Sitting of 25 June 1874

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir George Elliot, baronet, for Durham County (Northern Division).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Votes at Parliamentary Elections* [171]; Land Drainage Provisional Order* [170].
First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* [169]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* [172].
Second Reading—Shannon Navigation* [157].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Apothecaries Licences* [155].
Select Committee—Merchant Ships (Measurement of Tonnage)* [148], nominated.
Committee—Report—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)* [152].
Considered as amended—Factories (Health of Women, &c.)* [115]; Courts (Straits Settlements) [126].
Third Reading—Personation* [146], and passed.

NEW PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CLOCK TOWER.—QUESTION.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government intend to act on the Report of the Engineer of the Trinity House as to competition by trial of the Electric and Gas Lights on the Clock Tower, in which Report the superior advantages of the former as regards intensity and cost of illuminating power are fully stated?
LORD HENRY LENNOX, in reply, said, that some months since the question as to the permanence of the light referred to was discussed in that House, and he then stated that it was eminently a question for hon. Members to decide for themselves. Since that time, many hon. Members had spoken to him on the subject, and they had all requested that the light should be made permanent, while he had heard no opinion expressed on the other side. He took it for granted, therefore, that such was the wish of the House. It was too late in the Session now to make the necessary alteration. During the Recess, however, he should devote his attention to the subject, and see the best means of accomplishing the object they had all in view. He could not, however, bind himself to adopt the Report alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, nor, indeed, the opinions expressed in any other.

ARMY—MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the fact that the Medical Officers of the Army have of late been refused the privilege they have heretofore enjoyed of being allowed to exchange, even when the exchanges proposed have been in strict conformity with the rules laid down by his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War; and, if so, whether it is intended to maintain a system by which those officers are refused a privilege which has been allowed to all other

  419
  Officers of the Army, whether combatant or non-combatant?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that prior to the issuing of the Warrant of March, 1873, medical officers had been allowed to exchange, so as to obtain a fair share of foreign service. Since that period exchanges had not been encouraged, but some had been made.

POST OFFICE—HALFPENNY BOOK POST.—QUESTION.
MR. WELBYasked the Postmaster General, If he will state to the House, with special reference to invoices, orders, and similar commercial communications, what writing may, and what may not, be sent under halfpenny book-post wrappers?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that they would be admissible at the halfpenny rate of postage only when they were not in the form of letters.

ARMY—PAYMASTERS OF THE REGULAR FORCES.—QUESTION.
MR. GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to issue a Warrant for ameliorating the conditions under which Paymasters of the Regular Forces are now serving; and, if so, when the issuing of such Warrant may be expected?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that he answered a Question with regard to paymasters a few days ago, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole subject was under consideration. There was no immediate intention to issue any warrants.

BURIAL BOARD OF WELLINGBOROUGH.—QUESTION.
MR. CARTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that at his instance Dr. Holland has been sent to Wellingborough to conduct an inquiry into an alleged act of sacrilege on the part of the Burial Board of Wellingborough, such act of sacrilege being the planting with potatoes, for the purpose of cleaning the land, of a portion of the ground lately set apart for the purposes of a cemetery; and, if so, whether Dr. Holland's Report has been received and can be laid upon the Table of the House?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Some time ago a formal statement was made to me as to certain matters which had taken place with regard to this burial ground, and I thought the proper course to take would be to make inquiries as to what were the facts of the case. So far as I could learn, no portion of the burial ground which is being used at all for purposes of burial has been planted with these potatoes, and the Inspector whose duty it was to look after the matter is strongly of opinion that the matter, if anything, was rather one of a nice question of Ecclesiastical Law than one for the interference of the Secretary of State. It would, therefore, be quite useless to lay the Report of the Inspector upon the Table.

CAPE COAST CASTLE—ALLEGED SLAVE DEALING.—QUESTION.
MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been called to the following statement in "The Manchester Guardian" by its correspondent at Cape Coast Castle—
"Bands of traders come down occasionally, chiefly to buy. Their principle article of commerce is slaves, including numbers of children kidnapped from their homes and mothers, and here they find plenty of purchasers. It is strange to read in the English papers of the rejoicings and congratulations of the English people over the strides being made towards the abolition of slavery in Eastern and Central Africa, whilst here, in a British Protectorate, and especially in Cape Coast, the seat of Government, there is a market for selling captured and kidnapped slaves and children, under the special, and, it may be said, forcible protection of the British Government;"
and if he is able to contradict this statement?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, my attention has been drawn to the paragraph in The Manchester Guardian which the hon. Gentleman quotes in his Question. I am sorry to say I am not able to contradict the statement; but, at the same time, I am happy to say, I am equally unable to confirm it. It is, of course, a matter which I shall not express any opinion about until some information is received at the Colonial Office. The matter has been referred to the local authorities, and I hope before long to receive their answer.

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—CATHOLIC INMATES OF WORKHOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OWEN LEWISasked the Lord Advocate, If it is true that the Parochial Board of Dumfries have refused to allow the Catholic inmates of the workhouse to attend divine service; and, if so, what justification is alleged for such interference with the rights of conscience?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: In consequence of the hon. Member's Question, I have made inquiry, and have ascertained that the Parochial Board of Dumfries have refused to allow the Catholic inmates to leave the house for the purpose of attending Divine Worship. The same rule is applied to the Protestants. The Catholic priest visits regularly the house, and administers the rites of his Church to all belonging to the Catholic faith, without any interference on the part of the local authorities. I may mention that there are only six Catholic inmates, three of whom are bed-ridden. The Parochial Board justify their action on the ground of a Regulation or Minute of the Board of Supervision, on 14th August, 1872, in which it is stated—
  "That to give every inmate a right to be absent from the poorhouse every Sunday would in many cases he subversive of discipline and proper management."
  I would recommend, as the proper course for obtaining redress against any alleged grievance, that a complaint should be made to the Board of Supervision, who will immediately order an investigation into it, and if the result is not satisfactory, the matter can be brought before this House.

THE IRISH MAGISTRACY—COUNTY OF TIPPERARY.—QUESTION.
MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true that the Commissioners of the Great Seal have refused to appoint two magistrates recommended by Lord Lismore as Lord Lieutenant of the county Tipperary; whether it is a fact that his Lordship has held that office for 17 years, and has never before been refused; and, whether Her Majesty's Government approve of the course pursued; and, if not, what action they propose taking in the matter?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: In reply, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to say that it is a fact that the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal did refuse to appoint two gentlemen recommended by Lord Lismore; and, without wishing to cast any reflection upon the recommendation of Lord Lismore, I must say I think the Lords Commissioners were perfectly justified in the course they adopted. It is not alleged that an appointment was required for either of the districts in question. One of the gentlemen referred to was an agent not for one property but for several; and there is a rule, strictly acted on by the late Government, against appointing agents to the Commission of the Peace except under peculiar circumstances, such as that of an agent representing a largo proprietor or a Company, or there being a great necessity for a magistrate and none more suitable being in the locality. In Ireland it is the established rule not to make a dispensary medical officer a magistrate. This rule, which applies to the other gentleman, was strictly acted on by the late Government.

PARLIAMENT—CONTROVERTED ELEC-TIONS—ENGLISH AND IRISH JUDGMENTS.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN NOLANasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the difference in the interpretation of the Election Laws, in regard to the seating of minority candidates, between the English and the Irish Courts of Common Pleas, as shown by the late decision in the Launceston case and the decision in the County Galway Petition of 1872; and, if the Government intend to introduce a declaratory measure which would render the future working of the Law on this point uniform in the two countries?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, the hon. and gallant Member, in the Questions which he has put to me, has assumed that the Court of Common Pleas in England has given an interpretation to the Election Laws, so far as they affect the seating of minority candidates, different from the interpretation given to the same Laws by the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland. This may, or may not, be the case. The House is in possession of the reasons assigned by

423
the Judges of the Irish Court for the decision arrived at by them in 1872, with respect to the Galway County Election; but the House is not in possession of the reasons assigned by the Judges of the English Court for their decision on Tuesday in the Launceston case. An Order was made yesterday, and I believe at the instance of the hon. and gallant Member, that a Copy of the Judgment of the English Judges should be laid upon the Table of the House. I am not myself in possession of any further information on the subject than is possessed by other hon. Members. When the House is in possession of that further information which has been so ordered to be afforded to us, we shall be in a position to determine whether any difference exists between the views entertained by the two Courts, and, if there is any difference, what is its nature and extent. Under these circumstances, the hon. and gallant Member will, I think, see that I am unable at present to give any further answer to his Questions.

THE CAPE COAST—THE KINGDOM OF DAHOMEY—QUESTION.
MR. J. HOLMSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If his attention has been drawn to a report that negotiations have been or are about to be entered upon by Her Majesty's Government with the King of Dahomey, for the acquisition of a narrow strip of coast which is in the possession of that Monarch; and, if so, can he state what the extent and nature of the territory is?
MR. J. LOWTHER: It is true, Sir, that serious political and fiscal inconvenience arises from the existence, between the extreme points of the Gold Coast and of Lagos, of a strip of independent Native territory. No negotiations for its acquisition have been entered into or are now in contemplation, though it may hereafter be possible to effect arrangements with the Native tribes on that coast for the development and protection of trade.

THE ASHANTEE WAR—EXTRA PAY AND ALLOWANCES.—QUESTION.
MR. ION HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for "War, Whether it is his intention to recommend Her Majesty's Government to give the same remuneration to the officers, non-commissioned
424
officers, and men who were engaged on the West Coast of Africa during the Ashantee War that the troops who were in Abyssinia received, viz. six months' Indian pay and allowances?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, there is no such intention as is referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. The Abyssinian Expedition was an Indian one, and the expedition to Ashantee was not.

ARMY—INDIAN RELIEFS—THE 36TH REGIMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. WILLIAM PRICEasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the 36th Regiment, which sailed for India in August 1863, has not been included in the Beliefs either of 1873 or 1874; and if he can state when that Regiment is likely to return to this Country?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the 36th Regiment will not finish its term of service in India until the winter of 1875, when it will be brought back to England.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1872—COLLECTION OF SCHOOL RATES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether provision will be made for remunerating the parochial collectors of Scotland for the additional labour imposed upon them by the Scottish Education Act of collecting the school rates in each parish?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Education (Scotland) Act of 1872 does not contain any provision for the remuneration of the collectors appointed by the parochial boards, who have also to collect the school rates. It is, therefore, a matter for the determination of the parochial boards whether additional remuneration should be given to their collectors in respect of the new duty put upon them by the Education Act.

ARMY—ORGANIZATION ACT—DEPOT CENTRE AT EXETER.—QUESTION.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a Depôt Centre at Exeter?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to make Exeter a depôt centre.

IRELAND—DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government propose to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Irish Civil Service Inquiry Commissioners, signed in January last, with regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police Magistrates; and, whether it is probable that any steps will be taken to give effect to that Report during the present Session of Parliament?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHin reply, said, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but this could not be done without making some alteration in the existing arrangements for holding the Courts. This would necessitate the delay referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He hoped, however, in the course of the present Session to bring in a Bill in order to effect the necessary alterations in the Law.

PARLIAMENT—COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLinquired, Whether, seeing the small amount of Private Business before the House, Public Business will be proceeded with at a quarter-past four?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY (for Mr. DISRAELI)said, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make such a proposition, in the hope that it might be acceptable to the House.

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

THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GOLDSMIDrose to call the attention of the House to the contract made two years ago with Mr. Collman, the upholsterer, for the completion of the Wellington Monument, and to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whe-
  426
  ther there was any probability of an early completion of the work? He also wished to know, whether the contract with reference to it had been duly executed, and if not, what steps it was proposed to take with regard to it? The House should remember that the late Duke of Wellington died in 1852, and that the monument, which the national gratitude resolved to erect in honour of his memory was not yet complete in its place in St. Paul's Cathedral. The resolution to erect the monument was arrived at in 1856, and a number of most distinguished architects prepared competitive designs. In 1858, the First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) appointed Mr. Stevens to execute the monument, although he was not the successful candidate among the architects who sent in plans. From that day to this, Mr. Stevens had been occupied more or less in the work, but though constantly pressed by those in authority, he had, he (Mr. Goldsmid) believed, up to the present day not yet completed it. Questions had boon put to successive First Commissioners of Works in reference to the matter, commencing in 1867, and, with a curious concurrence, each First Commissioner had fixed two years from the date of the question, no matter what that might be, for the completion of the work. In 1871, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe) took the matter out of the hands of the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Ayrton), who, not unnaturally, considering the interminable delays, proposed to dismiss Mr. Stevens and employ another architect to finish the monument which had been so long promised. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thereupon entered into a contract with Mr. Collman, who was to retain the services of Mr. Stevens, but to be responsible for the completion of the monument in a period of two-and-a-half years. It turned out, however, that Mr. Collman was no more able to control Mr. Stevens than each successive First Commissioner of Works had been, and therefore the monument remained unfinished. He should therefore like to know whether the condition of matters had improved since the question had last been brought under the notice of the House, and what course the Government proposed to take with regard to the contract, in order to secure, if possible, the

  427
  completion of the monument within the lapse of a generation after the death of the Duke of Wellington. It was a great public discredit that our national monuments should take such a long time in completion; and he hoped that the Department that had charge of the matter would take care that in future when the nation desired to honour one of England's heroes, that honour should not be too long postponed.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he had, in the first place, to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester for the courtesy he had shown in postponing this Question in order to afford him time to ascertain what progress had been made with the monument, and how soon it was likely to be completed; and he was happy to say that the time which had elapsed since he entered upon his present office had not by any means been unfruitful in regard to the progress of the work. He did not wish to enter into the question of the contract entered into with Mr. Collman by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe.) He did not know how far the term "upholsterer" described Mr. Collman; but he could say of him that he had undertaken the duty of looking after the completion of the monument solely on public grounds, for there was not a single scrap of paper in the Office over which he had the honour to preside to show that he would gain a single halfpenny by the transaction. When he (Lord Henry Lennox) acceded to his present office there remained of that monument to be completed two side groups, and above all the recumbent figure of the illustrious hero, whose achievements the monument was intended to commemorate. Neither of those parts of the works had advanced during the previous two years in any perceptible degree, and if the execution of that monument had continued to proceed at the same rate probably none of the Members of the present House of Commons would have lived to see its completion. He had, however, the honour now to inform the House that the recumbent figure of the illustrious hero had been completed, and was in the hands of the founder. The principal one of the side groups had also been all but completed, and in a very few weeks that also would be in the hands of the founder. The other of the side groups
  428
  was also making satisfactory progress. Mr. Stevens had given up all private orders of every kind, and had devoted himself with zeal and assiduity to the completion of this great work. The work which had been done was of a super-excellent character, and far more costly than Mr. Stevens need have given to the nation if he had only looked to the amassing of a fortune to himself. One of the marble columns, the main support of the canopy under which the Duke was to be, was completed, and Mr. Stevens' eye detected in it, though no other eye had detected it, a streak of grey which was upon the upper part of the column, and upon that he at once caused it to be removed and a new column to be made.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that it was some satisfaction to him to hear the mode in which the hon. Member (Mr. Goldsmid) had alluded to his (Mr. Lowe's) share in the transaction. He might say that he found that Mr. Stevens had undertaken the contract for less money than the work could possibly be peformed for; that he had exhausted the public money; and that he was taking private business in order to get money to carry on his contract. Mr. Stevens was in very bad health, and the work he had done was of a super-excellent quality, but it was in a state of total suspension. His (Mr. Lowe's) first view was to take the matter out of Mr. Stevens' hands and put the remainder of the work up to public competition, so that some other gentleman might finish it. He communicated with, and took the advice of Mr. Ayrton, then First Commissioner of Works, who thought the proper course would be to take the work out of Mr. Stevens' hands and put it up to public competition. He (Mr. Lowe), however, was advised by those who were well qualified to give such advice that it would not be wise to do that; that other artists of equal eminence would not consent to take the work out of Mr. Stevens' hands, and that it would consequently fall into inferior hands. Mr. Ayrton continued to hold his own view, and said that if he (Mr. Lowe) did not agree, the best thing he could do would be to take the work into his own hands and deal with it as he could. He (Mr. Lowe) thought that good advice, and therefore he took it. He communicated with Mr. Ferguson, who thought that the matter could

  429
  not be taken out of Mr. Stevens' hands. Then, further, it was impossible to contract with Mr. Stevens, for, though a gentleman of great talent, he did not seem to have any idea of money or its value. When he thought himself, therefore, almost at the end of his resources, Mr. Ferguson suggested that Mr. Coil-man, as a friend of Mr. Stevens—not with the view of getting the least profit for himself, but to overcome the difficulty of contracting with that gentleman—would enter into a contract and see to its fulfilment. Mr. Collman had done so, and had, he believed, acquitted himself most admirably in the matter. But Mr. Stevens, in addition to his other misfortunes, after the contract was entered into, had a paralytic stroke, and since he had recovered he feared he had had differences with Mr. Collman. He was glad now to bear that the monument was likely to be soon finished. The late Government, however, being in a difficult position, really did the best they could in that business, because it was more important that the work should be well done, than that it should be done at any particular period. And so far from Mr. Collman deserving to be held up to public obloquy, the public were much obliged to him for the admirable judgment and temper with which he had fulfilled his duty. He regretted that for a long time there had been a Notice upon the Paper, in which Mr. Collman was described as "an upholsterer." He did not know whether Mr. Collman was an "upholsterer" or not, though if he was there was nothing to be ashamed of in the fact; but the insertion of that appellation after his name by the hon. Member for Rochester was invidious and calculated to create prejudice.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he hoped that, in future, Chancellors of the Exchequer would abstain from entering into such contracts, and would not interfere with the manner in which the First Commissioner of Works did his duty.

