Sitting of 3 July 1877

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Report—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Holywood, &c.)* [192–225].
Committee—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) (re-comm.) [160], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Dumbarton)* [208]—(Leith)* [211]—(Glasgow)* [210]; City of London Improvement [Provisional Order Confirmation (Golden Lane, &c.)* [205]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation* [206]; Greenock Improvement Provisional Order Confirmation* [207]; Local Government Provisional Order (Sewage)* [175].
Withdrawn—Real Estate Intestacy* [40].
The House met at Two of the clock.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—REFLECTIONS ON THIS HOUSE.

  NOTICE.
  MR. BLAKErose to give Notice that on Thursday he would ask the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), Whether, at a public meeting, held in London on Saturday, April 21, in speaking of the obstructive conduct of himself and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he used the words attributed to him in a report which appeared in The Daily Telegraph of April 23—namely,
  "We have only been at the work two months, and they—the English Members—would be glad to be rid of us; but I don't know what state of mind they will be in when the end of the Session comes, nor can they devise a plan to stop us. … If we had only ten men we could put a stop to all their work. … If we can't meet them in the field and assert our rights with cold steel"
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Question which the hon. Member is now giving Notice of putting on a subsequent occasion to the hon. Member for Meath does not relate to any Bill or Motion before the House. According, therefore, to the Rules of the House, it cannot be put.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that with the indulgence of the House, he would give reasons for the Question, and conclude with a Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot, under cover of a Motion for the

  685
  Adjournment of the House, do anything which is irregular.
  MR. BLAKE: Then I will, on the earliest opportunity, call the attention of the House to the reports of The Times and The Daily Telegraph as a question of Privilege affecting the Members of this House.

STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE HALF-PAST TWELVE RULE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FORTESCUE HARRISONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, looking to the state of Public Business in this House and the difficulties under which private Members are now contending, he will recommend the House to rescind, for the remainder of the Session, the half-past Twelve Rule?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Her Majesty's Government are continually "looking to the state of Public Business in this House," and looking at the difficulties with which not only "private Members" as they are good enough to denominate themselves, but Members of the Government also, are contending, but I am not at present prepared to make any proposal on the subject. I think, after recent events, it would be proper that we should consider the whole subject, and then, perhaps, I shall be able to answer the Question of the hon. Member.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'CONOR DON: I wish to offer a few words in explanation before putting a Question I have on the Paper. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that on Thursday the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the Government intended to take Supply upon every Government day, with some exceptions, including to-day, until they had made some considerable progress, and to take Votes in this order—namely, the Army Estimates, the English and Scotch Education Votes, and the Irish Education Votes. On the latter I have a Motion which is likely to raise a discussion of some length and of considerable interest in Ireland. On Thursday I informed the right hon. Gentleman that if he was in a position to tell us that the Govern-
  686
  ment could give a day for the discussion of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) at some reasonable period, I would not bring on my Motion on going into Committee of Supply. I made that offer with the desire not of obstructing Business, but rather expediting it, and assisting the Government to get through the work of the Session. On Friday the right hon. Gentleman held out some hopes that a day might be given. Since then—yesterday—the Army Estimates were brought forward, and notwithstanding what occurred this morning, I am justified in saying that considerable and substantial progress was made with them. If the Estimates were taken in the ordinary course, and no unusual obstruction were offered to them, we might naturally expect that the Irish Education Votes would be reached next week. I have been asked by several hon. Members whether I shall go on with my Motion or not. It would be a great convenience to myself and to several hon. Members, and to the House, to know whether that Motion is to be proceeded with or not; and I am unable to give an answer or to decide what course I will take with regard to my Motion, until I know what the Government says with regard to giving a day for the discussion of the University Bill. And I ask the question now, and not as a matter of favour to the Irish Representatives, but with the view of expediting Public Business. Having explained the object of my Question, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state more definitely than he has hitherto done whether the Government can give a day for the discussion of the Irish University Education Bill; and, if so, whether it is likely that such day can be given before the end of the present month?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member for Roscommon has accurately described what passed, but he has slightly misunderstood what I said about the Supply. I stated that the first business of the Government would be Supply in the order in which the hon. Gentleman mentions it, and I said we proposed in the present week to give every day at our disposal, except this morning, which was appropriated for another purpose, to discussions in Supply. I did not say that all other Government business would be

  687
  laid aside till we got through Supply, because there are two Bills which it is important for us to proceed with—namely, the Indian Loan Bill and the South Africa Bill; and although I adhere to the arrangement as to going on with Supply every day this week, I cannot bind myself to go on with it thereafter, to the exclusion of those Bills. With regard to the subject of Irish University Education, I understand the Question in this way—the hon. Gentleman and others look forward to a discussion upon it in connection with the Irish Education Estimates; but I am informed that it would be more convenient to Irish Members generally if the discussion arose, not on the Education Estimates, but on the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). To that arrangement the Government are perfectly prepared to accede, with a view to convenience, but it must be on the understanding that we are not to have the discussion twice over; and what I understood to be the intention with which we made the offer was this—if the Estimates pass without the discussion being raised on the University question, we would provide a day as speedily as possible afterwards for the discussion of the Irish University Bill. That is an arrangement we are prepared to adhere to; but, of course, if the question should be raised on the Motion of the hon. Member for Roscommon, our engagement to find a day for the discussion of the Bill must be considered over. We are not bound by it. The hon. Member asks whether it is likely that a day can be given before the end of the present month. I must refer the hon. Gentlemen to some of the hon. Members who sit near him. We are perfectly unable, if matters are to proceed as they have been proceeding, to say on what day anything can be brought on. We are anxious to bring the subject forward as soon as possible; but Notice shall be given as soon as we find ourselves in a position to do so.

THE COLORADO BEETLE.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, now that it is more than probable that the Colorado beetle may reach Ireland, where its depredations, would be very injurious, steps will be taken by the
  688
  Government to give such information as will render the recognition of the insect easy, together with instructions pointing out the best means for its destruction and the places where the deposit of its eggs are most likely to be found?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I fear it is possible that the Colorado beetle may reach Ireland, though I think the hon. Member goes too far in assuming that it is more than probable that such will be the case. However, I quite agree with him as to the serious consequences that would result from any extensive ravages of this insect in Ireland; and I will, after communication with the authorities in Great Britain, see how far his suggestion can be acted upon. But I would point out that to some extent that information has been furnished by the private enterprise of the proprietor of The Farmers' Gazette in Dublin. Two years ago a large coloured engraving of the beetle and information as to its habits were circulated largely among the agriculturists in Ireland owing to the public spirit of that gentleman.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to ask a Question, of which I have given the Government private Notice, Whether the Mediterranean Fleet, which we have been informed has left the Piraeus, has been ordered to proceed to Besika Bay?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir; it is quite true.

NOTICES OF MOTION.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—NOTICE.
  MR. PULESTONgave Notice that he would move on Thursday—
  "That in Committee of the Whole House no Member have power to move more than once either that the Chairman do report Progress, or that the Chairman leave the Chair, and that no Member -who has made one of those Motions have power to move the other in the same Committee."

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—LATE SITTINGS.—NOTICE.
  MR. WHALLEY: I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I shall move—
  "That the practice of commencing business in this House at hours varying on each day, and continuing its sittings up to indefinite and

  689
  unseasonable hours of the night and morning is at variance with experience as to the proper mode of transacting public business, and alike inconsistent with the convenience of Members and the discharge of the duties of this House,"
  and I beg now, Sir, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot interpose in the ordinary Business of the House. I was about to call upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, which is the Business laid down by this House for itself. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
  MR. WHALLEYagain endeavoured to interpose, but the Clerk called the first Order of the Day.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 160.]
(Mr. Richard Smyth, The O'Conor Don, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Carry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 160.]

  COMMITTEE ON RE-COMMITMENT.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [27th June], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill); and which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that the provisions of this Bill should be extended to the whole of Ireland,"—(Mr. Murphy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTHwas proceeding to address the Committee, when—
  THE O'DONOGHUErose to a point of Order. He wished to ask the Speaker whether the hon. Member for Londonderry, having already addressed the House, it was competent for him to speak again in the same debate; certainly he had spoken, though briefly,
  690
  when moving the Order for proceeding with the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Londonderry has not spoken on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), and he is therefore quite in Order.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTH: I rise to address the House for a few minutes at great disadvantage, for I feel that whilst time in the long run is fighting on the side of this Bill, the sand-glass of to-day is exhausting itself at my expense, and every moment I occupy I am giving comfort to my opponents. But, as it has been formally announced that persistent talk is to do for the Bill a work which fair argument cannot do, I may as well appropriate to myself a few minutes of the time upon which an unreasoning set has been made. I have often during my life heard of the tyranny of majorities; but I had to come into the House of Commons to learn what is implied in the tyranny of minorities. Sir, I perceive that there is a determination that minorities shall dictate to this House, and that the will alike of the country and of this House shall be thwarted and defied by a combination of Members, who, worsted in argument and in division, betake themselves to the tactics of despair, and pursue a course which, if persevered in much longer, will reduce Parliamentary government to an absurdity. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork, in that admirable speech which he delivered on Wednesday—admirable for its purpose, because it was length that was required—was particularly copious in statistics; and so profound was the impression produced by his figures that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was instantaneously converted by them, according to his own confession. I hazard the opinion that this is the first instance in the history of the English Parliament in which an experienced and venerable English statesman was suddenly converted from the error of his ways by a sheet of police statistics read by an Irishman for the purpose of talking out a Bill. Having so flexible a mind as that of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield to deal with, I should not wonder if he will be converted back again before this debate closes. I am sure, if statistics will do

  691
  it, we have the means ready at our hand. But was the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield ever an advocate for Sunday closing? He made a speech on the 12th of July last year against the second reading of the Bill, and read a lecture, first to the Government, and next to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), for giving any countenance to the measure; and yet on Wednesday he got up and told us that he had been convinced by the statistics of the hon. Member for Cork. The hon. and learned Member bases his claim to have been considered friendly to the Bill on Wednesday morning last by the circumstance that he voted for the postponement of the Standing Orders that the Sunday Closing Bill might come on for discussion. Yes, he did so; and I have been obliged to rebuke some suspicious people for saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave that vote because he had come down to the House to make a speech against the Bill, and could not have made it all if the Orders of the Day had not been postponed. I have had to defend the hon. and learned Member against these imputations, and it was about as difficult a task as I ever undertook. Sir, the hon. and learned Member never was, I believe, an advocate for Sunday closing in the whole course of his life; and the idea that was in his mind on Wednesday that he had been suddenly convinced and converted by the Irish logarithmic tables of the hon. Member for Cork, I must regard as nothing else than a ease of political self-delusion. And what was the nature of these statistics? Why, it is found that there are fewer arrests for drunkenness on Sundays in Ireland than on other days of the week, Saturday in particular; and he draws the inference from this that there is less drinking on Sundays than on other days. My hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) pertinently reminded the House that there are fewer hours for getting drunk on Sundays, only one-half the usual number. But I can assign additional reasons for the difference. We had it in evidence before the Select Committee that the persons arrested are generally the habitual drunkards, and as they are captured in large numbers on Saturday night, they are already in the lock-up on Sunday. Besides, it was
  692
  stated to us that no one is arrested for merely getting drunk. He must also be disorderly or incapable to subject himself to arrest. We were also told that friends look after drunken friends on Sundays more vigilantly than they do on other days of the week, being more at leisure. We have no means of knowing the exact proportion of young men or young women who escape arrest just because they are able to walk or are in charge of friends, or are not creating disorder in the streets. Sunday is not the habitual drunkard's day, for he is generally in gaol on Saturday night; but it is the day young men and young women, of whom the police take little notice, are exposed to special temptation, and when the seeds are sown which bear fruit in the demoralization of their after-life. Sunday is the tippling day of the young; it is not the day of revel for the drunkards. Honest working men and their wives have frequently expressed to me their wish that this Bill might pass. Why? Because their children frequent the public-houses on Sunday. These police statistics which had such an elevating influence on the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield give us no criterion of the havoc made in the morals of the young during the drinking hours on Sunday. I have not done with the statistics of the hon. Member for Cork. He ventured into another field, and undertook to analyze the votes of Irish Members on this question. He prefaced this part of the subject by an attack upon the officials and members of the Irish Sunday Closing Association. The hon. Gentleman is incapable of saying anything which he does not believe; but, nevertheless, he said things which are not true, and he said other things which he could not know to be true. He asserted that the United Kingdom Alliance supplies funds, I think he said to the amount of £250,000. [Mr. MURPHY: No, no!] Well, at all events, that they were closely connected with the Irish Sunday closing agitators. If that were so, there would be nothing to be ashamed of. But, Sir, if my hon. Friend's memory were a little more impartial in the marshalling of facts, he would not have fallen into a mistake which is only to be expected in blunted minds. This very allegation was made the subject of a searching inquiry by the hon. Member himself in the Select Com-

  693
  mittee, and it was denied, disproved, and solemnly repudiated in every form of language that could be conceived in reply to the hon. Member's own questions. I listened with astonishment as he retailed these unfounded and disproved allegations; and I confess that my wonder was intensified as I contemplated that marvellous versatility of memory whereby he could remember some things so well and forget others so easily. My hon. Friend is scandalized at the selfishness of the officials of the Irish Sunday Closing Association. I am unable to follow the hon. Gentleman into these mysterious regions of human motive; but I will say that the officials of an honourable organization stand before another tribunal than the one to which they are summoned by the hon. Member for Cork, the tribunal of his own judgment. My hon. Friend, from that high region of disinterested patriotism, where he and his Followers breathe the pure air of political life, may well find it difficult to make allowance for human weakness. But I am happy to think that I now address an Assembly of Gentlemen who are willing to take me and my Friends for what we seem to be, and not for what we may be in the baseness of our own hearts. But I am almost forgetting the statistics. Now, for my hon. Friend's analysis of the Irish vote. He impugns the accuracy of the figures published by the Sunday Closing Association. They put forward 59 Members from Ireland as having voted for the Resolution last year, and two as pairing in its favour. My hon. Friend has examined the list, and can only find 51 Irish names in the Division List in favour of my Resolution. I am very sorry that he could not find more. Seventy Irish Members actually voted in the division of the 12th of May, 1876–59 for and 11 against the Motion. These were the 11 of all Ireland. He forgot to tell us anything about the 11; but as, in the course of his speech, he said so frequently that he did not like to detain the House, we must assume that when he made omissions it was simply because he was unwilling to speak longer than two hours and ten minutes. But what is the use of haggling about the Irish vote in 1876? Let us have the Irish vote in 1877. I am not afraid of it, and I challenge the hon. Member for Cork to give up his miser-
  694
  able policy of obstruction, and meet us in fair battle. We can soon end all controversy about the Irish vote—20 minutes will do it. But we have been told that we who support this measure do not represent our constituents. Now, I dare affirm that if there was one thing which an Irish Member is good at it is understanding his constituents; and I believe that some of us—I do not say whether I include or exclude myself—vote for this Bill, not so much because we are fanatical Sunday-closers, as because our constituents expect us to do it. You need not talk to me about knowing Irish opinion. Each Member has enough to do in keeping pace with the opinion of the people who sent him here, without troubling himself about general Irish opinion. I know my own constituents, and I shall answer for no others. Each Member will answer for himself and for those who sent him here in the Division Lobbies; and I do not believe that there is one Member from all Ireland who will go into the Lobby with me knowing that his vote will oust him at the next Election. The House may, therefore, make its mind easy about Irish opinion. The fact is simply this—those constituencies where the publican interest dominates are against the Bill; and whenever that interest or power is inappreciable the constituencies are for it—there is no opinion in Ireland against it but trade opinion, and we deny that trade as trade has anything to do with Sunday. There are 28 counties in Ireland, out of which not a single Petition has come to this House this year against the Bill. We are asked to wait another year and see what a revulsion of opinion will take place. We were asked the same last year and the year before.
  "Man never is, but always to be blest."
  Our opponents never are, but always to be, supported by the country. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted at the beginning of the Session that he had been affected last year by the prophecies of re-action from the hon. Members for Cork and Dundalk, but that he had come to the conclusion that they were not prophets at all. Ireland will speak with the same voice to-day if she gets the chance as she did on the 12th of May, 1876. I think we have a right to expect some Member of the Government to declare their intention with regard to this ques-

