Sitting of 14 June 1877

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Irish Land Act, 1870, Mr. Mulholland disch., Sir John Leslie added; Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (Hours of Polling), Sir Charles Mills disch., Mr. Puleston added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Building Societies Act (1874) Amendment* [188].
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (Nos. 1 and 2) (re-comm.)* [125 and 196].
Considered as amended—Prisons [121]; Universities of Oxford and Cambridge [183].
Withdrawn—Peerage of Ireland* [81].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS BILL (by Order.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, it was intended to propose that the Standing Orders should be suspended in order that the Bill might be read a third time to-morrow. He thought Consideration of the measure should be postponed for some days, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of forming an opinion as to whether there should not be introduced into it—although it was a Private Bill—clauses of a similar description to those which had been inserted by Parliament in the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1875, with reference to providing accommodation for the working classes who would be displaced. A very large number of persons would be unhoused by the carrying out of the improvements which the Bill contemplated, and under its provisions nothing like adequate accommodation would be afforded to those who would be so displaced. A sufficient number of houses should be built for the working classes in lieu of those which would have to be taken down. He moved that the Consideration of the Bill be postponed to Tuesday next.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Tuesday next."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
    Question proposed, "That the word now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that to delay the Bill, as the hon. Baronet appeared to desire, would be equivalent to rejecting it altogether. Unless a Bill of that kind were read a third time before a certain day, according to a Standing Order it could not be proceeded with that Session. The Bill in question had received the assent of a Select Committee, and care had been taken that no injury should be inflicted
    1758
    by it to the working classes without providing a remedy. The Home Secretary had approved of the scheme, and felt satisfied that the parties who should be compelled to remove from their present holdings would be amply provided for by the substitution of new and approved dwellings for them before the year 1878.
    MR. PORTMANsaid, the Committee on the Bill, over which he had the honour to preside, thought it right to present a special Report to the House. They thought the providing of accommodation for the people who would be turned out by these street improvements ought not to be left to private speculation. The improvements under this Bill were calculated to confer the most beneficial and lasting advantages on the public generally; and though there was no obligation to cover the sites of the dwellings which would be removed under it with houses of a similar character to those demolished, there was ample security given for the erection of dwellings of a new and improved character in lieu of them.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. The improvements which the Bill contemplated were of an important and substantial character; and if its progress were obstructed at the present stage he was afraid it would not become law this year at all. He quite agreed that provision ought to be made for securing accommodation for those persons who would be turned out of their dwellings, and who could not secure accommodation for themselves; and when the measure reached the House of Lords the Government would, if necessary, cause the insertion of provisions for the protection of those of the working classes who might be displaced in consequence of the improvements being carried into effect.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, that upon that understanding he would withdraw his opposition to the Bill being proceeded with.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG,on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, was prepared to accept any clause for the better protection of the working classes which the Home Secretary might deem requisite.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    1759
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered.
    Ordered, That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be read the third time To-morrow.—(Sir Charles Forster.)

PUBLIC HEALTH—VACCINATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is true that a boy, named Thomas Taylor, was certified by an Ipswich surgeon as having been successfully vaccinated by him on 20th May 1868; whether this boy was not returned by the Ipswich medical officer as having died of small pox in the Borough Fever Hospital on the 7th April 1877 unvaccinated; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances?
  MR. SCLATER - BOOTH: I have made some inquiry into this case, and I find that according to the Vaccination Register, it is the fact that the boy in question was certified to have been successfully vaccinated by an Ipswich surgeon on May 20, 1868. He died in the borough hospital on the 7th of April, 1877, of small pox, and the medical officer in attendance certified that he was unvaccinated—first, because there were no vaccination marks to be seen; secondly, because the mother stated that the boy had been vaccinated three times by the assistant of Mr. Adams, but unsuccessfully. The mother is very positive in her statement as to the vaccination not having been successful; in this she is corroborated by a neighbour who remembers the circumstance. It is not easy to explain the discrepancy between the entry in the Vaccination Register and the facts which have now been ascertained; but the vaccination occurred before the Act of 1871, when certificates were sometimes given without inspection of result.

  LEGAL BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENT—REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SPINKS (for Sir HENRY HOLLAND)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What steps, if any,
  1760
  have been taken to give effect to the Reports of the Departmental Committee on the system upon which the Legal Business of the Government is conducted?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Reports of the Committee, three in number, are divisible as follows:—1. Relating to the remuneration of the Law Officers. The recommendation of the Committee have been generally adopted. A new Treasury Minute amending the definition of "contentious business," as suggested by the Committee, has been issued, and the more comprehensive definition has had the effect, as was contemplated by the Committee, of obviating some questions between the Law Officers and the several Government Departments. 2. (Reports 2 and 3.) Relating to the legal business of the several Government Departments. Of the several Departments reported on by the Committee, the following were the subject of special recommendations:—Office of Works, War Office, Admiralty; while it was suggested that, on the occurence of a vacancy in the office of Queen's Proctor, the business should be transferred to the Department of the Solicitor of the Treasury. The recommendations of the Committee with respect to all the above-mentioned Departments have been carried into effect. The Solicitorships of the Office of Works and of the Admiralty, and the Assistant Solicitorship of the War Office have been abolished, and the Treasury Solicitor has been appointed Queen's Proctor, in which capacity he conducts all the business relating to the administration of the personal estates of intestates, as well as the duties imposed on that officer by statute in reference to intervention in Divorce matters. The financial results of the above change are as follows (omitting the results in respect of the Queen's Proctor's business, as sufficient time has not yet elapsed to test the financial working of the new arrangement, the late Queen's Proctor having been remunerated by bills of cost, not by salary):—Under the old system the legal Staff of the Office of Works cost, for salaries only, £2,985; War Office, £2,850; Admiralty, £2,900—£8,735. The legal work of the above Departments is now transacted in the Department of the Solicitor to the Treasury at a cost of £6,000, showing a saving of

  1761
  £2,735, or over 30 per cent. The above comparison is limited to salaries only. There is, however, little doubt that the concentration of the above legal business under the Treasury Solicitor will lead to a reduction in the ordinary legal charges.

  FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 1875—REDUCED SPIRITS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ISAACasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether sub-sections 1 and 4 of Clause 6 of "The Food and Drugs Act, 1875," would not exempt from penalties persons selling Spirits reduced with water in the natural and customary course of trade, and without fraud to the purchaser; whether he is aware that prosecutions have recently taken place for reducing Gin by its admixture with water; and, whether, inasmuch as in such case no fraud has been practised or intended, and the sales of Gin so reduced have been made at a lower price, such prosecutions are in accordance with the intentions of the Act; and, whether, if there exists any doubt as to the interpretation of the Act, he is prepared to introduce an amending Bill to exempt from penalties persons who sell Gin reduced with water, and not otherwise adulterated?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: In reply to the first Question of my hon. Friend, I may say that if the water is added for the preparation of the gin as an article of commerce in a fit state for consumption, the 1st sub-section applies and no offence is committed; and, so far as in the process of distillation a certain amount of water remains mixed with the spirit, the provisions of sub-section 4 would likewise apply in bar of a prosecution. I am aware that certain prosecutions have recently taken place, and several cases have come before the Judges. The case of "Pashler v. Stevenitt" came before the Judges of Appeal on the 27th ultimo. In that case it appeared that the Justices in Petty Sessions held that gin at 44 per cent below proof could not be considered as gin, and the Judges held that the seller was properly convicted. It appeared that gin sold by retailers varies in strength from proof to 20 per cent under proof. The Judges held that the question was
  1762
  one for the magistrates, who must use their discretion on the facts before them, and that they had rightly decided that a mixture of water so far as 44 per cent below proof was a fraudulent increase of the measure of the liquid. A decision reported in to-day's newspapers is to the same effect. In reply to my hon. Friend's third Question, I cannot but hope that the effect of these decided cases will be to put an end to any uncertainty as to the interpretation of the Act, if such exists, and I am certainly not prepared, as at present advised, to introduce any amending Bill on the subject.

  ARMY — REGIMENTAL LIEUTENANT COLONELS.—QUESTION.
  MR. KAVANAGHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any intention of making any change in the rule which compels the Lieutenant Colonel of a regiment to retire after having held the command of it for five years?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the rule referred to, which had been laid down by his Predecessor, had been recently acted upon, and there was no intention of relaxing it.

  CRIMINAL LAW—PRISON AND REFORMATORY LABOUR.—QUESTION.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it has come to his know-lodge that a firm of brushmakers in Bristol have given notice of a reduction of 10 per cent in the wages of their workpeople, in consequence of the competition of prison and reformatory-made brushes in that town?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had received no complaints upon this subject, and therefore had not made inquiries into it; but he did not think there could be the slightest truth in it, as the last Report he had from the Bristol Reformatory was to the effect that the whole amount of work then going on in this trade was equivalent only to that of four men and nine women working full time. He did not see how this could involve any interference in the trade.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS — DECK CARGO SPACE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRIEVEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been directed to an article in the "Scotsman" newspaper of the 11th instant as follows:—
  "On the arrival of the ship" County of Lancaster "at the Tail of the Bank, Greenock, with a cargo of sugar from Java, the Customs officials, in making out the vessel's return, added to the tonnage of the ship 2 84–100ths tons to the gross register in consequence of the vessel carrying on clock two spare spars, a hen coop, and two beef casks, while another section of the Merchant Shipping Act provides that a ship is not seaworthy unless she has two spare spars;"
  and, whether the Government intend during next Session of Parliament to consolidate the Merchant Shipping Acts, with a view to do away with the anomaly and many others complained of?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I do not see The Scotsman, and, therefore, have not seen the article referred to; but I should have been very happy to see the hon. Member, if he has any case to allege of mistake made in measuring deck cargo space. There have been cases in the Clyde, of which the County of Lancaster seems to have been one, in which the space occupied on deck by hen coops, beef casks, and live animals for consumption, and spars, have been included in such measurement; and they have been referred by the Board of Trade to the Board of Customs, whose officers measure those spaces. The Board of Trade have laid down, by instructions to their principal officers, that store spars should be regarded as equipment, and the space they occupy should not be measured as deck cargo space. There is no such section in the Act of last year as stated in the Question, nor any anomalies complained of calling for amendment or consolidation of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—MR. JUSTICE FRY'S COURT.—QUESTION.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the place which under the arrangements of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, is used as a Court by Mr. Justice Fry; and, whether it is intended that it should be occupied after the present term and during the winter?
  MR. GERARD NOEL,in reply, said, the arrangements by which Mr. Justice Fry's present Court was provided were made by the Office of Works after communication with the Lord Chancellor. Although it was not so large as some of the others, it was well lighted and ventilated. Objection had been taken by the learned Judge to the retiring room, and the question of providing a new retiring room was under consideration. There was no intention of removing Mr. Justice Fry to any other place.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as the Select Committee appointed at the instance of the Government, to whom the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill was referred, have reported in its favour, the Government are prepared to take the necessary steps for carrying the Bill through its remaining stages during the present Session of Parliament?
  MR. M. BROOKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been directed to the changes in the form and essence of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, made by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred; if he is aware that Notice has been given to move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred, and especially the alteration in the Preamble of the Bill, not being warranted by the powers entrusted by this House to that Committee, the Bill be re-committed to the Select Committee, in order that they may confine their Amendments within the powers entrusted to them by this House; and, if under these circumstances the Government will afford facilities to the Select Committee for re-considering the said Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Government are well aware of the interest with which this Bill is regarded by Gentlemen connected with Ireland, representing various interests in that country, and sitting in different parts of this House; and having regard to all that has passed with regard to this measure, it would be a matter of

  1765
  great satisfaction to the Government if they could see their way to its being disposed of in the present Session of Parliament; and, so far as it may be in our power, we should all be glad to assist in bringing about that result. But I must take this opportunity of reminding the House of the position in which we stand. We are now far advanced in the Session. If I were to say that we probably have not more than two months of the Session left, I dare say I should hear a murmur at my even mentioning so long a time; but we are far advanced in the Session, and it cannot be denied that the ordinary Business of the Session is somewhat in arrear. Now with regard to the Business of the Session I must remind the House—without wishing to make anything in the nature of a complaint, which I have no right whatever to do—that in the present Session a much longer time than usual has been spent in the discussion of Business which in most Sessions with which we have been acquainted has been got through with greater rapidity. Bills—and some of them annual Bills—have been discussed much more fully than is usual, and many of the Votes in Supply have also given occasion for much fuller discussion than we have ever known. Nobody can dispute the perfect right of Members of this House to discuss these matters; but the effect of their doing so to the extent to which it has been done in the present Session is to place us at the present moment in a position of some anxiety as to the time within which we can properly get through the necessary Business of Parliament. I can hardly say at this moment, therefore, how far we shall be able to afford days for Business which does not properly belong to the Government measures. We shall have, of course, to get through with Supply. We have certain Bills which have been brought in by the Government, and which are tolerably advanced, but still which must be pressed on if they are to be considered by the other House before the conclusion of the Session; and I am still unable to say how far it may be in our power to dispose of Government nights for the discussion of measures brought in by hon. Gentlemen who are not Members of the Government. I look at the position of this particular Bill, and I see, in the first place, that it has gone through a
  1766
  Committee, but it has come down in an altered shape. It has come down with alterations which, I believe, were carried in the Committee by majorities, and some portions of which I believe were carried against the advice of Members of the Government who were parties to that Committee; and I see that Notices have been given of Amendments on the Bill in Committee, and no less than five Members have given Notice of objections to be raised on the Motion being made that you, Sir, leave the Chair. The hon. Member for Dublin has just called attention to one important question which is to be raised when the Bill is proposed to be again taken in Committee; and without expressing—for I am not able to express—any opinion upon the question which the hon. Gentleman raises as to the propriety of the Amendments that were made, I think it is obvious that the Bill will lead to considerable discussion. Well, that being the case, I must at the present time ask the hon. Member to excuse me giving a definite answer to the Question which ho has put. I am, as I said, anxious to do anything I possibly can to facilitate the discussion of this Bill; and if we should have the assistance of the House generally in getting on with the Business which yet remains before us, we shall be better able to meet the wishes which we know are widely entertained on both sides of the House with regard to this Bill; but the matter really does not entirely rest with ourselves. It is not from any unwillingness on the part of the Government to allow the proper discussion of the Bill; but we feel ourselves so very much in the hands of hon. Members with regard to the transaction of the necessary Business of the Session, that I do not like at the present moment to take upon myself the responsibility of making a promise which, from no fault of our own, we might hereafter find it difficult to fulfil.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTH: I would ask the indulgence of the House while I make a statement, in consequence of the exceedingly unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall put myself formally in Order by concluding with a Motion. I submit to the House that it is altogether too late for the Government to assume a passive attitude, and to manifest a spirit which is practically one of utter indifference to the fate of

