetters from the Roman Catholics, when O'Connell stood for Clare, and was materially assisted by the White of that day? He should have recalled that election to mind, before he said a word in disparagement of the grandson of that gentleman. And what, let me ask, is this office of Lord Lieutenant, about which we have heard so much? The qualifications for it, I believe, are generally supposed to be property, residence, and, above all, a political diploma. Well, nobody can deny that my hon. and gallant Friend has, or will have, considerable property in Clare. It is true a most ungenerous attempt has been made to turn into ridicule the rating of Annaly
434
House; but it is an attempt which is, I think, unworthy of the occasion. As to residence, I congratulate the county of Clare on having got among them a gentleman whom they cannot fail to regard as being one good Irishman the more; and as to political diploma, there may in this respect have been some neglect on the part of the Government, for they might have remembered the unswerving devotion of the hon. Member for Ennis, who, on all questions, except, perhaps, relating to a Royal residence in Ireland, has proved himself to be one of their most constant supporters. I hope he will continue to be so, for I do not understand that he has resigned his seat for Ennis. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary, it is well known that he opposed the Government on the Land Bill, on the Re-organization of the Army Bill, and on the Peace Preservation Bill. I trust he will continue to hold the same independent course, and that he will not be seduced by the baubles of a Lord Lieutenancy. But I regret that this question has ever come before the House. I think it was unworthy of the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have brought it forward, and unworthy of the House to entertain it. Whether the House entertains it or not, and whatever the shortcomings of the Government may be, I do not for a moment imagine that their conduct in this instance will be censured by the Irish votes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been commissioned by 31 magistrates out of 150 who met in a hole and corner—no one else being admitted, but I hope he will rest satisfied with having called attention to the subject; but in any case I trust the House will not express its disapproval of the conduct of the Government, but will, I was almost going to say, thank them for having made so bold and good and honest a choice.
SIR DOMINIC CORRIGANexpressed his thanks to the Government for having made an appointment in which not only Clare, but he might say the whole of Ireland, was interested, for the Irish people were glad to see a compliment paid to a member of a family who had fought their battles in past times. The House had been told that 30 magistrates had assembled at a hole-and-corner meeting and protested against the appointment

435
to the Lord lieutenancy of Clare. But Clare had a population of 130,000. Why was not an aggregate meeting called and the general opinion asked? Why, the result would have been an approval of the appointment. An objection had been made to the appointment of Colonel White that he was a stranger to the county of Clare. The magistrates of Clare had taken that view. But in 1829 the magistrates of Clare took the same view. They objected to O'Connell because he was a stranger. O'Connell replied that he was identified with the people of Clare in everything that could identify man with man. The Government had done nothing more than repay a debt of gratitude which every Liberal in Ireland owed to the White family.
COLONEL WHITEsaid, it was not his intention to detain the House more than a few moments—in the first place, because he was physically incapacitated from doing so; and, in the second place, because he thought it would be more modest, and would show more proper feeling on his part, if he were to leave the defence of his appointment in the hands of those who were so well capable of defending it, if they deemed it to be right. He would not even touch on the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the Motion (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), save to say that he thought the right hon. Baronet might have spared him and his family the sneer in which in the course of it he deemed it right to indulge. He would say very little or nothing with regard to the compliment the right hon. and learned Gentleman had paid him in supposing that he was not competent to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Clare. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, he durst say, had some reason for thinking that he (Colonel White) was not fit for that office; but he was not quite sure that the sentiment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was reciprocated by the Gentleman to whom he had referred. The feeling which he (Colonel White) experienced at the present moment on this subject was an intensely painful one—so painful that it might be wondered that he still cared to be Lord Lieutenant of Clare. If his personal feelings were to be consulted in this matter, he should be bound to relinquish
436
the honour which had been conferred upon him; but nothing would induce him to take that step short of a decisive vote of the House, and for this reason—that if he did so, he should be doing that which, in the first place, would be unjust to himself; and, in the second place, would be unjust to those who had done him the honour of appointing him to this post, and of supposing that he was competent to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to it. But, above all, if he did so, he would be doing that which was unjust to the Liberal gentry and to the people of the county of Clare, and not only to them, but to the Liberal party in the South of Ireland. He looked upon this appointment as the embodiment of the principle that religious or political opinion ought not to debar a gentleman of position, a gentleman of worth, a gentleman of loyalty, a gentleman of high standing and of credit from an equal share, at least, in the administration of local affairs; and that it was not for the public weal that any section or clique should monopolize the privileges, honours, and responsibilities attached to such an office. For his own part, he could only say that it should be his endeavour, if the House thought fit to ratify the appointment the Government had made, by a consistent course of entire impartiality to do his best to obliterate the unpleasant feelings which might exist at present. And as to the future, he had far too exalted an opinion of the sense of fair play, justice, and good feeling of the magistracy and gentry of the county of Clare to suppose for one moment that he would not be welcomed when he went amongst them—as go he would—with that kindliness, courtesy, and good feeling which he was sure they could not fail to extend to one whose aim would be to convince them that his only desire was to do that which was right.