  695
  tion. Are they going to remain passive and allow this minority to override the will of the House of Commons? We had better know the worst at once, that we may shape our course accordingly. I give all fair warning that a talk-out to-day shall not be accepted by me as a final struggle on this Bill. If the minority is in despair, the majority is in earnest. I want to know whether the Government wishes this question settled? It can settle it if it pleases. Before I sit down I must glance for a moment at the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth). His patriotism and eloquence are acknowledged in all quarters of this House, and his words have always the weight which attaches by a generous paradox to a man who stands alone. I understood my hon. Friend to speak disparagingly of any attempt made by this Imperial Parliament to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas; for, as this is an Imperial Parliament, it can only take account of Imperial interests, and not allow itself to be swayed by local sentiment. When I heard my hon. Friend laying down these great and even dread principles of Imperial policy, I could not forget that I was receiving instruction from a man who has a theory of his own for breaking up the Imperial Parliament, and who, I suppose, would not be sorry to see Imperial government rendered less tolerable than it is. I have not the least doubt that he gave sound advice from his own point of view; but I am convinced it is most dangerous advice to be accepted by the friends of Imperial government. If local ideas are to be disregarded by this House, it needs no prophet to see that the days of Imperial government on a Constitutional basis will soon be numbered. I submit that taking account of local ideas is an Imperial interest. No Empire ever long survived an attempt to govern all its dependencies by one cast iron code of law. The Roman Empire, so long as it was wise and powerful, accommodated itself to the prejudices and feelings of Provinces and Kingdoms it annexed. When it reduced another and another nation under its sway it respected their local customs, and did not disdain to elevate their gods and demi-gods to niches in its temple. Its Procurators and pro-Consuls were sent to govern African and Asiatic Provinces according
  696
  to African and Asiatic ideas. The Sanhedrim sat at Jerusalem, it may be a little overawed, but not coerced by the sceptre of the Cæsars; and Corinth was conceded something of its local liberty. It was not until the doctrine of my hon. Friend became a dominant force in the Empire, and local ideas began to be scouted as unworthy of Imperial consideration, that the fabric fell, and out of its ruins new despotisms arose. Sir, let us beware of stretching out the limbs of Ireland until they fill the Procrustean bed of a rigid English policy, for, if we attempt this, we shall at once disable Ireland, and bring a curse and dishonour upon England. Give Ireland her way when it can do you no harm, and, if you cannot attach her people to your sway, you will at least stand out before the civilized world as a Government that did its best to justify and render tolerable its supremacy.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he had listened with great attention to the able and eloquent speech of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, in the hope that he would have adduced arguments to meet the statistics and the arguments employed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy); but he had listened in vain, for he had failed to discover anything like substantial argument in favour of the Bill. His hon. Friend had accused them of a persistent attempt to talk out the measure and of defying the opinion of the majority of the House. If a small minority of the Representatives of Ireland had endeavoured by such arguments as they could employ to convince the House that this was a measure which was not acceptable to the majority of the people of Ireland, he did not see how they had exposed themselves to the accusations which his hon. Friend had brought against them. Well, the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had called its opponents a little band who were afraid to meet in fair Parliamentary discussion the majority who were the supporters of the Bill. He left the House to judge of the correctness of that statement. He believed that on every occasion on which the subject had been brought forward they had endeavoured fairly and honestly, and so far as was in their power, by argument, to convince the House, and he did not despair of attaining that object. Now, he had had very considerable doubt as

  697
  to whether he himself would have taken a part in the discussion, until he had felt that it was an obligation incumbent upon every Irish Member who dissented from the view which had been so extensively before the House, to the effect that opinion in Ireland was unanimous in favour of the Bill, to say so. He denied that view altogether, and he was there with his Friends to say that that was not so, and that not only was the opinion of the people of Ireland not unanimous on the subject, but that a majority of all classes was opposed to it. Now, there was no doubt that it was an opposite impression to that conveyed, doubtless unintentionally, that had resulted in a conviction in the minds of hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen in the House which had induced them to give their support to the Bill. His desire was to undeceive those hon. Gentlemen who had been misled by those misstatements and misrepresentations. Now, it had been stated in the course of that debate that the minority sustaining the opposition had been led on by personal interests and considerations. For himself he must say that he had no personal interest whatever in the matter, and the only influence he was guided by was that of his own personal conviction that the Bill would be received by the people of Ireland with disfavour, and that it was a measure injurious to the happiness and contentment of the Irish people. He had stated that he himself had no personal interest in the matter, and he hoped, therefore, to be able to approach the subject unbiassed, and to examine the question solely with a view to arriving at a fair and just conclusion. Now, Ireland had a population, in round numbers, of 5,500,000. That population was divided into three classes—the upper, the middle, and the working classes. It was obvious to everybody who knew Ireland that the upper classes formed a very small section of the people. They were composed of the nobility and the landed gentry, and took a very small interest in a question of that character, inasmuch as they were, to a very small extent, influenced by its operation. Then, there was the middle class of the country; and if he might take a standard to arrive at the numerical value and power and influence of that class, he thought he could not do better than to illustrate it by the list of Parliamentary electors. What did he
  698
  find? Well, he found that this class, as represented, consisted of 53,590 electors in cities and towns, and 173,860 electors in counties, making 227,450 in all. Well, suppose the number were doubled, and all supposed to be in favour of Sunday closing, it left about 5,000,000 persons classed as the working classes who were to be dealt with by the present Bill. Those 5,000,000 were the people they were asked to legislate for and to restrain by Act of Parliament from partaking on Sundays of what had become the necessary of life with the great majority of them. He did not desire to say anything harsh or disrespectful with regard to those who were the supporters of this Bill, as he sympathized to a considerable extent with their object. He had himself endeavoured to advance the cause of temperance, and he could co-operate with them cheerfully up to a certain point; but he maintained that, instead of benefiting the people and the cause of temperance, they were actually promoting the reverse and bringing on a condition of things which everybody who desired the welfare of the Irish people must deplore. Well, what did those gentlemen tell them with respect to that Bill? Why, they told a tale which mocked at the people and challenged the evidences of experience and common sense. They told them that those 5,000,000 people came to them praying them as suppliants to protect them against temptation; that they acknowledged themselves to be Weak-minded people, intemperate and incapable of restraint, and that they therefore petitioned the House to close the places where they could get refreshments on Sundays in order to save them from ruin. Was that a likely condition of things? Was there ever such a libel uttered against the independence and free action of a people? Why, everyone who had taken an interest in the social condition of the people must be aware that they were striving every day more and more for freedom from restraint and liberty of action. That was a fact they must at once recognize. They saw it in every turn of life; and yet these were the people who, they were told by the promoters of that Bill, wanted Parliament to restrain and control them, and prevent the exercise of their independent judgment in matters which they believed to conduce to their own comfort and convenience.

  699
  Why, let them look at the labour organizations of the country. Let them see the extent to which Friendly Societies, Trades Unions, and Co-operative Associations had spread. What were they to infer from these organizations? Why, that the people were becoming self-reliant; that they understood how to work and to manage for themselves; and he believed that this Bill would be an affront and an insult to the intelligence of the people. What force was there in their arguments in favour of extending the Parliamentary franchise amongst the working classes if they were incapable of self-restraint and could not take care of themselves? He confessed he was unable to reconcile two such discordant principles, and he left the task in the hands of the supporters of the Bill. There was another point which had been alluded to by his hon. Friend, and that was the Petitions which had been presented to the House. The hon. Member dwelt a good deal upon the evidence that was supplied by the Petitions that were presented to the House either for or against the measure. Well, he had taken the trouble to examine some of those Petitions, and what did he find? He thought it would be a fair and reasonable starting-point to commence on the day of the first sitting of the Select Committee on the Bill. That was on the 23rd of February, and down to the 26th of June—the date of the last of the Petitions appearing officially before the House—he found that there were 172 Petitions from Ireland against the Bill, with 73,243 bonâ fide signatures. On the other hand, he found that there 407 Petitions in favour of the Bill, with but 44,090 signatures. But there was something stranger still, and he should like to submit to the House the manner in which those Petitions were made up. Of the 407 Petitions 103 were from places in England; 146 were from Presbyterian and Methodist congregations—that was to say, from Sabbatarians. Only 158 were from the general public in Ireland, and if he were to assume the proportion that that 158 would bear towards the 407 it would give signatures to the number of 17,000 in favour of the Bill against 73,243 against it. But he had a remarkable list of 126 Petitions presented on one day, the 8th of May, 1876, from English Methodist congregations. In addition
  700
  to that he had taken a list of Petitions presented last year, and amongst those he found there had been 1,200 Petitions presented by Presbyterian and Methodist congregations, and those were represented to the House as being the opinions, or as representing the opinions, of the people of Ireland on the subject. But he might say that there would have been many more Petitions presented before this year against the Bill, but for the fact that the people did not believe that the Government would consent to so galling a measure, and that there was a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the government of Ireland was not in favour of the principles of the Bill. The people of Ireland came to learn pretty well and pretty shrewdly what the opinions, to a certain extent at least, of the Government were upon this subject, and they argued with themselves that the Government would never permit a Bill of that extraordinary character, at least in its then shape, to pass the House of Commons. It, however, came to their knowledge that the Chief Secretary for Ireland wished to act justly, to give time for inquiry, and not to endanger the peace of the country by precipitate action and in experimentalizing on the people of Ireland to prepare for a more extensive agitation of a similar measure for England. When the people of Ireland were awakened for the first time to the consciousness that there was a determination to pass the Bill, and that the right hon. Gentleman had agreed to submit it to a Select Committee for examination, what was the result? From the 23rd of February there had been Petitions from bonâ fide signatories in Ireland, and while 73,243 petitioned against the Bill, he had shown by statistics that those in favour of the Bill amounted to something less than 17,000, and still they were told that the people of Ireland favoured a measure of this kind. It had been shown conclusively that this Bill would rather increase than diminish drunkenness; that it would create an illegal trade; that it would demoralize the people by teaching them how to break the law; and that it would familiarize wives and families with tippling in homes at present free from it. No doubt his hon. Friends desired, as far as they could, to promote the happiness and comfort of

  701
  the people of Ireland and to elevate their condition; but he took the opportunity of suggesting to those Gentlemen that their object would be better accomplished if they endeavoured to elevate the condition of the people by educating them. It was not the way to elevate the people of a country by passing restrictive and coercive measures. They all knew the character of the Irish people. Treat them kindly, and almost anything could be done with them. Subject them to restriction and coercion, and they knew their character. On Sunday, at present, there was only one means of enjoyment which the lower classes could have recourse to. He did not contend that it was one which, if other facilities were provided, would be either a desirable or a suitable one. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that in an agricultural country like Ireland these people came, in many cases, a considerable distance to their places of worship on Sundays. There was only one place to which they had recourse, and from that they would now be driven ruthlessly into the streets without a door open to receive them or a friend to give them welcome. The amount of drinking on Sundays was not more than one-half what it was on Saturdays, although it was the holiday of the working classes and the day when they were free to meet their friends and enjoy themselves. It was not necessary for him to dwell upon the fact that even in the places where Sunday closing was introduced it had rather increased than diminished drunkenness, and it seemed to him that if hon. Gentlemen would turn their attention to other means of ameliorating the condition of the working classes, by opening museums, picture galleries, and public gardens on Sundays, they would find ample field for their labour and exertions. He hoped the supporters of the Bill would assent to such a modification of its provisions as would considerably relax their rigid and severe character, and render the Bill acceptable to the people of Ireland.
  MR. A. MOOREtook it for granted that the majority of the people of Ireland were in favour of the measure. Nothing could be more unreasonable than the minority. They came to the House four years after the question was first agitated, and asked them to con-
  702
  sider the views of the people, as if they had not been before them for the last four years. Was it not a test question at the General Election? Seven elections had been held in Ireland since then, and in every case a supporter of the Bill had been elected, and in four places opponents were replaced by promoters. Again, the Bill was carried by an overwhelming majority on its second reading; and were they to be told that all these resources and all these names, which implied so much wealth and influence, had not met in the interests of the licensed victuallers? Were they to be told that these names, that influence, and that power were not able to get up one or two meetings against the Bill? He had been told that only county Members were in favour of the Bill. He represented a borough, and he honestly believed it was the wish of his constituents that the Bill should pass. He had received from a constituency of 10,000 people a Petition in favour of the Bill signed by 2,700; and, deducting the children and those incapable of signing, that pretty well gave them every available man in the town. In the county of Tipperary some of the police districts were in the Roman Catholic diocese of Waterford and some in the archdiocese of Cashel, and in the latter drinking was prohibited by ecclesiastical authority on Sunday. Taking three Sundays in the latter diocese they found the convictions for drunkenness on those days were nil, five and three, as against 113, 57, and 46 in the other three districts. The principle of the Bill was likely to prove equally successful elsewhere when backed up by the civil power. He hoped that hon. Members would not persist in opposing the Bill inordinately, as it might result in the privileges of minorities having to be considered.
  MR. GOULDINGsaid, that the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Collins) had told them that the Bill was for one class of persons. He denied that altogether. The Bill was asked for by the people of Ireland. Their ministers, and particularly the Bishops, of all denominations, had asked for the Bill, and the people themselves had asked for it, and he believed it would be a more useful measure to Ireland than any that had been passed for a long time. They were told of the danger of young children being brought

  703
  under the influence of drink. He denied that, as children, if they drank at all, could drink with their parents when they were out. If that were class legislation, why did not the Irish people come forward at public meetings and protest against it?
  MR. S. MOOREsaid, he had formerly opposed the Bill because, like many others, he considered it an arbitrary measure, not likely to lessen drinking, and he thought most certainly would increase the illicit sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays. In opposing it, he had been in the minority of Irish Members and of the House, and though he held very strongly that the rights of the minority should be at least expressed, or have the power given to them of a full expression, he thought that a measure, seemingly of such importance, that from a private Bill it was nearly magnified into a Government measure. The small minority should bow to the whole of the majority of the House. The voice of his own country had spoken in favour of the Bill, or of a modified measure, and those of his constituents who were opposed to it had remained almost silent. He would not vote against the second reading of the Bill, but would earnestly ask the promoters of it to meet its opponents half way. He asked them not to hold out for "all or nothing," but to give its opponents, who, like himself, had no interest in the liquor traffic, credit for having equally with themselves the good of Ireland at heart. He would remind them that even in legislation a little loaf was better than no bread; and they must not forget, in pleading for restriction on behalf of the thirsty few, what were the requirements of the many who did not get tipsy on Sunday. He merely wished to ask, not for the freedom of excessive drinking, but for that liberty of legitimate thought and action which hon. Members opposite strongly professed to seek and support, and at which he thought this Bill would aim a blow, should its promoters unfortunately not concede what little was asked of them. He need hardly remind them that but little opposition would suffice at this period of the Session to bar the progress of the Bill and to prevent the attainment of the object which they all alike had in view, which was simply to ameliorate the moral and social condition of their countrymen; and he did not think that would be done
  704
  by a measure which seemed to him, to a great extent at any rate, a measure of coercion.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I said last year that although I did not approve of the principles which lie at the root of this Bill, yet, as it was a social question, on which the people of Ireland had a right to think for themselves, if I found there was no strong feeling against the Bill, I would not vote against it this year. Now, looking back to the expressions of opinion which have been given during the past year, I feel bound to admit that, as regards the great body of the country—as regards the rural districts—I have come very much to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. S. Moore). I have not seen any strong, strenuous expression of opinion from the rural districts against the Bill. I have seen the continuance of the same feeling which previously existed in the rural districts, as far as we are able to judge, by the ordinary expressions of opinion, in its favour; and bowing to that opinion, I do not intend this year to go into the Lobby against the Bill, provided that I see that the Bill will be presented to the country with such modifications as are, in my opinion, necessary for its safe enactment and enforcement throughout the country. Except in measures connected with temperance, Parties in this House are always ready to make concessions. The doctrine and practice of mutual concession experience has taught us to be absolutely necessary, and it is only when we come to deal with Sunday closers and Permissive Bill Gentlemen that we find that doctrine cast to the winds. Now, we had evidence before the Committee with reference to the applicability of this measure to certain Irish towns—Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and Limerick; and, in the opinion of the majority of the civic representatives, the Bill is not applicable to these towns. The vast preponderance of the evidence of officials, magistrates, and others, having a special knowledge of the large towns was that this was a dangerous experiment to try in large communities. It is much wiser first to try it in small communities, and then afterwards, if it succeeds, apply it gradually to the larger ones. But when we came to vote on the Committee, the supporters of Sunday closing defeated us by a majority of 1, the Chief Secre-

  705
  tary remaining without recording his vote in the Chair. That is the position in which the question now stands, and I am speaking here for my constituents; and I am bound to be cautious in forcing any such measure on them, and to see that the experiment is tried fairly, and to give due weight to the evidence of those who come from my town. I am bound to do what I can to insist that this measure shall not be applied to my town, amongst others, too rapidly and injudiciously. Hon. Members get up and make statements, and we are told, that this is a test question. When I stood for the City of Limerick, not one word was said to me about Sunday closing, although I introduced the subject, and I said I regarded coercive measures like this as dangerous, and I would oppose it. It is stated that four out of seven by-elections have resulted in favour of Sunday closing; but is four to three anything like the preponderance of Irish opinion about which we hear so much? The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) has spoken of the working man, and has said that never, except on one occasion, had he heard amongst them any disapproval of the Bill. I say that never, on any one occasion, when I have spoken to the working men in my city, have I heard them express approval of it. I have heard grievances dilated upon; I have heard that it was a hardship in Limerick that the club should be open for the county gentleman and wealthy citizen, while the public-houses were closed to the poor man, and I have heard murmurs of discontent at class legislation. Let me warn the House that if they give strength to the idea of class legislation by going on with measures of this character, they will increase their difficulties enormously. We hear a good deal about the support of the Clergy. Yes, I know you have the Protestant Dissenting Clergy all over the country in favour of the Bill; but how about the Catholic Clergy? I believe there are 3,000 or 4,000 Catholic Clergy in Ireland, and only 827 have signed the Memorial in favour of the Bill. I believe that many of the best friends of temperance would be perfectly willing to accept a modified measure to advance the cause, and they are by no means anxious that it should be forced upon those localities where the public feeling
  706
  is against it. It is brought forward as an argument that Sunday closing exists in Tipperary and in Wexford; but surely the mere fact that the Catholic Clergy have such power as to have induced that state of things voluntarily is the very best argument against any legal enactment on Sunday closing. In Limerick we have a Protestant Bishop and a Catholic Bishop, and I am certain if those right rev. gentlemen joined together and appealed to the people and the publican to close on Sundays, or a part of the day, their influence would be amply powerful enough to effect that object without insidiously adopting legal means to effect a moral purpose. The hon. Member for Clonmel spoke of the advantage of having the aid of the civil power given to the spiritual power. Now he is a Catholic, like myself, and I should like to know what he means. This is a very delicate subject to speak upon; but I feel it so strongly, looking back to the past history of the Catholic Church, that I should be untrue to my convictions and false to my duty if I did not say this—The Catholic Church has existed in Ireland under very great difficulties; but notwithstanding the opposition of the law, and every encouragement being given to the people to resist her, she has achieved in the teeth of those difficulties greater moral victories than in any other country in the world. With this history to look back upon, will any Catholic Member come down from the high pinnacle which the Catholic Church occupies in Ireland and ask for the aid of the law? For my part, I will never do it. I believe in the vitality and power of the Catholic Church, and as long as I am a Catholic I shall never vote for calling in the power of the law to teach her morals. The promoters of this Bill make a great mistake. They seem to treat human beings, not as human beings, but as dogs to be muzzled. ["No!"] They never try to elevate their tastes, they never try to create a thirst for something else besides drink—a taste for enjoyment, for literature, for education. ["Oh, oh!"] They have not hitherto done so. The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) says they are the very people who have done so; but I can only say that if half the money which has been spent in agitating this question had been spent in education, in bringing the people together, in opening