  1767
  this Bill during the present Session. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: By the Rules of the House the hon. Member is not at liberty to discuss the Bill upon the Question now before it.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTH: I bow to your decision, Sir, and shall confine myself to the question of procedure. I shall not go back on previous Sessions; but I must ask the House to consider what was done immediately after the meeting of Parliament in the present year. I moved the second reading of this Bill on the 12th of February—the Government having previously opposed the principle of the Bill most strenuously, and taken the most emphatic way of expressing their hostility. ["No, no!"] Well, the Lords of the Treasury were the Tellers in a division on this question, and I do not know that the Government can resort to a more emphatic expression of opinion than by such a course as that. In this Session the Government changed their position, and supported the second reading on a certain condition, which was that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and that certain special questions should be referred to that Committee—namely, the applicability of the Bill to five large cities and towns in Ireland. The general principle of the Bill being conceded by the Government, as undoubtedly their action in the division put beyond a doubt, the promoters of the Bill assented to the proposal of the Government; and I felt that the friends of the measure had ceased to ask the Government to follow them, and that they then became the followers of the Government, because the Government had propounded a definite and positive policy of their own, for which they made themselves responsible. The idea of a Select Committee did not originate with us, but with the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Ho made this proposal, and we merely acceded to it. I have a right to ask, therefore, was that proposal on the part of the Government a friendly or was it a hostile proposition? I went into the Select Committee determined to abide by its decision; and I say now openly in the presence of the right hon. Baronet and the House that he knew that was my resolution long before the decision of the Committee was given, and at a time when I believed that the decision would
  1768
  be contrary to my own views and opinions. Inasmuch as those who previously acted with me went into that Committee in good faith, I think I have a right to ask the Government as far as is in their power—and they have it in their power—to carry out the decision of the Committee. No doubt I was very simple in believing that a Select Committee was to be treated as a sort of tribunal to give judgment on the question referred to it. I find now that, instead of being regarded by the Government as a tribunal in any sense, it has been used to act as a break on the wheels and to stop the train altogether. The Report was made on the 10th May. Why did the Government take away three months from the chances of the measure? What right had they to interpose on the 12th February, so that through the whole of the next three precious months we could not press it through the House? The Bill has many Friends on both sides of the House, and I think the experience of last year will justify me in the statement that if I had had those three months at my disposal, I should have made way in passing the Bill through several of its stages. ["No, no!"] Well, no one can speak with certainty of anything likely to occur in the House of Commons. This time last year, at a very late period of the Session, I got 15 Members to make way for this Bill. Now, I may ask this question—Did the Government recommend the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose merely of registering a foregone conclusion of their own, because it seems to me that it does not make the slightest difference as regards the duty of the Government whether the Committee reported in favour of the opinions of the Government or in favour of those who supported the original measure. If the Government recommended the Committee merely to register their own opinions, it may be statesmanship; but with every-day people in the outer world it would be designated by a very different name. I submit that this is not a question between the Government and a private Member. The House of Commons by adopting the principle of the Bill by a majority last year, took it out of the hands of private Members, and the Government, by its action this Session, took it out of the hands of the House of Commons, and the Government has now to

  1769
  reckon, not with those whose names are on the back of the Bill, but with the House of Commons itself. It is gone entirely beyond being the Bill of a private Member, and I think it is not competent—I use the word with reference to the wisdom and prudence involved—it is not competent now for the Government to wash their hands of the whole thing, to turn upon me, and to say" We have taken three months from you. The whole future is before you. As for us, we discharge ourselves of our responsibility for the measure." I ask the House whether that is the position the Government is entitled to take? I understand and believe—for I have it on the best authority—that the Irish Conservative Members, almost in a body, have gone the length of imploring the Government to take up and settle this question; and I understand that those Gentlemen from Ireland who are the supporters of the Government in this House have been unceremoniously sent about their business, and practically told not to interfere. I should have thought they might have had influence with the Government; but, unfortunately, there is this flaw in their case, that they are Irishmen as well as Conservatives. I must apologize to the House for having interposed so long; but I have only to add that whatever respect I have for the Gentlemen who occupy the Treasury benches, I with still greater confidence make my appeal from them to the justice and generosity of the House of Commons itself. I move that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Richard Smyth.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very reluctant to speak on one of these Motions which tend to delay the regular Business, but I am desirous to say a very few words, and I wish to say them early because, while I would make a strong appeal to my right lion. Friend opposite and the Government, I am still able to bear testimony to the difficulties under which he labours. These are not difficulties merely put forward for the sake of making an excuse or of fencing with the question. They are real; and all those who have been closely concerned in carrying on the Business of this House, although they could not be at all surprised at a small
  1770
  degree of impatience on the part of my hon. Friend who is so devoted to this measure, yet they know likewise that it is not an easy matter for a Government to balance together, especially at a certain period of the Session, the various considerations which determine their duty in the choice of this or that particular measure to be submitted to the House. We are undoubtedly, however, approaching that period of the Session when the power of the Government over the time of the House will be increased. I do think that there are some special considerations which I hope will lead my right hon. Friend and the Government to consider this question as a special one; and I may mention them without any reproach, although they are directly connected with the conduct of the Government itself. This is a very peculiar measure in respect to its representing a very extraordinary union of opinion and sentiment in Ireland; but I will not dwell upon considerations which will occur to the mind of every man as giving very great force to the plea that on account of that union of sentiment we should view favourably the demand that was made for the progress of this measure. Now, what is the demand made of my right hon. Friend? As far as I understand, my hon. Friend (Mr. Smyth) is himself willing to use every exertion that he can use, and all the time that as a private Member, favoured in some respects by such large support from various quarters he can procure, he is most willing to exert himself in procuring. Therefore, he does not endeavour to throw the whole difficulty of pushing forward this measure upon the Government; but my hon. Friend knows quite well that his resources in that respect are essentially limited resources; and where there is a keen opposition to a Bill, even though it be an opposition within a very narrow circle, the Members of the Government know perfectly well that the vigour and persistence of that opposition very much depends upon their knowing or not knowing that the promoters of the Bill have but limited resources at their command. Now, what occurs to me is this. This is one of the cases in which the Government has seen cause to change its course, and I do not think they are open to any reproach whatever for having thought so, or for having opposed this Bill at the outset if

  1771
  they thought, as they did, that it involved questions of difficulty connected with the peace of Ireland and with the tranquillity of the great towns; but, as a matter of fact, having offered it a strenuous opposition in the first instance, they must see that they gave a much greater importance and weight to the general opposition to the Bill than it could possibly have acquired unless they had themselves shared in it. Now, my recollection of former practice is that where a Government has seen cause to alter its course in such a manner upon a particular Bill, and when they themselves, by taking a marked share in the proceedings upon the Bill, have stamped it as a measure of very great importance, it no longer remains to them to be neutral parties about that Bill. If they do not persist in their opposition, but arrive at the conclusion that it is better upon the whole that the Bill should be passed and the experiment tried; if, even further than that, they indicate and exorcise an influence upon the course of proceedings with respect to the Bill, and if the effect of their conduct is to deprive my hon. Friend behind me of the disposal of the principal portion of the Session during which he might in all likelihood have pushed his Bill forward to a successful issue, and to bring him to the latter part of Juno before ho is in a position to attempt it—what I wish to press upon my right hon. Friend opposite is, that the claim which thus arises is a claim of a very special character; and I am inclined to believe that if he does so regard it, and is willing to make an addition from his own larger resources to the smaller means of my hon. Friend, then in all probability there will be no undue attempt to obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House. I am bound to say that I think Her Majesty's Government are not bound to regard the decision of the Committee as a final decision upon any serious matters with regard to which they differ from the Committee. If they think fit to raise and submit for the judgment of the House questions upon which the Committee did not agree with them, it does not appear to me that they are acting in any degree beyond the fair exercise of their discretion. Still, I think even that again strengthens their obligation, if I may presume to say so, to prevent the renewed failure of this Bill after those many failures that have oc-
  1772
  curred through want of time. I venture to commend these considerations to the minds of my right hon. Friend and the Government, with the hope that the result will be such as will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend.
  MR. O'SULLIVANwished to state that he had not been sent to that House to represent either Whigs or Tories, but to represent the people. He was sent there, perhaps, by the largest majority that ever returned any man in Ireland, and he was determined to oppose the Bill in every way in which the Forms of the House would permit, because it was a measure which interfered with the rights and liberties of the working classes in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in discussing on the Motion before the House the merits of the Bill.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, as the hon. Member for Londonderry had discussed the merits of the Bill, he did not think he was out of Order in doing the same. Still, he would bow to the Speaker's decision. He would like to add that the object of the hon. Member for Londonderry in moving the Adjournment of the House was not to adjourn the House, but to elicit an opinion in favour of the Bill, and to force the House into a false position on its merits. The House had before decided on the Bill, and ho (Mr. O'Sullivan) could assure the House that a greater delusion was never brought before it than to attempt to make it appear that the people of Ireland were in favour of it.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Bill had been altered in Committee was not strictly correct. The point was whether the Bill should extend to certain large towns. As it went into the Committee it extended to all those towns which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished should be excluded from its operation. In other words, the Government wished to modify the Bill from the shape in which it had passed the House on the second reading, while the Committee resolved upon retaining it in the form in which it had passed the House. Might not the present difficulty be met by the Government fixing a Saturday for the consideration of the Bill? ["No, no"] He fully sympathized with the hon. Gentlemen who

  1773
  cried " No, no;" but if they sat as long on the Committee as he did, they would entertain a different opinion.
  MR. M. BROOKSwished, as a Member of the Committee, to point out that the Bill in its present shape was not at all the same measure which was referred to them by the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in entering into a discussion of that question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to make an appeal to the House to allow us to get on with our Business. A good deal has been said about the Bill before us which, under other circumstances, might have been worthy of consideration; but I think it will be admitted that the real difficulty which lies in the way of our acceding to the request now made is want of time. Hon. Members cannot fail to see this, and to remark that every half-hour unnecessarily spent over fruitless discussion will inevitably tend to increase that difficulty. With reference to the remark that has fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), allow me to explain that when I referred to the changes made in the Bill, I did not so much refer to these changes as showing why the Bill should not be allowed to proceed, as to the very considerable time that would be occupied in getting the Bill through Committee in consequence of those changes. I admit there is a desire on the part of a majority of the Members of this House to discuss this Bill. Well, if the Government promise to do everything they can, there ought, I think, to be a similar desire manifested on the part of hon. Members. But the prospect, as I have admitted, is not encouraging, and every unnecessary consumption of time makes it more hopeless. I find by reference to the Orders that on Wednesday, the 27th of June, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has a Bill which stands first upon the list. Perhaps he may desire to assist the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill. Of course, I do not know what may be the feeling of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle on this matter; but if he and the hon. Member for Londonderry would communicate with each other, they might strike out something between them. All I now ask the House to do is to allow us to go on with
  1774
  our Business. Only a few weeks remain to us, and it would be well for us to proceed with what we have to do in as businesslike a fashion as possible.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I, for one, Sir, do not want to waste the time of the House, yet I feel I must offer a single remark or two on this question. I do not think, from the tone of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is quite fair to charge him with being absolutely inaccessible to reason on this question. Perhaps he is willing to go even further. The Bill, I believe, only consists of six clauses, and it strikes me that so short a Bill, especially as it has the support of so large a majority, ought to be very soon disposed of. That majority would even be largely increased if the right hon. Gentleman would only give the Bill his support, and ask the House to unite with the Government in getting it carried. There are, it is true, a few Members from Ireland who are opposed to the measure; but even they, when they see the House is so unmistakeably in its favour, and that no hope of permanent obstruction to its progress need be entertained, would at once withdraw that obstruction. This is a question between the Government and the people of Ireland. As I understand it, the feeling in Ireland is unanimous in favour of the Bill. Only this morning I saw an extract from a Dublin newspaper—the only newspaper which has opposed this Bill—and I find that it has given up its opposition. It even goes further, and says that after the evidence given before the Select Committee, and the general opinion expressed in this House, the wisest course to adopt would be to pass the Bill at once. Seeing, then, that the Bill had received almost the unanimous support —
  MR. A. MILLSrose to Order. Ho wished to ask the Speaker whether the right hon. Gentleman was not contravening the Rules of the House in discussing a measure which was not before it ?
  MR. SPEAKER: Iam bound to say the right hon. Gentleman was exceeding the rules of Order.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I was referring to that point merely as an argument addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I thought that he, as Leader of