IRISH JUDICIAL BENCH—APPOINTMENT OF THE JUDGES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. BUTTrose, according to Notice, to move—
  430
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, representing that in the opinion of this House it would he for the advantage of the administration of justice if the Irish Judges were appointed to the same extent as they are in England, upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor and without reference to official or political claims."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he felt that he could not, with few exceptions, bring forward any question of greater importance to Ireland than that of the appointment of its Judges. He had to complain that in that matter a diametrically opposite rule to that followed in England was adopted in regard to Ireland. In England the Attorney General had a right, established by long usage, to succeed to a vacancy in the Court of Common Pleas. That was as old as the days of Lord Coke. But the Attorney General had no claim by usage or other right to any other seat on the Bench; and the Lord Chancellor, on his own responsibility, recommended a new Judge to the Sovereign. The rule which obtained in Ireland, however, was wholly different, and it was now perfectly well established that the Attorney General of the day had a right to fill any vacancy on the Irish Bench, with, perhaps, such an exception as that of the Lord Chief Justiceship. Now, in condemning that system, he should carefully avoid canvassing the merits of any individual appointment, while he wished the House to understand that the present was by no moans a party Motion. Out of the 12 Common Law Judges of Ireland 10 had filled the office of Attorney General; and since 1835 there had been no less than 28 successive occupants of the office of Attorney General, although between the Union and the year 1835 there were only six. At that time, however, it was not the habit of an Attorney General to accept a Puisne Judgeship. One great evil of the present system was, he might add, in his opinion, that it tended to lower the high office of Attorney General; and another, that no man could hope to be placed on the Bench in Ireland who was not more or less of a political partizan. The Attorney General for that country occupied a position quite different from the Attorney General in England. The former was much more of a political officer, and was in the habit of consulting every day with that anomalous official the Law Advisor to

  431
  the Castle, not only on matters of law, but on matters of State, while he discharged, moreover, the duties of public prosecutor. Another objectionable thing was to have the Bench composed of persons who had all been public prosecutors, and who, therefore, were of necessity partizans, and must have rather a bearing in favour of the prosecutions in which they had taken so practical a part. It was the common practice in Ireland for the Judges and counsel to attend the Lord Lieutenant's Levees, the consequence of which very often was to postpone the decision of cases, to the injury and inconvenience of suitors, to another Term; and that to enable them to take part in a mockery of a Court that did no credit to Royalty or Vice Royalty. To show the right of the Attorney General for Ireland to fill a vacancy on the Bench in that country, he might mention the case of a very eminent lawyer, Mr. Blackburn, who, when a vacancy occurred in 1834, during the Premiership of Lord Melbourne, consented to waive his claim only at the request of the Sovereign, King "William IV. The hon. and learned Gentleman having quoted passages from Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chief Justices, Lord Brougham's speech in 1828 on Law Reform, and The Law Magazine for 1867, enforcing the importance of avoiding all political considerations in the appointment of Judges, and of withholding all political duties from them, said he would make no reference to individual cases, but he must testify that during the 30 years he had boon a witness of the working of the present system in Ireland, it had deteriorated both the Bench and the Bar. Men like Jonathan Henn and Serjeant Warren, who would have been among the brightest ornaments of the Bench, had passed away to their graves without having had an opportunity of shedding lustre upon the judicial office. He felt compelled to say that he very seldom saw the best possible appointments made. He did not say that he had seen bad appointments—that was a different question; but he would be guilty of unworthy concealment if he did not declare that within those 30 years he had seen appointments made which would never have been conferred if a due regard for the administration of justice had been an element in the elevation to the Bench. The passage
  432
  he had read from The Law Magazine led him to speak of the necessity of keeping Judges strictly aloof from all places or occupations through which they might be brought under the influence of the passions, prejudices, and intrigues which, more or less, prevailed in political circles. He was sorry to say that this principle was not regarded in Ireland. The Judges were all Benchers of the only Inn of Court which existed in that country. Moreover, there were a number of public Boards to which it was usual to appoint them, and this he thought exceedingly objectionable. He disapproved altogether of Judges being singled out in this way for the favours of the Crown. The system did not exist in England, and ought not to be permitted in Ireland. One Board in particular called for notice—he meant the National Board of Education, to which five Judges belonged. He need not describe how in connection with such a body, differences of opinion became disputes and disputes degenerated into altercation. It sometimes happened, even, that the Judges discussed as Educational Commissioners the effect which cases pending in their own Courts would have upon the Board. In one case a Judge had been appointed under the authority of a statute to an office of profit and high salary, held during the pleasure of the Crown. Was this a satisfactory state of things? Was it right that no man should obtain a place upon the Judicial Bench unless he had been engaged in the arena of politics? A system of this kind shook the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. It had a bad effect on the public mind to see the Judges ostentatiously attending Levees and disputing on public Boards. Moreover, it had an injurious effect upon the Judges themselves. A countryman of his had said he looked upon the administrators of the law as a second priesthood; and it was true with regard, not only to clergymen, but also to Judges that things might be unseemly in them which were right mothers. All political parties had followed the system he was now condemning. At the present moment, there was only one Judge upon the Bench in Ireland who had been placed there without ever having taken part in political contests. Only one other Judge—namely, the Lord Chief Baron—had never been in Parliament; and while there was no

  433
  man who would more honourably and uprightly discharge the duties of his office, it must yet be remembered that it was not his fault that he had not been a Member of that House. He did not mean to say that the Irish Judges failed to perform their duties faithfully and honestly. At the same time, when Judges were found ranged on a purely legal question according to the side to which they belonged in politics, the sight was not one likely to increase the confidence of the Irish people in the administration of justice. He could not see why there should be one rule in England and another in Ireland. The system which had worked well here ought to work well there. It was sometimes said that as the Attorney General for Ireland was obliged, in coming over here, to give up his professional business, it was necessary when he ceased to hold the office to provide for him in some way. Supposing it to be true that he would find it difficult to resume his practice, this would be an argument, not for making him a Judge, but for attaching a pension to the office of Attorney General. If the right system was adopted, he had no doubt it would be as easy in Ireland as in England to find a Lord Chancellor who would independently and without political considerations select men for judicial appointments. For those reasons he begged to move the Resolution he had placed on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, representing that, in the opinion of this House, it would he for the advantage of the administration of justice if the Irish Judges were appointed, to the same extent as they are in England, upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, and without reference to official or political claims,"—(Mr. Butt,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. VANCEwas of opinion that, whatever might have been said of the practice of former times, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had altogether failed to show that the present system did not place on the Bench the most able, the most independent, and the most learned Members of the Irish
  434
  Bar. Nearly every one of the Judges upon the Irish Bench had been ornaments, not only of the Irish Bar, but of that House. The Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench were Chief Justice Whiteside and Justices O'Brien, Fitzgerald, and Barry; of the Court of Common Pleas, Chief Justice Monaghan and Justices Keogh, Morris, and Lawson; of the Exchequer, Chief Baron Pallas, and Baron Fitzgerald (neither of whom had been Members of that House), and Barons Dease and Dowse, who all, with those two exceptions, had been ornaments both to the Senate and the Bar. He defied the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to name any members of the Irish Bar, not labouring under temporary disqualification, who were entitled to be placed on the Bench, but who had been passed over improperly—with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, whoso standing at the Irish Bar would undoubtedly have entitled him to the highest position on the Bench, had it not been for the fault of his friends. The Law Officers of the Crown for England occupied an entirely different position from that held by those for Ireland, because whereas the former, when residing in London, could retain their practice, the latter entirely forfeited theirs; and therefore, unless the Irish Law Officers obtained appointments on the Bench, no barrister of any eminence would accept the office of either Attorney or Solicitor General for Ireland. He did not hesitate to assert, in contradiction to any imputations which had been made upon the present system, that the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland were perfectly equal to those in England in judicial knowledge and in ability, and that in brilliancy, wit, and humour they were at least equal to the Law Officers of Scotland. In his opinion, the hon. and learned Member had failed to establish his case, and it would be a great misfortune if the Lord Chancellor, instead of the Lord Lieutenant, had the power of conferring judicial appointments.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, that his experience at the Irish Bar had led him to a different conclusion from that at which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had arrived. He was far from saying that the system of selecting for the position of Judges

  435
  Gentlemen of the Irish. Bar connected with politics was a desirable one; but he did not think that the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Member would be an improvement upon it. In saying this he was far from intending to reflect upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was looked upon as the future Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and whose integrity and ability led the Irish Bar to regard him with the utmost confidence. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in adverting to the various posts held by the Irish Judges, in addition to their judicial offices, had forgotten to state that they discharged the duties attached to those posts gratuitously; and as to their being benchers of the only Inn of Court in Ireland, and the influence they possessed as such, they were greatly outnumbered by the benchers who were practising Members of the Bar, and from their numbers and position quite competent to protect the privileges of the Bar. It should be remembered that in England the Equity Judges remained benchers at their Inns. The Common Law Judges vacated their offices of benchers to become members of Serjeants' Inn. The complaint that the independence of the Irish Judges would be influenced by attending the Lord Lieutenant's Levees was unfounded, and was so unjustifiable as to suggest that the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Justices of England, who attended the Levees in England, were influenced in their judicial conduct by such attendance. Were the changes which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed adopted, he was afraid that, although the political element might not be so prominent in the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor, the family element would be even more so. For the last 30 years the county chairmanship, the judicial office in the selection for which the Lord Chancellor had most power, had almost invariably been filled by sons of Lord Chancellors, if qualified by a certain number of years standing, and, failing them, by sons-in-law. A Lord Chancellor who had marriageable daughters was almost sure to dispose of them to some aspirant to judicial honours. He was not quite sure that if Irish Chancellors were entrusted with the appointment of the Judges, men of high standing, great learning and experience would not be
  436
  passed over in favour of sons and sons-in-law. Under these circumstances, he did not see what advantage would result from adopting the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)remarked that in viewing proposals of this character it was important to see how they would work practically if adopted. The real question before the House was whether they were willing to place the power of appointing to judicial offices in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, instead of in those of the Government of the day. In considering this, it must be remembered that the Lord Chancellor was a political officer, connected with the Government of the day, that he was appointed with a view to politics, that he changed with the Government, and with them ceased to exist in his official capacity. He was not impressed by the example of Lord Eldon, for he remembered that Sir Samuel Romilly, in his Journal, condemned his appointments as dictated by political partizanship. No doubt, in moderation the spirit of the Resolution should be carried out. For example, no man should be appointed to the Judgeship of the Landed Estates Court who had not special and peculiar qualifications for the office; and with regard to the additional Lord Justice of Appeal he boldly said that a Minister who in appointing to that office made political considerations paramount would totally fail in his duty. They could only trust to the growth of public opinion to check and control improper appointments. The Lord Chancellor might be a person influenced by family considerations, and he objected to such a proposal as that of the hon. and learned Member to make the whole Bar of Ireland dependent, as it were, upon his will and fancy. He was better as an adviser than as an arbitrary selector. It was a mistake to suppose that the appointment of Judges rested with the Lord Lieutenant. All he did was to recommend. The appointment was with the Cabinet, and he had known an instance in which an appointment was wished for in Ireland but was not given by them. He could not support the Motion, although he did not mean to say that much might not be said in reference to the degree in which politics should influence these appointments.
  SIR JOHN GRAYsaid, if one thing more than another had been a cause of dissatisfaction to the people of Ireland with reference to the way in which the affairs of Ireland were administered it was the way in which these offices were filled up. The invariable rule was that only those who were partizans of the Government for the time being were appointed to these offices. He thought the sooner that system of political corruption was abolished the better it would be for Ireland.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the question under discussion was only a fragment of a very large subject: Of one thing he was certain—the whole of the judicial appointments in Ireland, from the highest to the lowest, had been, and were, the cause of the liveliest dissatisfaction. "When a question arose in Ireland as to the appointment of a barrister to the Judicial Bench, the Bar of Ireland was not regarded as the Bar of England was—namely, as defenders of the rights of the people, but was regarded as the agent of a particular Government; and men who entertained political sentiments quite opposed to those which they had expressed on the hustings when they were aspirants for Parliamentary honours were frequently appointed members of the Judicial Bench. As to such men it was impossible for him to have any confidence that they would administer the law as it ought to be administered. There was one judicial office at the disposal of the Government for every three practising barristers. He believed that there was no country in the world but Ireland, or perhaps India, in which appointments to the paid magisterial bench were made without any legal qualification in the men appointed. Until the Judges in Ireland were greatly reduced and the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions had duties cast upon them which would fully occupy their time, the Bar of Ireland would never be anything else than a political machine in the hands of the Government of the day. While the present system of judicial appointments lasted, the people of Ireland could not have confidence in the administration of justice in that country. The whole system required amendment. It would, he believed, be discussed when the Judicature Bill came before the House, on which occasion an hon. Member would lay before
  438
  the House facts which would astonish the country.
  MR. D. PLUNKETsaid, that after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), it was impossible for him to remain silent. He was a member of the Bar of Ireland, although for some years he had ceased to practise, he was well acquainted with nearly every member of the Bar, and with every member of the Irish Bench, and he repudiated in the strongest possible manner the assertions which the hon. Member had made. They were wholly without foundation, and could never be justified in any individual case. The hon. Member represented the Bar of Ireland as being corrupt from the highest to the lowest of its members.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the hon. Gentleman attributed to him a statement he had never made. What he had said was that the Irish Bar were instruments in the hands of the Government.
  MR. D. PLUNKETsaid, he would leave it to the House to say whether he had not fairly represented the allegations of the hon. Member. It was really too bad that on every possible occasion a certain set of hon. Members opposite should drag the Irish Judges and the members of the Irish Bar before the House and represent them as being discredited and discreditable. What nonsense it was to suggest that Irish barristers were to be unlike all other men—to take no side in politics whatever. Was that the case in England? There were many members of the English Bar in that House justly proud of their profession, as he was proud of his, yet was their honour ever impeached? If any of those hon. Members happened to be raised to the Bench, could it be said of them that they were unworthy to fill that high position because they had sat in that House and had supported one or other of the two great political parties? Would such a charge be made against the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas of England, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, who had been Members of the House of Commons? Among the Judges of England were some of the most distinguished, most admired, and most honoured Members who had ever sat there. Well, then, what foundation had been laid for the charges so recklessly made against the Irish Judges?

  439
  On one or two occasions hon. Members opposite had mentioned the names of certain Judges to the House against whom they had preferred charges, but what had been the result? Their insinuations were repudiated, and their accusations were rejected by overwhelming majorities. It was true that the speeches in which those accusations were made had been reported in Irish newspapers, while those in reply had been omitted; but the Irish people were not so slow as to misunderstand the figures of the division. It was little to the credit of the patriotism of hon. Members opposite that they made such charges as these, and if they over intended to lift to political dignity the movement which they might, by a stretch of language, call national, they would have to set about it in some other way than this. It was not by such insinuations or reckless charges that the English people were to be persuaded that there was something deliberately corrupt in the Irish Bar, or that a man could not there be appointed to a Judgeship who had served for a time in the House of Commons without ensuring an unjust, unreliable, and impure administration of justice. For his own part, he could only say that among the people of Ireland he had lived all his life, and he had never heard those charges brought against the Judges, and that, so far as he had had an opportunity of forming an opinion, those charges were utterly without foundation.
  MR. MELDONwas astonished and grieved to hear the observations which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), but he did think and sincerely hoped that in his speech he had not expressed his own sentiments. His hon. Friend was very ignorant, indeed, of the position of the Bar of Ireland, and he could not be acquainted with the public life of many of its members, otherwise he would not have used the ill-considered and intemperate language he did. His hon. Friend had, he thought, adopted the half-crazy utterances lately made by an eminent member of the University of Dublin. It was not for him to enter into any defence of the Bar of Ireland. Many of its members had sat in that House, and had won the respect and admiration of their Colleagues there. For his part, he had never before heard such charges
  440
  and insinuations as had been made and thrown out that night, and he could not but think it an ill-considered thing on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway to have stated not his own views and opinions, but those he had found in public prints in Dublin. He (Mr. Meldon) admitted that the judicial system in Ireland was in a very unsatisfactory state, but he maintained that that arose, not in consequence of the political appointments of the Judges, but from the appointment of Crown officials to all judicial posts as a matter of course and right. It was a system that was not calculated to secure the confidence of the people of Ireland. Up to the present time the appointments of the Judges of the Court of Equity had been unexceptionable. It was in the case of the Common Law Judges that he found grounds for complaint, and he maintained that it was not a satisfactory system which allowed Crown officials to step at once from the position of prosecutors to that of Judges. The people could not understand how an officer of the Crown, engaged perhaps for years directing and conducting prosecutions, could suddenly be transformed into an impartial Judge, whoso highest duty was to stand fearlessly between the subject and the Crown. He could not agree at all with the objections which had been taken to the system of allowing the Lord Chancellor to make the appointments—a system which he believed would be more satisfactory than that which at present existed. Under the present system the Lord Chancellor was consulted, and his advice usually followed, the result of which was that virtually he appointed, though quite irresponsible. If he was made responsible, as in England, the objections now existing would infallibly be removed.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGregretted exceedingly that this subject had been brought before the House. As a professional man for many years, he entirely concurred with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket), believing as he did that the Bar of Ireland was as honourable and independent as the Bar of England, or of any other country.
  MR. RONAYNEbelieved that anyone who arrived at the Bench in Ireland owed his elevation to his political opinions,

  441
  and to being a partizan of the Government of the day. That feeling regulated the conduct of almost every young man who went to the Bar, and thus it was that when they became qualified to fill an office, such as the chairmanship of a county, or anything else, they were incessant applicants to the Government. And so the practice ran through every grade. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the magistrates, the high sheriffs, the Crown prosecutors, and every public officer in any department were appointed for their political opinions or through political motives. What he complained of was the system of government in Ireland, under which the appointment to every office of honour or emolument from the Lord Lieutenant to the clerk of potty sessions, was made the reward of political partizanship. An illustration of this occurred in his own City (Cork), where there was a place called a lunatic asylum—which cost £110,000 to build it, and £15,000 a-year to maintain it, hardly a rate levied exclusively on the occupying tenants, and yet the ratepayers who furnished the means had no representation on the managing board, which was nominated by the "Castle" of Dublin. The last two vacancies had been filled by the two defeated Conservative candidates at the last Election. The gentlemen in question were well qualified to fill the positions to which they had been appointed; but the fact remained that they were nominated by the Conservative Government in reward for political services for having endeavoured to secure two seats in the House of Commons for the Conservative party.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 271; Noes 62: Majority 209.