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron) had endeavoured to justify this appointment by referring to the appointments of certain noblemen as Lords Lieutenant in Scotland. The hon. and learned Member said that Lord Wemyss had no residence in the county of which he was appointed Lord Lieutenant. He believed the hon. and learned Member was grievously misinformed on

437
that subject. The hon. and learned Member said the Earl of Mansfield had no property in the county of which he was appointed Lord Lieutenant. On that subject also, he believed the hon. and learned Member was grievously misinformed. And as to the Earl of Dalkeith, he had been a resident during the greater part of his life in the county of which he was appointed Lord Lieutenant, and was the heir of enormous property there. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have known the difference between a heir presumptive and a heir apparent. He (Lord Claud Hamilton) complimented the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel White) on his ability. He had always heard him spoken of in the highest terms, and therefore he regretted to have to record a vote against his appointment.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he was induced to say a few words in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down. He confessed that until a recent period it was his intention not to have taken a part in the division. During the last few hours he made himself acquainted with the facts, which had very much changed his opinion. The noble Lord who had just spoken had alluded to some appointments which were made by Conservative Ministries, between which and the appointment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel White) he said there was a great distinction; and he talked of the difference between heir presumptive and heir apparent. Well, what were the facts of this case? A vacancy occurring in the Lord Lieutenancy of Clare, it was quite open to the Government, according to the rule which prevailed in such matters, to select a Peer, and appoint Lord Annaly to the office, as the Earl of Lonsdale had been appointed to the Lord Lieutenancy of Cumberland and Westmoreland, and the Duke of Buccleuch to the Lord Lieutenancy of Dumfries. Lord Annaly, he believed, was in his 83rd year, and was not desirous of taking a new office. Lord Lonsdale did not wish to retain the office of Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland and Westmoreland, and he applied to the Government to appoint Colonel Lowther, who had not an acre in those counties, Lord Lieutenant of them. That appointment was challenged in the House. There was not a Conservative in the House
438
who did not defend that appointment, and who did not feel that Colonel Lowther, from his education, his position and character, was a fit man to fill that appointment, although he had not an acre of property in those counties. The Duke of Buccleuch was appointed to the counties of Mid-Lothian and Dumfries; and for the latter he recommended his son, the Earl of Dalkeith, although he had not an acre of landed property in that county. Was there a Conservative who would not have defended that appointment? Lord Annaly was Lord Lieutenant of two counties and he declined to accept another appointment. What was the difference between the case of Lord Annaly and that of the Duke of Buccleuch? Lord Annaly said—"I do not wish to take this appointment, but there is the heir of my estates in that county; appoint him." What was the difference between an heir presumptive and an heir apparent? It was well known to the Friends of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary, and also to the Government, that he was as much the heir of Lord Annaly in the county of Clare as the Earl of Dalkeith was the heir of the Duke of Buccleuch. The Government were aware that under family arrangements he would have property which would qualify him for the Lord Lieutenancy of the county of Clare. Allusion had been made to the past election contests of the White family in Ireland, and he might remark that he knew more respecting this subject than his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), because it happened that the first Election Committee on which he had ever sat unseated the present Lord Annaly, one of three brothers who had been returned to Parliament in the hottest conflicts ever known in Ireland. Those brothers were regarded as the strength and stay of the Liberal party among Liberal Protestants at a time when Liberal Protestants were rare. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House prided themselves on their party zeal and fidelity, and he was surprised, therefore, at their finding fault with Her Majesty's Government for recognizing party services. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary was not a weak specimen of aristocratic imbecility, but a Member of that House whose ability and manliness had made

439