  1775
  the House and the Government, could not be insensible to the force of a consideration urged on behalf of the vast majority of the Irish people. But I do not wish to go further in that direction. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman would consult the character of his Government, the reputation—shall I call it ?—of Parliament in Ireland, and the interests of the Irish nation in general, if he would give not an indifferent, but a hearty and cordial support to this measure. His Government is much more feeble than I take it to be if he cannot find some means by which this Bill may be disposed of this Session.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, it was perfectly well known to Members that the second reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of 171 to 23. The Select Committee was appointed to consider the applicability of the measure to some large towns, and by a majority of 9 to 7 the views of the Government were overborne.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not competent for the hon. Gentleman to enter into a discussion of the proceedings in the Committee on the present Motion.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he wished to testify to the strong current of opinion on the subject in the part of Ireland which he represented; and he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that there was not only a reluctance on the part of the Government to give facilities for the carrying out of the measure, but that a word of sympathy or support had never been uttered. If the Government had promised to make a measure of the question next Session, he would have been content; but they had remained silent except on the non possums theory, which was very unsatisfactory to most of their supporters in the North of Ireland.
  MR. SULLIVANwished to point out that if the remarks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just made were a premium upon obstruction, his hint would not be lost upon those 13 or 14 Irishmen who were against the Bill. He had said that if hon. Gentlemen would facilitate the Business of the House, they would consider how far they could assist in the passing of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had found that two Members could obstruct the Business again and again. Minorities had appeared upon this Bill of from
  1776
  5 to 14, and it sometimes suited the policy of the Government to believe that these small minorities represented the people of Ireland. The Government were underrating the activity of the 13 who were against Sunday closing. They would be heard on the Prisons Bill and on many other Bills, with the understanding that if they were sufficiently obstructive, no facilities would be given for the passing of the Sunday Closing Bill. The reputation of the Government was at stake on this question. Were they going to force Sunday drinking upon the people for another year ? He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-consider his decision; because if not, the minority of Irish Members against the Bill would take care that what he had suggested should be carried out.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he rose with some fear, because after what had happened he supposed that he, too, would soon be called to Order. He would, however, do his best to keep in Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very kindly and courteously recommended him to make some confidential communication to the Irish Members for the purpose of facilitating the passing of this Bill. Now, he would not hold a private communication with anybody outside that House. The right hon. Gentleman asked him whether he would give up his day for the discussion of the Permissive Bill in order to further the discussion on the Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland. Well, he would. [Cheers.] Gentlemen were cheering much too soon. He was determined to have his pound of flesh. He would only give up his day on condition that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the Irish Closing Bill a Government measure, and would use his influence to get it carried to the House of Lords in time for its full discussion. That, he thought, was a fair offer, and if the Government did not accept it, why then the House would have its own opinion about them. The question before them was not so much the Adjournment of the House, as whether this Bill was to be got through Parliament this Session or not, and whether, if it did not, Ireland was to be left for another year to endure all the horrors of the Sunday drink traffic. It was said that hon. Members from Ireland were unanimous

  1777
  on this subject. Well, he heard of united Irishmen, but he never heard of unanimous Irishmen. He believed the Bill was opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and a few Irish Members only, whom he would call the Blue Book Brigade, inasmuch as they read Blue Books by the hour because they had no arguments to urge in support of their case. Those hon. Members with lip service declared their adhesion to Home Rule; but when their country was united on a great question they endeavoured, with the aid of the " Saxon oppressor," to fasten an evil system upon Ireland. All the lion. Gentlemen returned by Irish constituencies at bye elections during the past year had been in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill. He thought the House ought to take this measure into its own hands and endeavour to get it passed. Over and over again they had been told that if Ireland would only come to Parliament and demand a general measure which that country wanted, that measure would be granted. Could there be a stronger case than the present ? Was it wise for them to ride off on a mere plea of delay? Were it a Coercion Bill it would be passed without trouble.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Baronet that he was out of Order in making these observations.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was extremely sorry he had got out of Order. He had expected that he should. He did not mean to discuss the Bill, but only to urge upon the Government the necessity of taking it up. A majority of the Irish publicans themselves were in its favour. He could, in fact, conceive of nobody who was opposed to it except the English publicans.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that both the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) were supporters of the Bill, and that they, at all events, would not throw any obstruction in its way. He believed the question of a Catholic University for Ireland was of more importance than this Bill, and if a day be set aside for any Irish measure, it should be for that object.
  MR. MURPHYthought there was too much assumption in the statement that the unanimous feeling of the Irish people was in favour of the Bill. He himself
  1778
  represented one of the largest constituencies in Ireland, and he stated distinctly that the masses of the people for whose benefit the Bill was designed were opposed to it. He had as good a personal knowledge of the people of Ireland as the hon. Member, and he must say they were unanimously against the Bill. The appearance of a majority in its favour was owing to the organized exertions of a central committee which had ample funds at its command.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTHgave Notice that he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would afford him an early opportunity of moving—
  "That this House is of opinion that it would be detrimental to the interests of the country to allow the question of the sale on Sunday of intoxicating liquors in Ireland to remain unsettled for another year."

  CATTLE PLAGUE AND IMPORTATION OF LIVE STOCK.—QUESTION.
  MR. STANTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has taken, or will take, any steps to provide that evidence may be laid before the Committee How sitting to inquire into the diseases of cattle, as to the condition and treatment of live animals on beard the vessels employed to convey such animals to this country from the different ports in Ireland?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONThe Committee appointed by the Lord President in 1869 to inquire into the transit of animals by sea and land made certain recommendations, which were embodied in the "Transit of Animals Order, 1870," and continued in the consolidated "Animals Order, 1875." There are now five travelling Inspectors engaged in superintending the carrying into effect of the Regulations, as suggested by the Committee of 1873, and the best results have ensued. It is impossible entirely to prevent the suffering of animals during transit; but the condition of things is much improved, and under these circumstances it would hardly be advisable, unless further evidence of the suffering of these animals came to the notice of the Committee, to re-open evidence which was fully gone into by a previous Committee.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—THE SUEZ CANAL—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to inform the House of the nature of the replies or communications received from Russia, the Porte, and the Khedive of Egypt relative to the intimation of Her Majesty's Government forbidding the exercise of belligerent rights on the Suez Canal during the continuance of the present war?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The substance of the communication from the Russian Government is that they will neither impede nor interrupt the free navigation of the Suez Canal. No communication has been received from the Porte or from Egypt on the matter.

  EGYPT—THE EGYPTIAN CORVETTE, "LATIEF."—QUESTION.
  LORD ESLINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If the Egyptian Government has rewarded the crews of two English ships for gallantly assisting an Egyptian corvette in distress ?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY,in reply, said, that the Egyptian Government had placed in the hands of the Board of Trade the sum of £200 for the crews of the English ships Agra and Myra, in acknowledgment of assistance rendered to the Egyptian corvette Latief when on fire, on the 10th of March last, 50 miles off Suez; and he understood that they purposed some further reward to the officers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 121.]
  (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 121.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, further considered.
    MR. PARNELLmoved a new Clause—
    (Test of malingering to be made only with authority of visiting committee.)
    "That where the prison medical officer considers it necessary to apply any painful test to a prisoner to detect malingering or otherwise, such test shall only be applied by authority of an order from the visiting committee of justices, and the prisoner shall be entitled to name any
    1780
    duly qualified surgeon or physician residing in the locality to be present during the application of the test."
    Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would accept the hon. Member's clause if the word " Commissioners " were substituted for " visiting justices," and the rest of the clause left out.
    MR. PARNELLaccepted the Amendment.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. PARNELLnext moved that—
    "No prisoner who, previous to his conviction, has been in the habit of wearing flannels shall be deprived of them during his imprisonment."
    If the right hon. Gentleman would provide for this being done in the prison rules he would withdraw the clause.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas understood to say that flannels were always offered to prisoners.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLthen moved the following Clause:—
    (Restraint of prisoners.)
    "No prisoner shall be put in irons, or under mechanical restraint, by the gaoler of any prison, or by order of the visiting committee of justices, except such restraint be necessary to secure the personal safety of the prison officials."
    When the question was before the House it was urged that the use of irons was necessary to the personal safety of the prison officials. He had framed this clause to meet that case. Prison officials had been in the habit of punishing prisoners by putting them in irons. He thought that the inflicting of punishment by irons ought to be done away with; and his opinion was that prisoners should be no longer punished, but restrained by officials where restraint was necessary. The Bill of 1865 said that it should be lawful for the gaoler to order the prisoner to be put in irons in case of "urgent necessity;" but it did not say

    1781
    what was meant by " urgent necessity." He thought that " urgent necessity " should only exist where the safety of the prison officials or the prisoner himself was involved, or where the prisoner would tear the furniture.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid irons were not used except in cases of absolute necessity. He could not accept the clause, which provided only for the personal safety of the prison officials; but, a prisoner in a desperate state might, if not put under restraint, tear his own clothing, destroy furniture, or do injury to his fellow-prisoners or himself. He believed that everything that was necessary was provided for by the 59th rule, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press the clause.
    MR. BIGGARwould suggest that the hon. Member for Meath should amend his clause so as to enlarge its scope by taking in the various matters spoken to by the Home Secretary.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, the question seemed to be whether they should leave prisoners to knock out each other's brains. They sometimes fell foul of each other, and he thought they ought to be restrained.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYwanted to know if the Home Secretary intended to make any additional rules to those in the old Act of Parliament? He had a very strong opinion that irons should not be used as a means of restraint at all. In the case of lunatics irons had been abandoned and strait-waistcoasts had been substituted, and he did not see why they should not be adopted in gaols.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had moved his clause, because he considered the expression " urgent necessity " in the Act of 1865 to be rather ambiguous. It rather depended upon the opinion of those who inflicted the punishment as to when an "urgent necessity" arose. If the object of the law was only for the purpose of restraint, and not for punishment, he did not see why they should take the trouble to amend the law. In
    1782
    order to express that intent more clearly, that could be done by amending the present clause, and he should propose—
    "That prisoners shall not be put in irons by the gaoler of any prison, or by order of the visiting committee of justices, as a punishment, but only for the purpose of restraint."
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 298: Majority 255.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
    On the Motion of Mr. PARNELL, the following Clauses were agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
    (Limitation of time of confinement.)
    "It shall not be lawful for the gaoler to order any prisoner to be confined in a punishment cell for any term exceeding twenty-four hours; nor shall it be lawful for the visiting committee of justices to order any prisoner to be punished by confinement in a punishment cell for any term exceeding fourteen days."
    (As to inquests on the bodies of prisoners.)
    "In no case, where an inquest is held on the body of a prisoner who dies within the prison, shall any person engaged in any sort of trade or dealing with the person, be a juror on such inquest."
    Clause 10 (Report to contain information as to manufacturing processes in prison).
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 4, line 3, at beginning, to insert—
    "Whereas it is expedient that the expense of maintaining in prison prisoners who have been convicted of crime should in part be defrayed by their labour during the period of their imprisonment, and that, with a view to defraying such expenses, and also of teaching prisoners modes of gaining honest livelihoods, means should be taken in promoting in prison the exercise of and instruction in useful trades and manufactures, so far as may be consistent with a due regard on the one hand to the maintenance of the penal character of prison discipline, and on the other to the avoidance of undue pressure on, or competition with, any particular trade or industry, Be it enacted, That."
    MR. MORLEYexpressed his acknowledgments to the Home Secretary for the fair spirit in which he had dealt with the matter involved in the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Duties of visiting committee).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 18, after the word " intervals," to insert the words " and at least twice in each week."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the House would not insert the Amendment. He felt sure there was not the least doubt of the visiting justices performing their duties in a satisfactory way.
    MR. BIGGARthought there should be something more definite laid down than the words "frequent intervals." Heretofore the justices had various duties to discharge, among them the tempting duty of filling appointments. Now, that that patronage was withdrawn, he feared there might be no inducement to attend, and it might be, as it was often with members of the Poor Law Board, who never attended on occasions when there was no election or other little matter to be carried out in which they were interested. Twice a-week might be too often to visit prisons, but some safeguard as to intervals should be provided.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, line 20, after the word " prisoners," to insert the words " privately, and not in the presence of any of the prison officials."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the spirit of the Amendment, and if it were withdrawn he would propose other words to carry out the object of the hon. Member.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKcondemned the Amendment as "sentimental," and. thought its adoption would be very inconvenient. It would depend a good deal on the character of the prisoner whether the visiting justice would grant him a private interview.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 5, line 33, to insert as a separate paragraph—
    "Provided, That an offender shall not be punished under the said sections fifty-eight and fifty-nine, or either of them, by personal correction except in pursuance of the order of two justices of the peace after such inquiry upon oath and determination concerning the matter reported to them as is mentioned in the said regulation numbered fifty-eight."
    Motion agreed to.
    Paragraph inserted.
    1784
    Clause 15 (Visits to prison by any justice).
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved, in page 6, at end of Clause, to add—
    "and any Member of either House of Parliament may, when he thinks fit, enter into and examine the condition of any prison and of the prisoners therein, and he may enter any observations he may think fit to make in reference to the condition of the prison or abuses therein in the visitors' book to be kept by the gaoler; and it shall be the duty of the gaoler to draw the attention of the visiting committee, at their next visit to the prison, to any entries made in the said book."
    He reminded the House of the value of independent inspection. At present, the only persons to whom prisoners might make known their complaints were the visiting justices. The House had declined to lay down rules for the time of the visits of those magistrates, and their duties were of a purely honorary character, and having no penalty for neglect. If prisoners attempted complaints in their letters, allowed every four months, those letters were immediately confiscated. Nor were the prisoners to make complaints to their friends who visited them at intervals of four months. Seeing that all the proposals which had previously been made by himself or by hon. Members around him had been rejected, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accepting the present one. He could see no practical objection to it. Of course, visits might be made by Members of Parliament to prisoners with whom they felt some sympathy, but those prisoners might also be visited by those whose views were antagonistic, and so there was no fear of misrepresentation; while it would provide Members with the opportunity of verifying cases — such as that mentioned the other night by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), on the authority of a discharged. prisoner — before bringing such cases before the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 13, after the word "treatment," to insert the words " and any Member of either House of Parliament may, when he thinks fit, enter into and examine the condition of any prison and of the prisoners therein, and he may enter any observations he may think lit to make in reference to the condition of the prison or abuses therein in the visitors' book to be kept by the gaoler; and it shall be the duty of the gaoler to draw the attention of the visiting committee, at their next visit to the prison,