  707
  club-houses, and in providing rational enjoyment for the people, they would have done far more towards reaching the gaol to which they fancy they are tending. You say this thing works well in Scotland, and why should it not in Ireland? There is this great difference—Scotland is a country where the people believe that the Sabbath is broken by keeping open a public-house on Sunday, and they regard it as a sin. Therefore, because the Scotch are rigid Sabbatarians, they closed the public-houses. If anyone doubts that view of the matter let them try to restrict the hours of drinking in Scotland on any other day but Sunday. There or some supporters of Sunday closing in Ireland with whom I have always found it impossible to reason; but during the sittings of the Committee I could not help observing, when the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) was giving his hostile votes, a certain reluctance and an apparent desire for moderation, and I fear we did not get the full benefit of his own judgment on the question. I may say the same of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who betrayed a disposition to spare the large towns; but he, like the hon. Member for Londonderry, was under the influence of uncompromising advocates of the Bill, which prevented him from extending the hand of moderation and reconciliation to us. Then there is the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He is the great leader of temperance in this House, and what manner of man is he? He is a man of great ability, he is a man of an extremely agreeable style of eloquence, great geniality and benevolence; but I do not think I transgress the Rules of the House if I say he is not a man to whose opinions or to whose dicta we would entrust any great social subject in this House. I gather that from the tone in which his speeches on the Permissive Bill and other matters are received here. There is always supposed to be a vein of humour underlying those speeches, and there is a dormant suspicion on both sides of the House that the hon. Baronet, unconsciously almost, does not mean to press to extremes what he says on this subject. Well, then, what is your form of majority but a majority which consists of men who have no particular opinion on the subject? It consists of Englishmen who would be
  708
  opposed to such a measure in their own country; but as the people of Ireland are strongly in its favour, they would, therefore, support it. If they believe that, I quite agree with them in taking that course; but to the rank and file of Sunday closing Gentlemen I would say this—"Do as you please with the rural districts." ["No!"] Well, then, if my friends, the anti-Sunday closers, will excuse me for having made the mistake, I would say—"Do what the people in the rural districts appear to desire with regard to the rural districts; but when you come to deal with the large towns, pause before you apply to them that which the evidence which we had before the Committee shows they do not desire." I have only one word to say in conclusion. The opponents of this Bill are sometimes charged with obstruction. Now, the promoters of this Bill are, in my opinion, chargeable and answerable for any obstruction which takes place with regard to this measure. ["No, no!"] I trust the length to which I have spoken will not, at any rate, lay me open to the charge of obstruction. If it does, I can assure the House that it is not so intended. Those who advocate the Bill in its entirety decline to accept anything but the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. As I have before remarked, it is only when you come to deal with the Sunday closing question, that the canon of the Constitution for gradual progress is set at naught and defied. They carry on an aggressive warfare which is unnecessary in this House and unusual. I wait with some interest to hear what are the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the important questions which were considered by the Committee. With regard to the rural districts, I bow to their decision; but as to the civic districts, let me press upon the House and upon the Government that harsh and decisive legislation would be extremely dangerous.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, there were some 13 or 14 Irish Members who were determined to make up in the length of their speeches for the fewness of their numbers on this question. He did not include in that imputation his hon. Friend who had just sat down, and who had never to his recollection occupied a moment of the time of that House without making some contribution which

  709
  was useful and valuable. But what was. the task which was set to themselves by this handful of Irish Members? It was to choke upon the floor of that House the voice of their own country. ["No, no!"] He would prove the truth of the statement before he sat down. He asked those hon. Members behind him bow would they ascertain the voice of Ireland for the purposes of legislation? They had talked by the hour in that House; but had any one of them grappled with this simple proposition? What tests did they propose to apply before Parliament should legislate upon this Irish matter? Would anyone of them tell the House that he had taken the pains to ascertain Irish sentiment upon this question which the Sunday closers had taken? Why, they (the Irish Sunday closers) held the votes of the majority of Members in that House. But, said those 13 hon. Gentlemen who were against them—"The Irish Members have not always read Irish feelings." It was true there were men there voting in the minority who disregarded the will of their constituents which had been expressed and conveyed to them. Well, he admitted that they could not always represent the feelings of their constituents; but if they did not take the votes of the majority of the Irish Members, how else in any Constitutional country in the world was public feeling to be ascertained? Would they take it by the Press of the country—by public meetings in the country—by canvassers from door to door? He searched from St. Petersburg down to Algiers for any specimen of investigation of public sentiment ever pursued that they—the Sunday closers—had not pursued in endeavouring to ascertain the true mind of the country upon this subject. The minority cavilled at their system; but what had they themselves done? Where were their public meetings, their newspapers, and their canvassers? He would take those items one by one. First, the Parliamentary Representatives of Ireland in this House, by an overwhelming majority, pronounced in favour of the measure. It was a majority of every political section throughout the country —a majority of Irish Home Rulers, a majority of Irish Conservatives, a majority of Irish Liberals. Could they have such a concurrence of opinion without representing the voice and feel-
  710
  ing of Irishmen? Then, again, let them take the public Press of the country, which, next to Parliamentary representation, he thought might be taken to indicate the feeling of the country. Begin with the daily metropolitan Press. The Irish Times was owned by a princely Gentleman, who, although a brewer, had taken an independent stand on this question; The Freeman's Journal, owned by one whom they had lately gladly welcomed as a Member of the House; The Daily Express, the leading Conservative organ of Ireland; Saunders' News Letter, The Mail—there was not one amongst the daily journals of the metropolis of Ireland which was not in favour of the Bill. The Home Rule Freeman's Journal and the staunch Conservative Daily Express, the Saunders', the Liberal-Conservative Irish Times—all were in favour of it. Turning to the weekly journals and the national journals, which some hon. Members had tried to suppress by coercion—The Nation, The Irishman, The Flag of Ireland, The Weekly News—they were all on the same side—at all events, not one opposing the Bill. There was not a popular weekly journal in Ireland opposed to the Sunday Closing Bill. But the supporters of the Bill were charged with being Sabbatarians. Well, he was a Sabbatarian. He was taught at the knee of his mother, and by the lips of his clergyman, and by the faith of his Church to be a Sabbatarian. He thanked God he belonged to a country which was a Christian land, and when the word Sabbatarian was used to him in scorn he hurled it back in the teeth of those who used it. God forbid the day should ever dawn on Ireland when the Sabbath would not be religiously kept. Those who promoted the measure were also called monomaniacs and fanatics; but who enlisted him (Mr. Sullivan) in the ranks of the cause? Why, the Catholic Archbishop of Cashol. Ah ! he heard an hon. Member for a borough, who once represented the county of Tipperary, once say that when he wanted a friend he found Patrick Leahy, the ever-lamentod Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, a true friend in need, in many senses besides political; and the other day that same hon. Member (the O'Donoghue) came here and stamped his foot on the grave of that departed Prelate, and called him a fanatic and

  711
  a monomaniac. In listening to the speeches of those who opposed the Bill on the ground that the liberties of the people should be protected, they must not forget that this measure of Sunday closing had been voluntarily adopted in Tipperary and in "fighting "Wexford," whose inhabitants would be the last men to stand any real abridgement of their liberties. The cry was raised that this was a coercive Act. He thought it mournful to hear the phrases of a struggle for liberty imported into the service of the tap; but when he heard that little Party say how they would fight to defend their country from a coercive Bill, he looked around, and he saw amongst them the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue), who on a previous occasion came here to scream to a foreign nation for more chains for his country. [Cries of "Read."] The hon. Member did not read the other day when he attempted the râle of "Funny Man" on the woman's suffrage question, and tried to turn into ridicule the speech of another hon. Member. There was nothing more illogical and inconsistent than the action which was taken by the opponents of this measure. They pointed to the fact that according to statistics there was less drunkenness on Sundays than on other days of the week. Archbishop Whately used to ask the children at a Sunday school—"Why do the white sheep in a field eat more grass than the black sheep?" and when they could not answer, he amused himself by telling them—"Because there are more of them." So with this matter—the houses were not allowed to be open as many hours on Sundays as on weekdays. Were hon. Members in favour of opening public-houses during all the 24 hours? ["No!"] Then would they coercively close them during a portion of the time? There was no answer to that; and if they admitted coercion and prohibition for certain hours, then the principle was gone which they asserted. For his own part, he had every interest in the world in sympathy with the popular wishes of his country. Since first his voice was raised in any public issue, he had tried to be on the side of those who would free his countrymen from every shackle that would impede their onward march in liberty, education, and material improvement. Twenty years ago he was labouring to throw open the public
  712
  gardens and the squares of Dublin to the masses of the people. Who were associated with him in 1855 in that effort? He had surveyed the ranks of the anti-Sunday closers in that House, and he failed to see the face of one man who helped to throw open the squares and museums on that day. [An hon. Member dissented.] The hon. Member seemed to forget that he must have been in bibs and tuckers at the time, and could not have lent a helping hand. His hon. Friend did his age great wrong. He (Mr. Sullivan) knew who the men were who did lend, a helping hand. They were the Pims and the James Hough-tons, and the Wighams, and the Webbs — the identical men who had since taken up the question of Sunday closing. Among them he first was taught that Sunday closing and the prohibition of drink should be accompanied by every effort to provide the people with counter attractions. He challenged the history of the Dublin municipality to contradict him when he said that the men who were the foremost in the Sunday closing movement had been the men to provide the people with healthful recreation. So far from being ashamed of the speech which he had delivered to his constituents on this subject, he was not afraid even to read the travestie of it which had been given by the hon. Member for Tralee, the light comedian of the anti-closing movement. What he told his constituents was this—"Looking to the account I must render to my God at the last day, I would willingly retire from any public honour rather than be dumb upon this question;" and he said so now.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had taunted the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) with being the light comedian of the play they were now enacting; but having heard both speeches he certainly would sooner be in the position of the light comedian, than of the heavy tragedian who had just addressed them. Allusion, too, had been made during the debate to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) could only regard as "bathos" the introduction of that "Blessed Jehoshaphat" into a discussion upon Sunday drinking! Were it to be referred to at all in such a connection it could only be when, perhaps,

  713
  the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth, travelling upon the new line on which Jehoshaphat would be a station, should be rudely awakened by the voice of the French conducteur, calling out "Jehoshaphat; dix minutes d'arret." The hon. and learned Gentleman said that drunkenness was less on Sunday than on any other day in the week, and he asked why this was so. It was because Parliament in its wisdom had thought proper to restrain the sale of liquor on Sunday. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to carry that view to its logical conclusion it would apply with equal, if not to greater, force to the other days of the week to which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not allude. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared there as the advocate of temperance. Would the hon. and learned Member venture to make this promise— that if the 13 anti-Sunday closers in that House were willing to give up Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and say that the public-houses should be closed on those days, would the concession be accepted by those benevolent men who assumed alone to have charge of the sympathies and interests of the Irish race? It was, no doubt, true that the Clergy of most denominations and sacerdotalism in all its forms were arrayed on the side of temperance; but did the hon. and learned Member ever go into the county which he specially represented — the county of Louth? If he did, in his drives through the rich pastures of that county, he would no doubt visit the men who could have what they pleased in their own houses. But did he ask what were the views of those who were not so comfortably off—the frieze-coated men whom he met by the roadside? Had he consulted them as to their opinions, and did he find that they were enthusiastic in favour of the Bill? Last year the Government consented to modify their opposition, if the Bill were so drawn that it excluded the large towns. Now, he ventured to say that if this stringent measure was required anywhere in Ireland it was required in the large towns where the artizans were offered those temptations which were inseparable from their congregation together in large numbers. It was a slur upon the county constituencies to say that they were unlike any other class in Ireland and required this legislation. Personally he knew some-
  714
  thing of the county of Tipperary, and in that county the influence of the Roman Catholic Bishop and Clergy had been sufficient to procure the closing of the public-houses. Could they elsewhere produce the same result, not by coercion, but by sweet persuasion? Was it true statesmanship, especially in a country like Ireland, to attempt to effect a great social reformation by the aid of the police and the dragoons? He could not agree that that was the way in which legislation should be carried out, and it was on that account that he was there to-day, for the first time, to vote against the measure. As to the Petitions which had been presented in favour of the measure, it struck him the other day, when presenting one from his own county, that a good many of the marks were made by humble people living in what might be called aristocratic quarters. The hon. and learned Member for Louth, whoso mind was deeply imbued with Scriptural truths, would understand that when he looked at the signatures the Scriptural words—"His man servant or his maid servant or his ox or his ass or anything that was his" occurred to him. Certain sections of the Irish Clergy had taken a strong interest in the question. There was no denying that fact in regard to the North of Ireland; but the people of Ulster looked upon the question from a Sabbatarian point of view quite as strongly as from motives of temperance. He felt that he should be unworthy of the constituency he represented if he hesitated to give expression to the opinion which he found to prevail among them, and he was satisfied that the great majority of feeling of the classes likely to be affected by this legislation was adverse to the Bill. He did not speak of Town Councillors in particular towns, or of wealthy merchants, or rich squires, but of the poor and humble man who might be met at the roadside; and he was strongly of opinion that the proper way to treat him was to educate him into the acceptance of principles of temperance, and not to force them upon him by the exercise of tyranny. He had, as he had already said, never voted upon this question before. An hon. Member sneered when he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) cheered the suggestion of a compromise; but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that compromise was at the bottom of their Parliamentary system. They were now

  715
  in the month of July. Then let them postpone legislation for the present. He would not meet the question with a direct negative, but let it be put off, and let the Government, who, upon questions of social importance of this kind, ought to occupy the position of guardians of the public interests, let them come forward with a measure in another Session which would deal with Saturday drinking when artizans received their wages. Let them not by passing this Bill thrust down the unwilling throats of the people of Ireland a Sabbatarian measure with which they had no sympathy. They ought to respect the prejudices of the people, of the humble artizan and the humble workman, who did not possess the power of employing gentlemen from Glasgow and rich merchants from Dublin to spend their money with a lavish hand in the advocacy of their particular views. What could they reply to the reproach that would inevitably be addressed to them— "Your honour, some 10 years ago we supported you upon the hustings of such a place. We did not expect then that when the present Government attempted to filch away our rights that you would be prepared to forget us." He was there on that occasion almost the sole supporter of these small people, and for the first time in his life feeling himself obliged to record his vote on the question it should be with the poor artizan and the humble labourer.
  DR. O'LEARYremarked that not a single speech that had been made or argument uttered in favour of the Bill had answered the facts and eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy). The hon. Member alluded to the fact that on a recent occasion, with from 50,000 to 60,000 visitors in Cork, there was no drunkenness, although all the porter and gingerbeer had been consumed. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) asked, if that were so, what harm could, result from Sunday closing; but it was against such a people as that that they were to legislate and impose a ban! The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. P. Smyth) said the opposition to the Bill was a trade question. It was no trade question at all; but it was regarded as an act of coercion, and every man with an unbiassed mind so looked upon it. The hon. Member for Londonderry said it was a burning question. So it
  716
  was, and he (Dr. O'Leary) thought the Irish Members would manage to put it out before they had done with it. There was a good old rule—"When you have a bad case, always abuse the opposite side," and this had been very much the course pursued in regard to the present Bill. The hon. Member for Londonderry said the minority were adopting the tactics of despair. Now, he (Dr. O'Leary) confessed that he did not feel any despair whatever. On the contrary, he was in the most hopeful humour possible, and he thought he should be able to convince the House that the hon. Member for Londonderry had been more ingenious in his arguments than many would give him credit for. He said, in the first place, that the people of Ireland had asked for the Bill. He (Dr. O'Leary) would take that statement and contrast it with the Petitions. About 8,000 persons in Cork had petitioned in favour of the Bill, and the last Petition presented from Cork against it was signed by 11,000. He read the evidence given before the Select Committee by a magistrate from Cork to show that the overwhelming majority of cases of drunkenness occurred on the Saturday night, and that there were comparatively few on Sunday. In one week there were 26 on the Saturday night and 13 on Sunday; in another, 49 on Saturday night and 12 on Sunday; and in another 13 against 43. The witness, therefore, expressed a strong opinion against Sunday closing altogether. He did not think the drunkenness was sufficiently prevalent to justify the Legislature in imposing penal consequences upon the majority of the people of Ireland. The witness added that the Sunday closing movement was got up by agitators, who convened public meetings and prepared Petitions. This evidence was given on the 17th of April last. On the 13th of February, soon after Parliament assembled, there were eight Petitions against the Bill, with 15,695 signatures, and 168 in favour, with 95,773 signatures. They included, however, no less than 143 Petitions from England. On the 6th of March 2,000 additional persons petitioned against the Bill, and 85,000 in its favour. This was the result of the whole gathering up in every quarter of the three Kingdoms, the result of a busy winter, and of the efforts