him an object of respect to his opponents, of admiration to his friends, and the pride of the Irish Representatives. His hon. and gallant Friend possessed those qualifications which were calculated to make him popular in the county, and he knew no man who possessed them in a higher degree than his hon. and gallant Friend. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) in thanking the Government for making the appointment, and he hoped that after the unanimous expression of opinion in the House in favour of the appointment, his right hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion to a division.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he rose for the purpose not of delivering a speech, but of making a statement as to a matter of fact. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had objected to this appointment on the ground that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tipperary had not when appointed a residence in the county of Clare. The truth, however, was, that at the present time the hon. and gallant Gentleman had in the county as good a residence for all practical purposes as any gentleman possessed in it. To show that residence in the county was not a necessary qualification he would cite the case of the Duke of Abercorn, who was appointed Lord Lieutenant of the county of Donegal, in which county he had large estates, but no residence. [Cheers.] He was not detracting from the merit of that appointment, but he was mentioning a fact. The noble Duke had a residence, no doubt, in the county of Tyrone. His hon. and gallant Friend was neither heir apparent nor heir presumptive; but his father made a will some years ago. [An hon. MEMBER: His father is not dead yet.] Well, according to the hon. Gentleman opposite a man could not make his will till he was dead. At all events, he hoped the sapient legislator who had just interrupted him would not wait until he was dead before he made his will. Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman was thinking that a will was an "ambulatory" instrument which could be altered in the testator's lifetime. The truth was that Lord Annaly bequeathed his estates in the county of Clare and in an adjoining
440
county, worth £13,000 a-year, to his son the hon. and gallant Member for Tipperary, and his Lordship had lately, and before the appointment was made, executed a deed conveying them absolutely to the hon. and gallant Member, who was now in possession of them. He apprehended that would satisfy the hon. Member opposite. At the present moment the hon. and gallant Member was possessed of an estate worth nearly £9,000 a-year in the county of Clare, with a residence upon that estate, and also of another estate worth £4,000 a-year in an adjoining county. In his opinion such a man, an officer in the Guards, and a Member of that House, was a fit person to be appointed Lord Lieutenant of the county. It had been objected that his hon. and gallant Friend would be the Custos Rotulorum of the county, albeit he was not a magistrate; but the fact was that every Lord Lieutenant was ex officio in the Commission of the Peace. He might remark, however, that the late Lord Roden was removed from the Commission of the Peace in 1849, but nevertheless he retained the office of Custos Rotulorum until his death in 1870.
MR. BUTTsaid, he would not have spoken if there was not a voice that ought to be heard, and that was the voice of the people of the county who had the chief interest in this appointment. There had been no expression of local opinion during the debate. The city he represented (Limerick) bordered on Clare, and he had thought it his duty to endeavour to ascertain from his constituents, and from the people of Clare, what was the popular opinion on this subject. He had to say distinctly that the popular opinion—and he was not speaking of discontented magistrates who might, like the "moping owl," feel offended because a stranger had entered into their county to "disturb their ancient solitary reign"—was in favour of this appointment. From intelligence he had received to-day, the popular voice throughout the whole western district of the South of Ireland was in favour of it; and the appointment was a proof that manly independence in that House would not prevent a man from receiving an appointment which had been too often reserved for the obsequious followers of a Minister. He believed there was a great deal of exaggeration about the

441
dissatisfaction of the gentry. He objected, however to the House of Commons reviewing the appointments of the Executive Government. That course was quite unconstitutional; and the power of the House consisted in being at liberty to censure the Government, if there was anything in an appointment that called for interference.
LORD HENRY SCOTTasked the indulgence of the House while he contradicted a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Horsman), with reference to the appointment of his brother (the Earl of Dalkeith) as Lord Lieutenant of Dumfriesshire. That right hon. Gentleman might no doubt make any statements of facts within his own cognizance; but he had no right to state as facts what he could not be informed of. The right hon. Gentleman stated that his brother had been recommended for that appointment by his father. Now, he did not know what justification the right hon. Gentleman could have for making that statement. Such was not the case. So far from that appointment being made as a party appointment, it was offered to his brother by the most popular Liberal Minister of the day previous to its acceptance under the Minister who succeeded him.
MR. HORSMANapologized to the noble Lord for the statement he had made. When the Earl of Dalkeith was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Dumfriesshire he (Mr. Horsman) had assumed that the appointment would have been given to the Duke of Buccleuch, if he would have accepted it, and that he preferred his son should be appointed. He had believed that to be so, but he regretted the statement he had made. He made it with the greatest respect for the Duke of Buccleuch and the Earl of Dalkeith, both of whom he had the honour of knowing, and for whom he entertained the most cordial regard.
THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTONsaid, he wished to say a few words with reference to the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland as to the appointment of the Duke of Abercorn to the Lord Lieutenancy of the county of Donegal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Duke of Abercorn had no residence in that county, and he also stated that the county of Tyrone was contiguous to the county of Donegal.
442
That was correct; but he ought also to have stated that the estates of the Duke of Abercorn were continuous, running from one county into the other, and situate almost within a ring fence. He had also been associated with the county of Donegal by early connection, and was perfectly well acquainted with every gentleman residing in the county, having been a Deputy Lieutenant of that county himself.
MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he thought the House would be pursuing a most unconstitutional, revolutionary, and mischievous course by attempting to take from the Executive appointments of this description, and placing them virtually in the hands of the House. If there was anything in the character of the person appointed which militated against the appointment that would be a different matter; but there was nothing of that kind here. On the contrary, every thing was in favour of the appointment.
SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he thought that such appointments ought to be canvassed in the House, otherwise there was no restriction on the acts of the Executive Government in such matters. There was no foundation for the remark made by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the meeting at Ennis on Saturday last was a hole-and-corner meeting. It was perfectly true that only 34 magistrates attended the meeting; but it was open to every magistrate who chose to attend, and, as he has said, he held in his hand a protest against the appointment, signed by 69 magistrates and Deputy Lieutenants of the county. He would only say further that if he had in the course of this debate made any observations which he ought not to have made he was sorry he had done so, and he at once apologized for them to his hon. Friend. With respect to the sneer which had been levelled at him on the assumption that he had been a candidate for the office—he treated it with scorn, for there was no foundation for the assumption. He also thought he had a right to complain of the use which the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made of private letters relating to another subject. It was the first time he had heard in an Assembly of Gentlemen that such a use could be made of such documents, and all he could say was that it would teach him a

443
lesson as to the way in which he should write to the noble Lord for the future.
MR. BAGWELLconcurred in the statement that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant of Clare was respected by all parties in that county; and he believed that the meeting referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a hole-and-corner meeting, attended by very few magistrates, and it was held in the Grand Jury room, which was a private room.
SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, much stress had been laid on what was called "expression of opinion" from the Clare people. He would confine his observations altogether to that one point, which he thought it was important for the House fully to understand before it went to a division. His right hon. and learned Friend the Mover of the Resolution said, with great unction, that the magistrates had met and protested, but the great demonstration of opinion was the protest of the 69. That ominous figure, 69, was held before their eyes three times in the opening speech, and it was so important, in the view of his right hon. and learned Friend, that he referred to it again in tones of triumph when winding up his observations. Now, the point he was anxious to unravel was, where did this protest come from? Whence did it emanate? Was it from the county of Clare, or was it from that House? His right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) said he was not a candidate for the Lieutenancy. Every hon. Member present accepted his word for that, and those who knew the details of the case knew he was not a candidate. They also knew that there were three candidates. The hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Vandeleur), who, if his party were in, ought to be considered with favour; his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) was the second candidate, and he made good running; and a gallant Colonel, Francis Macnamara, was the third. There were three colonels and a captain, besides the "favourite," as the right hon. and learned Member for Clare called the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel White) who obtained the appointment. Now, these 69 names were the result, not of what was amusingly called the "spontaneous" expression of opinion of the people of
444
Clare, but of the earnest canvass of the three defeated candidates. ["No, no!"] He said "Yes!" and he held in his hand the circular issued from London by two of the candidates, inclosing the London Protest, and asking that, being stamped in Clare, it be sent to the third defeated aspirant, to be called in that House "The Clare Protest" against the appointment of Colonel White.
"[Private.]
"London, April 27, 1872.
"SIR—Sir Colman O'Loghlen having, in deference to the feelings that exist in the county on the subject, given notice of bringing before the House of Commons, on the 7th of May, the appointment of Colonel the Hon. Charles White to its Lieutenancy, it has been deemed advisable that there should be a written expression of opinion on the matter from the deputy lieutenants and magistrates of Clare. We enclose a form of protest which, if you approve of, we will thank you to sign and forward, as soon as possible, either to Sir Colman O'Loghlen or Colonel Vandeleur, House of Commons, London.
"Signed—FRANCIS MACNAMARA, D. L.,
WM. STACPOOLE, M. P. "
The House would, he thought, now understand how Clare opinion was manufactured in London, and the weight to be attached to the jealousy, not of a mortified county, but of the disappointed competitors.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 257: Majority 216.

EDUCATION—RIPON GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that, in so much as the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners with reference to the Free Grammar School at Ripon, Yorkshire, would deprive the poor of that city and its neighbourhood of the facilities of obtaining an education, almost free, now possessed by all classes in that city and its neighbourhood, She will therefore be pleased to withhold Her consent from the said Scheme."—(Mr. Wheelhouse)
  MR. ASSHETONseconded the Motion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdefended the scheme proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners, which had been assented to by the House, and said that no better proof could be be afforded of the excellence of their scheme than the very school

  445
  which the hon. Member had brought under the consideration of the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsupported the Motion. He had no doubt that if they gave the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) a certain amount of money he would apply it with great ability; but the question was, whether there was justice in the policy which obtained these funds? There was a great difference in the theory and in the application of a statute. He understood the present theory of education to be this—that the poor were to be educated in what are called elementary schools; the inhabitants of the district were to be rated to provide elementary education for the poorer classes, and the poor were to be rated for that purpose; whilst the education, which under these old endowments they had free, or by a trifling payment, would be taken away from them, in order to facilitate the education of the class above them—a class much better able to provide education for themselves. Such a policy as that was, in his opinion, destined to create division between the middle and lower classes; and the inevitable result must be that they would virtually keep down the lower class from rising by means of the education which the founders of these schools provided for them. That was a most singular exhibition of the democratic principle. They were going to create a second-class aristocracy at the expense of the poor.