    1785
    to any entries made in the said book."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSopposed the Amendment. The Houses of Parliament did not administer, but they had the control of the administration through the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and it would be going beyond the functions of Members to undertake the supposed duty. Besides, the Bill already provided a very extensive machinery for the visiting of prisons. There were the Prison Commissioners, the Inspectors, and the visiting justices, and, moreover, every single justice of the peace of the county, and every justice of the peace where the prisoner came from, if he happened to be taken out of his jurisdiction and removed into a prison in another county, had the power of visiting prisoners.
    MR. GOLDSMIDappealed to the hon. Gentleman not to saddle Members with a new and probably onerous task.
    MR. HIBBERTsuggested that every justice of the peace should have power to visit prisons without restriction.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that if this clause were adopted it would create a divided responsibility between visiting justices and Members of Parliament. Moreover, the Home Secretary would be no longer responsible if such a power were given to Members of Parliament.
    MR. FAYsaid, that if such a power was granted to the Queen's counsel, he did not see why it should not be granted to a Member of Parliament.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that practically any Member of Parliament who actually desired to visit a prison could obtain permission, and he knew of cases in which such permission had been granted. To give power to every Member of Parliament to visit prisons would be as absurb as it would be unwise to introduce politics into prisons.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, that he had previously voted with his Friends for the protection of prisoners; but he should be against this clause, for the protection of Members of Parliament. The immediate result of such a clause would be that Members of Parliament all over the country would be solicited by numerous persons to inquire into their complaints. In a borough such as that
    1786
    he had the honour to represent, with a large county prison in it, he could see for himself an almost continual residence there. He would certainly divide against the proposed Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 282: Majority 269.—(Division List, No. 173.)
    Clause 18 (Compensation to be made to prison authority in respect of accommodation provided for prisoners of some other authority).
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 7, line 39, at end of Clause, to add, as separate paragraphs—
    "Provided also, That no compensation shall be payable under such provision as last aforesaid in respect of any prison discontinued within two years after the commencement of this Act.
    "A prison authority shall not be entitled to receive under his section more than one hundred and twenty pounds in the whole in respect of the same cell."
    Motion agreed to.
    Paragraphs inserted.
    Clause 25 (Confinement of prisoners after conviction).
    MR. CLARE READmoved, in page 9, line 38, to leave out the words " be entitled to," the effect of which would be that all prisoners confined in prisons beyond the limits of the " county, borough, or place " where they were convicted should receive on their discharge at the public expense the means of reaching the place where they were convicted. The hon. Gentleman remarked that the practice was already in operation in convict prisons. In agricultural districts, where they had little crime and large prisons, it was possible the right hon. Gentleman would shortly be making them available for the prisoners from other districts, where the gaol accommodation was less ample, and it was undesirable that there should be any possibility of persons from other districts being turned adrift without the means of getting home. The clause, as it present stood, stated that the prisoner should be "entitled to be taken back." He wished to make it an absolute right, which the prisoner could demand, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would

    1787
    see his way to accepting the Amendment.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to offer to the principle of the Amendment; but he was not sure that the simple device of leaving out the words, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, would effect its object. All prisoners would undoubtedly be sent back; and if the hon. Gentleman thought there was a possibility that they might not under the clause as it stood, he had no objection to accept the Amendment, on condition that it might be found necessary to alter the wording in " another place," if it was thought there would be any practical difficulty in carrying it out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 39 (Special rules as to treatment of unconvicted prisoners and certain other prisoners).
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANmoved, in page 15, to add the following Proviso:—
    "Provided always, That no unconvicted person, or prisoner on remand or under any Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, shall be subject to the ordinary prison rules or discipline save so far as may be necessary to secure order and safe detention."
    The hon. Gentleman said, it had been shown in previous discussions of this Bill that a scandalous system had grown up, under which outrages had been committed on persons who were awaiting their trial. A large proportion of these persons were acquitted, and therefore these outrages were inflicted upon them in violation of the law. The Home Secretary had shown, in carrying this Bill through the House, that he was a master in the art of Parliamentary government. He had stated that any rules and regulations which he might make would be submitted to Parliament, and that there would be an opportunity of amending and repealing them. He (Mr. Sheridan) contended, on the other hand, that Parliament ought to govern and control these rules and regulations, and that the House ought to declare in the text of the Act what were the rights of unconvicted prisoners. There might come times of political trouble and excitement, and if the right hon. Gentleman represented the Prerogatives of the Crown, the House of Commons represented the rights and liberties of the people, and would neglect its duty if it allowed the clause to
    1788
    pass without the introduction of these words. There was nothing in the Amendment he proposed which would in any way conflict with the Bill, or change the law as enacted by it. All that was involved was, that persons who were in prison simply for the purpose of detention should not be subject to the same treatment as convicts; and although the rules to be drawn up by the Secretary of State might be satisfactory, it was desirable to have the distinction clearly laid down in the text of the Act. All that was of a popular character in the government of prisons was being swept away; and, although it might be said they were parting with a shadow, let them take care that in parting with the shadow they did not also part with the substance.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 18, after the word " regarded," to insert the words " Provided always, That no unconvicted person, or prisoner on remand or under any Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, shall be subject to the ordinary prison rules or discipline save so far as may be necessary to secure order and safe detention."—(Mr. B. Sheridan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERthought the proposed Amendment would not at all interfere with the principle of the measure, and he hoped the Homo Secretary would be able to accept it. The Amendment was a perfectly harmless and innocent one. Ho had found, on visiting a prison—the House of Detention at Clerkenwell — that no distinction was made between persons who were simply under detention and others who were being imprisoned without hard labour.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it by no means followed it would be so under this Bill, for the Preamble of the clause made it imperative that a distinction should be made, and no rules, original or amended, could come into force until they had laid on the Table of the House 40 days.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause 40 (Treatment of prisoners convicted of sedition, &.).
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved, in page 16, line 20, after "libel" to insert—" Or treason-felony, or offences of

    1789
    a political nature." His object was to extend to political prisoners generally the exemptions and alleviations of discipline which were under the Bill to be allowed to persons convicted of libel and other offences. The Prison Commission reported in favour of separating political prisoners from other offenders. When a Commission, composed of such men as sat on this Commission, had made such a recommendation, it certainly deserved the most careful consideration. Political prisoners were now treated worse than they were in the days of O'Connell; and while the let of all other classes of prisoners had been mitigated, that of political prisoners had been materially aggravated. So far the feeling of loyalty had not been promoted by this treatment of political prisoners, the contrary had been the case; nor did he know of anything which had so much stimulated the hostility of Irishmen to the English Government as the stories which reached them of the ill-treatment to which Fenian prisoners were subjected in prison. He trusted that even if the Home Secretary did not assent to this clause, he would, at least, indicate to the House that he did not regard the severe treatment of political prisoners as a means of promoting loyalty, and that he would hold out some hope of adopting some measures to separate from ordinary prisoners men who, however mistaken might be their aims or ther modes of action, were of perfectly good moral character.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 20, after the word "libel, "to insert the words" or treason-felony or offences of a political nature."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that this subject had already been discussed at considerable length, and he thought they had arrived at the conclusion on sufficient grounds that these words should not be introduced. The statute gave considerable latitude to the Judge who tried the case. It was left to the Judge to say whether the offence was so slight that it deserved only a very light punishment. In such cases hard labour would not be imposed, and the prisoner would be more leniently treated. At the present moment there
    1790
    was not a single prisoner in England or Ireland who, if the Amendment were inserted, would be affected by it. It would not affect any political prisoner who was in custody at the present moment; because the Bill related entirely to county gaols; whereas any prisoners said to be political prisoners now in confinement were suffering penal servitude in convict prisons. There was another ground on which he must oppose the Amendment. If they adopted it they would, while passing a Prisons Bill, be really altering the sentences which the Judges had pronounced for certain offences.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsuggested a compromise by inserting after " libel " the words " treason-felony without hard labour." This would be perfectly consistent with the clause, and would only extend the regulations to a class of prisoners to whom they were not at present applicable.
    MR. O'SULLIVANcould not see any reasonable objection to an Amendment, the principle of which the Home Secretary had already conceded by admitting the application of the proposition embodied to sedition and seditious libel.
    DR. WARDalso urged that the principle of the Amendment was conceded by the application to prisoners guilty of seditious libel. He did not regard the power vested in a Judge to mitigate a sentence as at all meeting the case to be dealt with by the clause, because the truth was that in Ireland, at all events, the Judges did not command the confidence of the people.
    MR. DODSONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would leave the matter as it stood. It had been fully discussed in Committee and a compromise had been arrived at, which had been accepted as a settlement of the question.
    MR. BIGGARalso expressed his opinion that prisoners were not always justly treated by the Judges in Ireland.
    MR. WADDYentered a protest against the distinction constantly drawn in the House between political offenders and other criminals. In his opinion—an opinion which was shared by many others—no distinction could be drawn in favour of a political offender. From his point of view the political offenders were infinitely more dangerous, infinitely more culpable, and infinitely more deserving of punishment than the poor, misguided,

    1791
    ignorant wretches who were to be found in the same prisons with them, and the enormity of whose crime consisted in stealing a pocket handkerchief or embezzling a shilling. In no other country in Europe would the language which was openly held in that House and out of it with respect to the Government of the country be permitted without stern and speedy repression following. If they attempted to suppress seditious talk and writing their conduct would be denounced as an instance of Saxon tyranny and persecution. It was the privilege of England, Scotland, and Ireland, that they had free writing, and, he might say, very free speaking not only in the House, but elsewhere, and it was one of the consequences of that privilege that whoever did not confine himself to that free debate, free writing, and free speaking, by means of which we endeavoured to get our opinions believed in and maintained, but stepped over the line and resorted to violence, disloyalty, inciting to civil war and that which would lead to bloodshed and death, must take the consequences to the fullest extent, and his blood must be on his own head. That, at all events, was the feeling of the great majority of the people of this country when, presuming upon the liberty of speech and writing which they had in England and Ireland, men so far forgot themselves as to become involved in direct and open treason against Her Majesty, the crime of which they were guilty was not a crime to be talked of with forgiveness in the sense in which it had been talked of in that House; it should not to be spoken of with a kind of patronizing air; the House ought not to be told that it must draw a distinct line between these people " who were really only political offenders " and others, and that it should treat them with greater consideration than the poorer, more ignorant, more needy, more pitiable, people who had committed crimes of infinitely less magnitude and infinitely less peril to the State. He felt the time had come when a distinct protest should be entered against the false feeling which endeavoured to raise political offenders almost into heroes, instead of keeping them in their proper position as criminals. Political offenders, as they were called, had done far more in this country
    1792
    to disturb peace, spread mischief, and cause panic, than almost any other class of criminals.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, he had no wish to take part in the discussion, and had not heard what had been previously said in support of the Amendment, but he could not pass in silence the most extraordinary speech just delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple. As an English Liberal—or rather as an English Radical—he lodged his protest against such observations. He had the opportunity, when the Bill was in Committee, of speaking his views with regard to the treatment of political prisoners, and he had no wish to repeat what he then said; but the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple went absolutely to the very root of constitutional government, and against the very existence of the House of Commons itself. Some of the most distinguished Members of this House, notably the Leader of the Opposition, represented the struggle against despotism of a large portion of the people of this country in 1688. Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, and other great constitutional triumphs were all won in direct antagonism to the principles laid down by the hon. and learned Member who had given expression to doctrines such as were seldom heard from any Gentleman on the other side. His speech was one of unqualified opposition to constitutional government. Not very long ago a distinguished Member of the English Peerage proclaimed openly in his place in Parliament that the subjects of every Sovereign in Europe were not only justified in rising against their Governments, but that their resistance was sanctified by the best feelings of Christianity and humanity. But the hon. and learned Member from the Liberal side of that House had expressed a very different view. No doubt an attempt to overturn the constituted authorities of a country was most unwise, and in a sense criminal. We had in this country the largest measure of liberty enjoyed by any people. We had the fullest liberty of speech and of public meeting and it was most unwise for men, for the sake of liberty, to attempt to appeal to physical resistance. But there were times when men's feelings got the better of their judgment, and when their passions overruled their reason, and that had been the case to a