NAVY—WORKS AT HAULBOWLINE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. RONAYNErose to call attention to the state of the works at the intended Dockyard at Haulbowline. It was curious, observed the hon. Gentleman, that this very Dockyard was one of the bribes held forth to the Irish people to support the Union. Mr. Cooke, then Secretary of State for Ireland, and the mouthpiece of the Government of the day, informed the Irish people that
  442
  the immediate result of the Union would be the construction of docks at Haul-bowline—a promise which, like many other more important promises made to the Irish people on that occasion, was either forgotten or ignored by the English Government as soon as the object for which it had been given was gained. Forty-eight years afterwards they found a deputation waiting on Lord Russell and Lord Auckland, urging the fulfilment of that promise. Lord Russell informed the deputation that the Government intended to avail themselves of the advantages of Queenstown "much more than they had done heretofore," and Colonel James was sent over to prepare the plans and design of a coal shod to contain 30,000 tons of coal, a steam factory, a dock, and other works, to be proceeded with immediately. The plans were made, but nothing further was done in the matter. In 1864 the necessities of the public service led to the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject of dock extension generally, and that Committee recommended the construction among others of the dock at Haulbowline, as a work of "urgent necessity" to the public service. In 1865 the works there were commenced, and the Government promised that they should be proceeded with rapidly, and be completed in five years. He had to complain, however, of the great slowness with which the construction of the works had since their commencement proceeded. He had visited Haulbowline lately, having heard from several of the dockyard working men that they had been dismissed because, as they were informed by the officials, the Government had not money which they could apply in payment of their wages; and a few of them informed him that they were told they might return to the works if they would consent to work 2d. a day less. He was not aware that Her Majesty's Government were in such a position as to be obliged to discharge men because they had not money to pay them their wages on Saturday night, but he found the facts stated to be correct. He (Mr. Ronayne) never saw so miserable and desolate a place—indeed, the works were like "the lake of the Dismal Swamp." The convicts had, indeed, nearly succeeded in destroying one of the most picturesque objects in Queens-town Harbour, Haulbowline Island,

  443
  for the purpose of obtaining materials to enclose the site of the intended docks, but although it was now nine years since those works were commenced, and many millions had since been expended on similar works in England and Malta, ordered at the same time, not one stone of the new "dock" of Haulbowline had yet been laid. There was ample dock accommodation at Cork for the Mercantile Marine of the port, constructed by local enterprise; but as long as there were no naval docks, Her Majesty's Navy should avoid Queenstown Harbour altogether. In conclusion, he asked the House not to refuse to spend money in Ireland for Imperial purposes because it was Ireland.
  SIR MASSEY LOPES, on behalf of the Government, said, the works had certainly been procrastinated long beyond the period originally intended, but there were good reasons for the delay. In the first place, the number of convicts at the disposal of the Irish Government had been very limited; and secondly, unexpected engineering difficulties had arisen in connection with the construction of the works which had greatly tended to postpone their completion. He thought the hon. Member was in error in some of his statements. The works were projected in 1864, and begun in 1865, at the same time as several other docks. The first Estimate for the whole of these workswas£6,000,000, the sum then put clown for Haulbowline being £250,000. Sir Andrew Clarke, however, reduced the gross Estimate to £4,650,000, and the sum to be devoted to Haulbowline was put at £150,000—the first Estimate being based upon the employment of "free" labour, and the second on that of convict labour. The sum of £20,000 a-year was regularly taken for the construction of the works; but in 1871 it was discovered that there were great engineering difficulties in the way. It was found necessary to have a very large pumping apparatus, and a considerable addition to the works was also necessary. A new Estimate was recently taken, and a further reduction was made, the work being still done by convict labour. When the first Estimate was made it was expected there would be about 1,200 convicts employed on the works; but in reality there had been only 450 or 500, and that was one of the great difficulties with which they
  444
  had to contend. The hon. Member alluded to the dismissal of men, but he was not in all particulars correct. In Chatham Dockyard 250 men were employed, and free labour exceeded convict labour. Much progress had of late been made with the works, in particular since Mr. Andrews was placed in charge of them. A Report had recently been received of them stating that, in all probability, they would be constructed for the estimated amount of £330,000, and the Director of Public Works did not recommend that a larger sum than £20,000 a-year should be taken for the work, unless the number of the convicts was increased. £750,000 were voted within the last nine years, and only £650,000 were taken. The Government believed it to be a necessary and important work, and they had no wish to postpone it in any way, but, on the contrary, they had every desire to expedite it, and the First Lord of the Admiralty had determined not only to send an Inspector to the spot, but to visit it personally.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he thought there was a policy on the part of successive Governments of leaving Ireland out of all strategic consideration in time of peace, and a desire to concentrate all the naval and military establishments in the South of England. Out of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 which had lately been expended upon defensive works, only about £60,000 had been expended in Ireland.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he had some knowledge of Ireland, and if there was any place where Dockyard accommodation was more wanted than another, it was Queenstown, which was a great commercial station. The hon. Gentleman said that £20,000 had been expended yearly on public works at Queenstown, and the reason why they did not expend more was that they could not get convict labour. Now, that was very creditable to Ireland. His (Sir Edward Watkin's) opinion was that they could got free labour quite as cheap as convict labour. It appeared to be the determination of the Government not to take the economical and expeditious way of completing the work now in progress, but to dawdle over it for half a century simply to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accommodate his Estimates. According to the calculations of the Government, it would be 20 years before the work was finished, and he

  445
  ventured to say that in that event it would cost 30 or 40 per cent more than if they did as any business firm would do, and pushed it forward to completion within three or four years. He insisted also that it was the duty of the Government to redeem the promises made to the Irish people on the subject.
  MR. GOSCHENmight remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ronayne) that the whole of the money voted was not expended.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he remembered it was stated in the Report of the Commissioners that free labour was to be employed. Of £7,000,000 which were voted to be expended on harbours, and other public works, only £260,000 was voted to be applied on the works at Haulbowline, Ireland, and that sum was reduced by £100,000. There was a very strong feeling on this subject in Ireland, and also in reference to the men who had been dismissed. He thought the Government ought to take up those works earnestly, and complete them in reasonable time.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £85,442, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that on the face of the Vote it did appear that there was a considerable diminution in the sum asked for this year, as compared with that granted last year; but that diminution was entirely owing to Supplementary Grants having been taken last year; first, for the exploration going on in Assyria; and secondly, for the purchase of that valuable collection known as the Castellani collection. The present Estimate, however, was substantially the same as those which had hitherto been voted from year to year. There was only one circumstance which he felt bound to mention in connection with the Estimate. It was, that it was possible that the Trustees might have to apply to Parliament for an additional grant, in order to make a purchase of some very valuable Roman and Greek
446
coins. As to the Vote itself, he did not imagine that there would be any serious question raised in regard to it.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to suggest to his right hon. Friend, whether some means might not be taken for making the great treasures contained within the British Museum more available to the public than was at present the case. He had long thought that if a system of lectures were instituted in connection with the organization of the British Museum, it would be of enormous value and interest to the nation at large. The gentlemen who presided over the British Museum had at their command such resources as no others in the world had. It was true that the British Museum was nominally open to the public; but that opening was, if he might use the phrase, an unintelligent opening, because people wandered in weariness and ignorance throughout the collections without having the remotest knowledge of the character and resources of that great establishment. The learning of the British Museum was written in hieroglyphics, and it was advisable that its mysteries should be translated into the vulgar tongue, so as to become intelligible to the nation at large. He understood that this might be done for an expenditure of £1,000 per annum. He ventured to throw out this suggestion for the consideration of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University and of the Prime Minister, who, amid the turmoil of politics, had never forgotten the claims of literature, of science, and of art.
COLONEL BERESFORDdrew attention to the discontent that prevailed among the officers of the British Museum on account of the lowness of their salaries. Last year the Trustees proposed that the salaries of these officials should be increased, but the late Government refused to entertain the proposal. In the early part of the present Session, the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question put by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), had stated that the Treasury were prepared to receive further communications from the Trustees on the subject. He understood that the Trustees had now suggested that only one—that immediately above the lowest—class of officers should receive an increase of salary, and he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the cause

447
for this change in the nature of their recommendations.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was in favour of an organized system of lectures in the metropolis; but he thought there were difficulties in the way of carrying out the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt). There was, however, a very general opinion that something of the kind should be done. As his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had given Notice of a Motion on the general question of the management and administration of the British Museum, he would not now go into that matter, further than to express a hope that the Report and recommendations of the Commissioners on Science and Scientific Instruction might receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government. He was, however, anxious to say a few words in reference to the salaries of the keepers and assistants in the Museum. Last year the Trustees appointed a sub-committee, which went very carefully into the whole matter. They did not recommend an indiscriminate increase, giving their reasons in some cases for not urging an advance; but they did recommend certain alterations—for instance, that the maximum salary of senior keepers should be raised to £750, of junior keepers to £600, of senior assistants to £500. The subcommittee stated that, as a matter of fact, the Museum was losing, and would continue to lose, its best men. This report of the sub-committee was subsequently approved and adopted by the general body of Trustees, but not acceded to by the Treasury. He hoped, however, that those recommendations would be reconsidered. The suggestions of the subcommittee did not seem unreasonable, and every lover of science and art must feel that it was a most serious thing when they were told that the Museum was losing its best men. They should remember that in the keepers and assistants they required men of very special attainments, which could only be acquired by constant study, and by persons of very considerable intellectual powers. The keepers of the British Museum had, moreover, the charge of collections the value of which was almost inestimable, and which could never be replaced. The chief clerks in other departments were much more highly paid than the chief assistants, or even the
448
keepers of departments in the British Museum, though the qualifications required were certainly not less in the latter case. He saw, on looking at the report to which he had referred, that the sub-committee contained three Members of Her Majesty's Government—Lord Derby, the First Commissioner of Works, and last, not least, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he trusted that this matter would be reconsidered. They were all proud of the Museum; it was an honour to the country, it reflected great credit on those in whose charge it was placed, and nothing should be allowed to interfere with its present high state of efficiency.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYalso hoped that the recommendation of the subcommittee of Trustees would be given effect to. That it was a most reasonable one was evident from the fact that the salaries now paid had been fixed so far back as the year 1812.
MR. CARTWRIGHTadvocated a rearrangement of the art collections of the Museum with a view to their more effective exhibition. The Elgin room was the only department of the Exhibition in which anything had been done in that way, and it was much to be desired that the work should be carried on in other directions. With reference to the suggestion that the salaries of the officers should be increased, he hoped it would be favourably received by the Government. It was not reasonable or just that, with increased and increasing duties, the emoluments of the gentlemen in question should be allowed to remain at the level that was fixed 40 years ago.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEwas also in favour of a liberal re-consideration of the salaries of the officers of the British Museum. Their duties were not the ordinary duties of mere administrators in other offices, but of men who were pledged to keep up the literary and scientific reputation of the country by using the emoluments of which they were guardians in the prosecution of independent study. Every year the Museum became more and more—not merely a depository of valuable articles in art and science also, but a focus of instruction and discovery, and a means of propagating scientific knowledge throughout the world. If the British Museum was to hold its own in comparison with Continental

449
Museums, the Government and the country must be prepared to pay the price necessary to secure the best literary and scientific labour that could be obtained, not merely to retain intelligent keepers, but men whose time and thoughts had an acknowledged value in the market of international authorship. The present Trustees were, he trusted, prepared to carry on the good work, and they would do this all the more efficiently if they knew that they were backed up by a strong public opinion.
MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, he thought the House was unanimous in believing that the salaries of the officials in the Museum ought to be increased. Their duties were onerous and important, and had been constantly increasing, but since 1836 there had been no increase of salaries. As compared with officers of other Government institutions they were very inadequately remunerated. Their claims were well deserving of consideration.
MR. SAMUELSONsaid, he had heard on what he believed was good authority that the proposals made to the Royal Commission on scientific instruction, by men of the highest authority on such subjects, with a view to rendering the Natural History collection more readily available for purposes of study and instruction on its removal to South Kensington, were to be disregarded by the Trustees, who proposed arrangements which would render it impossible to use the collections in the way suggested. He hoped this would not prove to be the case, or that if no positive assurance could be given on the subject, they should, at any rate, be informed that the Government were prepared to consider the question. The mistake, if made now, would, inasmuch as it involved structural arrangements, be most difficult to remedy.
MR. BUTTsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to adopt the higher scale of increase in salaries recommended by the Commissioners two years ago, and which did bare justice to the case, instead of the modified proposal which had now been put forward.
MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, that with regard to the subject of salaries, the Trustees had made recommendations to the Treasury, and that the Treasury had declined to raise the scale in the British Museum unless there was some general rule made applicable to
450
every department. It was then pointed out that it was desirable to increase the salaries of the junior clerks, as at present they were not sufficient to induce them to remain in the Museum. The Trustees recommended an increase in the minimum salaries at which that class entered, and also in their maximum salary, and the Treasury sanctioned that recommendation. The salaries of the keepers had not been raised since 1833 or 1834; but it was not correct to say that all the other salaries had not been raised, for there had been a general rise, given in his recollection, with the concurrence of the Treasury. The Trustees had recommended that three, at all events, of the keepers of collections on whom additional duties and responsibilities had been cast—namely, the keepers of the Geological, the Coinage, and the British and Mediaeval collections—should have their salaries raised to an equality with all the other keepers, and the Treasury had acceded to the recommendation. The cases of one or two other classes of officers in the Museum were about to undergo a further examination, and it was not the desire either of the Trustees or, he was sure, of the Government, to deal hardly with those most trustworthy and deserving persons. With regard to the accommodation for exhibiting the collections, he should mislead the Committee if he did not say that until additional space was provided they could not have as complete arrangements for that purpose as could be desired. With regard to the remarks made by the the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), authorities as great, or even greater than those quoted by the hon. Gentleman had, after full consideration, reported that the method he had referred to was not the best one for exhibiting those collections. For some years past a practice had grown up that was found very useful, by which different parts of the Natural History and the Antiquarian collections were explained on Saturdays to parties of some 40 or 50 persons. There was no accommodation in the Museum for giving lectures; but the arrangements to be made at South Kensington for the Natural History collections included two good lecture-rooms, in which the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir W. Harcourt) would be carried out as far as regarded those collections.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked whether there was any objection to make known what system of arrangement was proposed to be adopted in the new museum at the Natural History collection for South Kensington?
MR. SPENCER WALPOLE, in reply, said, that no arrangements such as that to which the hon. Baronet referred could be made without an Act of Parliament, and that the proper time to state what the arrangements would be was when such a Bill was introduced.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government, in proposing the Vote, had been actuated by motives which he would briefly explain to the Committee. It was manifest that there were only two alternatives which were available to the Government with respect to the Colony in question. The one was the policy of total abandonment, and the other was that of remaining in the Colony on what he must suppose was meant to be a satisfactory footing; both of which views had recently been advocated in that House. Now, it was undoubtedly true that for many years past what he might term a half-way system had been in vogue with regard to the Gold Coast. They had adopted, in its case something like a starving policy, and had cut down the public service to the lowest possible dimensions. The result had been that that which was an apparent economy had landed the country in a vast outlay. Now, that was a policy which it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to follow in future. It was, on the contrary, their intention, with the assistance of Parliament, to pursue a policy which would efficiently meet the requirements of the public service, and enable the officers who represented Her Majesty on the Gold Coast to discharge their duties in a satisfactory manner. Among other things which the Government were resolved at once to terminate was the anomaly that the rates of pension which
452
prevailed in other tropical climates should not apply also to our West African Settlements. It was, he might add, the intention of the Government, in proposing the additional Vote under consideration, to initiate a system by means of which constant assistance from the Imperial Exchequer would not hereafter be required by the colony. He did not, at the same time, feel himself in a position to say that it might not be found necessary at some future date to come to Parliament to ask for another grant in aid of the revenues of our West African Settlements, although he hoped that such a vote would not be needed for many years. He must not be understood, however, as giving any sort of guarantee that the revenues of those Settlements would be such as to preclude the possibility or even the probability of future appeals to the generosity of Parliament. He would now tell the Committee that the main feature of the scheme about to be adopted by the Government was the union of all the Gold Coast Settlements with Lagos. The affairs of Lagos and the Gambia were, under the present system, administered by an Administrator, who, in his turn, was subject to the Governor of Sierra Leone. That system was proved to have many defects. The distance between the various points was so great that anything like a comprehensive supervision of the details or even the outlines of administration by any one person was found to be utterly impossible. It was now therefore proposed that the Gold Coast Settlements and Lagos should henceforward be separated from Sierra Leone, to be administered by one Governor, with a Lieutenant-Governor at Lagos. After what had occurred in "another place," he need not recapitulate all the details of the scheme; but he wished to observe that, according to the Returns to which the hon. Member for Tamworth had on a former occasion referred, the revenues of the Gold Coast amounted in 1872 to £40,165 a year. Since then those Settlements had been very much disturbed, and the revenue had shown a tendency to decline. He was able, however, to state that, according to Sir Garnet Wolseley, it was anticipated there would be an increase in the revenue for the current year, which was estimated at £52,000. Now, to that sum he proposed to add £35,000, three-fifths of which might fairly be put down

453
to capital account, inasmuch as it was intended to dispose of the money in the following manner:—Additional salaries—the figures to be taken approximately—£6,000; £4,000 for miscellaneous items, which sums went into the annual expenditure account. There was then a sum of £10,000 for telegraphs, and a further sum of £15,000 for buildings and roads. He now came to the consideration of a most important point—where the seat of Government should he established. At present the capital of the Coast was Cape Coast Castle, which was perhaps one of the places least fitted to be the habitation, not of Europeans only, but of any race of human beings. Sir Garnet Wolseley had eloquently described Coomassie as a perfect charnel house; but he ventured to think that persons who perused the statistics showing the mortality at Cape Coast Castle and the number of persons who were obliged by ill health to leave the place would come to the conclusion that Coomassie was not the only charnel house on the West Coast of Africa. Indeed, considering the mortality among Her Majesty's servants at the present capital, it might be permissible to doubt whether human sacrifice was confined within the limits of the Ashantee Kingdom. It was proposed that that spot should no longer be the head-quarters of the Government. Coming to the question as to the place to which the seat of Government should be transferred, he would refer to two places which had frequently been suggested—namely, Elmina and Accra. Both of them presented many features which would render them suitable for the purpose. Elmina possessed a harbour which, while not particularly good, was still for those regions a very fair one. Accra was more central, and in many respects preferable, but unfortunately was not so well situated as regarded marine accommodation. Indeed, it could hardly be said there was a harbour at all; but there was a roadstead, which was used for want of anything better. Probably the Committee would agree with him that before a place was fixed upon there ought to be a careful local inquiry. Indeed, his noble Friend the Secretary of State could not be expected to come to a decision in the matter without the assistance of local knowledge and investigation. It was proposed, therefore,
454
to leave the point for further consideration, and meanwhile a most diligent local inquiry was being made. Before long, a decision would, no doubt, be arrived at. Connected with this question was that of the establishment, on a more healthy spot than could be found on the coast, of a sanitarium, to which the seat of Government might be transferred in the less healthy seasons of the year. There were times when existence at the Coast was almost a matter of impossibility, or, at all events, was attended with very great danger; and it was absolutely necessary that the public servants should be able, during a considerable part of the year, to betake themselves to a more favourable locality. Among the places which had been suggested was Accrapong, about 35 miles from Accra, and where for many years past there had been a number of German missionaries residing, whose experience of the spot had been favourable. He could not hold out the hope that even a sanitarium would be found an enjoyable abode; still, he believed that many of the evils inseparable from residence at the Coast would be obviated at Accrapong. There was another place presenting the same features and equally high up, and with the advantage of being only 15 miles from Accra. It would be necessary in this matter, as in that of the capital, to have inquiries made on the spot before coming to a decision. Wherever the sanitarium was established, buildings would have to be erected, and roads leading to it would have to be made. There was a road of some kind already existing from. Accra to these hills, and no very great outlay would be required to make it serviceable. The character of the buildings it would be impossible at present to decide; but there would be no occasion in such a climate to make them of a very substantial character. The Vote for which he now asked might reasonably be expected to cover the entire expense. It must be understood that the Governor would not reside on the hills at any period of danger, when there would be a possibility of his being surrounded by hostile tribes. At such a time he would, of course, be at the place where the troops at his disposal would be located. It must be admitted that the climate was utterly unsuitable for British troops; and much as he, speaking for himself as an