  MR. PARKERsaid, the object of the scheme was to give a higher kind of education to the poor.
  MR. FAWCETTobjected to discussing the scheme of the Commissioners at such a late hour, and moved the adjournment of the debate.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that the result of adjourning the discussion would be to give effect to the scheme, as the time specified by the Act for objecting to it would have elapsed.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had pointed out that when the Public Schools Act was under discussion in that House it would render the provision, especially in regard to the Endowed Schools Act, a perfect farce; for they all knew that whatever might be the demerits of a scheme, if it could only be brought under the attention of that House by a Motion towards the end of the Session, it would be impossible in that House to deal with
  446
  it; unless, therefore, they required in both these Acts—the Public Schools Act and the Endowed Schools Act—an Amendment to the effect that these schemes should always be presented at the beginning of the Session, the provision for bringing them under the consideration of that House might easily be defeated—nay, would almost always be defeated.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 84: Majority 58.
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 84: Majority 65.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Bristol (Corporation), Bristol and Eastern District, Hull, Leamington and Warwick, Norwich and Taverham, Southport, Stirling and Bridge of Allan, and Tynemouth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE.
IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL. (Lords.)— [BILL 87.]
(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
IRISH CHURCH ACT AMENDMENT BILL. (Lords.)— [BILL 87.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Appellate Jurisdiction, The Viscount Ossington added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (101).
Second Reading—Party Processions (Ireland) Act Repeal (87); Reformatory and Industrial Schools (No. 2) * (98).
Committee—Pacific Islanders Protection (48–100).
Committee—Report—Pensions * (93).
Report—Prison Ministers (91–99).
Third Reading—Royal Parks and Gardens * (79), and passed.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(Nos. 72, 91).
(The Duke of Claveland.)
PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(Nos. 72, 91).

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Further Amendments made.
  Clause 3 (Order of Secretary of State for appointment of ministers under 26 & 27 Vict. c. 79).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to insert, line 22, after ("notice")—
  "It shall also be lawful for the prison authority, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to revoke such appointment when the number of prisoners of that persuasion shall have for a space of twelve months fallen short of the daily average of twenty."
  Motion agreed to.
  On the Motion of Lord ORANMORE AND BROWNE the word "daily" was inserted before "average number"—and the words "at one time" struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that as the clause now stood it was provided that no order be made requiring the appointment of a minister of any church or religious persuasion to attend at any prison if the average number of prisoners belonging to that church or persuasion confined at one time in such prison during the three years immediately preceding the date of such order has been

  361
  less than 10. He proposed an Amendment raising the average number to 20.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that since the noble Duke had placed his Amendment on the Paper he had made inquiries and found the fact of requiring an average of 10 prisoners, as the Bill now required, would exclude 27 gaols from the operation of the Bill; and if the average were raised to 20, no fewer than 14 gaols in addition to those 27 would be excluded. He could not consent to this. He should prefer a revision of the salaries inserted in the Schedule.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not at all desire that his Amendment should have the effect pointed out by the noble Duke. He should, therefore, withdraw the Amendment, and leave the average at 10.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEadhered to his view that it was unreasonable to appoint a minister for so small a number as 10 prisoners. There could be no difficulty in removing them to another gaol when there were a larger number. He also believed that by appointing ministers for each denomination, when there were 10 prisoners, the charge would be very large; for in half the prisons in Great Britain there were five denominations having above 10 prisoners, and though Nonconformist clergymen had not claimed the position of chaplains heretofore, yet he believed the only cause of their not having done so was because they did not wish to create a precedent in favour of the appointment of Roman Catholic priests; but that if this law passed, making such appointment obligatory, these other clergymen would certainly put in their claims. He therefore thought that no chaplain should be appointed where there were less than 30 prisoners.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 4 (Status of ministers appointed under Act, and provision for ministrations).