    1793
    great extent in Ireland quite recently. All that the Mover of the Amendment contended for was, that when men had overstepped that boundary, they should be treated with some measure of consideration, and not be classed in the same way as men who broke the law for their own personal advantage. If a man stole a pocket-handkerchief or a purse, he did it for his own personal aggrandizement; but if a man attempted to revolutionize the law of a country, he acted unwisely and illegally, perhaps, but what he did was done from patriotic feelings, and for what he believed the general advantage of mankind. That man might be mistaken in the view he took, but his actions were for the advantage of others; and they ought not to treat a man who broke the law foolishly and indiscreetly for the benefit, or the supposed benefit, of the nation at large, in the same way as they treated a man who broke the law for his own benefit. All that was asked for by any reasonable man was, that when men had been convicted of a political offence, and sent to prison or to penal servitude, they should be treated with some measure of consideration. Let them be restrained by imprisonment from inciting to rebellion or sedition, as long as it was for the interest of the State that they should be so restrained. He should have no hesitation in sanctioning the confinement of a dozen, or 20, or 100, or 1,000 men, who conspired unwisely and unjustly against the rule of the authority of the Government, to prevent these men from engaging again in similar pursuits; but what the Mover of the Amendment wished to enforce was, that confinement should be sufficient, and that there should be a distinction between crime as against an individual, and crime as against a nation. He understood that the Home Secretary had, to a certain extent, assented to the Amendment, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman cordially for the concession he had made. He was satisfied with the advance that had been made in that direction; but what he understood the Mover of the Amendment to desire was that the same measure of leniency should be extended to treason-felony as to other political offences. He had no wish to detain the House by any lengthened observations; his only object was to protest against the arbitrary, despotic, and most uncon-
    1794
    stitutional doctrines which had been preached by the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the persons who offended in the way referred to were not to be blamed so much as the officers whom they obeyed. The Roman Catholic priesthood were the officers of a Power which was treason itself, and their avowed duty was to preach and teach by every possible means—in the pulpit, the confessional, and the schools —how to bring to the ground and destroy—[Cries of "Question!"]
    MR. MELDONwished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in the observations he was now making?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was discussing a question not before the House, and was quite out of Order.
    MR. WHALLEYhad thought he was safe. With what justice could the Government treat these poor Fenians thus, and yet continually grant large sums—the other day, £9,000—
    MR. SPEAKERasked the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the House.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was endeavouring to do so. The Government, by every means at their command, in the Army, by-and-by, he supposed, in the Navy—[" Question!"]
    MR. SPEAKERagain interposed and informed the hon. Member that the Amendment before the House related to the treatment of persons confined for treason-felony, and that his remarks must be confined to that subject.
    MR. WHALLEYresumed his seat.
    MR. HIBBERTexpressed his regret at the language used by the hon. and leaned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy). He thought that these prisoners should be treated in a more lenient manner. In other countries the greatest leniency was shown, with a most satisfactory result. Prisoners convicted of treason-felony would be sent to the convict prisons, not to the county and berough prisons. The proposal of the Devon Commission ought to be adopted. It would be a great advantage if such persons were sent to some particular prison or section of a prison.
    MR. GRAYsaid, it appeared that the position which the Home Secretary occupied with reference to this clause was a slightly inconsistent one, because the

    1795
    right hon. Gentleman consented that prisoners convicted of sedition and seditious libel should be treated as first-class misdemeanants, while he refused to permit prisoners convicted of treason-felony to be in the same category. As it appeared to him, it would frequently happen that a man convicted of sedition would be morally quite as guilty as a man convicted of treason-felony, and the distinction attempted to be drawn was extremely fine, and in practice would not be found just. He asked the Home Secretary, also, to remember that the Treason-Felony Act was an innovation, only introduced some 30 years ago, and passed, as many thought, with the view of vindictively punishing Irish political prisoners. He thought the time for the vindictive punishment of political offences had gone by; and when the prison laws were being amended it would show a spirit much to be regretted if men of a class who had risen to high positions in the State were still to have cast upon them the odium of being treated like common felons, of being herded with the worst class of felons.
    MR. GOSCHENwished to endorse the views expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), and should, therefore, be disposed to oppose this Amendment. He did not think that it would be wise on the part of the House of Commons to apply any kid glove treatment to the crime of treason, or to allow themselves to be carried away on this subject by any sentimental feelings. There was, in his opinion, no sound reason why the great crime of inciting others to make war against the Queen should not be dealt with rigorously and according to the law of the country. He should deeply regret if any large number of hon. Members on that side of the House were to use language with regard to treason-felony which would tend to show that they sympathized with those who committed crimes against the law of the land, or that they scarcely thought that treason-felony was a crime at all. A few hon. Members appeared to think that they could go behind a crime and look into the motives that led to the crime being committed; but, in his opinion, nothing could be more dangerous than to attempt to gauge the various motives which led men to commit crimes and to contend that they should be
    1796
    treated, not according to the crimes they committed, but according to the particular frame of mind which they happened to be in at the time they committed them. Murder itself might be justified on such grounds as those, because it might he said—" Here is a man whose death will be a great benefit to mankind, and therefore it is right to kill him." He was satisfied that such a doctrine as that would not find favour in that House. These offences were characterized as crimes by the Statute Book, and it was for the general safety of the State that those who perpetrated them should be treated as criminals. He trusted, therefore, that the House of Commons would not enter into the dangerous course of extenuating these offences, and would declare its opinion that all who committed them deserved rigorous punishment.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that if the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which the House had just listened was to be taken as representing the opinion of the Liberal Leaders in Parliament, he feared that the friends of humanity and progress would wish a long career of office to Her Majesty's present Government. The right hon. Gentleman had lent the prestige of his much-respected name, and the reputation of his past official life, to a doctrine which was unworthy of an Englishman. The proposition advanced by the right hon. Gentleman was that political prisoners in this country, and this alone, should be treated on a level with the common felon, thief, and murderer. The right hon. Gentleman said that political prisoners ought not to be handled with kid gloves; but could he point to any country in Europe where, in the wildest times, such prisoners were treated as the Irish political prisoners had been in recent years ? What would be thought of an ex-Minister of France if he were to rise in the French Assembly and say that French political offenders should be treated as pickpockets and garotters ? What would be said if the Emperor of Austria treated the Hungarian rebels as the right hon. Gentleman would treat them if he happened to be in power in Austria? But, happily for Austria, the right hon. Gentleman's services had been reserved for this country. This odious, re-actionary, and barbarous policy was disgraceful to the country. Would the

    1797
    right hon. Gentleman tell him in what way the great Republic of America would receive this proposition? Would it be listened to with patience? Even after the Civil War to uphold the Union, during which whole families were decimated, the people would have spat with scorn if the suggestion were made that Jefferson Davis should be treated as a thief. He (Mr. Sullivan) said that the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman was unworthy of that Assembly, and was unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman himself, for whom personally he had the highest respect. A man who committed a political offence had to face his fate, but magnanimity ought at any rate to be the characteristic of a nation which owed everything to a great rebellion. He was not an Englishman, and his countrymen had fought for the English King when his own subjects had adopted a foreigner in his place. Cromwell, Charles, and James no doubt put down rebellion with a strong arm. They gave capital punishment, but they never degraded their prisoners. The most despotic Sovereigns they ever had used to punish severely, but they never wounded the prisoners as political prisoners were wounded at the present day. He happened to know some of the released men, and had heard them say they would rather suffer death than endure the sufferings and indignities put on them in prison, and one of them said his flesh crept at the indignities heaped upon him. He (Mr. Sullivan) did not believe, if he went round England and canvassed the country on the subject, but that he would gain the voices of nine out of every ten Englishmen against the doctrine which had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, he was glad to hoar that the Liberals had openly declared against Ireland, and that the right hon. Gentleman had at last shown himself in his true colours.
    MR. GOSCHENrose to Order. He wished to explain that he had not spoken against Ireland, but against treason-felony, without particular reference to Ireland.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, everyone knew that the debate had turned upon the question of Irish political prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt exclusively with them.
    MR. GOSCHENdenied having alluded to Irish political prisoners specially.
    MR. O'CLERYobserved that this discussion had been provoked by the cruel and unwarranted attack made by the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy) upon Irish political prisoners.
    MR. WADDYrose to Order. He had never used the expression "Irish political prisoners" from beginning to end. A man guilty of treason-felony in England was worse than one guilty of the same offence in Ireland, and he was not aware that Ireland had a monopoly of treason-felony.
    MR. O'CLERYsaid, that whenever, in foreign countries, individuals revolted against the constituted authorities and afterwards escaped to England, they were received with open arms by Members of the English Liberal Party. He regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was of Irish descent, had wounded and insulted the very country he had sprung from. He thought the time had come when offences of this kind might be forgiven, and the political prisoners at present in gaol might be liberated.
    CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that in the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) he was quite consistent, as, like a strict disciplinarian as he was, he had opposed the Motion for the abolition of flogging last year, and this year did the same, though he stood alone on the front Opposition bench. He would, however, rather have the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman than the inconsistency of the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple, who signed a Petition in favour of the release of the political prisoners last year, and afterwards said he had signed it by mistake. He (Captain Nolan) advocated the milder treatment of political prisoners, because England by adopting that course would act consistently with the policy she had pursued with regard to political refugees from foreign countries. There was no finer thing in England's history than the manner in which she had defended political offenders who had sought refuge on her shores; and it was inconsistent, therefore, to seek to degrade and lower men who had committed political offences at home. The great Republic of America and the small Republic of Switzerland had shown them an example of how to treat political prisoners, which

    1799
    it would be for the advantage and honour of this country to follow.
    MR. MACDONALDrejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London had not charge of a Prisons Bill. If he had, it would be immensely more severe than the measure which had been introduced by the Government, and which would add one more to the honours which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had won in that House. After such an expression from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, he, for one, hoped that he would not bask in the sunshine of Office for the next 20 years to come. He (Mr. Macdonald) was in favour of extending as much kindness as possible towards political prisoners, so as to wean them back to their duties as citizens.
    MR. PARNELLmust say that some of his hon. Friends had been rather too hard upon the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple. He had, on former occasions, heard the hon. and learned Member, Hecuba-like, bewail the evils of the past, and then, Cassandra-like, prophesy dire evils for the future. He had heard him persistently advocate certain measures in the House, and a few days after express his regret for the manner in which he had acted. Perhaps, on this matter also, the hon. and learned Member would, after a few hours' consideration, come to see the error of his way, and would repent of his conduct in "sackcloth and ashes." It was necessary for the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) and his Friends to raise the question on this Amendment, as it could not be raised in any other manner. He reminded the House that the Devon Commission had recommended that certain relaxations should be made in the treatment of political prisoners, and that they should be kept apart from other convicts, and he called on all who approved of those recommendations to support the Amendment. The words "treason-felony" were new-fangled, and altogether new terms that ought not to be applied to political prisoners. They were terms that were not known 30 years ago, when certain persons were prosecuted and transported for political offences, and amongst them his predecessor in that House, the late John Martin, than whom there could not be a more amiable and just man. The late
    1800
    John Mitchell wrote his recollections of the manner in which he was treated as a political prisoner. His book was entitled Gaol Life, and in it he stated that he was not in his exile obliged to associate with criminal prisoners, but was allowed a cell to himself. John Martin, also, left a written record of the manner in which he was treated in his imprisonment—a manner similar to that which John Mitchell described. It was the greatest pride and glory of this country that the political prisoners who sought an asylum were treated with so much liberality; and he trusted the Home Secretary would see that the time had come for an alleviation of prison discipline with regard to those prisoners who had been convicted of offences connected with Fenianism, and for extending to them such privileges as had been recommended by the Devon Commission.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 135: Majority 81.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
    Clause 47 (Rules of Secretary of State and repeal of inconsistent enactments).
    MR. DODSONmoved, in page 18, line 24, after " laid," to insert—
    "In a complete form, after the same shall have been settled and approved by such Secretary of State."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMON (for Mr. NEWDEGATE)moved, in page 18, line 33, at end to add " and have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament." Under the present Bill it was proposed to give power to the Home Secretary to alter the rules of prison discipline from time to time as he might think proper. Now, that was a large power to place in the hands of a Secretary of State, and Parliament should certainly take care and hold a power in its own hands which would give to any private Member the privilege of bringing forward any objection or alteration which he might think proper in reference to those rules. During his time in that House he did not know of any instance wherein private Members had not the power to call attention to, and with the sanction of Parliament cause a change in the rules of, prison discipline. The provision that the rules should be on the Table of the House 40 clear days before