  717
  of the agents of the United Kingdom Alliance, notwithstanding the fact that that Association repudiated all connection with the Bill. 85,000 signatures came in by the 6th of March, and the total number in favour of the Bill amounted to 180,000, while against it there was only a miserable 17,000. There were, consequently, on the 6th of March, 12 to 1 in favour of the Bill. By the 20th of March 6,000 were added to the 180,000, while those opposed to the measure were increased from 17,000 to 33,000. The people of Ireland by that time had begun to find out that they had been misrepresented. They said that they had been taken by surprise; that they did not believe in the Bill, and that they did not want it. From the 13th of March to the 10th of April the Sunday closers got 11,000 signatures, and the anti-closers 51,000. On the 17th of April the witness from Cork to whom he had referred gave his evidence, and it was a well-known fact that reports of the evidence were published daily in the Irish papers. The consequence was that by the 29th of April, 12 days after this evidence was given, the Petitions in favour of the Bill had only increased to 194,000, while those against it amounted to 64,000. On the 4th of May the signatures against numbered 81,453, showing an increase of 30,000 in eight days, while the Sunday closers had only obtained an increase of 6,000. Between May the 1st and May the 4th there was a further increase in the signatures to the Petitions against the Bill of 17,000. These facts were taken from the original documents presented to the House. He said most unhesitatingly that a small party in Ireland had been waiting to educate the people of Ireland upon the question. As he had already said, on May 8th those in favour of Sunday closing had only increased from 202,000 to 206,000, while up to the same date those against it had increased from 81 to 89,000, and the way the question of Petitions stood at present was very different from that in which it was at the beginning of the Session, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland was hurried into accepting the measure. At that time the Minister was led away by a trick that had been played upon the House; but when the people of Ireland found from the newspapers what evi-
  718
  dence had been given before the Committee, and when they saw what the Irish Members were asserting in the House itself, they came forward to vindicate their opinions clearly. On the 15th of February the proportions in the Petitions for and against the Bill were as 15 to 1, and on June the 5th the proportions had changed from 2¼ to 1. And he should ask the Members of the Government whether they would submit to the trick that had been played on the House. There was another simple fact he would refer to. No less than 138 Petitions came from England, and if they deducted the number of signatures to these as well as the 110,000 in the Petitions from Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and the other large towns of Ireland, only 100,000 names would be left for the whole of the rest of the country. He said unhesitatingly that that was a very small proportion of names for the vast area lying outside of the towns that had sent up 110,000 names in favour of this measure, and could it be said that that in any way represented public opinion? But these Petitions were signed not only by men and women, but by boys and girls. Did they represent the opinion of Ireland? He said they did not, and for that, among other reasons, he argued that they ought to see further into it before they passed the Bill. He was glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had come into his place, for he had a few words to say about him and his speech. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked how they would obtain the opinion and the views of the Irish people. He answered at once by Petitions, and by such an answer Ireland had not alone spoken, but she would still continue to speak. The Petitions against this Bill had risen in the periods he had named from a few names to 80,000, to 81,000, to 89,000, and next month, if they waited to hear it, they would speak to the extent of very like 200,000 strong. That was the way in which they ascertained the opinion of the people of Ireland. They would get Petitions signed, they would accept door to door visitations, and they would even appeal to newspapers in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. Mr. Russell, a clear-headed, energetic, and enthusiastic Scotchman, who had got all

  719
  these Petitions signed in favour of the Bill, was examined by the Committee that sat on the subject. He was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) to read a paragraph from the Circular that was distributed amongst the people, in which it was stated that arrests for drunkenness in Edinburgh and Glasgow since the Scottish Act was passed had gone down 80 per cent, and that the Act met with the entire sympathy of the people of Scotland. That ingenious gentleman, Mr. Russell, stated that the arrests for drunkenness went down 80 per cent; but what he (Dr. O'Leary) wanted to know was, whether drunkenness had decreased 80 per cent. That gentleman said so, and all he would say in answer was, that such a statement was a lie. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, he said, he could say nothing else—it was a lie, a deliberate fraudulent misstatement. This ingenious and honest Scotchman had given the people of Ireland to understand that that was the case. But his hon. Friend (Mr. Brooks) extracted from the Chief Constable of Ayrshire a very different statement. He told the Committee that offences against the person and against the guardians of the peace, as well as cases of drunk and incapable, had increased in a marked degree during the last year, and nearly all those offences were the result of drunkenness. But the second question put to this ingenious, veracious, and energetic Scotchman was more significant, and he trusted that when he gave it that the fact would strengthen the hands of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Government, as well as the House generally, in resisting any more of this twaddle from being presented. The question was whether the statement about the 80 per cent decrease of drunkenness in Scotland had influenced people in signing the Petition. And what was the answer of this simple-minded and honest Scotchman? He said he was not aware that it did. Not aware that it did? Why, how could such a statement as that do otherwise than affect simple-minded women, who would argue that if they signed the Petition there would be such a great decrease of drunkenness in Ireland that they would get 80 per cent more of the money of their husbands than they were in the habit of doing? But then this honest and simple-minded gentleman let
  720
  out in a very incidental way that the statement was meant to influence the influx of signatures. Of course it was, and no doubt it did. When the acute Scotch mind was brought to bear on the poor mind and stupid intellect of the Irish peasant they could all tell what would take place. Could anybody doubt it? Then the hon. and learned Member for Louth spoke of the journals of Ireland, and said that all the organs, daily and weekly, were in favour of this measure. Enumerating, among others, The Irish Times, he said it was in favour of Sunday Closing. The Irish Times was not in favour of the Bill, and would repudiate any such a notion. Then he went on to make the same assertion with reference to the weekly journals, and among others he mentioned The Nation, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) is proprietor. It was very recently that The Nation had gone in for the policy of obstruction that was carried on in the House, and the hon. and learned Gentleman talked about his conscientiousness. Why did he not follow out that recommendation, and join the ranks of those who had adopted that policy? He believed that the hon. and learned Member was not present at a quarter-past 7 that morning when divisions were being taken. Therefore, the hon. and learned Member was not following out the opinions advocated in his own journal. The hon. and learned Gentleman also proclaimed himself a Sabbatarian, and he had described to the House how he had become so. He said he had drawn it in with his mother's milk. He (Dr. O'Leary) did not see very well how that could be; but if he did, he must have been a very smart young fellow indeed when he was in long clothes. Most people did not begin to form their opinions at so very early an age. They were not generally Sabbatarians in Ireland. But what was a Sabbatarian? He was not a lawyer himself, but he had come across a very scarce and learned work which might help the House to understand what strictly a Sabbatarian was; and perhaps after he had given the House the definition hon. Gentlemen who had proclaimed that they were Sabbatarians might not think they were quite right in the assertion they made. The book to which he referred was Burton's Parliamentary Diary of the Proceedings of the

  721
  House from 1656 to 1659. Colonel Holland said in the debate that was taking place in June, 1657, regarding penalties for Sabbath-breaking—
  "We have but too many penal laws, and one hundred clauses of that kind may well be repealed. These laws are always turned upon the most godly. This is very strict as to that of unnecessary walking, and coming into men's houses."—[ii. 261.]
  He would tell the House what a strict Sabbatarian was. In a code of laws made in the dominion of Newhaven in 1637 by emigrants from England, it was provided that "no one should either run on the Sabbath day nor walk in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting." He was very much inclined to think that some of the Sabbatarians would protest against that. But there was more behind. It said— "No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave on the Sabbath day." But there is a tit-bit to come which will, I hope, appeal to the filial feelings of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. It was provided "That no woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting day." He quoted this, not to say a word against the conscientious belief of any man, but simply to show to what lengths men would go who were willing to submerge themselves under a word and accept all the responsibility which that word implied. Lord Chief Justice Glynn moved against the clause in the Bill for entering into men's houses. He said—
  "I move against this clause. It may be a snare to all the nation; and knaves in the night time may enter and rob men's houses under this pretence. When an Act of Parliament gives liberty of entry, then a man may break open doors."—[ii. 263.]
  It seemed, therefore, that drinking in private houses was suspicious; but the same suspicion was attached in a much more serious degree to those held for the purpose, for Mr. Godfrey moved a proviso to limit the officers' entry only to taverns, inns, ale-houses, tobacco-shops, victualling-houses, or tippling-houses. They included "tobacco-shops," and he believed that these places yet caused a good deal of illicit drinking. This just showed how far-sighted people were 250 years ago. He had discussed this question with a great many people lately, and all of them gave it as their opinion that if this Bill was passed it
  722
  would lead to a great deal of drinking in private houses, with considerable harm to the people themselves, and to the destruction of family morality, and lead to more serious things still. It was a curious fact that in 1657 this very argument was used, for he found that Mr. Vincent and Mr. Chadwick, two Members of the House, not being satisfied with the proviso, Mr. Godfrey said—
  "Now-a-days the greatest disorders were in private houses by sending thither for drink, drinking in alehouses being both more penal and suspicious."—[ii. 263.]
  However, there were other provisoes in the Bill, the discussion of which he was referring to. He found a Mr. West saying that he hoped they would not give liberty to people to be as profane as they chose in their own houses. He argued against the proviso because it would not give idle persons permission "to sit openly at gates or doors," and he found that they were not even allowed to "lean against their own doorpost." A Major General Whalley—not the hon. Gentleman who now had a seat in the House, though he was glad he had traced the ancestry of the hon. Gentleman so far-—he was very glad to see had put in a seasonable word against the passing of a clause preventing people sitting at their own doors, or even leaning against them, on the ground that it would
  "deprive them of the very livelihood they have by the air; as at Nottingham many people that have houses in the rock and have no air live most part of their time without doors."—[ii. 264.]
  And the Lord Chief Justice backed this up by the remark that
  "there was nothing unlawful or guilty in sitting at doors. It must be the same as within doors. It is but intended for example's sake. May not a godly man that lives in a rock yet be well employed? Tot you put a negative pregnant upon a man to say that sitting at a door is more profane than standing."—[ii. 265.]
  Yet these were the view of strict Sabbatarians. One other observation of the hon. and learned Member for Louth he would refer to. He said that the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) had put his hoof down upon the grave of the Archbishop of Cashel. All he could say was that he did not believe the hon. Member referred to was a horse, and certainly he did not think he was an ass. The hon. and learned Gentleman

  723
  also said there was less drinking on Sunday than on any other day. How was that, he wanted to know? The hon. and learned Member said that arose from the fact that the hours capable of being applied to drinking were fewer on Sunday than on any other day. But was that so? He believed the argument would not hold water. To whom did the hon. and learned Gentleman refer? Was he speaking of those gentlemen who could sit at home, or, when taking a walk, pass a public-house, knowing they could get what refreshment they required at home; or was he speaking of the artizans, for whom he professed so much love and consideration? Where were the artizans on Sundays and on week days? He believed this was just another statement which showed how far fanaticism was capable of carrying the minds of the most intelligent men away. The hours of the working man during the week prevented his leaving work before 6 in the evening, and he very likely did not reach home before half-past 6. Before he got some supper it was after 7, and then, if he took a walk with his wife—and he hoped the hon. and learned Member did not believe that artizans did not love their wives enough occasionally to take a walk with them— it would be at least half-past 7 before he could get to the public-house. Well, all that was left for drinking was only three hours and a-half—-from 7.30 to 11. Now, how many hours had he on Sunday? On Sunday his time was all his own, and he could drink from 2 till 9 —seven hours. In the face of that fact was it fair to say that the working men drank less on Sunday, because the hours were restricted? There was only one word more he had to say. The hon. and learned Gentleman remarked, after looking round these benches upon which he sat, that there was no one who agitated for this Bill who did not agitate for the opening of the parks and museums to the people 20 years ago, and that there was no one who opposed this measure who laboured in that cause. In 1853 he (Dr. O'Leary) was one of the persons who were working with him. Another thing the hon. and learned Gentleman should remember was that at that time, on account of advocating national principles, he was not so much in favour as he was now. One word more he had to say. The hon. and learned Gentleman
  724
  said when he (Dr. O'Leary) contradicted him, that if there was such a man he must have been in bibs and tuckers. One did not know the proper time for casting swaddling clothes or for putting on bibs and tuckers, or for donning unmentionables. But if he (Dr. O'Leary) did support and work with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he was in bibs and tuckers, all the more honour to him, for in that case he was almost as smart a fellow as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, when he learned Sabbatarianism at his mother's breast. He might have been young, but he was earnest and ardent. He remembered, too, that at that time the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue) was the rising sun of Ireland, and received all the honours, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth was anything but a rising sun.
  MR. B. WHITWORTHsaid, that in his town (Kilkenny), of the 3,384 persons who signed Petitions, 1,680 persons were in favour of the Bill, 179 were opposed to it, and 167 returned blank forms of the questions put to them. Therefore, he found that 90 out of 100 of the people of Kilkenny were in favour of the passing of the Bill. When he appeared there as a candidate he had the honour of being opposed by the licensed victuallers of Dublin, who sent down a gentleman whom all Irish Members knew well, as he always appeared in the Lobby when there was a question concerning the licensed victuallers. He referred to Mr. Dwyer, the secretary, who stayed in the town for a week, and represented him as the greatest enemy of the licensed victuallers. Yet he could safely say that nine-tenths of the publicans of Kilkenny voted for him, although they knew he was in favour of Sunday-closing. It was not fair, from what he knew, to say that the people of Ireland were not in favour of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down represented a very ancient town, which he knew very well, and he (Mr. Whitworth) said that on that question four-fifths of the electors of Drogheda were in favour of Sunday closing. He challenged him to meet him in Drogheda to test in public whether or not he fairly represented the views of the electors. Another strong opponent of the Bill was the hon. Member for Dunkalk (Mr. Callan), who pro-

  725
  mised to meet him at a public meeting to discuss this question, but showed the white feather, and dared not meet him.
  MR. CALLANwished to know whether that was an expression which ought to be applied to an hon. Member who was accidentally prevented from attending the meeting? The hon. Member for Kilkenny had stated that he dared not meet him, he knowing full well that the contrary was the fact.
  MR. B. WHITWORTHsaid, these Members knew perfectly well that they misrepresented the public opinion of Ireland; but they never discussed the question in a public meeting, as they were well aware they would find themselves in as great a minority as they were in that House. Something had been said about the United Kingdom Alliance, of which he (Mr. Whitworth) was Chairman, having voted money for election purposes. He could say that during the 10 years he had been connected with that great agency not Is. had been spent for such a purpose. Money had been spent for publications, but not for elections. It could not be said, as a general rule, that the people of Ireland were united, but on this question they were undoubtedly so. He was aware, however, that some Members of that House were instigated by the trade organization in Dublin, but they did not truly represent the feeling of their constituents. A gentleman had been sent down by that body to oppose him in the election for the borough he now represented. He hoped the Government would allow sufficient time for the passing of this measure. If they did not, it would be a great reflection on the Parliamentary government of this country.
  MR. KIRKsaid, that the restrictions proposed by this Bill were not at all necessary, fie had lived for a number of years in an agricultural district in the county of Louth; nor did he think that the statistics that had been quoted with reference to the shortening of hours on Sunday had anything to do with the fact that there was less drinking on that day than on any other. A gentleman who had been Solicitor General for Ireland said, when this matter was brought before the Poor Law Board, that he had found by statistics that there was more drinking went on in those counties on Sundays in which restrictions were placed upon the hours during which the public-houses
  726
  were open than there was in those where there was no such restriction. Coercive measures would never, in his opinion, do what the promoters of this Bill desired; and, in fact, it had not been introduced in order to restrict the hours upon which drink should be sold on Sunday, but purely from Sabbatarian reasons. And he saw in a newspaper some time ago that Sabbatarians wished to cram their opinion down the throats of those who did not agree with them. Scotchmen were rather given to that kind of thing. He believed himself that, if they could, they would even go so far as to press people to wear the kilt. As a county Member he protested against the Bill, and regretted that its promoters had not accepted the compromise which had been offered them. The people who would be affected by the Bill were not the rich, but the poor; and he had ascertained from many of these in his own country what their feelings were upon the matter. The artizans and the labouring men with whom he had conversed told him that they were opposed to Sunday closing. Really, the drinking did not go on in the agricultural districts, but in towns. If the Bill were passed it would be regarded by the Irish people as a measure of coercion and as a piece of class legislation; and even the most ignorant would be thoroughly dissatisfied with it.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that in rising to oppose the introduction of this Bill into Committee, he should be careful not to introduce any old facts in doing so after the lecture which the hon. Member for Cork city (Mr. Murphy) got from The Times in an inspired article which appeared on Thursday last. The only remark he would make on that article was that the writer of it must not have been in the House when the hon. Member delivered his speech, as every man who heard it must admit that it was very able, and that the hon. Member brought forward a large number of new facts in support of his Amendment. He (Mr. 0'Sullivan) should oppose the Bill from various reasons. First of all, he would oppose it because it was a piece of class legislation, and class legislation of the worst kind, forced on by the rich minority to curtail the privileges of the working classes. He next opposed it because, to a certain extent, it confiscated the business of thousands of small