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved an Amendment limiting the power of the Secretary of State to "order an expenditure exceeding £50 (not including salary of clergyman) for the purposes of this Act." If some limit were not put on
  362
  expenditure for this purpose it might amount to perhaps £200, though no such sum ought to be absolutely necessary. Anyone who had read the evidence given by Roman Catholic priests before the Committee must know that he was not exaggerating when he said that one of those reverend gentlemen might make a requisition for so large a sum as he had named: under the pressure of political exigencies a Home Secretary of either of the great parties in the State might yield to such a requisition, and this was what he wanted to guard against by the Amendment he now submitted to their Lordships.
  LORD DYNEVORsaid, that a large sum—£50 or £60, perhaps—might be asked by a Roman Catholic priest for vestments.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDentertained no such apprehensions as those which had been expressed by the two noble Lords. An expenditure of £50 or £60 for vestments would be quite out of the question if they were intended to be used in a prison and re to be paid for out of the rates. If a priest wished for such expensive vestments his general congregation outside the walls must supply them. He thought the matter might fairly be left with the Home Secretary.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEappealed to the noble Lords present, whether the sum he stated was not a very moderate estimate for vestments, &c.?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDwas not for any undue charge on the ratepayers; but he would prefer to leave the clause as it was, and place his confidence in the common sense of the Secretary of the State rather than insert such a limitation as that proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne).
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that seeing the feeling of the House, he would not divide on the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Schedule—Scale of Salary—
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the Schedule at present proposed the following scale of minimum salaries:—10 prisoners and less than 20, £25; 20 to 100, £50; 100 to 200, £100; 200 to 300, £150; more than 300, £200. He proposed to reduce the scale to £20, £40,

  363
  £60, £100, and £150 for each respective class.
  Amendment made.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he had no objection to the proposed reduction of the scale.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had intended to propose a scale in accordance with the capitation grant paid to Roman Catholic chaplains in the Army; but, as the scale now proposed on one side was accepted on the other, he would not press his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDremarked that there was the greatest diversity in the salaries paid to gaol chaplains in England; some were paid generously, and others received salaries that were far too low. The scale now proposed would, at all events, give a status to Roman Catholic chaplains, make them officers of prisons, and put them to a certain extent on an equality with the Protestant chaplains, which was the main object of the Bill.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Friday next, and to be printed as amended (No. 99).

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL—(No. 87.)
(The Earl of Dufferin.)
PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL—(No. 87.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUFFERIN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he never addressed the House with greater pleasure than he did on the present occasion, when he asked their Lordships to consent to the repeal of this Act. For a long time past he had entertained a strong conviction that the effect of this Act remaining on the Statute Book was very different from the effect it was intended to have had by its promoters. Instead of imposing equal restrictions upon all party demonstrations in Ireland, and operating impartially against all sections of the community, it had, through circumstances peculiar to the country and over which the Government had no control, only reached one party, and had consequently come to be regarded as one-sided, vexatious, and unjust. It had, therefore, lost one essential characteristic which Acts of
  364
  this kind should possess. It would readily be understood that when an Act which was passed for the express purpose of preventing party processions only restrained one party and permitted another party to indulge in those very excesses from which the rival faction was debarred, instead of mitigating hostility and controlling animosity it was regarded as affording a triumph to one side and imposing unjust disabilities on the other. He did not propose to trouble their Lordships with any account of the circumstances under which this Bill was originally passed; nor need he describe those demonstrations to which it immediately pointed—unhappily, their Lordships were only too well acquainted with the sinister history of party demonstrations in Ireland—it was sufficient to state that, with no inconsiderable experience, and with only too accurate a sense of the difficulties with which they had to contend, Her Majesty's present Executive in Ireland had come to the conclusion that the common law provided powers amply sufficient to prevent a breach of the peace. More than once they had had occasion to take precautions against contingencies arising out of these demonstrations, and on every one of those occasions they had found the powers conferred upon them by the common law sufficient for their purpose. Not only had they found they never had any occasion to resort to the powers conferred upon them by this Act, but they also had occasion to observe that this Act itself was regarded with the greatest disfavour by a considerable portion of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. These persons complained—and he thought with justice—that whereas in the South of Ireland party processions, banners, colours, and tunes were paraded with perfect impunity, sometimes not without leading to sinister consequences, in the North similar demonstrations were pronounced by law to be illegal, and those who had taken part in them had been subjected, under previous Administrations, to fine and imprisonment. God forbid that he should appear as the advocate or apologist of any unnecessary act which could in the slightest degree offend or wound either the reasonable or the unreasonable susceptibilities of any class of his fellow-countrymen; whenever such performances had occurred he had always been the first to deprecate and to condemn