    1801
    they acquired force was a delusion for all practical purposes, and the object of adding these words to the clause was to oblige the Government to afford the House an opportunity of discussing them.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 18, line 33, after the word "days," to add the words " and have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament (Mr. Serjeant Simon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the House would excuse him from going into this subject again, having already discussed it in Committee. He had every respect for Acts of Parliament and for the guiding principles laid down in them; but really to legislate on these small matters would be carrying legislation to excess. What was wanted was that Parliament should know what the rules were, and they would be on the Table for 40 days. All the rules he made would be in mitigation of those which now existed. There would be ample opportunity for any hon. Member to challenge them and raise a discussion when they were on the Table.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the object the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had in view was shared by many others near him. All along the proposition had been met by the Home Secretary with a reference to the rules and the right hon. Gentleman's personal assurances. He had urged that Parliament should not be called on to approve of all these minute rules; but, as a matter of fact, all the rules would be considered at once, and one debate would cover the whole ground. The Home Secretary, with his experience of office, must know how difficult it was to become acquainted with the whole subject. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not pretend to appreciate all the right hon. Gentleman's ability and industry; but if he possessed the ability of a dozen Home Secretaries, he was putting upon himself an immense responsibility, which he would do well to ask the House to share. This reasonable proposition would, he hoped, be pressed to a division.
    MR. WHALLEYsupported the Amendment, as it would give the
    1802
    magistrates some inducement to look after prison discipline.
    MR. STEVENSONlikewise supported the Amendment, as he was of opinion that the Home Secretary should, when the rules were drawn up, propose them to the House for its sanction.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 140: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL— [BILL 183.]
  (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Assheton Cross, Mr. Walpole.)
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE BILL— [BILL 183.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause 25 (Saving respecting Snell Exhibitions at Oxford).
    MR. GOSCHENmoved after the clause to insert the following clause:—
    "The Commissioners, in a statute made by them for the University of Oxford or for Oriel College in Oxford, may, if they think fit, with the assent of Oriel College signified under its common seal and with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, provide that the canonry in the chapter of the cathedral church of Rochester, which is now annexed and united to the provostship of Oriel College, shall on a vacancy be severed therefrom, and may also, with the concurrence of the said Ecclesiastical Commissioners, provide that such canonry shall be thenceforth permanently annexed and united to some office or place of a theological or ecclesiastical character in or connected with the University of Oxford, or may, with the concurrence aforesaid, make such other provisions for the future disposal and patronage of such canonry as they shall think fit; and, in case any such statute shall be made annexing such canonry to such office or place as aforesaid, such canonry, or the income thereof, may, if they think fit, be reckoned and taken, in whole or in part, as a contribution of Oriel College out of its revenues to University purposes."
    New Clause—(Mr. Goschen,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
    Clause 4 (Nomination of Oxford Commissioners).
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, as an Amendment, to add to the clause which nominated the gentlemen who were to act as Oxford Commissioners, the name of Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Doctor of Civil Law. He could not

    1803
    imagine why the name of so distinguished a gentleman, after having been inserted in the measure of last year, should have been omitted from the Bill now under consideration.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 20, at end, to add the words "Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Doctor of Civil Law."— (Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was no one who could speak of Sir Henry Maine in stronger praise than himself. Everyone who knew him knew that he was thoroughly independent, and that he could hold his own against any man; but Sir Henry Maine had himself suggested that his name should be omitted, and therefore it had been done.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that not a more fit man could have been appointed'; but the omission of his name from the list would not be accepted as any slur upon it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 11 (Power for Universities and Colleges to make statutes).
    MR. GOSCHENmoved in page 5, at end of clause, to insert as a new paragraph—
    "The commissioners shall not approve a statute so made by a college until they have published, in such form as to them may seem fit, a statement with respect to the main purposes relative to the University for which, in their opinion, provision should be made under this Act, the sources from which funds for those purposes should be obtained, and the principles on which contributions from the colleges for those purposes should be assessed."
    Paragraph inserted.
    Clause 13 (Limitation of fifty years).
    MR. GOSCHENmoved the omission of the clause pro formâ, to enable the Secretary of State for War to offer an explanation as to its effect. The clause provided that the Commissioners should not make a statute altering the trusts, conditions, or directions affecting a University or College emolument unless the instrument of foundation or of endowment thereof was made or executed more than 50 years before the passing of the Act. It appeared to him that the words of the clause, as they stood,
    1804
    went further than the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which, he believed, were limited to private endowments, and would leave old endowments to be dealt with according to the discretion of the Commissioners. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would promise to re-consider the matter, with a view, if necessary, to the clause being amended in " another place."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 13.—(Mr. Goschen.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYtook the meaning of the clause to be what ho had stated it to be when the Bill was in Committee—namely, that new gifts to the University made within 50 years would be excluded. The draftsmen had made no suggestion for an alteration of the clause, because it carried out what he had before described as its meaning. But he was willing to re-consider thepoint as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. COURTNEYalso expressed a hope that the wording of the clause would be re-considered in the manner indicated by the right hon. Member for the City of London.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTprotested against the introduction into that discussion of the name of the draftsman, a person not known to the law of Parliament, and who ought not to be brought upon the stage, though he might occupy the prompter's box. The Law Officers of the Crown were the responsible authorities to state to the House the legal bearing of Government Bills.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the draftsman had of late years been brought into the Committees upstairs very much to bring Bills into a good shape.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 14 (Regard to main design of founder).
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANmoved the omission of the clause which provided that in making a statute affecting a University or College emolument the Commissioners should have regard to the main design of the founder, except where the same had ceased to be observed before the passing of the Act, or where the trusts, conditions, or directions affecting

    1805
    the emolument had been altered in substance by or under any other Act. He proposed the omission upon two grounds, the first being that when the same question was discussed in Committee the division took place during the dinner hour, and it therefore scarcely represented the opinion of the House; and, secondly, that the clause as it stood would materially hamper the action of the Commissioners dealing with what were called clerical restrictions.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, to leave out Clause 14.— (Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MOWBRAYsaid, the question had really been adequately discussed in Committee. It involved nothing more than had been already decided by Parliament under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich and by the Acts of 1854 and 1869.
    MR. HERSCHELLsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should consider whether the words "shall take into consideration the design of the founder, &.," would not express his intention as well as those now in the clause, "shall have regard to." It seemed to him that if the words he suggested were inserted the Commissioners would not be bound to further the designs of the founder, which was the practical effect of the clause as it now stood.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had not the slightest objection to accept those words if there was no division on the clause.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not see that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member made much difference, and he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Osberne Morgan) to press his Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 105: Majority 65.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
    Clause 16 (Objects of statutes for University.)
    MR. GREGORYmoved, in page 6, after line 33. to insert—
    1806
    "For regulating the residence of Undergraduates at the Universities and the number and length of the terms to be kept by them as a qualification for a degree."
    Owing to the qualifications that were required before matriculation, it was unusual to matriculate before the age of about 18; but it was often the case that the student was perfectly well qualified at that stage to pass also the succeeding examination. Three or four years' residence was at present necessary before a degree could be taken; but he contended that two years' residence would be enough. If an Undergraduate had reached the age of 23 before he was allowed to take his degree, he still required two or three years of training for any commercial or professional career, and so late a start in life was such a serious disadvantage that many who would gladly send their sons to the Universities were deterred from doing so. As the Terms extended to only 17 or 18 weeks a-year, the difficulty might be met by taking into account residence during the vacation.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 33, after the word " students,' to insert the words " For regulating the residence of undergraduates at the Universities and the number and length of the terms to be kept by them as a qualification for a degree."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RATHBONEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the proposal. It was possible in two years to lay a foundation of law and history, the most useful and practical preparatory studies. It was often a great hardship to men going into commerce to remain nearly four years at the University.
    MR. ONSLOWtrusted his right hon. Friend would not accept the Amendment. Young men did not go up to the University merely to pass examinations. They went there to learn social qualities as well, and for that purpose it was necessary that they should be there at least three years.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANwould not follow the last speaker into the social advantages of spending three years at a University. If a man were fit to take his degree at the end of two years, he saw no reason why he should be prohibited from doing so. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would press the Amendment.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsupported the Amendment. He thought that for a common pass degree two years were sufficient.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that according to the arrangements made by the University of Oxford with reference to the Indian Civil Service, only two years' academical training would be necessary before a young man went out to India. The same time ought to suffice for the B.A. degree, and therefore he should support the Amendment.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the Amendment would give the Commissioners the power of regulating the number of Terms to be kept by Undergraduates, but that duty might very well be left to the University itself, especially as it had recently made special regulations for the Indian Civil Service students. The question was, whether the Commissioners were to force their views upon the University. He could not think it desirable to do so, as the University was quite competent to govern its own internal affairs.
    MR. GOSCHENremarked that the Bill already contained many directions as to the matters with which the Commissioners were to occupy themselves, and the Amendment would serve as an indication of the opinion of Parliament on this particular point. Commercial men who were anxious for their sons to obtain academic rank thought three years' residence too long.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYD,as a man of business, expressed his hope that the Government would accept the Amendment. He knew from personal experience that many men were prevented from going to the -University by- the length of time necessary for a degree. He would vote for the Amendment because, while it would not diminish the value of a degree, it would admit a large proportion of men intended for professions and business.
    MR. MARLINGsupported the Amendment.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, that the Amendment dealt entirely with a matter of discipline, and if the House was prepared to deal with it, many similar Amendments might be moved which could hardly be considered. He concurred, however, as to the desirability of altering the length of the University course. He deprecated the introduction of new matter into the Bill, and was of
    1808
    opinion that the Universities might be trusted to do what was right on the question.
    MR. BIRLEYremarked that the Governing Bodies of the Universities were the proper persons to deal with this matter; but he hoped that the general expression of opinion on both sides of the House would not be without fruit. It was most desirable that young men should be able to receive the advantages of University education without being required to spend three years before they could take a degree. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would introduce some words which would show the wish of the House.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEdiffered from the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), who considered this as a question of discipline, and not of teaching. What could relate to teaching if the length of time the student was to reside at the University did not?
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that this was a matter far more within the competency of the Universities than of any body of Commissioners. In the University to which he belonged (Cambridge) this question had exercised, and would exercise, the most careful attention of the authorities, and the House might be satisfied to leave it to them.
    MR. BARINGexpressed on behalf of the commercial classes, whom he might claim to represent to a certain extent, their anxiety that some such clause as that proposed should be inserted in the Bill. As a strong Tory, he would say to the Tory Government, restore the ancient Oxford custom, whereby the people were admitted to that which was now the privilege of one class. If the Government did so they would not be creating a revolution nor damaging the University of Oxford.
    MR. EVANSsupported the Amendment. He considered it would be a great advantage to that large class of the community who could not spend three years at the Universities if they were enabled to obtain their degrees in a shorter period.
    LORD ESLINGTGNthought the views expressed by those who represented the commerce of the country ought to commend themselves to the Government. The University authorities were favourable to this proposal,

    1809
    and a Resolution of the House would strengthen their hands in carrying it out.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the House was asked to put into the hands of the Commissioners functions which ought to be in the hands of the Universities themselves. The Universities were carefully considering the question.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 197: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 29, to leave out from the word "learning," to the word "University," in line 32, inclusive.—(Mr. Gosehen.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Saving for Headship of Magdalene College, Cambridge).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved the omission of the clause, providing—
    "That a statute made by the Commissioners shall not affect the right of nominating or appointing to the Headship of Saint Mary Magdalene College in the University of Cambridge, unless the consent by deed of the person entitled to that right is first obtained."
    He did this to obtain an explanation from the Government.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 29.— (Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 29 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. FAWCETTsuggested that there might be a clause to this effect—that the Commissioners should consider whether some better arrangement than that which was now in practice should be brought into operation to regulate the appointment of the Mastership of Magdalene. He, however, moved the Adjournment of the Debate, that the matter might be fully discussed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." Fawcett.)
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that there had been plenty of time to put down an Amendment if any hon. Member had wished to do so, and it would be most unreasonable to obstruct
    1810
    the Bill that night because that had not been done.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought it was perfectly wonderful that Parliament should put in a clause which declared that the Commissioners should not have power to deal with the extraordinary anomaly that the Mastership of a Collegiate Institution should be attached to the ownership of an estate belonging to an institution. There might be a vested interest, and money might be required to get rid of it, but the Commissioners should have power to dispose of the vested interest.
    MR. MOWBRAYsupported the clause. It could not now be amended.
    MR. COURTNEYhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) would withdraw his Motion. They did not want any alternative clause. They were competent to deal with the question at once by voting for or against this clause.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that the clause ought to be amended by the Government, and by providing compensation to the persons holding the Mastership if it should be found necessary to do so.
    MR. J. COWENrecommended the withdrawal of the Motion for adjourning the debate.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 183: Majority 122.—(Div. List, No. 178.)
    Original Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 95: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 179.)
    Clause 36 (Election of Commissioners by Colleges.)
    Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 37, to leave out the werd "three," in order to insert the word " two."— (Mr. Goschen.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three ' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had given consideration to this matter since the Bill was in Committee, and he was still of opinion that three was a better number than two; but he proposed as a compromise that in cases where there was already one member of the College upon the Commission the number should be reduced to two.
    MR. FAWCETTsuggested the acceptance of the compromise.
    MR. DODSON,whilst not approving of the arguments by which the compromise was supported, thought they might content themselves by recording their protest and not troubling the House by going to a division.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. GOSCHENmoved, in page 12, line 39, after " college," to insert—
    "Provided always That, in the case of any College, one or more members of which shall be appointed by name Commissioners under this Act, no more than one person shall be so elected."
    MR. GATHORNE HARDYsuggested that "one person" should be altered to "two persons."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Trade Marks* (106); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bridlington, &c.)* (107), and referred to the Examiners; Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters)* (108); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act (1862) Amendment* (109).
Second Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Boards)* (92); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings)* (91).
Committee—Report—Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Artisans and. Labourers Dwelliogs)* (78); Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Ennis, &c.)* (79); Crown Office* ( ); Local Government Provisional Orders (Altrincham, &c.)* (89); Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders (Penrith, &c.)* (90).
Third Reading—Settled Estates* (49); Public Libraries Act (Ireland) Amendment* (65), and passed.