455
individual, was an advocate of the policy of sending troops drawn from one dependency to discharge garrison duty in other dependencies of the Crown, he was obliged to acknowledge that in this case the West Indian Regiments—Africans by extraction as they were—were almost as unfit to bear the deadly climate of the Gold Coast as the European soldiers. Her Majesty's Government were therefore obliged, not without regret, to depend entirely on local resources for the maintenance of an armed force. Fortunately they were not without some knowledge in the matter, for the Houssa contingent had already done good service, and it was hoped that a force of some 1,000 or 1,100 Houssas—he could only mention an approximate number—recruited from various tribes, would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Settlement. There had been a report that it was the intention of the Government to send out an administrator to the Gold Coast for one year only, and to reserve till a future time the final settlement of the question as to the government. This report had no foundation in fact. Her Majesty's Government had made up their mind that the Consolidated Settlement of the Gold Coast and Lagos should be under one Governor, with a Lieutenant Governor, and the appointment to the office of Governor had already been made. For the Consolidated Settlement there would, besides the Governor, be a Colonial Secretary and a Treasurer, while for Lagos separately there would be a Lieutenant Governor and a Sub-treasurer. The reason for the appointment of a Sub-treasurer was that it had been found necessary to keep the accounts of the two Settlements distinct. The Governor would be assisted by a small legislative and executive Council, on the principle which had been found to work well in other Crown colonies. Any idea of calling Natives of the Coast into the Council, to assist in the government of the dependencies, must be dismissed as chimerical. It would be perfectly futile to attempt, even to that extent, a system of representative government. Besides the officers already named, there would be, for the Consolidated Settlement, an Auditor, a Chief Justice, a Queen's Advocate, who would also discharge the duties of public prosecutor, a commanding officer of the armed police,
456
a Colonial Engineer, and a Chief Surgeon. These would be the principal officers. There would be certain subordinate officers to be appointed hereafter. The selection of a Governor had caused his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office no little anxious thought. He had stated that the Colony was to be administered as a Crown Colony, which meant that it was to be subject to the personal rule of the Governor, and it was therefore all the more important to obtain the most competent man who could be found. It was essential that the person selected should have bodily strength and experience; and, after anxious consideration, the choice of the Secretary of State had fallen upon Captain G. C. Strachan, R.A., who was now acting Administrator of Lagos. This selection was not made without taking many circumstances into consideration. It was almost essential that the person selected should be in the full vigour and prime of life. It was not to be expected that one who did not possess youth and vigour would face the anxious responsibilities of governing such a Colony. Captain Strachan officiated as aide-de-camp to the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) during his short administration of the Ionian Islands, and subsequently he acted in a similar capacity to Sir Henry Storks. Captain Strachan had been Colonial Secretary in the Bahamas, and since then Administrator of Lagos. It would be seen that he had experience, and the Government had every confidence in his ability and full hope that a valuable appointment had been made. He hoped the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), as a Scotchman, even if he at the present moment felt disposed to question the policy of extending the sway of the existing ruler of Lagos over the larger territory of the Gold Coast, would be able to contemplate it hereafter with as much satisfaction as they now did the union of England and Scotland. It was proposed that the salary of the Governor should be £3,000 a year, with an additional £500 a year for travelling and other expenses. It would be among the first duties of the new officials to institute inquiry into the whole system of law and judicial procedure, which now were by no moans satisfactory. Considerable alterations, he thought, would be required in the law and in the mode

457
of carrying it out. Then there was the question of domestic slavery. Unhappily upon the Coast of Africa domestic slavery had always prevailed as an institution. Some hon. Members would say it was the easiest thing in the world to put down that or any other institution. He regretted that many who, on other subjects were rational and reasonable, apparently lost all self-possession and practical sagacity on the subject of slavery, and diminished the value of their counsels by laying down crude theories which would not stand the test of experience. If we were to insist on the total and immediate abolition of slavery on the Gold Coast, the Government must ask, not for £35,000, but for a sum not inferior to, if not in excess of, the cost of the war against the King of Ashantee—they must ask for something like £1,000,000 either to compensate the owners of the slaves or to maintain troops for carrying on another war. It would be perfectly impossible to put down an institution like this, which had taken so firm a hold upon the minds and habits of the people, without a large occupying force and comprehensive measures of repression. In reply to those who said we should not consider any of these questions in dealing with a matter of principle, he would say he would not advocate any attempt to repeat in West Africa an experiment which had been tried not many thousand miles from the House, in governing one country according to the ideas of that country when they ran counter, not only to the ideas of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom, but also to the first and elementary principles of right and justice. He would not advocate the government of the Gold Coast according to Ashantee ideas; but it must be manifest no statesman would be justified in attempting to carry out preconceived ideas and theories, however just and sound, when they ran counter to every conceivable idea which had entered into the minds of the Natives they were called upon to rule. Therefore, the Government proposed to seek the gradual—he hoped he should not be understood to mean the tardy—abolition of domestic slavery. It must be understood that this was a question in reference to which, time and the officers proposed to be sent out must have the opportunity of making an impression upon the feelings, prejudices,
458
and ideas of the Natives, and the House must not expect that it could be settled in a day. It was right to say that in the present condition of affairs on the Gold Coast there were certain reasons for hoping that many of the evils which characterized our previous occupation might be, in the course of time, removed. The Treaty with the King had been newly signed, and 200 ounces more gold, in the shape of ornaments, had been handed over to our officers. He mentioned this, not so much on account of its value, but as an earnest of the good faith of the King of Ashantee. King Coffee had requested that his son might be allowed to come to England, at his own expense, to be educated under the care of the British Government, and that might be taken to mean more than at first sight appeared. We knew the extreme jealousy with which these barbarous tribes regarded the separation from them of their nearest of kin. When we demanded hostages, the King expressed his aversion to separating near members of his family from himself. It might, then, be inferred that the King was abandoning that jealousy and suspicion of British power which he had always hitherto displayed. He did not wish to give a rose-coloured view of the circumstances of the case, but we might reasonably hope that we had borne down to a great extent the hostility and opposition of the Ashantees. He regretted that depredations upon Ashantee traders which were charged to Fantees had not yet terminated; there were still reports of interference with Ashantee traders by Fantee tribes; and this was a matter which required to be rigorously dealt with. If we were to hope for the cooperation of the various native tribes in our occupation of this Protectorate we must maintain order, and strict injunction had been forwarded to the officers in charge of the Settlement that these outrages should be rigorously put down. He hoped by this time considerable progress might have been made in that direction. The Government would also direct that encouragement should be given to the legitimate trading of the Ashantees; and this was, perhaps, the channel through which we might hope to effect the greatest amount of reform. It would not be necessary further to detain the Committee. If in the course of

459
the discussion which was likely to arise any hon. Gentleman wished for further explanation, if it was in his power he should be happy to give it. He had shown that it was necessary that the sum asked for should he granted to the Government. The House had refused to adopt the alternative of withdrawing from this Coast, and the Government were not disposed to adopt half measures. Gradual abandonment was of all others the course which was most to be deprecated. Circumstances might arise in which reconsideration of our position might be needful, but when that time came, Parliament must be prepared to deal with the matter immediately, and by no half measures. The hon. Gentleman concluded by thanking the House for the kindness with which they listened to his statement, and by moving the Vote.
MR. HANBURYsaid, he wished to state the reasons which had induced him to put on the Paper the Motion which stood in his name—namely, to reduce the Vote by £10,000. In his judgment, we were bound by considerations of duty to remain on the Gold Coast, as otherwise the Ashantees would either overrun the district and offer human sacrifices within sight of Cape Coast Castle, or else they and the Fantees would drag on a remorseless war. If, however, we were bound to stay there at all, we were bound to stay there permanently; because the policy of remaining there in order ultimately to abandon the Coast caused vacillation in our counsels and produced the very difficulty it was intended to prevent. It was a very great gain that we had now got for these Settlements a thoroughly well qualified Governor, who, it might be expected, would be able to remain there; and the Government ought, as far as possible, to leave his hands unfettered, and to give him full discretion, especially with regard to the manner in which he wished to deal with the Native races. There were two systems under which we might deal with the Native races; the one being to maintain perfect neutrality between the two, and the other our own system of taking sides with one or other of them. If the latter course were maintained, we might either take the Natives under our protection and constitute a Crown colony, or we might continue that system of protection which
460
had been attended with such fatal results. The creation of a Crown colony would, in many respects, be the better plan, for we should, after all, only assume the same responsibilities that we incurred by the establishment of a Protectorate. In 1844 the miserable tribes of Fantees were taken for the first time under our protection; in 1852 our jurisdiction was confirmed by the imposition of a Poll Tax; and since then we had undertaken the administration of justice, and taken nearly all power out of the hands of the Chiefs. Indeed, we were assuming responsibilities in a much more dangerous form than if we constituted the territory a Crown colony. The result of our contact with the Fantee tribes was that they were becoming more demoralized year by year. In his opinion, the only proper course for us to adopt was to remain on the Coast simply and solely as policemen, to keep the peace between the two hostile tribes. The war had put an end to all claims the Fantees might have had upon us for a continuance of the Protectorate as it was understood by Her Majesty's Government. Again, in taking over the Dutch possessions we became, to a certain extent, bound to enter into an alliance with the Ashantees, and it was most important that we should cultivate friendship with this superior race. "We had met the Ashantees six times, and it should be recollected that this last war was the first occasion in which we had defeated them. So long as the Ashantees saw that we gave protection to those wretched people the Fantees, they would be discontented, and would be disinclined to enter into a Treaty with us; and so long as that state of things existed, we should have no security, or only a very small security, for the maintenance of peace on the Gold Coast. Our one security was the goodwill of those Ashantee people. The education in this country of a so-called son of the King was no security at all, and as the inheritance descended in that country of conjugal infidelity to brothers and nephews and not to sons, the probability was that this youth would be no son of the King. While we did not allow arms to be imported into the territory we had undertaken to protect, we allowed them to be imported into the territory of the Ashantees, and the whole policy of the Government amounted to this—that we were to maintain the Protectorate,

461
and, therefore, to be subject to the old obligations, but were to disarm the very people whom we had undertaken to protect. That seemed to him a ridiculous proposition, and, therefore, he hoped that before the evening passed the Committee would be informed that the Government had changed its mind on that subject. He would suggest that, instead of adopting the policy of the Government, the course recommended by Governor Maclean, and strongly supported by Sir Garnet Wolseley, should be adopted, whereby the importation of arms into the West Coast of Africa would be entirely prohibited. There could be no hope of civilizing that region unless all the European Powers entered into an agreement to prohibit the importation of munitions of war into it. Her Majesty's Government ought to release themselves altogether from the obligations which the Protectorate of the Fantees imposed upon them. If another war should break out between the Fantees and the Ashantees, the latter would require to be supplied with very much better weapons than they had in the late war on the Gold Coast, and a great many of our countrymen would be very glad to supply them with better weapons. By stopping a supply of arms we should not only encourage trade in Ashantee, but a passage of trade through that territory. It was absolutely essential in our own interests, not less than in the interests of humanity, that we should prevent the smuggling of arms into the territory of our late enemy. One mode of effecting that most desirable object was an appeal to public opinion, which was all the more necessary when they found that respectable traders had been found ready to supply the Ashantees with arms to be used against Englishmen. It was to be regretted that of the three tribes we had recognized the two worst, and our relations with them would one day, he was afraid, involve us in a war, the horrors of which would exceed anything they had yet heard of. In conclusion he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £25,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and for the Salaries and Allowances
462
of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
MR. J. HOLMS, after complimenting the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Lowther) on the ability and clearness which characterized his statement, said, that he quite agreed with him that the alternative presented to this country was that we should either leave the Gold Coast altogether, or make our government there more efficient, and our authority more respected. He had himself on a former occasion advocated the first course, but the feeling of the House was clearly opposed to his view. Since then, however, a change appeared to have taken place in the views of several hon. Gentlemen, and he thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Hanbury) was very much in that direction. He was quite ready to admit that her Majesty's Government were placed in a difficult position when they came to consider what was the form of government they should establish on the Gold Coast. He understood, however, from a statement made by the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary in "another place," that while the circumstances of trade were not sufficient to induce us to remain on the Coast, still we could not abandon the Protectorate without a breach of the moral obligations into which we had entered with the protected tribes. He also understood it was part of the scheme of the Government that they should control in the future the importation of arms and ammunition, but if they were entirely successful in keeping out guns and gunpowder from the Protectorate he believed their object would signally fail, because any quantity of guns and gunpowder could find their way into Ashantee from the west. It was said that we might get over that difficulty by taking the French settlement into our hands; but even then guns and ammunition would pass in by the port belonging to the King of Dahomey; and the result would be that all the raw produce of Ashantee, its gold and its ivory, would in return find its way down to the King of Dahomey's port, so that, without succeeding in our object, we should lose the trade of the country; and it might happen that the Kings of Ashantee and Dahomey—for they were very friendly with each other—might unite in attacking us at the first favourable opportunity. On the subject of

463
domestic slavery, in the event of our establishing a colony on the West Coast, slavery must be done away with; and in that view they would have to make up their minds to pay the cost of its abolition, which they had hoard would amount to about £1,000,000. With regard to the Legislative Council, he trusted that it would not be composed merely of a small number of officials. The presence of some English merchants would be a great advantage, and he believed from the time of Governor Maclean to a very recent period the European merchants had had a voice in the administration of affairs. It would be wise to admit some native merchants into the Legislative Council, so that the Natives might be encouraged to take a part in the government of the Coast. He gathered that a military force would be kept there of from 1,000 to 1,100 men; and he feared that the sight of so large a force would kindle a spirit of anger and a thirst for revenge on the part of the Ashantees, while it would lead our allies to depend upon us in the future as in the past. It was, he was afraid, a continuance of the old policy to press the Ashantees back from the Coast, to which they must find their way in order to obtain salt, a commodity of which they were entirely deficient; whereas if we encouraged them to come down to Elmina and mingle with the neighbouring tribes we should get rid of one source of difficulty. The fault of the Government scheme was that it paid too much attention to the Fantees and too little to the tribes from which we must look for civilization in Africa. If any one moved the rejection of the Vote he should go into the Lobby with him, because he believed we were about to establish a great Empire on this Coast which would involve us in endless difficulties.
ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMON-STONEsupported the Vote, and thanked the Government for the wise and sound policy they had adopted, which reflected credit on the Department which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary to the Colonies so worthily adorned. If that policy were intrusted to a fit person on the spot, and if he were not too much interfered with by the Government at home, it would materially develop the resources of the Coast, and redound to the credit of this country. The great mistake had hitherto been in making the
464
Chief Administrator reside at Sierra Leone, but as soon as this became a consolidated Colony, it would become a fine country for our mercantile interests. Great complaint had been made about the importation of arms being still allowed, but along such a Coast it was quite impossible to prevent importation. We had found this even in Russia during the Crimean War, when, notwithstanding all our precautions, arms were regularly imported. War was the normal condition of the Blacks on the Coast, and a negro was never happy unless he had a musket in his hand and plenty of gunpowder. Domestic slavery was a terrible source of anxiety to himself when he was on the Coast; but he saw no possibility of interfering with it. The best way was to deal with it cautiously, and if wise measures were taken it would gradually disappear. Two places, Elmina and Accra, had been mentioned as the probable seats of Government. Accra was the more central, and probably, on the whole, the better. With regard to a sanitarium, he thought they could not do better than follow the steps of the missionaries, who generally selected a nice and comfortable spot for their station. He entirely concurred in the policy of the Government, and trusted they would be able to carry it out.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had read with great pleasure that morning the speech of the Prime Minister at the Merchant Taylors', by which, as far as he understood it, he meant to imply that the House of Lords represented 28,000,000 of people, and the House of Commons only 2,000,000. That would account for the Government first laying their proposal on this subject before the House of Lords; but if the House of Commons only represented 2,000,000, they represented the taxpayers of the country, and the question now before them was whether this Vote was really to benefit this country or the world at large. Were they to vote this money as politicians or as philanthropists? The establishments we kept up on the Coast were expensive and unprofitable. In 20 years we had spent upwards of £2,000,000, while our trade with that country amounted to only £2,270,000. A Member of the Government had stated that the question was not to be settled by the more balance of profit and loss. It was also admitted that there was no written obligation binding us to maintain

465
our present position on the Coast. The object of the Government was entirely to benefit the Natives. They must look a little back and a little forward to understand this question. The Coast was a plague-spot and charnel-house. We had been there for generations. Originally, we went there for no other purpose but carrying on the slave trade, and we stayed there now for reasons which no one could precisely explain. Our engagements with the native tribes were vague, uncertain, and indescribable. It should be borne in mind that a Select Committee which sat on this question in 1864, recommended that all further extension of territory, assumption of government, any new Treaty, or offer of protection to the native tribes, would be inexpedient, and that we should encourage the Natives to exercise those qualities which would lit them for self-government, with a view to our ultimate retirement from the Coast. Yet, in spite of that recommendation, we had had a war on that Coast almost every 10 years; we had gone on increasing our Protectorate, and had accepted a large territory from the Dutch without asking the Natives whether they cared for our protection or not. The war lately concluded had brought us nothing but a Treaty, which was said to be scarcely worth the ink it was written with. It seemed to him that it would be an act of moral cowardice to remain on the Coast just because we were there, and had some difficulty in getting out of the way. The Pall Mall Gazette said—
"We do not hold the Gold Coast to spread Christianity, or to civilize the natives, or to attempt the suppression of human sacrifice, and it is miserable hypocrisy to pretend that we do. We hold it because we want to trade with the natives of West Africa. It is but too true that in this case Christianity moans rum and civilization gunpowder; but the proper inference may he, not that we should give up trading in rum and gunpowder, but that we should give up talking about Christianity and civilization."
But this was clearly a mistake. Lord Carnarvon, the responsible Minister of the Government, said—
"It is simply and solely a sense of obligations to he redeemed and of duties to he performed which bids us remain on the West Coast of Africa."
We had taught these people, by a long system of protection, to depend on us; we had made them worse than before,
466
and most of them hated us. He had read in The Times the other day an amusing description of the sword that was about to be presented to Sir Garnet Wolseley. The Times said—
"Messrs. White and Campbell have been entrusted with the execution of the sword to be presented by the Corporation of London to Sir Garnet Wolseley, and have submitted for inspection a drawing of the weapon, with the ornaments to be cut and embossed on it. On the panels of the hilt are represented the figures of Wisdom and Truth. Fame and Victory recline on the guard. The sheath hears on one side the arms of Sir Garnet, and on the reverse those of the City of London. Underneath are figures representing Britannia, accompanied by Peace, receiving a welcome from the Fantees, Victory encouraging the negroes to energy and exertion, and Valour trampling on Tyranny. In the midst of the trophies are the words, 'Cape Coast Castle, Amoaful, Coomassie, and Abrakrampa.'"
In a lecture delivered by Colonel Evelyn Wood, they had a very different decription of the Fantees—
"The Fantees, fine tall men, were drawn up in line, after great competition among them as to who should be on the left, as that was farthest from the bush; behind them were their chiefs and kings with whips, and behind them again Kossus with swords. After great efforts, they were induced to march forward, the kings thrashing all within reach, and the Kossus in turn pressing the chiefs on. The officers, who were forbidden themselves to enter the bush, did all in their power to drive the Fantees forward, using, in the words of a despatch, 'more than verbal persuasion.' One officer, in fact, completely ruined his umbrella. But when they reached the hush, into which all but the kings were at last forced to enter, they squatted down, and there they remained for the rest of the day."
When he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) heard of the grateful reception of the English troops by the Fantees, he felt inclined to exclaim, with Byron—
"O for a forty-parson power To chant thy praise, hypocrisy?"
Surely this was a good time to get rid of this miserable business altogether. But the responsible Minister now came forward with a new policy. The Government was to be reconstructed. There was to be a consolidated establishment, and of course the first thing was to spend more money. The only omission they had made in the new establishment he hoped would still be supplied—they wanted a Bishop. Those who read the statement in this morning's paper as to the officers who were left on the Coast, must feel pretty sure that we could not do much with the climate. Certainly,