  365
  them. At the same time, it must be remembered that there were districts of the country where the unity of religion and political sentiment was so complete that these demonstrations incurred no risk whatever of interruption or of giving offence to those who did not take part in them. In those districts they were simply regarded as for holiday occasions, and women and children frequently took part in them. Of course, there were other districts the circumstances of which were very different: yet even in those districts it must be remembered that, in the original conception of those demonstrations, no slight whatever was intended either to the religious or political sympathies of those who were opposed to them. So far was this from being the case, that he believed originally, even in Derry, both Roman Catholics and Protestants took equal pride in commemorating the Siege of Derry; and he was not afraid to confess that, to anyone to whom the records of Irish bravery and courage were dear, the reminiscences afforded both by the defence of Derry and the defence of Limerick were equally subjects of justifiable pride. Unfortunately, however, since the Roman Catholic population of Derry had increased, the demonstrations there had assumed a very different aspect, and they had come to be regarded with unmistakable hostility by a great proportion, if not by a majority, of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. As a consequence, it had been necessary to take extraordinary precautions against a breach of the peace. Of course, it would always be the duty of the Government to maintain peace and prevent bloodshed, and to continue to take the same precautions in the future that they had taken in the past. With the powers granted under this Bill the Government were of opinion that they would be in a better condition than ever to exercise these essential functions, and to prevent conflicts and stop the effusion of blood. It was his misfortune to have found himself on one occasion in the midst of the carnage arising out of one of these feuds, where he had seen a greater number of dead and wounded persons taken from the field than had often fallen on board the leading line-of-battle-ships, in one of England's bloodiest naval victories. In any event, feuds and broils of this kind did not need to be fomented by the provisions
  366
  of an Act of Parliament which was distasteful both to those in whose favour it was passed, and to those against whom it operated. But, while pressing their Lordships to agree to the repeal of this Act, he could not help also addressing an appeal to his fellow-countrymen in Ireland, beseeching them in taking advantage of the privileges Parliament was thus willing to restore to them, to do so with forbearance and caution; to forbear from exercising them in those districts where they were likely to give offence or likely to lead to breaches of the peace, and to show a generous and magnanimous consideration for the reasonable, or even unreasonable, prejudices and susceptibilities of the rest of their fellow-countrymen.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dufferin.)
  LORD CAIRNSjoined with his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Dufferin) in expressing the very great pleasure it had given him to find that it was thought possible to propose to Parliament the repeal of this Act. It was his fate, when he had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, very often to urge on the Government of the day the repeal of that statute; and he felt the Government now took a wise course in proposing its repeal. The details of the statute and the cognate Act subsequently passed were so petty, the annoyances under it were so continuous and so minute, that it often appeared to him vain to expect that any people professing to be free would long submit to them. Another reason why he thought the statute had been productive of evil consequences, however excellent the intentions of those who proposed it, was this—he believed it to be utterly impossible for any Government, he would not say to execute its provisions impartially, but to avoid the suspicion of executing them with partiality. He believed that every Government, of whatever party, was always in a position of suspicion. Those who considered themselves in Opposition were always watching with the keenest and most scrupulous eyes to discover some case in which they thought the Government had failed to enforce the Act against their opponents. That had been the uniform position of the Irish Government under these Acts. He thought there was another very serious

  367
  objection to the provisions of such statutes. He was afraid it was part of our human nature which must be dealt with that if you subjected people to petty curtailments of what they naturally consider their privileges, many would take a kind of pleasure and delight in trying to balk and violate the law which they thought improperly fettered and restrained their free action. That was eminently the case with these statutes. He believed that even women and children took a pleasure in displaying banners, guns, and pikes, and marched in procession simply to show their contempt for the law. He cordially joined in the appeal of his noble Friend to their fellow-countrymen in Ireland that they would show their good sense by abstaining from these processions; and he believed the most effectual way of inducing them to do so was to leave the people free and unfettered in matters so minute and trifling in themselves. He rejoiced the repeal of these statutes had been proposed, and he hoped the Government would find that, in place of the Executive being weakened in Ireland, the common law would be found sufficient.