THE CONFESSIONAL—"THE PRIEST IN ABSOLUTION."—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF REDESDALErose to call the attention of the House to a book entitled The Priest in Absolution, privately printed by, and at the disposal of, an association of clergymen called the Society of the Holy Cross, for private and limited circulation among the clergy. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the book the subject of my Notice was brought under my observation a short time ago. Upon perusing it, I venture to think that the fact of such a work being in existence is well worthy the consideration of your Lordships' House and of the whole country—or, at any rate, of those who are interested in the Church of England. The Society by which it is printed and circulated is called the Society of the Holy Cross, and has among its members many well-known and in some respects very excellent men; but men who entertain peculiar views on certain subjects. The Rev. A. H. Mackonochie is or was Master of the Society, and on the Council are the Rev. Dr. Littledale, the Rev. A. H. Stanton, the Rev. C. T. Lowder, and the Rev. H. D. Nihill, and the Rev. A. Tooth is one of the Foreign Missions Committee. With regard to the book itself, I am informed that it was compiled by a gentleman now dead, from whose widow the
1742
Society of the Holy Cross purchased the copyright. As to the nature of this work, it seems to be regarded with suspicion even by the person who compiled it, and by those who have published and circulated it; because in the Preface we find this passage—
"To prevent scandal arising from the curious or prurient misuse of a book which treats of spiritual diseases, it has been thought best that the sale should be confined to the clergy who desire to have at hand a sort of vade mecum for easy reference in discharge of their duties as confessors."
This statement seems rather remarkable, and would appear to indicate that those who are engaged in circulating the book have some suspicion in respect of its character: and I am informed that by one clergyman, who had requested copies of the work to be forwarded to him, this reply was received—
"I am unable to comply with your request without reference to some well-known priest of your acquaintance."
It would appear, therefore, that the circulation of the book even amongst the clergy is carefully and particularly limited. Bearing in mind the doctrines of the Church of England, the doctrines laid down in this book are rather extraordinary. I will not quote many extracts to your Lordships, but to show the character of the book I feel bound to quote two or three. Here is one—
"There is no resource for the spiritually sick but private confession and absolution; and to make that effectual it is necessary that the penitent be examined with discretion and expertness."
It then proceeds to state the way in which these examinations are to be carried on. It says—
"Children may receive absolution with much spiritual benefit after seven, or even five or six."
"The priest must be careful not to be too reserved in questions, lest he risk thereby the loss of a great good for the sake of the less."
"Children may be asked with whom they sleep; if they have played with their bedfellows; touched each other designedly or unbecomingly."
"Adults: with whom they had to do; whether more than once with the same person; when it took place; how often the sin was committed; how often interrupted before committed."
I do not like to go into these matters, and I think your Lordships will admit that questions of this kind are at least suggestive, and much more likely to

1743
bring about than to avoid the evils to which they relate. I will bring one further subject of examination under your Lordships' notice to show how grave is the matter to which I have ventured to direct attention, in the hope of putting a stop to the practices inculcated by the book—
"In regard to married persons, the priest is bound ordinarily only to inquire, when he finds it necessary, of wives if they have rendered due benevolence, and that only in the most modest way he can, and not inquire further unless he be asked questions himself. Wives should be asked if they have not caused their husbands to blaspheme by not rendering due benevolence. Wives often by refusing the latter are damned, and cause the damnation of their husbands by driving them to thousands of iniquities. The question should be veiled in discreet language: 'Do you obey your husband in what belongs to the marriage state?'"
I will not go further into these matters—I think I have said enough to show the character of the examinations suggested in this book, for use by the priest when the people come to him for confession. The danger arising from auricular confession is admitted in the book, for in one passage it is stated that the confessor "should abstain from every word which springs from tenderness," and that "though he may say 'My dear son' to a young man, prudence forbids him to say 'My dear child' to one of the other sex." Then there is this testimony in the book as to the result of the system—
"It is only too easy during long intervals to be exposed to the incursion of impure affections, and to lose more than is gained. Circumspection is the more necessary when the youth or appearance of people, or the subjects of confession, or their great piety or wickedness, might cause more easily bad impressions on his or their hearts. Pity, I say, has been more than once a wreck upon which imprudent confessors have been wrecked, who, by commencing with a simple spiritual esteem, have ended insensibly with a sensual and carnal love."
I will now say a few words as to the doctrines set forth in this book. It is a doctrine of the Church of England that there are only two Sacraments. According to this book, Confession and Absolution are a Sacrament. Another doctrine of the Church of England is that there is but one Mediator between God and man. What does this book say?—
"To think of the Ever Virgin Mary and her purity, and to beseech God to hear her interces-
1744
sion on behalf of those who long for likeness to her immaculate example."
This is the manner in which the book describes "The Priest"—
"The Priest as a Judge.—It is in his capacity as Judge, in remitting or retaining sins, that skilful adroitness supplies him with means for bringing the sinner to a right state for receiving absolution."
It further states—"The priest is Judge in the place of God." That is, he assumes to himself perfect infallibility of decision in respect of the persons who come to him to receive absolution, and thereby to be relieved from all responsibility on account of their sins, and he is to judge infallibly —perhaps erroneously, in reality—as to the sincerity of the penitents. My Lords, I must say it is high time that the laity should move in this matter. Hitherto it has been treated too much as one exclusively for the clergy. Since I put my Notice on the Paper my attention has been called to another book entitled "The Priest's Prayer Book, designed as an Appendage to the Book of Common Prayer. Fifth edition. Much enlarged: 369 pages. "There is one point to which I would call your Lordships' attention as showing the manner in which the various matters contained in this book are dealt with. In the book are directions under the heading "Communion of the Sick with Reserved Sacrament." Anything more contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England than the "Reserved Sacrament" I cannot conceive. What does the rubric of the Church say in reference to the consecrated elements? It says—
"If any remain of that which has been consecrated, it shall not be carried out of church, but the priest and such other of the communicants as he shall then call unto him shall, immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same."
And the 28th Article is in these words—
"The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."
But what does the Priest's Prayer Book say—
"The priest then takes the blessed Sacrament from the pyx, and, holding it before the sick person, says—'Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.' He kneels down and adds—'Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak only and Thy servant shall be healed."

1745
He then rises and communicates, using the proper words. I do not know whether the notice of the right rev. Bench has been directed to this book — I think it most deserving of their attention. In calling your Lordships' attention to the subject, I am actuated by a sense of duty, for I feel that the time has arrived when there should be a decided condemnation of practices such as those indicated in the volumes from which I have quoted these extracts.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I think none of your Lordships will doubt that the noble Earl has undertaken a most disagreeable and painful task, and I feel obliged to him for putting aside his private feelings in order to draw the attention of your Lordships to this very serious and important matter. The noble Earl asks whether our attention has already been drawn to this book, published by the Society of the Holy Cross. It is owing to the courtesy of the noble Earl himself that my attention was drawn to it very recently. I trust—and, indeed, feel convinced—that the persons represented by this book are very few indeed. I shall feel very much surprised if it should not turn out on examination that there are only very few of the clergy of the Church among these persons. At the same time, the fact that there should be any is to my mind a matter of very great concern. The noble Earl spared us from many details; but, at the same time, he read from the book quite enough to show that no modest person can read the book without regret, and that it is a disgrace to the community that such a book should be circulated under the authority of clergymen of the Established Church. Most of us have felt pained when details have been brought forward of what in some degree is authorized by another branch of the Church of Christ; but, at all events, we had the satisfaction of knowing that in that other branch of the Church of Christ, where the sanction of that authority is given, very great care is taken in respect of this most dangerous weapon which is put into the hands of its clergy. If, however, I rightly comprehend the matter which the noble Earl has brought before us, the persons who put this book forward have no authority but one which they
1746
have arrogated to themselves. They have been in no way invested with authority by their superiors to do what they have done in this matter: and, my Lords, the restraints which in the Church of Rome are imposed in order to prevent those results arising which we might expect to arise from the practices to which I am referring are certainly wanting in this case. Now, I do not know what is the law with respect to books of this nature. I do not know whether the law is broken if a book of this nature is circulated without being publicly sold; but I cannot help thinking that the person who circulates a book of this kind—even though he refuses it to a clergyman who applies for it, unless he refers to some third party, is treading very near the confines of the law. As to the particular question of doctrine to which the noble Earl alludes, I may say that it has engaged the attention of the right rev. Bench on more than one occasion. In the year 1873 the whole body of the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury drew up a formal Declaration of opinion, which they thought might fairly be supposed to represent the doctrine of the Church of England on this subject; and a noble Lord, who, I think, is not now present (Lord Oran-more and Browne), having moved for it, the Declaration was laid on the Table, and has been recently printed for the use of your Lordships. In that document there is this statement—
"In the matter of confession, the Church of England holds fast those principles which are set forth in Holy Scripture, which were professed by the primitive Church, and which were re-affirmed at the English Reformation. The Church of England, in the 25th Article, affirms that penance is not to be counted for a sacrament of the Gospel, and, as judged by her formularies, knows no such words as 'sacramental confession.' Grounding her doctrine on Holy Scripture, she distinctly declares the full and entire forgiveness of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ to all who bewail their own sinfulness, confess themselves to Almighty God with full purpose of amendment of life, and turn with true faith unto Him."
Having enumerated the two cases in which the Church has made special provision for the relief of troubled consciences, the Declaration proceeds—
"Nevertheless it is to be noted that for such a case no form of absolution has been prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, and, further, that the Rubric in the first Prayer Book of 1549, which sanctioned a particular form of absolu-

1747
tion, has been withdrawn from all subsequent editions of the said book. In the Order for the Visitation of the Sick it is directed that the sick man be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter, but in such case absolution is only to be given when the sick man shall humbly and heartily desire it. This special provision, however, does not authorize the ministers of the Church to require from any who may resort to them to open their grief a particular or detailed enumeration of all their sins, or to require private confession previous to receiving the Holy Communion, or to enjoin or even encourage any practice of habitual confession to a priest, or to teach that such practice of habitual confession, or the being subject to what has been termed the direction of a priest, is a condition of attaining to the highest spiritual life."
I quote this paper to show your Lordships that the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury have given their careful attention to this matter, and have endeavoured to put forward the views of the Church on the subject; and I do hope and trust that right views with respect to it do prevail generally among the clergy, and that the clergy who have recourse to such modes of introducing confession, as the noble Earl has spoken of, or of prying into the secret thoughts or hearts of those who come to them are but the few exceptions. I am bound, however, to say that it is with the profoundest regret I have heard the names of some of those who have been mixed up in this matter. Among the names which have been sent to me is one of a clergyman in my own diocese whom, as a Christian gentleman, I highly respect. The moment I saw his name in the paper which the noble Lord placed in my hands, I felt it my duty to point out to him the position in which he had placed himself, if the allegation were true, in connection with this book or with the society from which it issued. That clergyman is, I believe, at present abroad, and therefore I have not been able to procure a reply from him in time for this occasion. But I trust that more than one of the clergymen connected with this Society will feel that they have fallen into a most grievous mistake. Perhaps their motive may have been a good one: indeed, I should say that certainly it has been, because they have acted with the view—a faulty one, no doubt—of being better able to guide the minds of those entrusted to their spiritual care. But they have made a most grievous mistake in
1748
endeavouring to pry into the secret thoughts of the human heart in matters of this delicate character. I am certain that if such a course is persevered in it will have very evil results—first, in the harm it will do their own minds; secondly, in the harm it will do to the minds of those who come to them, and whom they address in the terms pointed out in this book; and, thirdly, in its effects as regards the influence in families of the clergy of that Church whose interests they wish to further. I cannot imagine that any right-minded man could wish to have such questions addressed to any member of his family; and if he had any reason to suppose that any member of his family had been exposed to such an examination, I am sure it would be the duty of any father of a family to remonstrate with the clergyman who had put the questions, and warn him never to approach his house again. I have ventured, my Lords, to express my own feelings on this matter very strongly; but I have no reason to suppose that I am not the mouthpiece of the right rev. Bench on this occasion. Indeed, I have reason to know that one of my right rev. Brothers, who is now present, having seen connected with this book the name of a clergyman whom he was about to institute to a living, took immediate steps in relation to the matter, and had the satisfaction of receiving from the clergyman a disavowal of any connection with either the book or the Society.
THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, his attention, a short time ago, was called to the fact that a clergyman whose name appeared connected with the executive of the Society in question was about to enter his diocese. As the clergyman was about to enter it through the resignation of another, it was in the power of the Bishop to decline to accept the resignation. As Bishop of the diocese, he therefore did not hesitate for a moment to state that he would not receive the resignation. This, of course, called forth explanations. In order to bring the matter to a point he required the clergyman to sign a paper drawn up as follows:—
"I herewith notify to you (the Bishop of the diocese) that I have withdrawn from the Society of the Holy Cross, and that I distinctly repudiate the work entitled, The Priest in Absolution."