467
the medical officers would have the most to do there. Then, as to the change of the capital, there was much vagueness in the statement of the Government—three places had been mentioned, but no selection had yet been made. The next question was the appointment of a Governor who, according to a noble Lord in "another place," must be a man of considerable eminence, ability, determination, and force of character. He presumed he would be a teetotaler; for the noble Lord laid great stress on absence from stimulants. He hoped that the Governor would not be a clever man, because a clever man was dangerous, and could either involve himself in superabundant activity and some fresh combination, or employ his energies in civilizing the people, getting more tribes to join us, and give us fresh trouble in looking after them. He wanted to know what they were going to do about the guns, which he thought was a piece of severe irony. He did not know how that policy was to be carried out, unless the rifles were to be of that wonderful kind which his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelet) had made familiar to the House—imperfect in the stock, defective in the lock, and not altogether satisfactory in the barrel. But if the Government decided what sort of weapon was to be supplied, why not also what sort of drink? He would recommend champagne if we wanted to civilize the people, and he would tell the Committee why. When the Japanese Ambassadors were over here, in order to introduce them to European civilization and manners, they were invited to a champagne luncheon, and after every glass, one of them used to heave a sigh and say—"How I do like civilization!" There was a far more important part of the plan, however, which the House of Commons would hardly endorse, and that was the sanctioning and maintaining slavery in that country. It was all very well for the Under Secretary to call it domestic slavery. Did the hon. Gentleman think he could alter the nature of slavery by an adjective? It was all very well for Lord Carnarvon to say that the hardships of the slave had been reduced almost to a minimum. Here was a paragraph from a paper which advocated the policy of our remaining on those Coasts. The Colonial Intelligencer said—
468
"The most superficial acquaintance with human nature ought to have satisfied any candid person that slavery necessarily bears the same fruits in Africa as it does in Cuba or Brazil. The special correspondents attached to Sir Garnet Wolseley's expedition found that negroes were openly bought and sold within the limits of the British Settlements; that the Courts were habitually used to assert the authority of the master over his bondsman; that shrieking women who had endeavoured to fly from captivity were bound hand and foot and dragged back to their owners; and that even the deck of an English vessel in the harbour offered no secure asylum to the fugitive slave. Nay, more, it appeared that the corps of female porters, whose services proved of the greatest value to the Army, consisted to a large extent of slaves who had been supplied by three ladies of Cape Coast Castle."
A statesman had said that liberty was commensurate with, and inseparable from, English rule; but that state of things did not look like it. A mooting had been held at Stafford House not long since, to put down the East African slave trade. At that meeting were several Members of Parliament, among whom were Mr. Pease, Mr. Shuttle-worth, Mr. Jenkins, The O'Donoghue, and Mr. Alderman M Arthur; and a resolution was passed which declared that the slave trade prevented the introduction of civilization, Christianity, and lawful commerce. And the words of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had so much of the confidence of that side of the House, and the entire confidence of the other side, were that that meeting represented the wealth, the power, and the intellect of the country; but he did not suppose that the verdict of any other assembly of his countrymen would be different. Well, let the gentlemen who had gone to that meeting show their faith by their works, and vote with him against establishing the slave trade in Africa. It had been said that nothing was so bad as a doubtful policy. But the noble Earl who introduced the policy now recommended to the Committee, had said it would be open to us at any future time to reconsider it. It would be far better, however, to consider it now than to have to reconsider it hereafter. The only argument that had been advanced in defence of it was that it would not do for us, having got the Fantees into a mess, to desert them. Well, the Ashantee power was either destroyed by the late war or it was not. If it was destroyed, in that case we might assuredly leave the

469
Fantees to themselves. If it was not destroyed, we should certainly have to fight the battle over again in a few years, and we should be fighting with the weakest tribe against those whom nature had pointed out to be the strongest. What had we to do with that country at all? The Church Catechism told us to do our duty in that station of life to which it had pleased God to call us. He did not think we were called to that station on the Gold Coast, and he maintained that the lives and safety of our own countrymen were the first duty which this House had to consider. Many years ago, the late Duke of Wellington warned us against this policy, a Committee of this House had warned us against it; but, deaf to all warnings, were we now about to go on with this mischievous system? Was it possible that there was something behind? The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) had intimated that the Government, perhaps, intended to establish a great African Empire. If so, let them say so; lot it be fairly discussed, and let the public know what we were about. There was no doubt if the Ashantees were not drubbed, they would be down upon us in a few years. That was not his own opinion merely, it was also the opinion of Colonel Evelyn Wood; and when the next war was carried on, it would not be carried on against us with seven-and-sixpenny Birmingham guns, but with something very different. Now was the time to prevent such a state of things, now was the time to consider a policy which our reason told us was senseless, which experience had proved dangerous, and which prudence had warned us would one day be disastrous to the true interests of this country.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that in the early part of the Session it was his duty to speak at length on the policy of the late Government in acquiring the forts on the Gold Coast. He stated at that time the policy of the late Government as clearly as he could, and his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. J. Holms) must excuse him if he declined to-night to return to the subject and to follow him into questions he had attempted to re-open. He felt bound to give a general approval to the policy of the Government. Considering the past, it was impossible for the Government to propose that we should
470
quit the Gold Coast, at all events immediately. In the future we must rely upon the Houssa force established by Captain Glover, the enlargement of which would increase our security. He was glad the Government had endorsed that view which he had expressed in the previous debate, and also that they had determined upon the severance of the Government of Sierra Leone from that of the Gold Coast. Separated as they were by distance, it was almost impossible they could be managed together, and difficulties must arise from the delay involved in communication with the seat of Government. Before acquiring Elmina we did all we could to ascertain the feelings of the Natives, and although some were opposed to the transfer, yet the majority were satisfied with it. The hon. Member for Hackney had spoken of our having bought these forts; that was not an accurate description of the transaction. The cession was made willingly by the Dutch Government; it was made freely, according to a policy agreed upon between the English and the Dutch Governments, and there was no payment, except a trifling one for certain fixtures. He asked those who objected to the Vote what they would have had Government do? No man of common sense and humanity could have justified our retiring from the Gold Coast at the close of the last war. Human sacrifices would not have been put an end to; the condition of no one tribe would have been improved; and any Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, could only consider what it was right, just, and honourable for the country to do. As far as he could understand, the Government did not propose a policy which pointed in any way to the continuance of domestic slavery, the existence of which had been one of the great difficulties in dealing with that Coast. He would warn the Government and the House that this question of slavery was one which must be dealt with. The best thing to be done was for England to make these dependencies Crown colonies, and govern them absolutely; but England could not possess dominions in which slavery existed in any form. We had found it was an institution we could not put an end to on this Coast; but if we were to maintain our position we must pay close attention to it; and probably our best

471
course would be to make the Natives understand the great advantages they would gain by coming more immediately under our rule, but at the same time to impress upon them that this could never be the case whilst they maintained the system of domestic slavery. We could not now abandon the Coast; we had got into a difficulty there and we must get out of it as best we could. The Government was placed in a difficult position, and the House must repose confidence in it, without criticizing details too minutely. At this time it would be unwise to reject the proposal of the Government, although he reserved to himself full right to object to particular points hereafter. He was inclined to think Elmina would be the best place for the seat of Government; but that must be a matter which must be left to the Ministry. We had not now to consider what we had to do in that country at all, but being there, and being unable to get away, what was the best way of remaining there in a manner honourable to ourselves? The Government had exercised a wise discretion; and he thanked them for the boldness with which they had submitted their policy. He had full confidence that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office would be actuated in dealing with that matter by a sincere desire to do that which was best for the Gold Coast, and also that which was most consistent with the honour and dignity of this country.
MR. HORSMANwished to address himself to the general policy of the Government rather than to points of detail. He had listened with great interest to the very able and clear speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whose frankness he thought had loft nothing to be misunderstood as to the future policy of the Government. In that policy, as explained by his hon. Friend, he saw nothing which he could not cordially support. They were there, and they should remain and do the best they could there. They had drifted into a war—a miserable war with a miserable enemy. They had succeeded in the war, and they had deservedly heaped honours and rewards upon Sir Garnet Wolseley for what he had done. The question was, were they to remain there, or were they to withdraw? And if they remained, were they to keep a
472
temporary or a permanent hold of that territory? Now, no one believed they ought to retire immediately from that country—a course which would hand over those unfortunate tribes to the vengeance of the race we had defeated, accompanied by scenes of massacre and cruelty for which all the obligations of honour and humanity called upon us not to make ourselves responsible. The English people would not have tolerated any Government for a month which allowed it to be associated with a policy so degraded as that would have boon. Well, the question practically was, whether our occupation of that territory was to be temporary or permanent. On full consideration, the Government had decided that it should be permanent. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary spoke, indeed—with a command of countenance which for one so young in office was highly creditable—of re-considering that policy; but the fact was, the Government had determined that there should be a permanent Protectorate. It was admitted that we had no great advantages of trade to expect there, no great hope of spreading civilization, no desire for an extension of territory. For what, then, did we maintain ourselves upon that Coast? He answered that we remained there because England held a position which imposed on her duties and obligations not to be measured by mere considerations of trade returns or the balance of profit and loss in the ledger. That might seem a truism with every British statesman; but of late years men's minds seemed to be unsettled as to the principles of our Colonial policy. There had been a tendency in influential quarters rather to hold our Colonial policy cheap, and to imply that it was to us a burden and an expense, and if the Colonies had not been more loyal and true to England than some of our countrymen at home, they would have been alienated by the manner in which the doctrine had been propounded that we were only nursing and educating our Colonies till they were fit to be independent, with the hope that as soon as they were fit for that independence they would assert it, and relieve us from the cost and the risk of defending them in case of attack. It was refreshing, therefore, to hear the speech of a Colonial Minister who on that point gave forth no ambiguous ut-

473
terance; it was satisfactory to the House and the country to know that at the head of the Colonial Office there was now a nobleman who appreciated the character and value of our Colonial Empire, who realized the position of England and accepted all its responsibilities with the spirit, the pride, and the true wisdom of an English statesman. In every plan there must be difficulties, and in this case the first of these was the pestilential climate. But it might be diminished by the application of science. The engineer and the physician should act as the pioneers of the army, and native troops with English officers should be substituted for English regiments. Then, as Governor on such a Coast, they must have a man of strong intellect, high capacity, able to bear heavy responsibility, fit to wield great power, and at the same time remunerated by a salary proportioned not only to the service to be performed, but also to the risk to be run. That part of the plan of the Government appeared to him the one most unsatisfactory. They had heard of the fearful consequences of starving their establishments on the Gold Coast. Well, they had now got the best man they could lay their hand on for that post of labour and risk, and they proposed to give him the miserable salary of £3,000 a-year—an amount which he wished to see doubled. A man of great capacity with a miserable salary like that would naturally look for preferment, and not care to remain in so unhealthy a place. As regarded the question of slavery, he thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) used language stronger than the occasion deserved. It was unjust to the Government to say that they were not only sanctioning, but establishing slavery. Their plan was not a final one, but only a basis for the development of a larger policy; and it was open to any hon. Member to make a proposal by which the slave should be emancipated. The Government had left the subject of slavery perfectly open, and the question was, who would give the House a practicable plan? Whenever a practicable plan on that subject was laid before the House, he believed all sides would support the Government in putting an end to slavery on the Gold Coast. As far as the general scheme of the Government was concerned, he did
474
not believe many objections would be made to it. He verily believed the Government had adopted a plan which was satisfactory to the House and the country. Of course, on such a matter there must be differences of opinion—serious differences of opinion, which deserved great respect; but, on the whole, he believed the Government had adopted a plan which would receive the greatest amount of approval and general support. He could only express his wish that they might have equally sound and national administration in other Departments of the Government. He read, with some regret, a speech delivered at a banquet last night, in which the head of the Foreign Department stated that the first object of the Government was to preserve peace. He demurred to that. He contended that that was an unsound, a novel, and an un-English doctrine, and that the first duty of the Government was to uphold the interests and the honour of the country. When they were incompatible with the preservation of peace, the Government, however reluctantly, ought to accept the dire necessity of war instead of sacrificing the honour and the interests of the country. He felt it the more necessary to say this because he could not forget that between the noble Earl who was at the head of the Foreign Office and those who were of the Manchester School there was known to be a distinct line of demarcation, and that under his administration—["Order."]
THE CHAIRMANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Question before the Committee was the Supplementary Vote with reference to the Gold Coast.
MR. HORSMANinsisted that the question before the Committee was Colonial and Foreign matters. ["No."] Then he could only say that the head of the Colonial Department had uttered sound opinions with regard to our Colonial policy, and he regretted that equally sound and satisfactory opinions had not been uttered by the head of the Foreign Department.
MR. W. M'ARTHURcongratulated Her Majesty's Government on the course they had pursued in relation to this question, and was certain that it would be approved by the country generally. If they had taken active steps to put down slavery on the Gold Coast, the state of things there would now be very

475
different from what it was. In order to show the capacity of the Natives for administration, he would refer to the part they took in the government of Trinidad and of Jamaica; and he might also refer to the case of Bishop Crowder to show how feasible it was to establish Christianity amongst the Natives. He was much gratified to hear the statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies that the policy of the Government, with reference to the Gold Coast, would not be a starving policy. Although the sum of £20,000 was in the Treasury chest, no step had been taken to improve the sanitary condition of the Gold Coast, which condition might be compared to that of a dunghill. As The Times correspondent had suggested, if the Government would take possession of the Gold Coast, slavery would be abolished there as it had been abolished in Gambia and in Sierra Leone. He hoped the Government would put down domestic slavery on the Gold Coast. They could deal with that matter successfully if they wished. He cordially approved of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and believed that if proper men were selected for its government, the Settlement would prove a prosperous, thriving, and vigorous Colony.
MR. T. E. SMITHwas sure that the general feeling of the House and the country was that, as regarded the Gold Coast, we had been the victim of circumstances, and thought it would be injurious to the character of the nation and unfair to the merchants who had invested their capital in the trade of the Coast to give up the system of protection under which they had acted, and which had so long been persevered in by England. At the same time, he considered we were laying up a stock of trouble for ourselves unless we from the very first determined to put down domestic slavery.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, there was no wish on the part of the Opposition to protract the debate, but he thought that the question of domestic slavery on the Gold Coast was one which could not be hurried over. No doubt the policy of the Government on that Coast generally commended itself to the country; but they would get into great embarrassments if they did not at once face the question of domestic slavery in the spirit of the great precedents which had been established in this country. They should
476
take care that such slavery was not allowed to exist on any territory under British rule.
MR. HANBURYsaid, he wished to support the policy of the Government as a whole in maintaining our position on the Gold Coast, and could not support the proposal that we should abandon that position. He would, therefore, withdraw his Motion, and let the sense of the House be taken on the other proposal.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 267; Noes 47: Majority 220.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £170,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for Contributions in aid of Local Assessments for the Relief of the Poor, and for other purposes, in respect of certain descriptions of Government Property, and for Salaries and Expenses connected with the Investigation of Claims for Rates on Government Property, or for Contributions in lieu of Rates."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreminded the Committee that in bringing forward his Financial Statement he mentioned that it was intended to propose a Vote for the purpose of meeting increased contributions on behalf of Government and in respect of Government property towards local rates. He had thought it convenient to bring this Vote before the Committee at a time when they had before them a Valuation Bill, which took away exemptions hitherto enjoyed, and in that respect resembled the Bill of the late Government, but which differed in one or two particulars from the latter measure, and more especially in not making any provision for rendering Government property liable to rates. When the Bill of last year was discussed some difficulty was found in arriving at a decision as to the mode in which Government property should be rated, and he believed the difficulty was one which it would not be easy to overcome. At all events, it had appeared to the present Government that they should endeavour to meet the case rather by a vote in aid of the rates, than by an Act of Parliament. With this view he now proposed that the Committee should vote a sum of £170,000, in addition to the amount—about

477
£63,000, he thought—which had already, as in former years, been voted. In order to enable the Committee to understand the principles on which it was proposed to dispose of this money he would read a Memorandum drawn up at the Treasury, and which, though not a formal document, stated substantially the plan on which it was intended to proceed. It was as follows:—
"We have had under our consideration the subject of the rules which ought to govern the distribution of the proposed increased grant of Parliament for contributions in lieu of rates in respect of property occupied for the public service. We adopt the principle that property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with the other property in the parishes in which it is situated, having due regard to its character in each case. The contribution will be made to the poor and all other local rates levied in the parish in which the property is situate, and no parish will be excluded from such contributions on the ground that the Government property is less than a certain minimum. We feel it necessary, considering how widely different are the various kinds of Government property, and how impossible it is to apply to all of those the rules of assessment applicable to private property, to retain in our own hands the valuation of all Government property with the intention of adopting in each case as far as possible the same principles as are applicable to the valuation of private property. Thus, property occupied as ex officio residences or quarters for officers of the Government will be assessed on the estimated rateable value which would attach to such premises if they were in private occupation and liable to assessment to the local rates. The same rule will, as far as practicable, be applied in determining the rateable value of all Government hereditaments occupied as Post Offices, Coastguard Stations, County Courts, Police Courts, Probate Registries, Inland Revenue buildings, Custom House, &c. The rateable value of the whole of the naval establishments and of the principal military establishments was agreed upon between the Government and the parishes in which they are situated in the year 1860. The valuations then agreed upon will be revised with reference to the improvements and additions which have taken place at such establishments since that date. The valuations in these cases will be taken as a guide in fixing the rateable value of the barracks and other buildings at such of the military stations as were not brought within the arrangement of 1860, and also in fixing the rateable value of the military, naval, and convict prisons. If in any particular case the principles of valuation applicable to private property cannot reasonably be adopted, we shall inquire into and decide upon each such case upon its merits; but in no case will we contribute less than was payable on the assessment of the property at the time the Government acquired it. Hereditaments under the control of the Commissioners of Woods, &c, not being in the occupation of any other occupier will be the subject of contributions determined on principles similar to
478
those hereinbefore made applicable to Government property. These regulations will apply to Government property in Scotland and Ireland as well as to that in England."
MR. HANKEYsaid, he had applied at the Vote Office for a copy of the Minute of the Treasury on this subject, and was informed that it could not be delivered till to-morrow morning. Under these circumstances, he put it to the Government whether they would press the Vote that evening.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONremarked that in objecting to the Vote he thought they were quarrelling with their broad and butter.
MR. MUNDELLAcomplained that the business in question was not upon the Paper of the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member was under a mistake, as the matter did appear on the Vote.
MR. STANSFELDconsidered that the Government would do well, under the circumstances, to postpone the Vote.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, he had no wish whatever to press it unduly. He was under the impression that the Notice Paper had been circulated; but as it appeared not to have been sent out till that day, he would agree to the Vote being postponed.
Mr. FAWCETTsaid, the House ought not to give the Government power to allocate this large sum in any manner they liked, perhaps in favour of particular localities. He thought they ought to have details as to its proposed method of distribution.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

FACTORIES (HEALTH OF WOMEN, &c.) BILL,— [BILL 115.]
(Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Viscount Sandon.)
FACTORIES (HEALTH OF WOMEN, &c.) BILL,— [BILL 115.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 9 (Notices of hours of employment and mode of employment of children.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved to insert the following clause:—
  (Abolition of recovery of lost time under 7 and 8 Vic, c. 15, ss. 33 and 34.)