  727
  shopkeepers in Ireland, while, at the same time, it would not put a stop to drinking, but would merely transfer part of the traffic in drink from the general body of traders to the large grocers on Saturday evenings and the remainder to the shebeen-house keepers on Sundays, without offering any compensation whatever to the sufferers by the enforcement of the measure. In the next place, he felt bound to oppose the Bill because he believed it would be found to increase both drunkenness and immorality; and, lastly, he opposed it because it was contrary to the wishes of a very large majority of his fellow-countrymen. Having given his reasons for opposing the measure, he should at once proceed to give the House some very strong evidence in support of his objections. The only way to prove that the Bill was a piece of class legislation was by referring, to the Petitions that had been sent in favour of it, and to see where they came from, and how they were got up, with the class of persons who signed them. He wondered whether hon. Members ever examined the Petitions they presented to the House. If they did not he did. On his arrival in town at the beginning of February, he found a Petition waiting for him from a parish in his own county in favour of this Bill. Knowing the parish well whence it was sent, he looked over the Petition and found it contained a total of 23 signatures. Of these 23, he was aware that 16 were Protestants, and out of those 16 he was well aware that not three of them ever went inside a public-house in his life. He was very sorry to introduce the question of any man's religion into a debate, as religious differences had always been the cause of the misfortunes of his country; but he had mentioned the fact in this instance simply to show who were getting up those Petitions. Well, who signed them? They were signed by four classes—the extreme teetotallers, to whom he gave every credit for their sincerity—the Sabbatarians, who were the backbone of the movement, and who would not allow people to whistle on Sunday if they could prevent it—by a number of maiden ladies of the Moody and Sankey school—and school girls and boys over whom the parson ruled supreme. He might mention to the House that a Petition from his own parish of Kilmallock
  728
  was presented to that House by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. P. Smyth), signed by 48 persons, 21 of whom were Protestants, although they formed only 3 per cent of the population. Of the remainder, five were in the employment of a gentleman who took a great interest in the Bill, two were children, who were put down as "students," and there were only 19 who could be described as "free and independent" petitioners. Yet what was the fact? He held in his hand a Petition from the same parish. That Petition was signed by 300 persons, and amongst the first who signed it he found the names of 17 out of the 19 "free and independent" individuals who had signed the other Petition to which he had referred. That was the way in which these Petitions were got up, and if the hon. Gentleman had any doubt on the matter he could examine the signatures. Having disposed of the two Petitions from his own locality, he would ask the House to bear with him while he examined the general Petitions presented to this House in favour of the Bill from the Returns of Public Petitions presented to this House, and see who presented them, and where and what sort of persons they emanated from, and then say if those were the persons hon. Members judged by when they said this was an Irish idea. The hon. Member then called attention to the Petitions presented in favour of this Bill for the last two months from England, Scotland, and different religious bodies in the North of Ireland, composed of Methodists, Quakers, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, and other sects, and showed that five-sixths of all the Petitions presented in favour of the Bill were from the Sabbatarian class. He was opposed to the Bill, in the second place, because it confiscated a large portion of the property of 16,000 or 17,000 respectable traders in Ireland without giving them Is. compensation for their loss. It was a well-known fact that the Government could take away property if they thought it would benefit society to do so, and they gave that same power very properly to Railway Companies, which were a benefit to society; but it was a very well understood maxim that the Government never took the property of any person without making compensation to the persons who suffered; but the promoters

  729
  of this Bill had made no provision whatever for those who suffered by their Bill. On this point he would quote the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, who said that existing vested interests should not be extinguished, even for a legitimate object, without full compensation. Alluding to the reduction of public-houses in Dublin, he said not even the Government could close up those houses without giving compensation to their owners for the loss they would sustain. When Parliament abolished slavery in their Colonies they made compensation to the owners of those slaves, though it was a trade few men sympathised with. In fact, it was a trade which Englishmen felt ashamed of; yet, notwithstanding this, they gave compensation to those who trafficked in human flesh simply because they were depriving them of part of their property. Then, again, when they abolished purchase in the Army, they gave compensation to the officers who suffered by the change. Notwithstanding the fact that purchase in the Army was declared illegal by an Act of George III., that did not prevent this House making compensation to all who suffered by the change. In the present case they were going to destroy a portion of the property of a number of regularly licensed traders, and he asked the House if they considered it just or right to do so without compensating those men? If they did so, what would the publicans and their friends justly say, but that because they had no friends in the large Clubs of London, or they had no influence with either of the great Parties who managed the business of the State, they were plundered out of their property without getting Is. compensation. Would, that add to the confidence or good opinion of English government in Ireland? No, it would still more weaken that which was feeble enough already. They had been told that this Bill would put a stop to the drunkard, and make a sober man of him. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) wished that it did, for there was not a man in that Assembly who would support a measure having that result more warmly than he would; but how had it been shown by any of the eloquent advocates of the Bill that it would lessen intemperance? On the contrary, he showed the House on the second reading of the Bill, by means of a Return obtained through Lord Emly,
  730
  that there were more cases of drunkenness in equal populations in the part of the country that he had the honour to represent, where the houses were closed on Sundays, than there were in the portion of the same county where the houses were open on that day. Before sitting down he wished to give the House some other reasons to prove how very few people in the country were in favour of the Bill. At two Catholic churches in the county which he represented Petitions were laid on the tables at the doors of each during two Masses, and the clergyman called the attention of the people to those Petitions. At one of those churches, where there was a population of 900, the Petition was signed by 12 persons; and at the other, where there was a population of over 1,500, it was signed by just three persons. Then, again, in the principal bank of the town in which he (Mr. O'Sullivan) resided, the local gentleman who, he had already told the House, was very active in getting up Petitions in favour of this Bill, left one of those Petitions on the public counter for the purpose of having it signed. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had occasion to go to the bank for five consecutive days, and through those five days there was not a single name signed to the Petition, though thousands of persons must have seen it in that time. Would the House require further proof to show how unpopular this Bill was amongst the people whom it affected? The Sunday closers depended more on votes than they did on arguments in carrying their Bill. If the Sunday closing gentlemen laid out one-half the money they were spending in promoting the Bill on the improvement of labourers' dwellings in Ireland, they would find they would do far more to promote the cause of temperance and morality than they could ever accomplish by the Bill now before the House. But the fact was, that these people looked upon the tradesmen and labourers in his country as a parcel of children who required to be watched in all their movements. On Sunday drunkenness was much less in proportion than on any other day in the week. The arrests on Sunday in Lei-trim, instead of being 1–7th, were only 1–30th; in Londonderry, 1–36th; in Louth and Roscommon, 1–15th.; in Mayo, 1–13th; in the North Riding of Tip-

  731
  perary, where the public-houses were open, 1–18th; and in the South Riding, where they were in a great part closed, 1–13th. In four districts of Tipperary, where the population numbered 23,270, and the public-houses were open, the convictions for drunkenness on Sunday in 1876 were 649; while in three districts of the same county, with a population of 4,352, where the public-houses were closed, the convictions were 894. Take the Tipperary petty sessions district, with a population of 16,953—a district where total Sunday closing was carried out at the request of the late Archbishop—and compare it with several similar sized in the neighbouring counties where the public-houses were open on Sunday. The total number of convictions for drunkenness in this district for the year 1876 was 771. The nearest town he could get in the next county where public-houses were open on Sundays, with about an equal population, was Fermoy, county Cork. With a population of 15,179, or a little less than Tipperary, the convictions for drunkenness in 1876 were 219, or very little more than] one-fourth the drunkenness which took place in the district where Sunday closing was observed. The next town he could find with a similar population to that of Tipperary in the next adjoining county was Newcastle West, in the county Limerick. With a population of 16,987, or just 34 persons more than Tipperary, he found the convictions for drunkenness in that district, where the public-houses were open on Sunday, during the year 1876 was 390, or about one-half the convictions that took place in Tipperary, with a smaller population, and where the public-houses were supposed to be all closed on Sundays. It was true the House referred this Bill to a Select Committee; but what confidence did they think would be placed in that Committee by the people of the South, the West, and the East of Ireland, when they found that more than one-third of the Committee was composed of Representatives from the Scotch, Sabbatarian North of Ireland, where nine-tenths of the agitation for this Bill was carried on, and that more than one-fourth of the Committee was composed of extreme teetotallers who would look on it as almost a crime for any man to take a pint of beer or a glass of whiskey? He had given the House some statistics;
  732
  but if he were to go through them all he would require two more hours to finish his observations.
  It being now ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

VACCINATION.—RESOLUTION.
EARL PERCY,in rising to move—
"That it is expedient that an inquiry should he instituted into the practice of vaccination, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it cannot he conducted in a more satisfactory manner than it is at present,"
said, he did not bring the question forward, because he was in any sense opposed to vaccination. On the contrary, he emphatically stated that no one could have a higher estimate than he had of the value of vaccination; and his object on that occasion was, if possible, to improve the present mode of practising it rather than in any way to diminish the benefits accruing from it. There were a class of persons in this country who called themselves anti-vac-cinationists. They were not very numerous, but their number was increasing, and they were extremely active. The language which they held, while in many respects foolish, was to a certain extent mischievous, and worthy the attention of those who had the control of the manner in which vaccination was carried out. He confessed he had a certain sympathy with those persons; but he was not disposed in any degree to palliate their resistance to the law or their efforts to incite others to resist it. Neither was he inclined to defend those who, he was sorry to say, in different parts of the country, occupying posts of trust for enforcing the law, showed themselves very slack in putting it into operation. He was, however, anxious that those who opposed vaccination should be left without a shadow of excuse for their conduct. The notions of those persons were in many ways very erroneous. Since he had taken up that subject he had received many letters about it from various sources. In one of them the absurd idea was expressed that the

733
failure of the French in the Franco-German War was due to the fact that all French soldiers were subjected to compulsory vaccination. The agitation on that question had almost assumed a political character, electors being urged to sign a pledge that they would vote in favour of no candidate for a seat in that House who did not promise to oppose compulsory vaccination. There was no greater pest than the taking up of a catch-cry and making it a test question at elections, and vaccination was about the last subject that he wished to see treated in that way. An article in one of the organs of the anti-vaccinationists was headed "The wickedness of enforcing unjust laws and the duty of resisting them." Now, there might be a question whether a particular law was good or bad, but when a law was once established it was incumbent on all good citizens to respect it. The spirit which actuated some of the anti-vaccinationists prompted them to suggest that where vaccination had been compulsorily carried out, means should be employed to render it a failure. He did not know whether any antidote to vaccination was known; but the spirit to which he had referred ought, if possible, to be suppressed. Members of the highest classes of society, and even of that House, had expressed to him their disinclination to allow their children to be vaccinated from the ordinary lymph, but only from lymph which they could trace from an undoubted source. That might or might not be reasonable; but it at any rate showed in some minds certain doubts of the nature of the lymph that was now generally used. It was desirable that we should take away any excuse for such a feeling, and give them the certainty that the lymph was the purest and the most efficacious which could be secured. The statistics upon the subject were frequently quoted to show the most contrary results; and, therefore, he should use them only with the greatest diffidence, leaving the House to take them for what they were worth. The allegations made against the lymph now in use were twofold—firstly, that it had by constant transmission through various persons lost its force; and, secondly, that it was a vehicle for other maladies. With regard to the first of these allegations, he thought it was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of
734
the Local Government Board that there had been very little new lymph introduced into the public vaccination establishments for the last 70 years; and hon. Members might judge for themselves whether the lymph in use was not likely to have deteriorated in that time. Before Jenner instituted vaccination in 1796, the deaths from smallpox were 52,000 annually. But from that date down to 1825 there was no epidemic of small-pox. In 1838 there was a small-pox epidemic; another in 1840–1; others in 1845, 1848, 1851–2, 1857–9, 1863–5, 1870–2, and at the present time. The deaths in the epidemic of 1857–9 were 14,244; those in 1863–5, 20,059; and those in 1871–2, 44,840. The increase of the population between the first two of those dates was 7 per cent, and of deaths from small-pox nearly 50 per cent; and between the second and third periods the increase of the population was 10 per cent, and of the fatalities from small-pox 120 per cent. From 1854 to 1863 there were 33,515 deaths, and from 1864 to 1873, 70,458; and the Registrar General, in his Report for l872, said that while the annual mortality in the 20 years was at the rate of 2·4, in 1871 it was 10·24, and in 1872 8·33, and this with the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislation. It was sometimes said that the number of deaths were fewer in comparison with the number of cases; but that would not defeat the position which he took up. The weakness of the lymph now in use had been long admitted. As to the idea that other diseases were transmissible through vaccine lymph, that was of course a subject that required a professional mind to appreciate the facts of the case. In 1857 it was the almost universal opinion of doctors that vaccination could not carry with it any other disease. Mr. Simon, Medical Officer to the Privy Council, in his Report, said that almost all the most eminent doctors in all parts of Europe denied the possibility of any other malady being transmitted by means of vaccination. But the opinions of doctors on that subject had very materially changed within the last few years. M. Ricord, Mr. Simon, Dr. Ballard, and Mr. Hutchinson, were instances of those who had at length admitted that diseases might be, and, indeed, were sometimes, transmitted by vaccine lymph. Admitting that evil

735
might occur from the use of impure lymph, the first doubt was as to how great that danger was. As long as that doubt remained in people's minds they naturally took considerable interest in obtaining lymph as pure as possible, and in being able to trace it to its source. He might be asked what remedy he had to propose for this state of things. He candidly confessed that he had no remedy to propose. He did not think himself competent, and he rather doubted whether the House itself was competent, at once and directly to propose such a remedy. But if what he had stated was true—if small-pox was on the increase, and if, on the other hand, the transmission of disease by vaccine matter had been proved to have occurred, he thought that he was justified in moving that some further inquiry should be made into the subject. He should be content to leave the form of the inquiry, whether it should be by Commission or Committee, to the Government and the House. Perhaps, however, he might venture to suggest that further inquiry should be made into the results of the Belgian system of vaccination from the calf, which, it was asserted, had been most successful. It was true that some time ago the President of the Local Government Board had, in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Trevor Lawrence), stated that Dr. Seaton had reported unfavourably of that system as being uncertain and violent in its effects; but it must be remembered that Dr. Seaton made his investigations into the Belgian system in 1869, and that it had been greatly improved since then. The Lancet, in commenting upon the answer of the President of the Local Government Board, declared that the time had come when further investigation into that system had become imperative, and that the feeling of medical men in Belgium was steadily growing in favour of animal vaccination. He therefore suggested that the point to be investigated was whether the statements publicly made in Belgium on this subject were correct or not; and in the event of their being shown to be incorrect, what means could be adopted in this country for obtaining purer lymph than we now possessed. He knew four or five medical men in this country who had for some time practised animal
736
vaccination with the greatest success, and he had also heard that it had proved equally successful in America. He must remind the House that our Vaccination Laws were of an exceptional character, and that, therefore, it was especially necessary that we should guard the child whom we vaccinated— often against the will of its parent— from even the suspicion of danger. He thought that no expense of a moderate amount should be spared to bring this question to a successful issue. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) was one from which, speaking for himself, he should not dissent; but if any hon. Member could devise any better means than at present existed by which vaccination could be carried out, he would throw no objection in the way. He was strongly of opinion that there should be some inquiry into the practice, as to whether an improvement should not be made in the carrying out of vaccination, and therefore it was he brought forward his Motion.
MR. GREENE,in seconding the Resolution, expressed his regret that there was not a fuller House to listen to the debate upon this subject; but after the proceedings of last night the thinness of the House was not a matter of surprise. The subject was one which was occupying the public mind in various ways. There was no doubt that there was much misunderstanding on the question. People were apt to believe that every attempted operation of vaccination was successful, but such was not the case, and he made this statement on the authority of several eminent medical men. There was no doubt, however, that wherever persons had been properly vaccinated the eases of small-pox had been very few indeed, and there had been scarcely any deaths; and, therefore, he was the more anxious to remove all possible objections that could be raised against it. Like all other scientific questions, vaccination required occasional investigation, as new facts were discovered; but he thought there could be no doubt as to the general proposition that its effect was beneficial, and the facts which had been quoted by the noble Lord made it equally clear that vaccination by means of animal lymph had better effects than were produced by means of the lymph ordi-

737
narily used. It was important that at the present time an inquiry should be made, and he hoped that the Committee asked for by the noble Lord would be granted.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient that an inquiry should he instituted into the practice of vaccination, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it cannot he conducted in a more satisfactory manner than it is at present."—(Earl Percy.)
MR. PEASE,in rising to move, as an Amendment, to add—
"And whether the Law relating to the accumulation or repetition of penalties for the same offence does not require amendment,"
said, he agreed entirely with the views of the noble Lord as to the importance of vaccination; but he wished to bring again before the House the question of inflicting cumulative penalties upon offenders against the laws relating to vaccination. He had already brought the question before the House in a general form on one or two occasions; but, as he saw no similar opportunity in the course of the present Session of doing so, he had thought it right to raise it on the matter of vaccination, the law concerning which, as far as the question of penalties went, seemed to him unduly harsh. In judging of the results of vaccination, they ought to make some allowance for constitutional derangement, difficulties in the carrying out of the law, and want of experience in the practitioner. When, however, they came to consider the subject of cumulative penalties, they ought to remember that, according to the Return before the House, there had been, from 1870 to 1874, 5,490 prosecutions, 2,650 convictions, 103 double convictions, 43 persons convicted three times, 20 five times, four 9 times, four 10 times, one 12 times, two 16, and two 19 times, for noncompliance with the Act. Such a list as that formed, in effect, a great barrier in the way of carrying out a sanitary law. He had received letters from various counties, the writers stating that they had suffered many penalties, one to the extent of £45; another, who had been fined £19 in two years, and would suffer more rather than have their children vaccinated. They had also the case of a Board of Guardians marched off to York Castle to purge their contempt for
738
disobedience to the law. He did not deny that compulsion might be necessary; but the kind of compulsion that ought to be resorted to was a different matter. A police officer could not enter a cottage by force and carry off a child to be vaccinated. The child remained unvaccinated, and all the law did was to fine the parent. The law, as it now stood, was one law for the rich and another for the poor, because the rich man could afford to pay the fine and the poor man could not. There was a good deal of distrust of medical men amongst the working classes; because unless sufficient care was taken it was, of course, possible to inoculate a disease worse than small-pox itself. He had in his hand a letter from a gentleman who stated that he would rather pay any amount of fines than have his only surviving child vaccinated. He had lost his other children who had been vaccinated, but the child in question was a healthy child, and he would suffer any penalty rather than submit it to the process. There was no logic in their present proceeding; for, as he had said, the child was allowed to go free and remain unvaccinated, while cumulative penalties were heaped upon the parent. It was a question of the degree of compulsion that should be used to attain the object which they had in view. As long as the present uncertainty existed, it was impossible to go on with the present system of accumulating fines upon the head of the same luckless individual. If there were those who did not believe in the theory of vaccination, he thought they should be let off upon as low terms as possible, as long as the merely idle and careless did not escape. His object had been to show the great hardship of these fines upon people who, having seen the effect of vaccination upon their own families, demurred to having their children poisoned by this process. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
MR. JAMES,in seconding the Amendment, said, that this question had not been discussed in the present Parliament; but if the present system was to be maintained it would be necessary to have some inquiry into its working. The statistics were imperfect, and it was difficult to make out how far vaccination had been really successful. A certain number of people were opposed to it, and it