1749
In the course of two days he received this document, signed by the clergyman, who was now not connected with the Society. There were two facts emerging from the narrative which seemed to demand attention. One was that probably there were many members of the Society who knew very little indeed about the Book. It was, therefore, only reasonable and fair that the whole members of the Society should not be judged by the exceptional cases that stood prominent in connection with it. The second fact—which was of a very grave kind—was this, that a gentleman occupying the position of one officially connected with this Society had felt it his duty, when his attention had been called to the subject, not only to surrender his position in the Society, but distinctly to repudiate the book. The inference from this would certainly seem to be either that the relations of that clergyman to the Society could not be considered wholly satisfactory, or that the book must be considered a singularly bad one. If otherwise, why did he at once so abruptly close his connection with it? However that might be, he should not now hesitate to admit to the rev. gentleman to his diocese; and he might conclude by expressing the hope that his example would be largely followed, and that after this conversation and the attention that had thereby been drawn to the book very many of the members of the Society alluded to would re-consider their position in reference to it.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEwas understood to say that the subject was no new one, for he had on more than one occasion drawn attention to the subject of auricular confession as practised by some priests in the Church of England. He brought it to the notice of their Lordships last year, and he regretted that the right rev. Bench did not in consequence take decisive action in reference to it. The presence at that moment of only about half-a-dozen of the Prelates of the Church showed that the Episcopal Bench was not much in earnest in condemning this very objectionable practice. He should be glad to hear from his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury that he had not granted a dispensation in favour of auricular confession. Auricular confession as practised by those priests was part of a system
1750
which they were carrying on in their churches. In 1873, and again last year, he had called the attention of their Lordships to books of a nature similar to this; but when he expressed a hope that auricular confession would not become a practice in the Church of England, the fact that it existed at all was ignored by the right rev. Bench. He was anxious that a clause should have been introduced into the Public Worship Regulation Act to prevent the practice of it; but that course was objected to by the right rev. Prelate. He knew that the right rev. Prelate had much to contend against, or he might perhaps have acceded to the proposition. Last year he showed their Lordships that the right rev. Bench had promoted many clergymen whom they must have known practised auricular confession in their churches. There were many cases of curates, whose licences might have been suspended; but the right rev. Bench had declined to exercise their discretion; and he thought that some action on the part of the right rev. Bench was absolutely necessary if the practices of these priests were to be restrained. The practices were not local. They were extending throughout the length and breadth of England. He had recently heard from a gentleman who had come from Devonshire that they were becoming common in that county. In one or more of the churches in the diocese of London there were notices hung up that the church was open during certain hours on certain days of the week for confession and absolution. Objectionable as these practices were in the Church of England, they commenced with instructions to the young, even to children of seven years old, and those instructions were to be found in the book referred to by the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale). The contents of that and other books had shocked noble Lords, and if the right rev. Bench intended to assist in stopping the practice of the auricular confession they should let the clergy know that they would not give any preferment in their dioceses to those who carried on the practice.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYbegged to express his thanks to the noble Lord who had brought this painful subject to the notice of the House. He had, indeed, indicated no remedy, and he (the Earl of Harrowby) did not see what

1751
remedy Parliament could apply to this dangerous and widely-spreading disease of the encouragement and practice of auricular Confession in the Church of England. The Bishops had indeed condemned it, but their formal condemnation seemed to be little respected. He (the Earl of Harrowby) was, however, thankful to the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) for the suggestion of, perhaps, the best remedy that could be supplied—that social remedy of excluding from admission to their houses and family in succession all those who were known to practise this abominable system. The most rev. Prelate had expressed his belief that the number of the clergy who were thus infected was but small. True, the number whose names were recorded as belonging to this Society was but small—perhaps not more than 400—but they were men of influence—of widely-extended influence—and connected with places of education. Let them look at the names of those who were connected with the management of this Society, and see the importance of their action. He had in his hand an extract from The Horning Post, September 7th, 1876, which he would take the liberty of reading to their Lordships—
"A New Church Society.—A society has been established under the designation of the Holy Cross, to the membership of which only priests of the Church of England will be entitled. The Rev. A. H. Mackonochie, vicar of St. Albans, Holborn, is the Master, and he is assisted by four vicars, who, with the treasurer and secretary, are elected for the Master's Council. On this Council scats are occupied by the Rev. Dr. Littledale, the Rev. A. H. Stanton, of St. Albans; the Rev. C. F. Lowder, vicar of St. Peter's, London Docks; the Rev. H. D. Nihill, of St. Michael's, Shoreditch; the Rev. F. Murray, rector of Chiselhurst; the Rev. R. R. Bristow, vicar of St. Stephen's, Lewisham; the Revs. Messrs. Courtenay, Parnell, Nicholas, and others. The Master will be assisted by the Rev. W. H. Hutchings, sub-master of the House of Mercy, Clewer, the Rev. Orbey Shipley, and others, as assessors. The Tract Committee consists of Dr. Littledale, Mr. Nihill, and Mr. Bristow. Mr. Murray will direct his especial attention to the subject of "Retreats." The Foreign Mission Committee is composed of the Rev. A. Tooth, vicar of St. James's, Hatcham; the Rev. W. Field, of Lancing College, St. Nicholas; and the Rev. A. Pixell. The theological lectures will be arranged by Mr. Bristow, and there will be committees for the affiliation, for guilds, and other matters of importance."
Their Lordships would have observed
1752
some well-known and influential names. Let them look at the name of Clewer. His own attention was attracted by that of the Rev. W. Field, one of the masters of the College of Lancing, an institution which was aiming at getting hold of the education, especially of the middle classes, through the influence of Canon Woodward, and had extended its operations successfully over his own county. The laity must do their part; but their Lordships, the Bishops, must do their part also. They must watch over these educational institutions, whether for the clergy or the laity, over which they had control, or where their position gave them influence. It was not enough to denounce these practices in formal declarations; they must practically discountenance them in all their relations with their clergy, in their ecclesiastical patronage, in their theological Colleges, and in the public schools, to which they gave their sanction. This auricular Confession, which was now creeping in, was indeed a pertinent heresy, worse, practically, than many that had received that title. If the expression was strong, it was fully warranted by the expressions employed by a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) in a former debate in that House. He had copied the passage from Hansard, and would take the liberty of reading it to their Lordships—
"Among the English people generally, among thinking men, there is no difference of opinion upon this question of habitual confession. We have seen it tried in other countries. It was tried in olden time in our own. We know, that besides its being unfavourable to that which we believe to be Christian truth, in its results it has been injurious to the moral independence and virility of the nation to an extent to which probably it has been given to no other institution to affect the character of mankind. I believe that if there are men in this country, who think they will ever persuade the English people to adopt the practice of habitual confession, they are proposing the most chimerical and the wildest scheme that ever entered into the heads of any men. No doubt, our Church does not encourage habitual confession, and that practice is opposed to the religious convictions of the English people. But it is not only a religious question. It so happens that this practice is deeply opposed to the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies which have been developed among the English people ever since they became a free people. The English people are specially jealous of putting unrestricted power into the hands of a single man. More than any other system, the practice of habitual confession does put unrestricted and irresponsible power into

1753
the hands of a single man. An Englishman values and cherishes the private independence of his family life; he looks with abhorrence upon any system that introduces another power into that family life, that introduces a third person between father and daughter, and husband and wife. I believe that these reasons, apart from religious doctrine, have such powerful influence upon the English people that it would require the very strongest conviction of a positive revelation to induce them to conform to a practice which is so utterly opposed to their habits and feelings."
If the noble Marquess's description of the practices in question were correct, no steps could be too strong for stopping this pestilence, which threatened to invade the sanctity of our homes and to destroy the character of our people.

THE COLONIAL OFFICE — MR. W. W. WOODS. MOTION FOR PAPERS.
LORD O'HAGANrose to call attention to the claims of Mr. W. W. Woods, who, having been in the public service for a long series of years was, as a reward for his services, transferred from the Treasury to the Colonial Office, as sub-Librarian, with a salary of £400 per annum, with a view to his obtaining the appointment of Librarian, which it was supposed would shortly become vacant, and which carried with it a salary of £600, increasing to £800 per annum. Shortly after he left the Treasury, the post he had occupied in it became of considerable value, while the office of Colonial Librarian was abolished; and thus, Mr. Woods, after having been a faithful and energetic public servant for 50 years, was now left with a salary of only £450, without hope of further promotion. Mr. Woods had, in this manner, lost the promotion he would otherwise have had if he had remained at the Treasury; and he now claimed to be put in such a position, as to remuneration, as lie would have been entitled to if he had remained at the Treasury. In these circumstances, he begged to move for Copies of all Correspondence between Mr. W. W. Woods, the Treasury, and the Secretaries of State for the Colonies, in the hope that justice would be done to this gentleman.
Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of or extracts from all correspondence between Mr. W. W. Woods, the Treasury, and Secretaries of State for the Colonies, on the subject of his claims.—(The Lord O'Hagan.)
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that this was a case of more than usual difficulty; and, in some of its features, he scarcely remembered a parallel since he had been in Parliament. The reply to the noble and learned Lord should perhaps rather have come from the Treasury than the Colonial Department. The facts were no doubt such as had been stated by the noble and learned Lord; but he could not assent to the production of the entire Correspondence for State reasons. The facts were briefly these, that in 1859 Mr. Woods—who had served for some years in the Treasury, was transferred to the place of sub-librarian at the Colonial Office, no doubt, with the distinct expectation that he should succeed in due course to the office of Librarian. He had accepted, though reluctantly, the decision at which the Treasury had arrived with reference to the claims of Mr. Woods; but while he said that, he must also state that he thought that gentleman had been singularly ill-advised in the course he had adopted. He held in his hand—and he observed that other noble Lords were in possession of a similar document—a publication with reference to the case which should never have emanated from any one who had been engaged in the Public Service. The document to which he referred was to all intents and purposes a pamphlet, though it had not been placed on the bookseller's counter, and it embodied the Correspondence which had passed between the Colonial Office and the Treasury on the subject. Not only so, but it contained certain Minutes which were never intended to see the light, and which no one who had experience of Public Offices should have thought of putting in print as had been done in the present instance. He could not express too strongly the censure which he desired to pass on conduct such as this—conduct which, if repeated, would necessitate the whole system of the Public Offices being re-organized, and re-organized not upon that basis of confidence which had hitherto obtained, but upon distrust and suspicion. Having thus expressed his conviction that Mr. Woods had violated the rules of official duty in the course he had taken, it only remained for him to say that he should raise no objection to produce copies of, or extracts from, the Correspondence to which the Motion of

1755
the noble and learned Lord referred, but that he could not include in that production any copy of the Minutes to the publication of which he had taken exception.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that while he thought the case was one in which something might be done by the Treasury to alleviate the disappointment from which Mr. Woods had suffered, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) in thinking that a grave breach of official discipline had been committed by the publication of the documents to which reference had just been made.
LORD O'HAGANsaid, that while he had thought it right to bring the case of Mr. Woods before the House, he concurred in thinking that that gentleman had acted very injudiciously in printing the documents, the publication of which the Secretary for the Colonies had justly condemned.
Motion agreed to.

THE NOBILITY OF MALTA.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence that has passed since the close of the last Session of Parliament to the present date between the Colonial Office, the Governor of the Island of Malta, and the members of the Maltese Nobility, relative to certain grievances of which the last-named complained?
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the reason why Papers on this subject had not as yet been presented, was because the Correspondence to which the Question of his noble Friend referred had not been completed. He was unable to say definitely when he would be able to produce that Correspondence; but he hoped that in a month or six weeks, the matter would have reached such a stage that he could lay the Papers on the Table. The question upon which they bore arose out of the recent visit of the Prince of Wales to Malta and the principal point at issue was whether the Maltese Nobility should, upon such an occasion, walk in public procession before or after the Representatives of the Chamber of Commerce. Upon this par-
  1756
  titular point he had given a decision which, he hoped, would be so far satisfactory to the Maltese Nobility; and that was, that he agreed to their taking precedence, on any occasion of the kind, of the Chamber of Commerce, in accordance with a course which had been sanctioned by Sir Henry Stokes when he was Governor of Malta. A list of those who claimed the privilege in question had been furnished; but it gave rise to questions which a Commission—of which two learned Judges were among the Members—had been appointed to determine, and the inquiry was now proceeding. Their Report when received would be included in the documents to be produced. He was extremely desirous that the Maltese Nobility should be declared entitled to privileges which they very naturally highly valued.

  TRADE MARKS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for extending the time for the Registration of Trade Marks, in so far as relates to Trade Marks used in Textile Industries—Was presented by The Loan CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 106.)

  FISHERIES (OYSTERS, CRABS, AND LOBSTERS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Law relating to the Fisheries of Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters, and other Sea Fisheries — Was presented by The Lord ELPHINSTONE; read 1a. (No. 108.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.