  479
  "In a factory to which this Act applies, a child, young person, or woman shall not be employed in the recovery of lost time in pursuance of the Factory Acts, 1833 to 1856, or any of them, during any hours during which they cannot he employed in pursuance of the other provisions of this Act."
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. W. SHAWcomplained that Clause 10 had been struck out of the Bill without Notice, and contended that that would inflict serious injury upon the silk trade in Ireland.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the original clause could not have been rejected without Notice, as his Amendment to omit it was on the Paper nearly a fortnight before he moved it. One of the hon. Members who advocated the omission of the clause represented Dungannon (Mr. T. A. Dickson), and spoke from his own experience of the abuses perpetrated in the North of Ireland under this clause. If they gave permission to make up for lost time for six months, it was possible to keep up one hour per day in perpetuity; so that a great deal of time could be recovered that was never lost.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they were practically endeavouring to prevent women and children from working overtime, and he could not consent to omit the clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added.
  Clause 4 (Hours of employment of children, young persons, and women in factory, where period from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 2, lines 14 to 17, to leave out subsection (4), and insert the following subsection:—
  "(4.) A child, young person, or woman shall not on Saturday (a) If not less than one hour is allowed for meals on that day, be employed in any manufacturing process after one o'clock in the afternoon, or for any purpose whatever after half-past one o'clock in the afternoon; and (b) If less than one hour is allowed for meals on that day, be employed in any manufacturing-process after half an hour after noon, or for any purpose whatever after one o'clock in the afternoon."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

COURTS (STRAITS SETTLEMENTS) BILL.— [LORDS.] [BILL 126.]
(Mr. James Lowther.)
COURTS (STRAITS SETTLEMENTS) BILL.— [LORDS.] [BILL 126.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTtook objection to the Bill as imperfect, and as of a nature calculated to involve this country in wars with uncivilized Powers. The object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to exercise jurisdiction over persons who were not subjects of Her Majesty, and who were not subjects of any civilized Power.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was willing to leave out the words referred to.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  VOTES AT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Bill to remove doubts as to the validity of Votes given at a Parliamentary Election to a candidate alleged to have been guilty of corrupt practices, and thereby disqualified from sitting in Parliament, ordered to be brought in by Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Lord FRANCIS CONYNGHAM, and Captain NOLAN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under "The Land Drainage Act, 1861," relating to Lay, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 170.]

  MERCHANT SHIPS (MEASUREMENT OF TONNAGE) BILL.
  Select Committee nominated:—Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Sir JOHN HAY, Admiral ELLIOT, Mr. SAMUDA, Mr. LAIRD, Mr. BATES, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. EUSTACE SMITH, Mr. GRIEVE, Mr. DAVID JENKINS, Mr. HAMOND, Mr. CLIFTON, Mr. CORRY", and Mr. RATHBONE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.
  And, on June 26, Mr. PULESTON, Mr. MAC-GREGOR added.
  And, on June 30, Lord ESLINGTON, Mr. GOURLEY added.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Representative Peerage of Scotland and Ireland, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Colonial Attorneys Relief Act Amendment* (134); Working Men's Dwellings* (135); Glebe Lands Sale * (136); Cruelty to Animals Law Amendment* (137).
Second Reading—Alkali Act (1863) Amendment (115); Militia Law Amendment * (110).
Committee—Report—Herring Fishery Barrels * (104); Canadian Stock (Stamp Duty on Transfers) * (124).
Report—Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment * (85).
Third Reading—Public Worship Regulation (123); Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment (128); Holyhead Old Harbour Road * (83).

ALKALI ACT (1863) AMENDMENT BILL.
(No. 115.)—(The Lord Walsingham.)
ALKALI ACT (1863) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD WALSINGHAM, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to amend the Alkali Act of 1863. That Act was framed and passed as the result of an inquiry made under the direction of the late Lord Derby, who moved that a Committee should be appointed to consider the effect of noxious vapours evolved in certain manufacturing processes. The operation of the Act was limited to works for "the manufacture of alkali; sulphate of soda, or sulphate of potash in which muriatic acid gas is evolved." At the time when that Act was passed there were not a very large number of such works in existence; and although the damage done owing to the absence of any precautions against the

  387
  escape of noxious gases was considerable, it was thought to be sufficient by the provisions of that Act to secure that not more than 5 per cent of the muriatic acid gas evolved should be permitted to escape, while the other 95 per cent should be condensed to the satisfaction of an Inspector appointed under the Act. Since that time the alkali works had increased to the number of 130 or 140, distributed chiefly along the banks of the Mersey and the Tyne. There were some 30 in Lancashire and Cheshire, and the rest scattered—2 near Bristol, 4 or 5 in Staffordshire, 6 or 7 in Ireland, and 7 or 8 in Scotland. And whereas the Act of 1863 was sufficient to control the effect of the smaller number of works, it had been found utterly insufficient to prevent very serious damage from being done, now that the number of works had so largely increased. The nature of the damage was such as to destroy the vegetation, annihilating the trees and crops in the neighbouring country, and rendering it almost uninhabitable. It had been supposed that the health of the cattle was affected by the deposit of poisonous acids upon the food which they ate; and it was beyond dispute that the value of the land for purposes of cultivation was very considerably reduced. One of the chief points in this Bill was the new test proposed to be applied. It was obvious that whereas 5 per cent of the whole quantity evolved might not be of any serious consequence when the works were few and the quantity therefore limited, 1 per cent. might now cause greater injury, since there were a much greater number of works; and it was proposed by this Bill to provide that the muriatic acid gas evolved in such work should be condensed to such an extent that in each cubic foot of air, smoke, or chimney gases escaping from the works into the atmosphere, there should not be contained more than one fifth part of a grain of muriatic acid. There were two advantages in this new test. The first was that without unduly interfering with the business of the manufacturers, the majority of whom had shown themselves quite able to keep within these limits, it would materially diminish the quantity of this noxious gas daily distributed; and, secondly, it would prevent what was quite possible under the old Act—namely, the discharge of a
  388
  large quantity during one hour, although during the 24 hours the average was not sufficient to cause any infringement of the Act. It had been proved that in certain states of the atmosphere the mischief occasioned by the escape of these gases was greater than at other times, and it was found that often in a single night the leaves of the trees were made to droop or the crops were destroyed by some sudden or unusual escape. This was more especially the case with fruit trees and seed crops when in bloom. There were various manufactures from which these nuisances arose. There was the manufacture of soda, evolving muriatic acid gas; of sulphuric acid, evolving nitrous acid; of ammonia salts, evolving sulphuretted hydrogen; and, moreover, the process of smelting copper, evolving large quantities of sulphurous acid—perhaps the most injurious of all. The reason why the operation of the Act of 1863 was confined to muriatic acid appeared to have been that no sufficient method of condensation had at that time been devised for the other gases evolved; and although in some cases, perhaps, it might be difficult, even now, for an Inspector to test their qualities and to suggest means for their reduction, yet science had so far advanced that it might be hoped that there would be no practical objection to the requirements of the Bill in this respect. It appeared from the report of the Inspectors in 1872 that a large quantity of sulphuric and sulphurous acids was allowed to escape from the copper-smelting works, and that they had proved highly destructive to vegetation. It was therefore proposed by this Bill to include "the formation of any sulphate in the treatment of copper ores by common salt or other chlorides as a manufacture of sulphate of soda" within the meaning of the Act. He believed there were about 12 of these works at Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow, &c. The owners were for the most part large capitalists, and the adoption of this Act would not put them to any serious expense. It was provided by the 5th clause that in addition to the condensation of muriatic gas, the owner of every alkali work should use the best practicable means of preventing the discharge of all other noxious gases from his works, and in the event of neglect to

  389
  do so was made liable to a heavy penalty. It was hoped that the adoption of this Bill would secure the removal of a serious nuisance, against which the remedies hitherto provided were now quite insufficient, owing to the large increase of the manufacture. There had been always a great difficulty in tracing the damage done to any particular works,—it was done at night and in a few hours,—and those by whose carelessness or neglect it was caused often escaped unpunished. The Bill could not be regarded as an interference with the trade of the various manufacturers; indeed, it might be said that in one way it would be an economy to them, inasmuch as the muriatic acid saved by the process of condensation was a marketable commodity, and of value in many branches of industry; while sulphuric acid was even more valuable—and for that reason it had been argued that it was less necessary to insist that it should not be wasted; but it was also held to be more injurious to vegetation than muriatic acid. The manufacturers had been consulted upon this Bill, and had behaved extremely well. They had shown every inclination to meet the wishes of the Government in carrying out its provisions, and the Bill was intended, so far as it was possible, to be in conformity with their wishes and interests, while affording that protection which was due to the public.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a,".—(The Lord Walsingham.)
  The EARL OF RAVENSWORTHsaid, that the Government had in his opinion done well in proposing this Extension of the Act of 1863, though he thought legislation on the subject might well be carried still further. The Act of 1863 was practically a dead letter, and fresh legislation in the same direction was daily becoming more and more necessary.
  LORD EGERTONalso thought that further legislation in the direction of this Bill was much required, and expressed his concurrence with the opinion of the noble Earl who had preceded him, that the Act of 1863 was practically inoperative in respect of a very great evil.
  Motion agreed to, Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
(Nos. 30,62,96, 96*, 123.)

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that he had supported—or rather he had not opposed—the Bill, for a reason which seemed paradoxical, but was sometimes sound, that he thought it would in some respects work badly. He indeed thought the machinery it proposed to set in motion not the best. He regretted the loss of the ancient judicial power of the Bishop, and did not see the necessity for setting up any new tribunal. If the proposal had been simply that the Bishop should act with his Chancellor, who should be a good lawyer, and that there should be one single appeal to the new Court of Appeal about to be created, that would have been enough. Still, he did not doubt it would so far work fairly well; nor could he dissent from those who condemned those clergymen who set at defiance the law of the land. As he understood it, they held there were two supreme laws in the country, one of the State, the other of the Church. This question was raised about what was known as the Purchas Judgment, which was said to be bad law. It was open to anyone to say that—he himself believed that the judgment in the Purchas Case was not good law—being inconsistent with what had been declared to be the settled law. It was stated that it was a judgment obtained by fraud, and in an undefended ease. Well, all that, if it were so, might form a ground for getting the judgment reversed. But these persons went on to say that because the law was bad, they would not obey it. Now, that was rebellion. Of course it might be said that sometimes rebellion was justifiable, and the case of Hampden and the Ship Money might be cited. But that was one of those cases which were said to be "justified by success;" and it had always been held by casuists that they could not be drawn into precedents. Until a judgment was reversed it was law and ought to be obeyed. He was aware that that judgment did not proprio vigore bind all the clergy, but only if they were required by their

  391
  Ordinary to obey it; but that was not material, as the clergy in question declared they would not in any event obey it. Now, in regard to many of the points of dispute, be could not but think that if St. Paul were among us now and heard the disputes raised upon them, being matters of ornament and ceremonial, we might say of him, as he said of some in his day, "Would he not say that ye were mad?" It was admitted that position was only symbolic; and no symbol could be essential. He was ashamed that, in the presence of the Roman Catholic Members of that House, and of the Dissenters outside it, such questions should be discussed among Churchmen in a manner which exposed the Church and religion to the attacks of scoffers. As to remedies, he believed the true remedy was to "grasp the nettle" and enter on a revision of the law. He had said that he thought the Bill might do good because it would work badly; meaning this, that they were attempting to put in force a law which was intricate, inconsistent, partly obsolete; and it would force on them the necessity of further measures. He was glad to hear that the question of the revision of the Rubrics was to be again referred to Convocation by Letters of Business, and if this Bill passed it would bring on the question of Convocation itself and lead to the reform of that body. Years ago he expressed his opinion as to the necessity of such a reform, both in the interest of the clergy, which Convocation imperfectly represented, and of the laity, which it did not represent at all. In his opinion, the proper way would be to amend the law by allowing large liberty in both directions. No doubt there would be need for discretion as to what should be allowed within the limits, for what might be legal might not always be expedient. But that discretion should be in the hands of the Bishops, and, he thought, should be largely exercised according to the feelings of the congregations. Take the case of two churches in Marylebone, St. Andrews' and All Saints'. It would be tyranny to interfere with them—they did no harm to others, and for themselves they were the best judges. He could not but express his earnest hope that this Bill would not be administered in a one-sided way. It had been assumed by many persons that it must be unilateral; that it was to be
  392
  used only against the "Romanizers;" and the most rev. Primate had told them that this was a great crisis for the principles of the Reformation. Those principles—that was, those of the English Reformation—they all wished to uphold, but they were not by any means what some ultra-Protestants in those days supposed. Whether the Bill worked well or ill, it would, he thought, tend to bring about a more perfect measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the question which it will be my duty to put in a few minutes to your Lordships will be, "That this Bill be now read a third time;" and at this stage of the measure I should think I departed widely from my duty if I attempted to enter into arguments or criticism as to the merits or the demerits of this Bill or of any one of its details. But I cannot but think it may be useful if I delay your Lordships for a short time while I call attention to another consideration with reference to this measure. I have seldom seen a measure passing through Parliament the effect and scope of which seem to have been so much misunderstood and misapprehended out-of-doors as have been the effect and scope of the one now before your Lordships. I am not altogether surprised that this should have been the ease—for this is a measure which has been altered very largely from time to time during its progress through the House. I do not say that to impute blame to anyone in regard of this Bill. I believe it was almost a necessity in a case of this kind; and the forms of Parliament contemplate and provide for changes in a Bill during its progress through both Houses of Parliament. When a Bill passes with but little change, I think it generally happens that the absence of change proceeds from a want of interest in the matter with which it deals; and I am not surprised that in a Bill dealing with a question which so deeply interests public opinion, large changes should have been made during its progress through your Lordships' House. But although your Lordships have been aware, from the materials at your command, or from your presence on the various occasions when the Bill has been under discussion, of the nature of the Bill itself, and of the various Amendments which have been made in it, your Lordships must

  393
  bear in mind that the same opportunity of acquiring knowledge on those points is not enjoyed by various classes out-of-doors, and especially by persons in distant parts of the country. I believe that views were taken up out-of-doors on this measure in its early form, and that views were taken up out-of-doors of the various Amendments which were founded on entire misapprehension; and, further, I feel convinced that considerations applicable not to the Bill in its present shape, but to the Bill in its original form, and applicable not to the Amendments which had been adopted, but to changes which were proposed and not adopted, continue to influence the minds of those who are not fully aware of the nature of the alterations which have really been made in the Bill. I do not, therefore, my Lords, propose to enter into the question whether the changes that have been made in this Bill are expedient or inexpedient. The object I have in view is to call your Lordships' attention to what the Bill is now with reference to the state of the law. I observe the statement made, and frequently repeated, that this Bill contains an attack or an assault on doctrine. I do not know whether that supposition would be or would not be correct if some of the changes which were proposed had been adopted by your Lordships; but I think I am right in stating as to the Bill in its present shape that it is an entire misapprehension to suppose that in any part, from beginning to end, it deals with doctrine. No offence is created by this Bill either as to doctrine or as to ritual. One clause, and only one clause, contains a reference to acts which are illegal, and your Lordships anxiously considered every word of that clause, and required that it should only be an expression of acts which are now illegal, and should not create any new illegality. And that clause, so far from touching doctrine, touches nothing but the question of ritual, and the question of the structure and adornments of churches. So much for the statement that the Bill is an attack on doctrine. Another statement is that the Bill alters for the worse the status of the clergy of the Church. Under the present law clergymen are subjected to certain legal processes for certain offences, and the statement that the status of the clergy is altered by this Bill would mean that some new and unprecedented
  394
  mode of dealing with those offences, and a mode of which the clergy have a right to complain, is introduced by this Bill. Now, the Bill appears to me to be simply one by which the procedure is changed to a considerable extent; and I am at a loss to understand the argument that the clergy are possessed of any vested estate in the delays, or expenses, or cumbrousness of the present legal machinery, and can on that ground fairly resist any change. That was not the view of the clergy when the Church Discipline Act was passed; and if that argument had any weight now I do not see why the laity might not equally pretend, with regard to civil proceedings, that they had a vested interest in whatever imperfections existed in the law, and why they might not refuse to assent to any alteration whatever. Let me now point out to your Lordships what has been the nature of the procedure to which the clergy have been subjected for the last 34 years, and then ask your Lordships to compare them with the changes made by this Bill. The procedure under the Church Discipline Act, passed in 1840 for dealing with ecclesiastical offences, is twofold. The longer course of procedure is this:—Under the Church Discipline Act proceedings may be taken against a clergyman who is supposed to have committed some offence against the ecclesiastical law upon the motion of any person whatever. The Bishop may commence proceedings either by his own mere motion or on the application of any other person; and the proceedings may be taken, too, without any security being taken for the payment of costs. The Bishop may, indeed, if he is called upon to proceed for his own protection, ask the person who puts him in motion to give him some security for his costs; but, as far as the person proceeded against is concerned, no security whatever can be demanded. Then, the Bishop has a discretion, as he has under this Bill, as to whether or not he will proceed. Supposing him to proceed, the first step in the longer process is to issue a commission of inquiry, one member of the commission being the Vicar-General, another an Archdeacon or a Rural Dean within the diocese, and the remainder being persons whom the Bishop may think fit to appoint. These five persons are to hold an inquiry, to summon and