739
was only by repeated inquiries and discussions that its great advantages would he generally recognized, and not by imposing these constant penalties, which amounted in some cases to persecution. Would Members of that House like to take their children to be vaccinated at some low vaccination-station like Bethnal Green or the purlieus of Westminster, where they could make no inquiry as to the antecedents of the children from whom the vaccine matter was taken? It was almost impossible to controvert the result of the Report of the Committee of 1871—namely, that cow-pox was a very great protection against small-pox, and if the operation were properly performed injury to the health would not follow. Some poor children, and even adults, had been injured by vaccination, and by the use of dirty instruments. He trusted that the Government would adopt the principle of the Scotch Act. Even with all these cumulative penalties the State might go on fining, but did not secure the vaccination of the child. In the case of Abel he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would prevent further prosecutions against him. The feeling out-of-doors was not so much against the right hon. Gentleman as against the officials of the Local Government Board, who wished, apparently, to be autocrats.
Amendment proposed,
To add, at the end of the Question, the words "and whether the Law relating to the accumulation or repetition of penalties for the same offence does not require amendment."—(Mr. Pease.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE,having vaccinated thousands and superintended the vaccination of tens of thousands, thought the dissatisfaction which prevailed in the country was somewhat exaggerated, and that it was largely counteracted by a very strong feeling in favour of vaccination. He deprecated the idea that the subject could be treated from the point of view of those who thought they knew their own constitutions and those of their children — a notion which, if carried out, would lead to such practice as that of the ship surgeon, who said to his passenger patients —"You are old enough to know your own constitution; there is the medicine chest; take what you think will do you
740
good." The statistics relating to the attendants at the London hospitals were remarkable, as showing an almost complete immunity from small-pox on the part of those who had been re-vaccinated; but vaccination could not be done carelessly, or in a hurry. The operation in itself was not an uncertain one, and the failures were due to the want of care and skill on the part of medical men, one of whom surprised him the other day, when vaccinating a child of his own, by using ivory points instead of fresh lymph from the arm or tubes. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would favour all measures that could promote efficiency; and, in particular, that he would do what he could to facilitate animal vaccination. One medical man in London had kept up a supply of animal vaccine; but the expense of maintaining it was so considerable, and the applications for it were so few, that he was obliged to give up keeping it. What was really required was a sufficient supply of animal lymph for emergencies like that caused by the small-pox epidemic of the present year, to meet the prejudices of those who objected-to vaccination from arm to arm.
MR. HOPWOODwarned the House against committing itself to any dogmatic certainty on the subject of vaccination, pointing out that the unanimity which once prevailed among the Medical Profession in reference to the now discarded and prohibited system of inoculation ought to make people cautious in that respect. The question, he urged, was not altogether a medical one, but ought to be viewed in relation to the feelings of the people who were subjected to the law. It was proved before the Select Committee which last inquired into this subject that vaccinators were sometimes careless; that diseases of the most loathsome character were sometimes introduced into the system by the process of vaccination; and it should not be forgotten that some of the vaccine matter now used had been passing from arm to arm and from system to system for 70 years, for nearly all the matter used was derived from that which Jenner first obtained from animals. Was it surprising, in these circumstances, that some people should have a deep-rooted and conscientious objection to the vaccination of their children? For his own part, he was not

741
disposed to counsel people to submit passively to laws which in their hearts they thoroughly disapproved, especially when their conscience and their health were concerned. The case was eminently one for inquiry. At present, although the information we possessed on the subject was limited, magistrates set themselves to enforce the law in something like passion, being apparently resolved to make the unhappy persons who objected and were brought before them bend submissively to the yoke at any cost; and the country had seen the illegal spectacle of the Chairman of a Board of Guardians directing a prosecution and afterwards himself sitting on the bench of magistrates to try the ease. In one case which had come to his knowledge it was said that a man had been summoned for vaccination offences no fewer than 44 times since the year 1870, and another had been prosecuted 16 times. He regretted that the Registrar General had taken up so pronounced a position on the question, because his doing so was calculated to throw doubt on his impartiality. He contended that the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) should stand as part of the original Motion of the noble Lord, and he hoped that it would be carried.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHobserved that the debate had travelled over a wide field, and he felt himself placed in a position of some embarrassment, inasmuch as his noble Friend who brought forward the Motion had stated at the outset that he was in favour of compulsory vaccination; but the Mover of the Amendment had laid down propositions and doctrines entirely antagonistic to those which his noble Friend had advanced. Dealing first with the Motion, he must, however, say that his noble Friend had produced no evidence whatever to substantiate the accusations which he had preferred against the practice of compulsory vaccination in this country. He had adduced no names of physicians, no authority whatever for his innuendoes against that practice. His noble Friend stated that vaccination was unpopular among large classes of the people. No doubt compulsory interference between parent and child might be unpopular, but Parliament had decided that such interference was required in the public interest; and the
742
medical testimony on which the Act was based was accepted by the great mass of medical men, not only in this Kingdom, but in Christendom. His noble Friend assumed that the lymph now in use among the doctors of this country had lost its efficacy; but he did not say on what foundation that assumption rested. [Earl PERCY: On statistics.] His noble Friend had adduced statistics with the view of showing that small-pox was now more prevalent and more fatal than in times past, and he could not now undertake to follow him with statistics which might be brought forward in opposition to that allegation. He knew, however, that in the last century 1–14th of the whole deaths in the Kingdom arose from small-pox; that asylums were filled with persons who had been blinded or crippled by the disease; and that one-fifth of our soldiers and Militia then suffered more or less from the results of its ravages. He thought he need not undertake at this time of day to prove what he believed was an admitted proposition—not only in the House but in the country—that smallpox was held in check by the system of vaccination. The noble Lord had not convinced him that he had any authority for making his statements to the contrary. The noble Lord assumed that vaccination from the cow would produce more satisfactory results, and would, in fact, enable us to enforce vaccination in a way that he thought would be justifiable. Well he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) could only say in reply to that statement that although the greater part of the lymph now in use in this country had been derived from the Jennerian stock the Vaccination Establishments never neglected an opportunity when it presented itself of introducing new stocks of lymph, and one of the establishments in London was supplied almost entirely from new stocks derived direct from the animal a few years ago. The noble Lord was, therefore, quite in error in assuming that the whole of the vaccine matter in use in this country was worn out by reason of lapse of time. Then they had had some experience of the validity and satisfactory character of the new stocks of lymph. The results were extremely satisfactory, but not more satisfactory than those obtained at any of the other vaccine stations where the old stocks were used. Again,

743
he must say when his noble Friend had asked for inquiry, that it was only in 1869 that Dr. Seaton, on behalf of the Government, made a personal investigation into the condition of animal lymph in Belgium, Prance, and Holland, and the result of his investigation was to be found in a most elaborate report, which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) then held in his hand, and which he recommended to the study of hon. Members who took an interest in the subject. Very interesting experiments had been made with regard to lymph, and he did not at all wish to deprecate the continuance of experiments. On the contrary, he had had many communications with the medical officer on the subject, and that gentleman had assured him that he was willing and ready at all times to make experiments and follow the lights which modern science might throw upon the subject. So late as 1875 the French physicians discontinued the use of vaccine matter direct from the animal, having found that it produced no better results than those produced by the ordinary lymph, while the effects appeared to be much more uncertain. With regard to the wide-spread feeling that was said to exist among the public in reference to the operation of the present system, he was not aware that there was evidence to show that such a widespread feeling did exist, although no doubt additional interest had been awakened by the recent outbreak of small-pox; and he had no reason to suppose that there was any foundation for it in the minds of medical men of authority. He was quite willing, however, to assure his noble Friend that the attention of the medical officers of his Department would be continually directed to this subject, and that the Government would spare no expense either to continue experiments, or to make fresh ones, or to send out gentlemen to make inquiries such as were made a few years ago with the view of ascertaining the most recent practice and experience on the subject. Meanwhile, the information before him did not lead him to suppose that the mischief which was supposed to arise from the practice of vaccination as at present pursued would be at all cured by the new species of vaccine recommended. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion (Mr. Greene) had used arguments which he (Mr. Sclater-Booth)
744
thought were contradictory of each other. He repeated the complaint that in the course of years the vaccine matter had become effete; but, on the other hand, he stated in the most unqualified terms that the nurses in the London Hospital, who had been subjected to the most frightful chances of catching the disease, had been secured against it by the process of re-vaccination. If the vaccine matter employed in those hospitals had been effete, as described, how was it possible that those extraordinary results could have followed? But he did not understand that the efficacy of vaccination was the point now in question. Upon that all seemed to be agreed. He was in constant communication with the chairmen and managers of the metropolitan district hospitals, and he had been informed by skilful medical men that there was no reason whatever to believe that small-pox had lost either its virulency or its epidemic effect, or that it was less kept in check than heretofore by the practice of vaccination. Certain it was that though the number of deaths arising from smallpox during the past Autumn and Spring had not been great compared with deaths from the same cause in previous epidemics, the character of the disease was as loathsome as could possibly be conceived. Although the practice of vaccination might be open to some observation, it was a provision with regard to the health of the community which it would be criminal on the part of those in authority to ignore. The noble Lord being desirous not of upsetting the vaccination laws, but, on the contrary, of enforcing them with a stringency which he himself should scarcely be inclined to advocate, had suggested that animal lymph should be used in vaccination. The hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) having failed in obtaining a second reading for his Bill, which he regretted, had now moved an Amendment to the effect that the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord should be extended to the subject of the expediency of continuing the accumulative penalties against those who were guilty of a breach of the law on this subject. It was quite true, as the hon. Member stated, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons which satinl871hadrecommended among other things that no penalty beyond the second should be enforced

745
against those who persisted in breaking the law. Various other suggestions had been made, some of which were plausible, and others of which were reasonable, by which the difficulty with regard to these accumulative penalties for the same offence, which he admitted were without parallel in our law, might be avoided. These suggestions were doubtless worthy of consideration; but the main difficulty was that those who objected to vaccination denounced them all, and they would even eschew the proposition of the hon. Member (Mr. Pease). The fact was that the feeling of some of the persons who were opposed to vaccination approached that of religious conviction, and such persons would repudiate all the suggestions which had been made as unworthy of consideration by antivaccinationists. But, he must ask, was Parliament prepared to go the length of abrogating all the laws upon this subject? That was the difficulty in which lie found himself placed. When first he acceded to the office he now held he found existing among certain classes a feeling on the subject which commended itself to his sympathies as pointing to an anomaly in the existing law; and it was in the hope of mitigating the hardships of that law that a measure was passed through Parliament in 1874 with the view of enabling the Local Government Board to make rules and regulations as to the way in which the law should be enforced. It had been suggested that something further ought to be done towards putting a stop to the infliction of repeated penalties for the same offence; but it was difficult to know where to be peremptory and where to leave a discretion to the local authorities. As long as these laws remained in force it appeared to him to be absolutely necessary to leave it to the discretion of the prosecuting authority to say whether it was for the advantage of the community that these penalties should be enforced or not. He thought that he had sufficiently indicated the feeling of the Government that these repeated prosecutions should not be lightly undertaken. He, however, was not prepared to say that in districts where the Anti-Vaccination Society had interfered unduly to prevent the wholesome operation of the law that the Guardians were not justified in instituting these prosecutions and the magistrates were not justified in convicting
746
and enforcing the penalties. He had repeatedly had his attention called to the subject, and he should have been glad to ask Parliament again, if he saw his way, to consider it; but, as he had stated before in answer to Questions, he doubted whether the Government could carry through Parliament a Bill which would, have the effect of cutting down those penalties and breaking down the stringency of the existing law. At this stage of the Session it was not possible for the Government to propose any alteration in the law during the present year; but whether it might be possible in future years to propose legislation to meet the views of hon. Members opposite, he could not say. It was perfectly true that Mr. Simon was never in favour of the cumulative penalties. The difficulty was to avoid, in any change of the law, breaking down the securities which the law now gave. They did not know what an outburst of feeling of dissatisfaction would be encountered if any Government attempted to comply with the requirements of the Anti-Vaccination Society. At the same time the Government did not undervalue the objections of ignorant people, who naturally disliked interference between themselves and their children for an object which they did not appreciate, and which, nevertheless, they owed to the whole community to permit to be performed. Then it was stated that other diseases were propagated by the system; but he would say that out of the many millions of operations which had been performed since the inquiry of 1871 they had not found a single allegation of this kind which did not break down upon inquiry. He would not say that there were not cases in which the operation was performed at improper times, and that erysipelas was not occasionally induced by vaccination, as it was by any other wound; but the greatest pains were always taken to investigate these cases, and he had never hesitated to follow them up and to remove vaccination officers who were proved to have improperly performed their duties. Still, he could not say that these complaints were frequent, or that when investigated they were often found to be otherwise than groundless. Something had been said as to the fact that the Government Department did not supply pure lymph to every practitioner and for all vaccinations.

747
The answer to this was simply that the Department were only hound to supply lymph to public vaccinators and for primary vaccinations, for which operations they were alone responsible. The number of deaths from small-pox in the present epidemic had been very greatly reduced. He thought it could not be too much deprecated that the House of Commons, at a time like the present, should come to any Resolutions which would imply that they had any doubt as to the need of a universal system of vaccination.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with great pleasure. He was quite aware of the difficult position in which the right hon. Gentleman was placed, having to administer a very stringent compulsory Act which affronted the feelings of many parents, while at the same time he was obliged to administer it in order to guard against one of the most terrible disorders. He trusted the noble Lord would be content with the manner in which the Motion had been met by the right hon. Gentleman, and that he would not press it to a division. It was asked that inquiry should be made into the working of the Vaccination Acts; but the inquiry was being constantly made, as he knew by experience, by the able men who were at the head of the Veterinary Department. For the House to decide that there should be further inquiry would only be to tell the country that the House of Commons had great doubt whether vaccination was satisfactorily conducted. That would be a most dangerous step to take. He had also heard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in reference to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) with great pleasure, for the principle of that Amendment he did not oppose. For his part, he heartily supported the Amendment. It had been his duty to preside over a Committee which inquired into the entire subject and to draw up their Report, and afterwards to introduce a Bill to give effect to that Report; and he could not but remember that a provision of that Bill similar to the Amendment was struck out by a small majority in "another place." He should be sorry to say a word against the principle of compulsory vaccination. His reason for supporting the Amendment was that he believed it would enable
748
vaccination to be much more easily made compulsory throughout the Kingdom. If they were to prevent disease they must have vaccination and insist on parents carrying it out, but it was difficult to manage this. He had often been asked why he was in favour of compulsory vaccination; but his reply had always been that he could not be otherwise, as he should thereby become responsible for a number of deaths. There were three classes of persons they had to consider — parents who absolutely neglected their children, parents who were apathetic—by far the largest class —and parents who were conscientiously opposed to vaccination. They could, he thought, bring the law to bear upon the first two classes; but as to the third class, he thought the best thing they could do would be to let those very few people alone. They ought to be content with such a penalty as would be sufficient for the negligent parent, and not go further in the case of the conscientiously opposed parent. But then it might be asked whether we were to let these men go free, and have one law for the poor and another for the rich? The answer was, that if the State were determined that the law should be enforced, it must go a little further. His right hon. Friend must get hold of the child and must take it to the police-office to be vaccinated. His right hon. Friend knew that it would be impossible to work such an Act, and, failing that, the penalties were such that the rich could escape. He believed that there was not a Member of that House who could not prevent his child being vaccinated at an expense of about £40 or £50 a-year. The law, therefore, which enforced vaccination did not meet the case of the rich, and it no doubt did bear rather hardly on the poor. Hence there were anti-vaccination societies, &c. His right hon. Friend had stated that this alteration of the law would not satisfy those who had conscientious objections to vaccination. Well, it would not, but who cared whether it did or did not satisfy these gentlemen? What was wanted was to go back to the law as it stood a few years ago, and to be content with such a penalty as would prevent the idle and careless from neglecting vaccination and to let the others alone. The right hon. Gentleman, in any alteration he might propose, would have great pre-

749
cedents in his favour. No one knew more about the subject than Mr. Simon, and the Select Committee, which was at first prejudiced, after a careful inquiry of several weeks unanimously determined to recommend the amendment to which he alluded. This decision was fully confirmed by this House.
MR. WALTERsaid, he had the misfortune to have one or two constituents who thought they had been persecuted in regard to the vaccination of their children, and it had been his duty to reply to the communications they had addressed to him. He rather regretted that his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not entered into greater detail so as to explain more precisely in what way he would meet these cases, because his remarks did not supply him with a satisfactory answer to these constituents. He should like to know to what extent his right hon. Friend would go in carrying out what appeared to be a dispensation against obeying the law. This appeared to him to be a very dangerous principle to admit—that a pecuniary penalty should relieve a person from the obligation of obeying a law passed for the benefit of the community. A good deal might, no doubt, be said in favour of the doctrine that there should be in certain cases a maximum beyond which penalties should not be inflicted; but would his right hon. Friend apply the same doctrine in other cases—to education, for instance? There was, he believed, no limit to the pecuniary penalties to which a parent was now liable who neglected to send his child to school, and would his right hon. Friend apply any limit to the penalties that might be imposed on these parents?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that there was a liability to imprisonment in the one case and not in the other.
MR. WALTERcould not see that this was a defensible distinction. There were again penalties under the Cattle Plague Act imposed upon those who removed their cattle against the law, and he presumed that those penalties, however severe they might be, were also cumulative. There ought to be some general rule. He wished to mention the way in which this difficult case—for it was a very difficult case—was met in another country, the most allied to our own in its institutions—he meant the United States. Last year, when he was in America, he
750
took particular pains to find out what the laws were with regard to vaccination, and he found there was no compulsory vaccination whatever—that was to say, no direct compulsion. The consequence was that in some places, like Cincinnati, where there was a large German community who had strong objections to vaccination, the small-pox, when it came, made frightful ravages. The way in which the matter was dealt with there was this—they did not by law compel people to be vaccinated, but they did not admit to school any child who had not been vaccinated. Now that we had national education, conducted under a more or less compulsory system, he would ask whether there might not be a rule laid down that no child should be admitted to an elementary school who had not been vaccinated? He had been informed by an authority which he had no reason to doubt that that was the general, if not the universal, rule in the United States. If a similar rule were adopted in this country it might have the effect of an indirect compulsion, without the more stringent and disagreeable penalties by which alone compulsory vaccination could be enforced.
EARL PERCYsaid, that he had been urged not to divide the House; but the right hon. Gentleman said that he had established no case, and if he did not divide it would be admitting the charge. Either the lymph was in a useless condition or vaccination was not a sufficient remedy. Cow-pox was not an uncommon disease in cows. He would take a division on his own Motion, assenting to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pease).
Question put, and agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 106: Majority 50. — (Division List, No. 216.)