  THE EARL OF ENNISKILLENwas understood to express his approval of the measure.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEapproved the repeal of the Act, for the actual result of the action of the Government under it had been the permission of Fenian meetings, while Protestant meetings in the North had been interfered with. It was, therefore, desirable that the Processions Act should be repealed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that in view of the happy unanimity that prevailed on both sides of the House as to the wisdom of repealing this Act, it was not his intention to have addressed their Lordships on the subject; but he could not allow the statement of the noble Lord who had just spoken to go forth uncontradicted. He emphatically denied the noble Lord's statement. No Government—and certainly not the present one—had ever permitted a Fenian meeting. Undoubtedly there had been meetings held by what were called the Green Party in Ireland, and these could not, according to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, be touched by the Party Processions Act. Hence
  368
  had arisen an appearance of partiality which was much to be deplored. That was one reason why these Acts ought to be repealed.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEexplained. He might instance two meetings, one held on the occasion of the funeral of a Fenian, and the other in Dublin, on the raising of a statue to Mr. Smith O'Brien, a convicted rebel.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 90.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
PACIFIC ISLANDERS PROTECTION BILL—(No. 90.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that having been unfortunately absent from illness on the occasion of the second reading, he would beg permission to make a few observations now. He quite approved of the principle of the Bill; but he thought there had been great exaggeration in the stories of the kidnapping and treatment of the natives of the South Pacific. He thought there was a great distinction to be drawn between the natives of some of the islands—such as the Fijis and others, where, from the powerlessness of the Government, abuses very probably took place—and the natives of the Pacific Islands who were removed to Queensland. He was informed by persons of property and authority that in regard to the latter, in the great majority of cases, they went there of their own accord; that they were free to return after having served for the time stipulated in their indentures; and that during their stay they were much morally benefited, and, in some degree, civilized. At the same time, it might, no doubt, be desirable that the arrangements of the service should be supervised by the English Government, in order to make sure that it was carried on in a proper manner. He understood that the main difficulty with regard to these islanders was their feebleness of constitution, so that they readily succumbed to any attack of disease. On one other point, he desired to say a word. In the debate that took place upon the second reading of the Bill reference

  369
  was made to the murder of Bishop Patteson, and the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies was understood to have expressed himself in terms condemnatory of the proceedings that had since taken place. Now, all the facts attending the attack upon the ship were not yet known; but he believed that when the captain of the English vessel had proceeded to the island for the purpose of inquiry into the murder of the Bishop, he was fired at, and one of the crew was either killed or wounded, and therefore the captain assumed the aggressive. It certainly was not clear to him that the captain was wrong in so doing. It was at least a remarkable fact that many years before any question arose as to this illicit deportation of South Sea Islanders, one of the attendants of Bishop Patteson was murdered by the natives of this very island, in the self-same spot and under the eyes of the Bishop. It was anyhow clear from this that these natives were, apart from any sense of wrong done to them for the kidnapping of their own people, a barbarous and savage race. In the same discussion a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lichfield) expressed an opinion that no retribution should be exacted for the murder of Bishop Patteson, but that it should be left to God to punish the offence, and that that would have been the feeling of Bishop Patteson. Such a sentiment might be very becoming in the mouth of a Christian Bishop; but the judgment by which the action of the State should be guided was very different, and he should be extremely sorry to see it accepted without some protest from that House. No one could entertain a higher opinion than himself of the late Bishop Patteson, who, he believed, fell a martyr in the cause of Christianity; but murder required punishment, and he did not think it well that in such a case the State should do nothing, but leave the matter to the vengeance of God.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had referred to a great number of subjects, into which he (the Earl of Kimberly) hoped the House would not expect him to follow, inasmuch as they really had no particular connection with the subject before their Lordships. The Commission on the subject of Coolie labourers
  370
  in British Guiana had carried on inquiries at the expense of its colony. It did not seem to him unreasonable that the colonies should bear the expense of such inquiries. Perhaps, in the case of Queensland, there might have been an apprehension that the inquiry would extend to matters which did not directly concern that colony; and on that ground objection was raised to the whole of the expense falling on the colony. It was said that the Imperial Government ought to have been more active in endeavouring to check this traffic. But to do so would be impossible without sending out such a fleet of cruisers as their Lordships probably never contemplated. These islands extended over thousands of miles of sea, and were hundreds—probably thousands—in number; and it would be quite impossible to keep an efficient police over such a network of islands, reefs, creeks, and harbours. The Government had, however, been endeavouring to do their best to meet the difficulties, and he hoped that with regard to some of these islands a tolerably good watch would be kept up. It had been resolved to reinforce the Australian Squadron, and to give instructions that steamers should visit the islands from time to time in order to prevent abuses. The best mode of preventing the evils which existed would, however, be found in making effective regulations with regard to these islanders when they arrived at their destination. He was, he might add, unable to agree to one suggestion which had been made, to the effect that those immigrants who might not have thoroughly comprehended the contract into which they had entered should be entitled to have that contract made void, and to be taken back to the place whence they came. There were two or three objections to the adoption of such a course. Who was to provide the funds for this purpose? If the immigrants were landed in Queensland, it was not a subject for Imperial but colonial legislation.
  House in Committee.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 100.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half past Ten o'clock.