  395
  examine witnesses, and to report merely whether there is a primâ facie case for proceeding further. If the person charged is reported against, he can either submit, and the Bishop may sentence him, and the matter is at an end; or if he does not submit, the next stage is the hearing before the Bishop, which is not the hearing in the Consistorial Court which the noble Lord at the Table (Lord Lyttelton) just now lamented the loss of, but a special hearing before the Bishop and three Assessors, one of whom is to be an Advocate of five years' standing, another the Dean of his cathedral, church, or his Archdeacon or Chancellor, and the third any person whatever. The Bishop has not to pronounce his decision by his Assessors, as in the Consistory Court, but if he pleases, may decide against the will and judgment of the Assessors. The third stage is an appeal to the Provincial Court in which the diocese is situated; and the fourth and final stage is an appeal to Her Majesty in Council. There is no security taken for costs and these four hearings, with all the attendant expenses. Now, it may be said that these four hearings are in themselves a protection of which a clergyman ought not to be deprived. But there is another and shorter course which may be taken under the Church Discipline Act. The clergyman has not a right to all these stages, because the Bishop may dispense with the inquiry before the Commissioners and with the hearing before himself, and at once send the case to the Provincial Court, from which there would be, as before, an appeal to the Queen in Council. Those are the two courses which may be taken under the Church Discipline Act; but I must say a word more with regard to the Act itself. Your Lordships have heard in this House about the enforcing a decree pendente lite. Now, there is a provision in the Church Discipline Act which may perhaps have escaped your Lordships' notice, but which, I must confess, I have never read without a feeling of profound amazement—for, as far as I am aware, it is a provision which is utterly unknown in any other branch or part of our law. By this provision the Bishop may at any time after proceedings have commenced, and while the guilt or innocence of the person accused is still undetermined, of his own mere motion absolutely inhibit and suspend the clergyman
  396
  from the performance of the whole of his functions, may turn him out of his church and out of his parish, may replace him by another clergyman, whose recompense is to be defrayed out of the profits of the benefice, and may issue a sequestration of the revenues. The Bishop has this power absolutely if he can bring himself to think that scandal would ensue from the clergyman continuing to exercise his functions, or that the ministration of the clergyman while the charge was undetermined would be useless. Now, that is the culminating provision of the Church Discipline Act, to which the clergy have been subjected for the last 34 years, and from which they will be liberated by the passing of this Bill. Now, let me ask your Lordships to compare this with the provisions of the present Bill. Under this Bill what I may term official complaints are to be made. The Bishop is not to proceed, as under the Church Discipline Act, on the motion of any person, but he must be put in motion either by the Archdeacon, the Rural Dean, the churchwarden, or by three parishioners of the parish, whose combination is of itself a proof of the interest they take in the affairs of the parish; and they are even then to make a special declaration provided in this Bill. The Bishop is to retain the discretion he at present possesses, as to whether he will proceed or not; but if he declines to proceed he must give his reasons in writing. Security for costs is to be required by this Bill as it stands. Then, there is to be a hearing before the Judge to be appointed under this Bill, and that Judge is charged with the duty of simplifying the facts and reducing them to a special case which will become a statement of the matter at issue between the parties. If any one is not satisfied an appeal is provided. The clause, however, provides that if at an earlier stage the parties are willing to accept the decision of the Bishop without appeal the matter may thus be settled. With regard to the execution of the appeal, the Ultimate Court of Appeal has the right to suspend the execution of the decree if it thinks fit. I have gone over these points of difference in order to compare the present state of the law with the change effected by this Bill. Perhaps I may be asked, what, in substance and in words, the changes proposed by this Bill really

  397
  amount to? I have endeavoured to put before my own mind what will be the operation of this Bill and I find that it effects four cardinal changes. In the first place it secures authority and uniformity of decision arising from one permanent first-class Judge for the whole Kingdom, acting where necessary on the spot, in place of a number of shifting and inferior Diocesan Judges or Assessors. In the second place, the Bill secures the removal of the Bishop out of the arena of contentious litigation with his clergy, and the limitation of his judicial office to cases of consensual jurisdiction in the nature of arbitration. Thirdly, the Bill secures the confining of litigation, where it must be resorted to, to one original hearing before a competent Judge, and an appeal to the highest tribunal. And lastly, the Bill provides for the simplification of procedure and lessening of expense, by substituting for the old and cumbrous ecclesiastical machinery the simple procedure of a special case, and judgment upon it. These are the four cardinal points sought to be established by this measure. Your Lordships may entertain different views upon these matters, and I can understand the clergy and laity to take different opinions upon some of these points, but what I cannot understand is that those who contend that these provisions are wise or unwise, expedient or inexpedient, should regard them as attacking in any way the doctrines of the Church, and that there is here any attempt to lower the status of the clergy. Whether this Bill may or may not work with that advantage which those who support it expect, it is impossible it can be productive of any injury to the Church.
  EARL NELSONsaid, he regretted that this Bill should have been brought forward at that moment, for it had led to much irritation among the clergy, and much misunderstanding of its object and scope among the clergy and the laity alike. It could not be wondered at, considering the excited state of public feeling out-of-doors, and the time chosen for the introduction of the Bill, that it should be supposed to interfere with doctrine; or that it was intended in some degree to supersede the Clergy Discipline Act. Certainly, if the Bishop of Peterborough's clauses had been agreed to, it would have had both these effects, and have gone a long way to undermine
  398
  the union between Church and State. His object, however, in rising, was not to oppose the Bill, but to deprecate hasty and untimely legislation. He would remind their Lordships that some years ago Convocation desired to remedy the cumbrous machinery and costly processes of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and therefore it was not fair to say that the clergy wished the present procedure to be maintained. During the recent discussions, two remarkable cases, illustrative of the lawlessness of the clergy had been brought forward—one by the most rev. Primate who brought forward the case of the altar cards, and the other quoted by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) from a book recently published. Now, he (Earl Nelson) was informed that both the altar cards and the book were the production of one and the same clergyman—the Rev. Orby Shipley—who, he was told, was not a leader in this movement, and was not a beneficed clergyman of the Church. This Bill, therefore, would not touch him. No doubt there had been a great deal of indiscretion and apparent lawlessness among certain of the clergy; but he thought it right to say they had some justification in the Ornaments' Rubric, which declared that "all the things that were in use in the second year of Edward VI. should be retained." But as there was no definition of what things were lawful and might be retained, some of these clergymen maintained—and they were logically correct in their argument—that those things which were of use in the old Church, and were not forbidden by the rubrics of the new, were now lawful. There had been some alterations in the Prayer Book, but that rubric remained unaltered, as it stood at a date immediately subsequent to the Reformation. This was historically true, and it was only right that it should be known that those clergymen who were called lawless really had a rule and law to guide them in this matter. He was glad to hear that those clergymen who had taken extreme views, and even the gentleman in question, had signed a declaration stating their willingness to obey the rubrics as they were explained by the Synods of the Church. Many a clergyman of moderate view, whom he met at meetings of Church Societies, regarded the Purchas Judgment as being merely ad hoc for the particular

  399
  tiling, and not as laying down any new law for the Church. He had pointed out to those gentlemen that the clergy would have occupied a better position if they had obeyed the judgment, and then protested against it; but from what he had heard during the discussions on this Bill, he must say there was a great deal to justify the view they had taken of that judgment and its interpretation of the law of the Church. It was a judgment pronounced in an undefended case, and could not be received as a proper interpretation of the law until another judgment or the same judgment was given in a defended case. There was, therefore, something right at the bottom of their supposed lawlessness. He must say a few words as to his altered feeling in regard to the Bill. It had been introduced in a crude form, without consulting the clergy, and in a manner to irritate their feelings; but, although the most rev. Primate did not seem very willing to submit the Bill to Convocation until his request had been backed up by the noble Duke below, and by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, it had been submitted to Convocation, and the amendments proposed by Convocation had been accepted. By these Amendments the Bill had been very greatly altered—it was, in fact, a new Bill from that which had been laid on the Table. He was happy to find that when Letters of Business were asked for by Convocation, the Government at once expressed their willingness to ask the Crown for them, and he only regretted that they had not been asked for at the beginning of the Session; and the Lord Chancellor had stated that if they had been asked for they would have been granted. That would have enabled them to pass a measure dealing with the whole subject of Church discipline, and in a way which would have received the assent of the clergy. Unhappily, it had been otherwise. But if the right rev. Bench guided Convocation in this matter wisely, he believed the time for conciliation had not gone by. He thought that if a few concessions were made to meet the wishes of congregations, the Bill would come into peaceable operation; and he thought that if the Bill of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London)—the Prayer Book (Rubrics) Bill—were passed, there would be a good opportunity to provide for many things which
  400
  had been referred to their by Lordships during the discussions on the Bill. The noble Lord who usually sat on the cross benches (Earl Grey) had stated that what he wished was, not so much that what was illegal should be put down, as to prevent the introduction of things which were inexpedient to unwilling congregations. He believed Convocation was the only body that could properly make regulations defining or altering the rubrics. It was said that Convocation did not properly represent the clergy, and did not represent the laity at all. But just as an unreformed Parliament might so far represent the people and reform itself, having regard to public feeling, so Convocation, as the constitutional body representing the clergy, would take care to find out the views of the clergy; while, with regard to the laity, he did not think any harm would arise even if Convocation, as at present constituted, should propose a sensible amendment and explanation of the rubrics; because the laity of the Church were represented by Parliament, and nothing that Convocation did could have effect without the approval of Parliament. He had to thank their Lordships for the kind manner in which they had heard him now, and during the wearisome debates in Committee on this Bill. His opposition had not been factious. A great number of the clergy had petitioned against the Bill, and he had received many representations urging him to take the course he had pursued. He would add, as something had been said about reprisals, that the High Church party would not be a party to any reprisals unduly to enforce the law, because they felt that, in evangelizing the mass of the people, a too strict uniformity would be likely to hinder the special work which the Church had in hand.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he congratulated their Lordships that this discussion on the third reading of the Bill was passing through a quieter atmosphere than those on some previous stages. So far as he was personally concerned, he would be almost entirely satisfied to leave the question on the footing on which it had been placed by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. Nothing could be calmer, more impartial, or, he might say, colourless as regarded feeling, and nothing could more truly and fairly represent the facts

  401
  of the case. He desired to state that when the Bill first came before the House he was one of those who felt considerable doubt and difficulty in accepting it as produced by the right rev. Bench. He overcame his scruples out of deference to the quarter from whence it proceeded. Coming from the most rev. Primate, who spoke, of course, with the greatest authority, backed by the almost unanimous opinion of the Episcopal Bench, it was impossible not to read the Bill a second time. The Bill had since undergone great modification; scarcely a vestige of its original structure remained; it was now merely the ghost of the past. There was hardly a single clause in the Bill that remained as originally introduced. He was amazed, therefore, at what had been said out-of-doors against the Bill—because it was clear that the Bill was now merely a Bill for the discipline of the Church—a Bill which differed very slightly indeed from the Church Discipline Act which had been in force for so many years, only the provisions of this measure were not so stringent. When, therefore, he saw the letters which were written and the complaints which were made with regard to the Bill, he was reminded of those fights in the Middle Ages where, in the midst of the heat, confusion, dust, and turmoil, a great noise was created, great alarm spread far and wide, but very few wounds were inflicted, and no lives lost. He was quite content that the Bill should go down to the other House, if it only had the effect which his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack stated it would have—of simplifying procedure and cheapening the expense, which was no doubt very great, and sometimes intolerable. With respect to the issue of Letters of Business to Convocation, he certainly had no fault to find. Their Predecessors in office had set the example, and set it wisely. He was free to confess that, apart from Constitutional considerations, Convocation seemed to him a body of men who, having devoted their lives to the consideration of theological questions, were at all events as fit as any other body to take into consideration and express their opinion on these matters. A few days since he happened to come across a Report drawn up by a Committee of Convocation on these very questions of ritual. It was most temperately and impartially expressed,
  402
  and if Convocation addressed themselves to their present task in the same spirit they exhibited in 1866, they would render good service, for which they would deserve the gratitude of Churchmen in general. But he must add one caution—that, in removing the responsibility of this matter from the broad shoulders of Parliament to Convocation, they would have a harder and more difficult task, from his point of view, than Parliament would have had. Parliament could only have dealt with it by relaxing some of the civil penalties attaching to particular acts which touched no man's conscience, and could not have affected the decision of the Church; but when Convocation dealt with the subject, they must look at it from a theological point of view, and the difficulty would be considerably enhanced. He hoped that Convocation would deal with the subject in a prudent and impartial spirit, in a spirit of forbearance, and under the influence of that law of charity which was above all rubrics, and which could only lead to a wholesome result.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he was glad to observe the change which had come over the tone and temper of some men's minds upon this subject, who began to perceive that there were real evils to be remedied, and that the remedy now proposed, whether efficient or not to cure all those evils, was certainly not one of too severe and drastic a character. It would not become him to express any anticipation of what might occur elsewhere. No doubt his noble Friends opposite would be able to exercise—and he trusted would exercise, so far as was consistent with their duty—the influence belonging to their position over the course of events. All he would say—and he was bound to say it—was this—if this measure was to fail, he rejoiced that the responsibility for its failure would not rest with their Lordships. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had made it quite unnecessary for him to say anything in explanation of the true character of the measure or of its provisions as they then stood. To him it seemed no reproach to the wisdom of the most rev. Primate that he should have introduced the Bill in a form very different from that in which it would leave their Lordships' House. If he had not introduced the Bill in that form

  403
  and according to the advice he had received, there would not have been the advantage which these discussions had procured; during which the most rev. Primate had manifested no disposition to reject any Amendment, no matter from what quarter it came, provided it tended to the improvement of the measure. The noble Earl (Earl Nelson) had seemed to remonstrate with the most rev. Primate for the language used by him when introducing the Bill; but it seemed to him (Lord Selborne) from the beginning that the most rev. Primate had no choice but to endeavour to grapple with the difficulties of the subject. The Bill was, and was meant to be, impartial in its operation; but if it was the truth that the existence of certain particular excesses and disorders was the real cause which made the introduction of the Bill necessary, the most rev. Prelate had no choice but to say so. If no serious attempt had been made to remedy those disorders, reproach would justly have been cast upon the rulers of the Church. What answer could have been given if, the present law being found insufficient, no application had been made to Parliament for the necessary powers? The great and long forbearance which had been shown by the right rev. Bench, with reference to the growing evils with which this Bill was intended to deal was not appreciated in the way it should be. It was not until after great agitation of the public mind, and abundant proof of the reality and seriousness of the evil that the right rev. Bench had asked for additional powers to apply a remedy. They were compelled to recognize the fact of the existence within the Church of an active, aggressive, and revolutionary party—not the High Church party—on the contrary, one which to him seemed to be the lowest of the low—of a party which certainly did not hide its light under a bushel, consisting of men who were active, aggressive, open in speech, open in action, and distinctly revolutionary. This rendered it impossible for those who were responsible for the protection of the Church against revolution to acquiesce in the continuance of such a state of things without attempting to put an end to it. He had been surprised to see there had been so much alarm and dissatisfaction in reference to the introduction
  404
  of this Bill, on the part, not of those only who were disloyal to the Church, and who had aggressive and revolutionary objects, but from a large number of the very best clergymen in the Kingdom who had no intention of violating the law. It had been to him a matter of real astonishment that they had been under those extraordinary misapprehensions on the subject of the Bill which had been so clearly corrected by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. If he seriously thought that the things which had been written and spoken during the last month or six weeks about this Bill represented the true state of mind of the general body of the clergy, he should be greatly alarmed for the future of the Church; for it might, in that case, be inferred that the clergy were opposed to every judicial authority which could interpret the laws of the Church—to every executive authority which could apply the laws of the Church—and to every legislative authority which could alter or strengthen those laws; and that the clergy, whether they broke the law or not, had a vested interest in the power of breaking it. That could not be, he was sure, the real mind of the clergy. He could hardly believe it was the real mind even of those who did deliberately break the law, and who doubtless justified what they did in the manner in which reformers and revolutionists were always in the habit of justifying their measures. They thought that the law was bad, and they felt themselves justified in resorting to all the means in their power to introduce and force the changes which they desired; that was the case in most instances of ecclesiastical or political revolution, but it was going further than that to constitute ourselves the sole interpreters of the laws under which we lived, and to think that we had within ourselves a plenary dispensing power for any violation of them. To him it would be most alarming that the state of things which had called for this Bill, or the state of feeling he had described, should continue and grow; because it was now more than ever important that the Church of England should retain and augment her power and influence. There never were greater opportunities, or more serious evils to be encountered, and in the presence of the common enemy the whole energy of the Church

  405
  ought to be concentrated and devoted to the great duty which lay before her—that of counteracting the new forms, and increasing confidence, of unbelief, vice, and social disorder. If only the clergy would address themselves to these things, the Church of England had yet sufficient strength to prevail over all her adversaries. As to Disestablishment, some of the revolutionary party had said they wished for it; but it was doubtful whether they had all its consequences present to their minds, and if they had not, he would recommend them to read the last proceedings of a well-known Society which had disestablishment for its object, and which, when it came to the question of terms, openly declared that it would not think of allowing the old parish churches and cathedrals to remain in the hands of the disestablished Church. He would ask the more moderate clergy to consider what they were doing, if they maintained an attitude of opposition to the law, inconsistent not only with the actual relations between Church and State, but with every principle upon which an Established Church could be defended. The great majority did not wish the Church to be disestablished—there might be a small minority who thought it would be a good thing—but he should like to know whether they considered that in a disestablished Church they would not still be prevented from having their own way. Did they think that the laity of the future disestablished Church would solve these questions by allowing unlimited and universal licence to every clergyman, with or without the consent of the Bishop? No man in his senses could ever dream of such a thing. Therefore, those who looked forward to disestablishment with such an object would not realize their expectations. As had been remarked, this Bill did not touch any question of doctrine: but doctrines were, in some men's minds, associated with practices the legality of which were questioned. Now, those doctrines must be believed and understood by those who held them, either as being, or as not being, the doctrines of the Church of England. If the latter, he supposed no man could pretend to justify the attempt to introduce or support doctrines not those of the Church, by practices contrary to its laws. He would assume their belief in, and conviction
  406
  of, the lawfulness and truth of those doctrines; but, if so, he would submit to them they could not be strengthening doctrines which were really true and important, and consistent with the teaching of the Church of England, by endeavouring to put them upon a foundation of sand—upon practices, forms, and ceremonies, resting on their own judgment, on their own authority, and against the law. By so doing were they not discrediting the doctrine for the sake of the practice? And was there not great risk that in the public mind the discredit which attached to those practices, and to any doctrines of a questionable kind, which might be, rightly or wrongly, associated with them, might extend more and more to other doctrines and other practices, which really and truly were those of the Church; and might thus increase the alienation of mind of large bodies of the people from the Church and from the doctrines of the Church. "We sometimes heard of large congregations which were attracted by these practices; but his own conviction was that for hundreds who might be attracted by them thousands were repelled. He should heartily rejoice if, by means of this Bill or any other means, these evils could be corrected, and corrected in time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble and learned Lord had spoken with great surprise of the language which had been used, and the angry feelings which had been raised against the Bill out-of-doors, and had justly remarked that there was nothing in its provisions which could justify either one or the other. But if this language had been used, and those feelings had arisen, it was in consequence of speeches which had been made, and he regretted to think that the speech just delivered would not tend to calm the feelings which the noble and learned Lord disapproved. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack commenced the discussion in a speech which he hoped would have had the effect of dissipating many illusions and of calming many angry feelings; and he earnestly trusted that the denunciations of certain parties in the Church which the noble and learned Lord opposite had thought it right to utter would not mar that beneficent effect. Of the Bill itself it was impossible to speak too lightly. To say that