THE CONFESSIONAL.—RESOLUTION.
MR. WHALLEYmoved—
"That, having regard to the state of the Law which renders the publication of an obscene book an offence, although the person publishing it be not actuated by any desire to deprave, and to the absence of any power in the Education Department to interfere with the religious teaching in public elementary schools or to

751
make any inquiry thereon, this House is of opinion that the doctrines and practices set forth in a book entitled ' The Priest in Absolution,' and carried out under the name of the Confessional by certain clergymen of the Church of England, do tend to deprave and are dangerous to the best interests of society and of religion."
MR. MONKseconded the Motion.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShad only remarked that he had not seen the book and had not been able to procure a copy, when—
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (175); Municipal Corporations (New Charters)* (125).
Committee—Report—Royal Irish Constabulary* (120).
Report—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment* (109); Trade Marks* (106).
Third Reading—Metropolis Toll Bridges* (43); Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Great Wild Street, &c.)* (81); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bridlington, &c.)* (107), and passed.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I desire to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. I beg to ask him, Whether he is able to give any information to the House with regard to the alleged departure of the Mediterranean Fleet from the Piræus?
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is a fact, as stated in the newspapers, that orders have been given to the British Fleet to leave the Piraeus, where it had been stationed, and return to the station where it was last year—Besika Bay.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL—(No. 114.)
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL—(No. 114.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that last year they spent a considerable time in considering the provisions of the University of Oxford Bill. He then expressed a fear lest the labour which their Lordships had expended on that measure might become vain in consequence of the Bill being lost upon the sands of July. That had, unfortunately, turned out to be true. The Bill failed to pass that terrible ordeal which awaited measures in the other House, and which now appeared to be dangerous even to the most necessary measures for the defence of the country. That Bill was re-introduced this Session in the other House, and together with it was incorporated a Bill, which their Lordships had not yet seen, for the University of Cambridge. The objects of the Bill were the same as they were before, and the provisions, he thought, on the whole, had not been sensibly changed. The cause for the introduction of the Bill last year was
  664
  that a Commission had been issued by the late Government, had sat and examined very carefully into the revenues of the University, and had ascertained that there was a considerable surplus of income more than was necessary for the purposes of the University, purely as an educational body, and that there would, in future years, be a very large increase in that already considerable sum. The Government were certain that Parliament would not consent that so large an addition to the resources of the University should be disposed of without due regard being had to the many wants which had been pointed out and admitted to exist at the University by men of all Parties there, and for which additional resources were requisite. New studies had been introduced, new branches of learning were attracting the attention of numberless students, and new classes of students unconnected with the old institutions and Colleges were flocking in every year to the University. To facilitate the prosecution of those new studies, and to attract and assist those new classes of students, pecuniary resources were very necessary. It was, therefore to bring that supply and that demand together that this Bill was prepared. The method which the Government recommended to Parliament for facilitating the application of those resources to those objects was a very simple one. It was nothing but the creation of a very competent Commission, armed with extensive powers. But they placed a limit to the action of the Bill. They refused to pass beyond the actual requirements of the case—the actual disposal of the money of which the Commission had indicated the existence for purposes which the University felt to be necessary; and the limit which they specially imposed on themselves was that they declined to enter into the difficult fields of controversy connected either with the government of the University, or with the position of the Ecclesiastical Bodies within it. They had not, on the one hand, confined the discretion of the Commission with respect to ecclesiastical subjects, nor, on the other, had they done anything of which the tendency would be to alter the ecclesiastical status quo. In the course of the discussion on the Bill two considerations were pressed on the Government, not only in the House, but by the principal authorities

  665
  of the University themselves; and on their advice they inserted in the Bill a power for the Commission to deal with the Headships and Fellowships, without any restriction on the ecclesiastical destination of a certain number of those endowments. But at the same time provisions were introduced enforcing those prescriptions which Parliament by the University Tests Act had insisted upon six years ago—that religious instruction and religious worship for members of the Church of England should be provided in all the Colleges. To those objects and limitations they had adhered. The Bill had been altered in some few particulars, but the alterations did not affect its cardinal essence, or the main intention which they had in view. The great and most obvious change was that the University of Cambridge Bill had been incorporated with the University of Oxford Bill, and dealt with by analogous provisions. Beyond that, a considerable change had been made in the constitution of the Oxford University Commission. They found that a general feeling existed that some, at least, of the members of the Commission ought to be closely connected with the existing discipline and studies of the place. That defect was pointed out to him in the course of the passage of the Bill through the House. He confessed that his own inclination was in favour of keeping the Commission impartial in the controversies and contentions which, to an unfortunate extent, Oxford had occasionally experienced. But there was a dominant feeling in both Houses of Parliament that some of the Commissioners should be connected with the discipline and studies of the place; and that was pressed on him by Sir Henry Maine, who urged on him that his own place should be vacated for that purpose, and urged it so earnestly that he had hardly thought it fair to insist on holding Sir Henry Maine to his original promise. The Dean of Chichester had very kindly vacated his position as a Commissioner with the same object; and the two vacancies so made had been filled up by two Gentlemen well known in the University, and connected with its discipline and studies. He had yielded to the resignation of Sir Henry Maine with extreme reluctance; but, making all due allowance for that very great loss, he did not think that the Commission would,
  666
  on the whole, be found to have seriously suffered by the change. Professor Henry Smith was so well known to many of their Lordships that he felt that change had been in one respect an advantage, from a point of view to which he attached considerable importance, as by that substitution science was now more strongly represented on the Commission than it was originally—namely, by Mr. Justice Grove only. Beyond that he had not any alteration of importance to note in the Bill. The Bill had grown considerably. The 48 clauses which had left that House had now swollen to 61, and the 12 pages had become 19. Some of that additional matter was owing to a certain number of special clauses, perhaps more interesting to the subjects of them than to the public at large. A number of Foundations had been specially named in particular clauses. But it was not necessary to draw their Lordships' attention to those matters of detail. He should be simply wasting their time by entering into them further. Their Lordships had last year fully discussed the measure, and all the principles on which it was founded. All that he had now to say was, that it was highly expedient for the Universities that that Bill should be passed and that controversy settled. It was not good for the Universities that they should be like iron-clads continually in dock, and subjected to perpetual criticism and change.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD COLCHESTER,who had given Notice to move as an Amendment on the Motion for the second reading—
  "That legislation with reference to the Universities will be premature unless preceded by an inquiry into the working of the changes effected as to the state, studies, and discipline of those Universities by the legislation of 1854 and 1856,"
  said, that when last Session the Bill dealing with the University of Oxford was laid before their Lordships, he ventured to submit to their consideration a Resolution similar in principle to that which he had placed on the Paper that evening. He regretted then, and he regretted now, to find himself in opposition to the views taken on that subject by Her Majesty's Government and those with whom he generally acted; and he

  667
  was aware that though several noble Lords concurred in the objection he felt to parts of the Bill, the opinion that a fresh Commission of Inquiry was necessary did not elicit their support. At a later stage, however, two noble Lords on the other side had made a proposal based on very similar grounds in favour of an inquiry to be held by the Executive Commission about to be appointed before proceeding to act in an executive capacity. He (Lord Colchester) did not vote on that question because he certainly could not see that if an inquiry was to be held, it would be of very great use after the principles by which the Commissioners were to be guided were laid down by Parliament and the bounds of their sphere of action to some extent determined by the enumeration of the matters on which alone they were to touch. But since the University question had again come before Parliament opinions had been expressed elsewhere in favour of a view similar to that he had the honour of submitting last year—that before dealing in a very large—he might say in a very drastic—manner with these institutions, it would not be undesirable to investigate their present condition, to collect the opinions of those most conversant with the University in recent years, whether now holding office within it or not, and not commit those who were to carry out changes to any principles of reform until the grounds for such principles in the existing state of it had been established. He could but regard the Bill as proposed as premature in point of time, as in many points revolutionary, where revolutionary change might be hurtful; and, at the same time, leaving many points open which would prevent its effecting any great settlement, if such a settlement were possible. He thought this measure premature, because it was nearly 23 years since Parliament dealt with this subject in a manner which had in a great measure transformed at least the University of Oxford. But the full effects of that measure had scarcely yet been felt—they hardly could be until the whole generation dating from before the reforms of that period had passed away. The whole system of election to fellowships had been altered, and in a great measure, consequently, the character of the Colleges had been in a state of transmutation. He hardly thought it
  668
  was yet time to pronounce altogether how much of what was new had been altogether good and how much was open to just criticism; and he thought all must acknowledge that nothing could be more unfortunate than that Parliament should be perpetually legislating on these matters, that a fresh University Reform Bill continually should be before the eyes of the Universities, and that the saying of the late Dean of St. Paul's should be realized, which he quoted to their Lordships on a previous occasion. That those who had once used Parliament as an engine for changes in the Universities exemplified Horace's maxim—
  "Ut canis a corio nunquam absterrebitur uncto."
  If it could be shown that Oxford or Cambridge were falling into the decaying and lifeless condition in which they might have been 100 years ago, he could imagine it being said that not a moment should be lost in doing something to restore fresh life before another race of students had suffered from their inefficiency. But this was not contended. There was, it was true, one reason given against delay which he listened to with great respect because it came from the most rev. Primate. The most rev. Primate contended that it was important for the interests of the University to put an end by a final measure to the unrest and disquiet which the prospect and discussion of change occasioned. He (Lord Colchester) only ventured to doubt whether from what he knew of the general tone and temper of minds in Oxford on these questions, and perhaps also among those interested in them elsewhere, any measure—especially one such as now proposed to their Lordships—would stop the movement for further changes among those who did not find in it precisely the provisions desired by themselves. And in this doubt he was confirmed by what was said on that occasion by the noble Marquess himself—
  "I do not entertain the illusory hope that the Bill will be a final effort. The idea of any Bill which will settle the question is a delusion."
  If, then, there was no imperative necessity for legislating at once and without a moment's delay, why were they to depart from the usual course—the course observed in former University legislation

  669
  —the course usual when corporations or institutions were to be re-modelled? It was, he knew, said that there was information enough. We had had, it was said, one Commission as to the University revenues; we had had another exhaustive inquiry more than 20 years ago. Well, as to the former Commission, dealing solely with the revenues of these Bodies, taking no notice of their studies or management, it simply was calculated to raise many perplexities and solve nothing—to show apparent anomalies in the distribution of College funds, in no way assist to show if these anomalies had or had not their justification. As regarded the old Commission, no doubt the Report of that Commission was most valuable as to the state of the Universities at the time it was made; but it referred to a state of things so entirely past as to mislead rather than instruct anyone who had no information from other sources. Many great changes had been introduced in consequence of the inquiry of the Commission—and sufficient time had not yet elapsed to enable them to judge of their working; many arrangements proposed had not yet been introduced:—and he contended that to take the inquiry of the Commission of 1854, and to legislate upon it for the Universities now, would be very much like legislating for the municipalities at the present moment from the information obtained about the unreformed municipalities before 1835. The present measure was, therefore, premature, and in some respects it was revolutionary. Last year, he believed, some objection was taken to the phrase "College disendowment," as applied to this Bill. But there was no doubt that, using the word in a literal sense, whether it be thought a phrase of censure or not, such a description was applicable to a measure the main principle of which was to transfer a large part of the property of the Colleges to the University. The phrase "common fund" seemed to imply that all trace of the origin of funds raised from College property was to be obliterated, and all connection with the institutions bearing the name and commemorating the existence of those who founded them was to be dissolved. Then, again, without any investigation as to their relative usefulness, prize fellowships were to be largely swept away to make room for
  670
  what were called additional facilities for education. The whole measure proceeded on the arbitrary assumption that those fellowships had little educational value. To those who had considered these fellowships an essential part of the University system, as a stimulus to study, which was one of its most valuable educational influences, this appeared a taint through the whole foundation of the measure, and one which would certainly prevent him from in any way acquiescing with its passing into law. Nothing, surely, was more important than to maintain the influence of University culture and University studies which had hitherto permeated English life. Nothing could be more fatal than in any way to make University studies and University distinctions appear otiose and unfruitful to all who did not intend to devote themselves to the profession of academic teaching. It would be an unhappy day alike for the University and the country when substantial prizes for University success should be in a great measure denied to those who were seeking careers in the outer world. All except those who were at once independent of all pecuniary considerations and endowed with a taste for University study of the higher kind would be tempted to look on it themselves or be encouraged by their friends to regard it as a superfluous and distracting pursuit, of little help to them in the work of professional life. It was true that these prize fellowships might not be wholly abolished—and he was glad to see that the special provisions most pointedly directed against them were not retained this year—but there did seem a disposition to reduce and pare them down to the lowest point. Their Lordships might remember how two men, famous both in public life and literature—Addison and Prior—each, when the turn of fortune withdrew them from public employment, fell back upon the College fellowship which he had never vacated during his years of activity in the service of the State. The Commissioners of 1852 said—
  "When the University shall have been put in a condition to offer sufficient inducements to enable it to retain the ablest men in its service it may with safety leave them to follow their inclinations. Fellows thus elected may safely be allowed to pursue the career which they deem best for themselves. They will serve the University in their several professions more effectu-

  671
  ally than they could by residence, within its walls. All our remarks have been made with the view of rendering fellowships rewards for past exertions as well as stimulants beforehand."
  That was the opinion of those who were eminently qualified to form an opinion upon this subject 23 years ago; and until that opinion was shown to be erroneous, he did not see why it should be put aside. There was another very important point on which as yet they had heard nothing—namely, in whom was to be vested the patronage of the offices to be created and to be paid out of the revenues hitherto administered by the Colleges. To place this patronage at the disposal of Convocation would certainly be contrary to the opinions of most persons who had given attention to the subject. If it were to be vested in the Crown, acting through its Ministers, that would be an arrangement which might not altogether work badly; but which would, whether for good or for evil, introduce, to an extent hitherto unknown, an element of ministerial and political influence into academical affairs. Or was some totally new mode of appointment to be created either within or without the Universities? This was a matter which would be admitted to be a very grave one—a matter not to be decided without a careful examination of various and conflicting considerations; and it was one on which the results of a formal inquiry might have been eminently valuable, and at any rate have spared them the necessity of handing over the alienated endowments of Colleges to be dealt with they knew not how. To pass from what the Bill attempted to settle to what it did not, the first point on which agitation was certain to continue was the clerical fellowship question. He was as desirous as anyone that fellowships of that class should not be done away with altogether, for he thought that since the passing of the University Test Act they were of greater importance than they had been at a previous time. But it did seem a question whether something was not required to strengthen their position before the world. It might be possible to a considerable extent to make them prizes for proficiency in theological study. Fellowships held by men specially distinguished in a different study from others could not be regarded as they
  672
  sometimes were now, as representing a lower intellectual level than those altogether unrestricted. Another objection would be obviated if these fellowships in all cases required that anyone becoming a candidate should be either in holy orders or under a banâ fide engagement to take orders, whether clerical or not; so that the election to such a fellowship could no longer appear to bring persons into the clerical profession who would otherwise have felt no vocation for it, and would have sought a more congenial career in some other walk of life. Lastly, there was left untouched a subject well worthy of investigation—the constitution and government of the University. That constitution in the case of Oxford dated entirely from the last Commission. The Hebdomadal Council Congregations, as now constituted, and the relation of those bodies to Convocation, were entirely the work of legislation founded on the Report of that Commission. These arrangements were in some degree experimental; but they had been tried for 23 years, and if the time were come for dealing with University reform at all, it would be a not unfit question for inquiry whether they in any manner required amendment. He might say, in passing, that as in some quarters great importance was attached to the Hebdomadal Council having put forward a scheme involving a great extension of the Professoriate, the Hebdomadal Council, under the constitution which this Bill left unaltered, was only one of three branches of the University Legislature; and though its opinions were, of course, entitled to much weight, it could not—at least, by those who were satisfied with this Bill—be held to pronounce finally the opinion of Oxford. The composition and powers of these bodies were much controverted topics. Their Lordships had some discussion last year about the composition of Congregation. He (Lord Colchester) was not one of those who desired a change in this respect; but, believing as he did that the needlessness of such a change could be shown, he thought that a full investigation of the subject, such as would have formed part of the duties of an Inquiry Commission, would have given them surer foundations for a right conclusion. As to Convocation, he did desire to see some change in the form in which its functions were exer-

  673
  cised. He did not wish to disfranchise the non-resident Masters of Arts in any other sense than the people of England were disfranchised when they sent Representatives to Parliament instead of assembling in a national mass-meeting to vote laws in the style of the Roman Comitia or the Landsgemeinde of Uri. But he would suggest that if it were possible to have a standing body of representatives, each chosen in proportion to their numbers by the Masters of Arts of his College, such a body, while on matters of ecclesiastical or political difference representing the same ideas as at present, would be composed of men carrying a personal weight and of widespread academical reputation, which would give them at once more efficiency and more real power than the chance-gathering of non-residents from all parts of the Kingdom to vote at some election or on some opposed statute with regard to which a few persons at the centre of affairs prosecuted an active canvass. It was not the same case as with the nonresident Fellows of Colleges. They were in general picked men; they were men who by the nature of the case were still intimately connected with the University, and in many cases had, within comparatively few years, been resident in it; while a large number of members of Convocation, never having had any special claim to authority on academic questions, had for the greater part of a lifetime lived altogether apart from University associations, and had no knowledge of their University as it had been since the days of their undergraduate life. What scheme of reform of Convocation was the most practicable might be an open question. The noble Lord opposite, who last year declined to raise the subject, because University reformers were not agreed on it, would, he imagined, have the same reason for not stirring it till Keble and Hertford Colleges were ready to celebrate a centenary. But it was precisely one of the questions which it would have been the duty of a Commission of Inquiry carefully to consider, and it was one of the misfortunes of legislating without inquiry that the House was not in a position to deal with it more satisfactorily. It was for these reasons, which he had endeavoured to go through as concisely as possible, that he had put this Resolution before their Lordships. He feared that some of the
  674
  details through which he had gone might have been wearisome, though to many who had followed the affairs of the Universities to which they belonged they would not have been without interest. But, as having a deep regard for the welfare of these institutions, as believing that they were doing their work well and successfully, that any new legislation concerning them should be most cautious, most deliberate, and most careful, he could not, even if without support in this Motion, do otherwise than protest against the hasty and unfortunate course on which Parliament seemed about to enter. He begged, in conclusion, to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all after the word ("that") in order to insert the following words: ("that legislation with reference to the Universities will he premature unless preceded by an inquiry into the working of the changes effected as to the state, studies, and discipline of those Universities by the legislation of 1854 and 1856."—(The Lord Colchester.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was one of those who last year was not convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Colchester) of the necessity of hanging up the question of University Reform indefinitely for the purpose of once more instituting a large and formal investigation into the working of the Oxford and Cambridge University system; and he still remained unconvinced. The noble Lord had spoken with respect to the famous Oxford University Commission which sat to consider this question some 23 years ago; and, indeed, it was impossible to exaggerate its importance. The result of their investigation had been to throw a flood of light upon the whole question, which had not lost its effect down to the present time. The noble Lord had said truly that that inquiry, and the information it had produced, had been used for the purpose of bringing about the most beneficial, but, at the same time, the most radical, changes in the Oxford system. That was true enough; but it must not be forgotten that what it was sought to accomplish by means of the present Bill was a very much smaller and less ambitious result. The information which was then obtained could be very easily supplemented by the Commissioners to be appointed under this

  675
  Bill, and a great deal of the further information sought would be found in the minds of the Commissioners themselves. The principal reason the noble Lord had given for asking for further investigation was his fear as to the future existence of College fellowships. For his own part, he had never been alarmed on this subject since he had first heard the statement of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), in spite of his denunciation of what he termed "idle fellowships." He had himself the utmost confidence in the powers of the Commission to be appointed under this Bill to resist any excessive or revolutionary changes; and indeed his fears took a direction contrary to those of the noble Lord on this point. He believed that a fund of prudence and a power of resistance would be found in some of the distinguished Members of the Commission which might completely relieve their minds of all fear on this subject. With regard to the Bill itself, it had, in his opinion, lost nothing by the delay of a year. On the whole, it was now a better considered measure than it was then. It had been improved on some points on which he himself had desired to see a change made; and the noble Marquess opposite had evidently paid every attention to the criticisms which were offered last year by noble Lords on both sides of the House. He was glad to see that Clause 11 provided that the Commissioners should not sanction schemes affecting any one College until they had devised a plan for dealing with the whole University. The clause relating to the principle upon which College contributions should be assessed was also a wise one, and he hoped that it would prevent such dangers arising as were apprehended last year. He thought that the Commissioners should carefully ascertain the requirements of the Universities, and be empowered then to decide the proportions in which each of the Colleges should subscribe to the common fund for carrying out the objects the Universities were founded to achieve. Further, he thought that common funds should be established in each University for the various useful educational purposes in connection with learning and research; and he therefore supported the Bill as far as that was concerned. His objections to the Bill were based not
  676
  so much upon what it proposed to do as to what it would leave undone. His desire was to see such important problems solved as those which the noble Lord had mentioned, especially—for these were the chief omissions—as to the constitution of Convocation and Congregation, which at Oxford constituted the Legislative Body—and to the question of clerical fellowships. He hoped this last question would be discussed in the progress of the Bill. He agreed in the main with the terms of the Preamble of the Bill—that it is expedient that provision should be made for enabling or compelling the Colleges to contribute more largely to University purposes. With the qualifications he had mentioned, he was therefore ready to support the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, he was most anxious that the Bill should be passed this Session—and that, he hoped, might be regarded as a matter of certainty. Although he was not prepared to express his approval of the measure in every particular, either as to what it did or what it did not do, yet he thought that the Universities would have just cause of complaint if they were kept longer in suspense; and he also desired it to pass because he anticipated that the result of the measure would be greatly to increase the usefulness of the Universities. Since the passing of the Acts 20 years ago there had been great activity at both Universities, and considerable efforts had been made to render their teaching wider and larger, and to include a greater range of subjects. He spoke principally of Cambridge, though he believed his observations applied as well to Oxford, and he thought that both Universities would do much more if there were funds applicable for their purposes. The Colleges were the only source from which such funds could be supplied; and the Colleges themselves—or, at least, the greater part of them—acknowledged the claim the Universities had upon them, and were perfectly willing to contribute. He, for one, felt that the Universities urgently required additional funds; and thinking that this Bill provided the proper sources from which they would be derived, he could not but hope that the Bill would pass. He would give it his cordial approval and assent. As to the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Colchester), he did not agree

  677
  with him that there should be any further inquiry or that any was required before Parliament proceeded to legislate. There was a larger amount of information already collected than most persons appeared to be aware of, and whatever amount of information might be got together, still the main working of the Bill must be left in the hands of the Commissioners themselves.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNalso agreed that no further inquiry was necessary prior to legislation. He must be allowed here to say that the Universities and Parliament ought to acknowledge the fairness and impartiality with which the noble Marquess in charge of the measure had considered the many and difficult questions involved in it. There was one point on which he desired a statement from the noble Marquess. He perceived that the Bill proposed to deal with Schools and Colleges in a different manner, and he hoped the noble Marquess would explain the reason why such a course was adopted.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, that the measure of this year was in many ways superior to the Bill of last Session. With much that had fallen from his noble Friend who had moved the Amendment he quite agreed; but he did not agree that there should be any further preliminary investigation, because it was quite clear that everything would depend upon the manner in which the Commissioners carried out the provisions of this Bill. Under this Bill the Colleges would not be called upon to stand and deliver without being told for what they were going to give up their resources. That fact would, he believed, conciliate a great deal of the opposition which might otherwise have been expected from those Colleges which would be selected by the Commissioners as proper subjects for the prosecution of their inquiries and as proper sources from which to secure revenue. Besides, this Bill was more symmetrical in its details; its objects were more clearly defined, and the means to achieve those objects were more amply set forth. He still thought that too great partiality was exhibited for the University system. He should view with extreme alarm any attempt to weaken, still more to destroy, what he regarded as the excellence of the present College system, and he was therefore glad to see the safeguards which had been embodied in the Bill
  678
  now under consideration. As the Bill was infinitely better than the one of last year, and as it had already been fully considered in "another place," he hoped it would be passed into law this Session.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBYsaid, he did not think it was necessary for him to reply to the interesting speech of his noble Friend below the Gangway (Lord Colchester), because every subsequent speaker had expressed himself satisfied with the information already obtained on the subject; and, generally, their Lordships appeared to be of opinion that they ought not for the sake of any addition to their already abundant knowledge expose the Universities to the great evil and expense of further delay. The truth was that whatever they did—whatever conclusion they arrived at, they could not within that building pass a measure wholly adapted to the Universities. That must be done within the Universities themselves—what they must do was to entrust large powers, with proper safeguards, to the Commissioners, and confide to them the subsidiary inquiries which might be necessary. Of this he was assured—that no inquiry their Lordships' House could order would be more satisfactory than that which his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Selborne) would doubtless think it his duty to make. In reference to what his noble Friend who had just spoken (Viscount Midleton) had said, he must, for his own part, disclaim having any animosity to the College system, and he declined to identify the non-resident Fellows with that system. All the advantages obtained from the Colleges were not conferred by the non-resident Fellows; but they involved a thorny subject, and an odium almost equal to the odium theologicum was approached when it was mentioned, and he had somewhat avoided it in re-introducing the Bill this Session. There was one fact he desired to recommend to his noble Friend. If he (the Marquess of Salisbury) was on the Commission, and found himself in that impossible condition of having his own way, a larger change would, he thought, be made in the case of non-resident Fellows than was at all likely to come into effect from this Bill. But he was not on the Commission, and had not the slightest influence on those who were on it. The character and attainments of its mem-

  679
  bers were well known, and he did not think the most Conservative among their Lordships had any reason to fear the adoption of revolutionary measures. As to the College system, he would only say that no men were more intensely orthodox than those who formed the Commission. He felt, therefore, that the fears of his noble Friend had no strong foundation. For his part, he did not think that the system of non-resident Fellows was destined to perpetual duration; he believed it impossible to defend it logically, but that was no necessary reason why it should be abolished at once. If they were to abolish everything, the existence of which could not be logically defended, they would have a good deal to do in the way of re-construction. He did not think that they were prepared to get rid of the system referred to at present. They would be only willing to dispense with it as far as it might be necessary to secure funds for the Universities as places of education. Then as to the constitution of the Universities—that, too, was a thorny subject. He quite agreed that as to what should form a proper constitution of the Universities there might be differences of opinion; but he was not prepared to hand over the country clergy connected with the Universities to the condemnation of noble Lords opposite. He looked upon the country clergy as the fly-wheel of the University machine. The noble Lord the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Carlingford) had made use of the phrase "the real University." That he (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought was a phrase which he once heard from the lips of Mr. Bright in reference to the occasion when the abolition of the Paper Duties was rejected by that House. The measure, he said, was lost by 29, by those who had been brought up to vote, but it had been carried by "the real House of Lords." He suspected that Mr. Bright was about as right in speaking of the Peers who ordinarily worked the machinery of the House of Lords as the "real" House of Lords as the noble Lord had been right in saying that those who ordinarily worked the academical system were entitled to the name of the "real University." The truth was that the outside Members—those who formed what might be called the stragglers of any Legislative Body—were useful for the purpose he had just indicated—they prevented legislation
  680
  from falling into the hands of a clique, or being dominated by a faction, and they gave to its aims a certain degree of steadiness and persistency. He therefore by no means desired to underrate their usefulness. There was one little matter to which reference had been made in the course of the debate, and to which he should like to advert—namely, the position of the Schools under the Bill. It had been said that they had had a stronger protection afforded to them than that given to the Colleges under the Bill. But he thought that one-half the amount of protection given to the Colleges had been overlooked. They were entitled to place upon the Commission three of their Members whenever the statutes which referred to them were under discussion. The Schools did not and could not enjoy the same privilege, because there was no Governing Body of the character which enabled the Colleges to be represented, and it was necessary to find some other form of protection. The Government, therefore, fell back upon the precedent of 1854, which affected the Schools and Colleges alike. The appearance of the Schools in the Bill was but subsidiary, and it was not likely to alter their status; but the protection given to them would relieve them from any fears which they might entertain. He had now only to express, in conclusion, his gratification at the general goodwill with which the Bill had been received, and the prospect which that goodwill afforded that the measure would pass into law during the present Session.
  On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Then the original Motion was agreed to.
  Bill read 2ª accordingly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he understood from the draftsman that there were many alterations which it would be necessary to make, and he proposed to go into Committee pro formâ on Thursday in order that the Bill might be re-printed. He should then ask their Lordships to go into Committee on the Bill on Thursday week, July 12.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  PERSIA AND TURKEY—THE BOUNDARY.—QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for information as to the boundary line between Turkey and Persia which was laid down by scientific officers under the auspices of the British Government some years ago; whether it has been formally agreed to; and, if not, for what reason it has not been called into operation? The noble Earl said that, although the Question stood in his own name, he had been requested to place it upon the Paper by his noble Friend (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), whose authority upon the Eastern Question was supreme, and whose interest in what was going on was undiminished by the weight of 90 years. He believed that there would be no difficulty on the part of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in answering the Question—although he did not know whether the reply might be altogether satisfactory to the interests concerned. He understood from his noble Friend (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) that the advance of the Russian forces into Asia Minor and their approach to the Persian frontier, gave more than usual interest to the diplomatic relations between Persia and Turkey. War between those two countries was averted many years ago by the joint mediation of England and Russia. The immediate case of quarrel was a disputed frontier. The negotiation which ensued terminated in a Treaty. But fresh differences arose on drawing the boundary line. It was then agreed that a map of the whole frontier country should be made on scientific principles with the view of removing all uncertainty from the points in dispute. Much time was required for this operation; but finally all difficulties were overcome by the skill and perseverance of agents employed by the mediating Powers, and the result was a map from which no appeal could reasonably be made. On an average breadth of about 50 miles, with a length of more than 700, it presented the local details of the whole region traversed by the boundary line. It was, however, desirable to know from Her Majesty's Government whether the Turko-Persian boundary had ever been laid down in a settled and binding form in conformity with the map or even otherwise; and, if
  682
  not, for what reasons the omission had been allowed to occur?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, as my noble Friend anticipates, I shall have no difficulty in giving him an Answer to the Question he has put to me. The best way of doing so is by laying before your Lordships in the fewest possible words a recapitulation of what has passed in connection with this matter. There is a slight verbal inaccuracy in the statement implied in the Question my noble Friend has put to me. It is not correct to say that any boundary line has been laid down by scientific officers under the auspices of the British Government. What has happened was this—As long ago as the year 1843 the British and Russian Governments engaged to use their good offices in bringing about a settlement of the boundary dispute which existed between Persia and Turkey, and which at that time had very nearly led to war. In May, 1847, a Treaty was signed at Erzeroum between the Persian and Turkish Governments. The effect was to provide for the appointment by those two Governments of Commissioners by whom the boundary was to be defined. We, the British Government, were not parties to that Treaty, although we had a good deal to do with its conclusion. We agreed with the Russian Government to give our assistance in settling the boundaries, and we engaged to act as mediators in case of any dispute. In pursuance of that understanding, after the Treaty was concluded, English and Russian officers were employed in preparing maps of the country through which the boundary line had to pass. There were delays and difficulties of various kinds, with the cause of which I am not well acquainted; but the result was that those maps were not completed until 1869. In that year they were handed in. A Convention was then signed between Persia and Turkey, by which it was agreed to maintain the status quo pending the final settlement of the boundary. The arrangement at that time stood as follows:—The mediating Powers, England and Russia, agreed that the boundary line ought to pass within the limits of the map so prepared. It included a considerable extent of country, but the fixing of the precise boundary itself was not undertaken by the English and Russian officers—that

  683
  was left to the Turkish and Persian Governments to settle between them. But a proposal was added by the two mediating Powers that if any difference should arise the point in dispute should be referred to them for their joint decision. In January, 1875, we received for the first time an official intimation that the Turkish and Persian Governments had found themselves unable to agree upon a boundary line. Thereupon Sir Arnold Kemball was appointed on behalf of the British Government, and a Russian delegate was appointed by his own Government, to attend a Conference which was to be held on the subject. The Commissioners met and transacted some business; but the difference of opinion between the two principal parties concerned was such that no understanding was arrived at; and I am sorry to say that from that time to the present it has not been found possible to induce them either to agree between themselves to settle a boundary line or to refer the question to the decision of any other Power. Neither side—I say it with all impartiality—has shown the slightest disposition to make any concession. They both seem to have acted upon the Oriental principle of doing nothing to-day which it is possible to put off—I will not say till to-morrow, but till next month or next year. Since the outbreak of the war the question has necessarily been hung up. The Russian Commissioner has been recalled, and Sir Arnold Kemball, as your Lordships are aware, is employed upon other duties. But although there have been excessive and vexatious delays, and though I am bound to say neither party has shown any great willingness to come to an understanding, still the negotiation is not broken off—only suspended—and there is no reason why it should not be resumed when a favourable opportunity presents itself. I can assure my noble Friend and your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the extreme importance of preventing the outbreak of war between Persia and Turkey, and that they will lose no available opportunity of endeavouring to avert such a public misfortune.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.