  407
  it did not justify the angry invectives which had been directed against it, was to say very little. It was a Bill of which it was hardly possible to predict that it would do either much harm or much good. In the House of Commons a form was in use of giving a special title to a Bill before it left the House, and the Question was put, "that this be the title of the Bill." If such a form was in use in their Lordships' House, he would be inclined to move that the title of this Bill should be, "A Bill to give £3,000 a-year to the Dean of Arches, and to reprint certain minor portions of the Clergy Discipline Act." That he believed to be, with but slight exaggeration, a description of the Bill. But was it necessary, in order to pass a Bill like that, to denounce those clergy against whom so much feeling had been aroused? The most rev. Primate, in introducing the Bill, spoke of himself as about to effect a pacific and benevolent revolution. Was it necessary to use language of such excess in order to characterize a Bill whose provisions would be so slight, whose action so mild? If it had rested merely on the provisions of the Bill—if these special denunciations had not been levelled at a particular class of the clergy—we should have had none of the violent feeling which had been exhibited out-of-doors. It was not the first time their Lordships had dealt with this subject. Two or three years ago the noble Earl who had left the House (the Earl of Shaftesbury) introduced a Bill with a similar view, though somewhat stronger in its provisions. That Bill was supported by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), who represented the Government of the day, and by the most rev. Primate. It was less mild than the present Bill, except that it did not contain that which to his mind was the vital provision—the veto of the Bishop. It passed through that House by large majorities, and was taken down to the House of Commons; and yet, though there seemed every prospect of its passing into law, and though there were many debates on it in that House, they had none of those angry meetings, those violent invectives, those excited feelings, which were roused by the present Bill; and why? Because the Bill had been introduced simply to amend the law, and not with the professed intention of attacking a special Party in the Church.
  408
  His noble and learned Friend opposite spoke of this Party as very small, very revolutionary, and as having very little in common with the High Church party. Their Lordships, however, should remember that all denunciations of this party were founded on non-observance of the rubrics. But every clergyman in this country who could understand the rubrics was conscious that in some points, great or small, he did not accurately observe the rubrics he was bound to obey. Nobody knew, therefore, against whom this measure was intended to be directed—everybody believed that he himself, on account of his little omission in the rubrics, was struck at by the Bill; that it was intended to introduce discord into his parish, hitherto harmonious; and that his liberty—which had really not exceeded the bounds of discretion—would be fettered by rigorous and novel applications of the law. Therefore, dislike of the Bill had spread much wider than even the nature of its original provisions justified; and those provisions, in the passage of the Bill through the House, had been so modified that no just apprehensions ought to be excited by them. But their Lordships would only prevent apprehension being excited, and secure a calm consideration for the provisions of the Bill, if they treated it simply as an amendment of the law. If they placed themselves in the position that the law ought to be cheap and procedure easy, they would require no further justification; they would have no heat or bitterness to contend with, and no apprehensions to calm. But, if they made this Bill a "flag," it would be treated as a "flag"—if they made it represent the anger of one Party in the Church against another Party in the Church, they must expect it would pass only amid the most bitter and angry discussion. Something had been said about the passage of the Bill through the other House without angry discussion. Though the Bill was harmless, he believed its passing would do more harm than good. He was speaking only his own individual opinion, but he believed the passage of the Bill would excite evil passions rather than calm any angry controversy. But, be that as it might, the only chance of passing the Bill through the House of Commons this Session, or any Bill analogous to it in any future Session, was to abstain from

  409
  making attacks upon any special Party, and to treat it merely as it ought to be treated—as an amendment of the law.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must rise to express his surprise at the speech they had just heard. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) having risen in the character of a peacemaker, had made, he ventured to think, one of the most remarkable speeches he had ever heard, coming as it did from the Member of a Government of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was also a Member, to whose assistance the passage of the Bill through this House in its present shape was really due. To charge the most rev. Primate with having created irritation in the Church because he was absolutely obliged to explain to their Lordships the evils which existed—evils which no person in their Lordships' House was more anxious than he (Earl Granville) was himself to allay by a measure which should be comprehensive in its character—evils, too, which were more likely to bring destruction on the Church than anything else that could be imagined—was most extraordinary. In his opinion it was the absolute duty of the most rev. Primate to explain those evils. It would have been a want of respect to their Lordships to introduce a measure of this character at all unless the most rev. Primate had been able to justify it by showing the existence of particular evils which a perfectly fair and impartial measure—and it was admitted on all hands that the present Bill was merely intended to facilitate procedure and to cheapen law, though he hoped it would put a stop to those extreme ritualistic practices which had given rise to such angry feeling throughout the country, and which had been so disadvantageous to the Established Church—would be likely to correct. He hoped their Lordships would not follow the example set by the noble Marquess. He could not but think there was some unfairness on the part of the noble Marquess in making what appeared very much like an appeal to "another place" to reject a Bill supported by large majorities of their Lordships' House, and whose passage through the House owed very much of its success to Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL GREYconcurred in the surprise expressed by his noble Friend who
  410
  had just sat down at the speech of the noble Marquess who preceded him, and he entirely denied that the Bill was either an unimportant one, or one not urgently called for by a notorious and very serious evil. He asked whether any man denied the accuracy of the statements made by the most rev. Primate who introduced the Bill as to the existence of a lawless spirit among a section of the clergy? Did anybody deny that there practically did not exist at present machinery for enforcing the law which these persons habitually broke, and that they were therefore able to continue to act in distinct violation of the law? To pass a Bill which would provide a cheap and speedy mode of enforcing the law as it stood was one of the most important objects to which legislation could be directed; because quite apart from the inherent mischief of some of those practices which were so powerfully and so justly condemned by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) the mere fact of allowing a law to exist and to be continually broken went to the very foundation of law and order, both in Church and State. He rejoiced to believe that the Bill as it was now about to pass would prevent this lawlessness for the future; and he for one must give the tribute of his most hearty thanks to his most rev. Friend for introducing the measure. Although undoubtedly considerable changes had been made in some of the machinery of the Bill, he thought the most rev. Primate would confirm him when he said that as it now stood it was precisely in accordance with those views which he stated in bringing it forward. The most rev. Primate on on that occasion stated that his object was not to change the law, but to provide a means of enforcing it. It was but natural that in the course of the discussion of so difficult a subject, alterations and improvements in the mode of accomplishing that object should be suggested. He maintained, however, that the original principle of the Bill remained untouched, and that it would confer great benefit on the country.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he was much gratified to find that their Lordships had, after so many discussions, come to the conclusion that this Bill ought to be read a third time and sent to the other House. Their Lordships—and especially himself and

  411
  his right rev. Brethren—were much indebted to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the clear and able statement he had made as to the scope of the Bill—because he believed the scope of the Bill had been greatly misunderstood. He could scarcely allow that this was owing to the crude and unsatisfactory manner in which he and his right rev. Brethren introduced the measure; but they were quite accustomed in various capacities to have their proceedings criticized, and he should never object to any amount of criticism on the particular course which he might feel it his duty to pursue. This Bill was introduced not rashly, but after very serious consideration in a larger meeting of Bishops than he had ever before seen assembled. There was scarcely a dissentient voice among them as to the necessity for taking such steps as had since been taken. They felt that the country required that the Bishops should move in this matter; and of course it was not an easy task to construct a measure on so complicated a subject and to submit it to their Lordships' House. If, therefore, changes had been made in the Bill it was only what he and his right rev. Brethren expected. Their business from first to last had simply been to guard the principle of the Bill—which was to introduce, instead of the present cumbrous, unwieldy, and expensive machinery for executing the law, other machinery which should be speedy, inexpensive, and effective. The proposal he made certainly differed from that which their Lordships were now adopting in some important respects. The Bill originally proposed that there should be only two steps in these cases—the one a trial before the Bishop, the other a trial before the Supreme Court of Appeal—whereas the Bill in its present shape, while acknowledging the propriety of there being only two steps in the procedure, declared that the first should be before the Archbishops' Judge, and the other before the Supreme Court of Appeal. It might, perhaps, be asked why it was not in the first instance proposed that the Archbishops' Court should take cognizance of all these cases. Their Lordships were aware of the great extent of business now referred to this Judge, who would be expected to visit the localities in which cases arose, and to be ready at any time
  412
  to give information and make a statement of the law when appealed to by the Bishop. Well, the only Judge who was available when the Bill was introduced received a salary of only £5 per annum, or thereabouts, and could not be asked to perform fresh duties for so insignificant a remuneration. Therefore, in one sense, he did not object to the title proposed by the noble Marquess who said this was a Bill to give £3,000 a-year to the Archbishops' Judge. He should be glad if this proposal were made elsewhere, providing only that funds were provided for the payment of the salary. Some misconception had arisen on the subject of the payment of this Judge. A Return had been moved for by a noble Earl who was not now present (the Earl of Shaftesbury) respecting the fees paid to the various officers of the Episcopal Courts throughout both Provinces. The noble Earl had always maintained that those fees amounted to £70,000 a-year; and he himself believed they would be amply sufficient to defray any expense which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might for a time be put to in order to pay the salary of the Judge. It was true the Bill for the present merely provided that a portion of these fees should be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but he could not help being sanguine enough to suppose the day was not far distant when they would all be paid into one central fund, which would enable the Commissioners to recoup themselves for any temporary outlay they might have made for the salary of the Judge. Therefore, he did not think there was any danger of the poorer clergy ultimately suffering in consequence of the salary which, in the opinion of their Lordships, the Judge ought to receive. If a Judge were appointed who would command the confidence of the Country, the Bill would be neither useless nor dangerous. Moreover, he agreed with the statement made by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack as to many other advantages which would flow from this measure. It was the duty of the Episcopal Bench to see that the constitution of the Church was in no way invaded by the alterations proposed; but some persons might suppose that the position of a Bishop, who, under the Church Discipline Act, was entitled to hold a Court, was in some degree altered by the present measure,

  413
  inasmuch as he only retained the power of deciding such cases as might be referred to him by the agreement of both parties. Thirty-four years had elapsed since the passing of the Church Discipline Act, and during the whole of that time there had been only four instances in which a Bishop had sat as Judge in his Court, as he was allowed to do by that Act. Therefore, his right rev. Brethren could not be said to have given up a privilege which had been much exercised in the Church in times past. He had very little doubt of the truth of what had often been said in the debates on this Bill as to the imperative necessity of revising the rubrics. One of his right rev. Brethren (the Bishop of London) had laid before their Lordships a Bill on that subject; but he thought his right rev. Brother had no intention of pressing for a second reading of that Bill during the present Session. He thought it would be a most serious matter to allow Convocation to alter the rubrics from time to time. He earnestly hoped that the Bill now before the House would be able to bring about a final settlement of the matters in dispute—for he believed the degree of excitement that had been called forth was absolutely dangerous to the Church of England. For so much of that excitement as was said to have been caused by his introduction of this measure, he did not blame himself. On a calm review of the speech which he made on introducing the measure, he did not think that it tended to cause excitement, and his great desire with reference to this measure was not to hurt the feelings of any Party. Heat might have been caused by a misapprehension of the objects of the Bill, but he believed that if any heat had been thus caused it would soon disappear, because he had the greatest confidence in the loyalty and good sense of the clergy of the Church. He was quite certain that when the report of the speeches of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Selborne) were read, many of those who were opposed to the Bill would look upon it in a different light. This matter ought to be settled, and the sooner it was settled the better it would be for the Church of England. He earnestly trusted that their Lordships would give a third reading
  414
  to the Bill, and that it would become law this Session. And if it became law, he was quite certain that it would be loyally accepted, and would be neither useless nor dangerous.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 128.)

  THIRD READING.
  (The Lord Chancellor.)
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD DENMAN, as a consistent opponent of this measure, and as one who thought that the House in parting with its appellate jurisdiction would incur great loss not only in point of dignity, but also of usefulness, moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(Lord Denman.)
  LORD REDESDALEbegged to repeat his opinion that the passing of this Bill was an act of political suicide on the part of that House. The country had not asked for it—it was not called for by anybody, yet upon the evidence of this Bill their Lordships stood self-condemned, as unable to perform duties which they had discharged from the earliest days to the present time. He had dissuaded his noble Friend from taking the sense of the House on a former occasion, and must do so now; but he must express his belief that the sense of the House had never been properly taken on this question. He did not hesitate to assert that if, on the Amendment he moved on the committal of the Bill, noble Lords had voted in accordance with their opinions, the Bill would never have received the sanction of the House. The attendance of their Lordships was a small one, although the Leaders on both sides of the House supported the Bill. A very strong whip had been issued, but the Government were only able to muster 22 votes of their own men, themselves and other officials included, and they were therefore in a minority but for the support

  415
  they received from the opponents of the Conservative party. Two Cabinet Ministers stayed away, and some noble Lords on both sides followed their Leaders against their own judgment. Had they voted as they thought, the division would have been different.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble Friend always expressed himself jealous of the honour of the House; but the noble Lord himself now stated that, on a recent division, noble Lords had given their votes contrary to their opinions.
  LORD REDESDALE: Some of them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord had not, however, stated whether these noble Lords sat on the Ministerial, or on the Opposition side of the House, or whether the Bill was carried by the assistance of a contingent from both. That he would leave his noble Friend to settle with the Members of the majority. No doubt, the noble Lord had himself expressed his views with great sincerity, and he respected the Protest he was about to offer. But when the noble Lord described the passing of this Bill by their Lordships as an act of political suicide, he could only look upon this as one of those grandiloquent expressions which sounded large and meant little.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion—and there being no second Teller for the Not-Contents, Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill road 3 a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTESTS.
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because the Act which this Bill purports to amend "was passed on condition that its working should be tried, before its application to Scotland and Ireland.
"2. Because the recommendation of the Select Committee of this Honourable House, 1872, has been disregarded in its extension to Ireland and Scotland.
"3. Because the designation of "Imperial Court" is less worthy of respect than "Her Majesty in Parliament" and "Her Majesty in Council;" whilst an advocate of Imperial Rule in Ireland was designated an imperious Englishman—1869. See Hansard, Vol. 191., p. 773.
"4. Because, though professing to create one Imperial Court of Judicature, this Bill proposes many sub-divisions with shifting duties of Judges, instead of continuing the power to suitors of knowing that high officers of State are attending the Appeals both in the House of Lords and in the Privy Council.
"5. Because the ecclesiastical authorities are almost excluded from the proposed Imperial Court, and their limited influence as assessors substituted for it.
"6. Because the difficulties of creating Lords Chancellors and Lords Chief Justices Peers have been greatly exaggerated, and the difficulties at present existing resemble such as are pointed out in Lives of the Chief Justices, vol. 3, page 184, line 2, and page 291, line 10, and do not necessitate the incorporation of those who may prefer Life Peerages, as members of the highest Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom.
"7. Because, since the passing of the same Act, one hereditary Peer has been created for England, who might be able occasionally to assist in Appeals in this House, and an ex-Chancellor of Ireland has more abundant leisure to give weight to Appeals from Ireland, whilst the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, being an hereditary Peer, could always communicate on Appeals from Scotland with such noble Lords as may sit on Appeals in the House of Lords.
"8. Because there is no provision for allowing Appellants and Defendants in Appeals from obtaining the judgment of the House of Lords, however much they may prefer it to any other Imperial Court of Appeal.
"DENMAN."
"DISSENTIENT:
"1. Because by this Bill the House finally surrenders all its rights as an ultimate Court of Appeal, the duties of which it has performed, and is performing, in a manner which has given general satisfaction, as is proved by the fact that no public demand has been made for such surrender, and by many demonstrations, especially from the legal profession, in favour of its jurisdiction being retained.
"2. Because the surrender of a privilege which has brought so much credit to this House must be injurious to its character, and particularly as the House must appear to stand self-condemned as having lost that efficiency which has hitherto obtained for it the good opinion of the public, and as no longer able to perform properly those duties with which it has been entrusted for centuries.
"3. Because the uncalled-for change of a jurisdiction which has given satisfaction is inexpedient, and the transfer of it to a new and untried Court unwise.
"4. Because there appear grave objections to the constitution of the new Court, which is to be composed of nine judges, three ex officio, the Lord Chancellor, who is at all times removable by the Crown, together with the Lord Chief Justice of England and the Master of the Rolls, who are to be changed alternately every two years for the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and six other judges to be appointed by the Crown in the first instance, and from time to time as vacancies occur, from the judges of the Imperial Court of Appeal for three years only, without prejudice to the re-nomination of a retiring judge.
"5. Because this frequent transfer of judges between the Imperial Court of Appeal and this Court will impair its efficiency in regard to English causes, as it may frequently occur that

417
judges who have already determined a cause will become members of it before such cause is re-heard by such Court, whereby the number of judges proper to re-hear the same may be inconveniently limited.
"6. Because the power given to the Crown over the constitution of this Court of changing any of the six out of the nine judges composing-it after a three years' tenure of office, together with the power of removing one of the three ex officio judges at will, subjects this new Court to the direct influence of the Crown in a manner which appears objectionable on constitutional grounds.
"7. Because while appeals from Scotland and Ireland are to be conducted before the new Court in like manner substantially as now before this House, those in England are to be by re-hearing only, for the purpose of saving the expense to the suitors of new cases, and it is questionable whether the due administration of the law will be as effectually secured as by requiring new cases framed on the better understanding of the disputed points arrived at on both sides at the former hearings to be presented to the Court of Appeal.
"REDESDALE.
"STANLEY OF ALDERLEY."

GLEBE LANDS SALE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to authorise in certain cases the sale of Glebe Lands belonging to Benefices—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of CARLISLE; read 1a.(No. 136.)

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Law relating to cruelty to Animals—Was presented by The Earl of HARROWBY; read 1a. (No. 137.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.