Sitting of 30 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered— First Reading—Bills of Exchange (Summary Judgment) * [157]
Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Confirmation* [147]; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Fraserburgh Waterworks) * [2]; Parliamentary Oaths Act (I866) Amendment [89] [Third Night], adjourned debate farther adjourned.
Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue [140] — R.P.
Committee — Report — Municipal Corporations (Unreformed) [6–156].
Third Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Broughty Ferry Paving) * [1], and passed.

INDISPOSITION OF MR. SPEAKER.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable Absence of Mr. Speaker on account of continued indisposition:—
Whereupon Sir Arthur Otway, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker, and after Prayers counted the House, and 40 Members being present, took the Chair pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTRESS IN THE WEST AND NORTH-WEST.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen the report in the "Times," of the 24th April, of a statement made on behalf of the Government with respect to distress in certain parts of Ireland:—
  "And the ordinary powers of the Poor Law, though not exceeded, had been applied in the most effective and vigorous manner;"
  if he can state in what way any relief has been afforded to the poor by the exercise of the above-named powers in the unions of Glenties and Dunfanagby; and, whether it is true, as alleged, that in the latter union the guardians refuse out-door relief even in the cases provided for under the existing Law?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in Glenties Union effective provision was made for administering the Poor Law, and for affording relief in the manner provided by the Poor Law Acts, by appointing an additional relieving officer and requiring all the relieving officers to attend frequently at out-stations, with the view of bringing them within easy reach of the poor. In Dunfanagby Union a temporary relieving officer was employed in Tory Island, and a supply of meal was
  1408
  sent there in case poor persons might be prevented by stress of weather from reaching the mainland. It is true that, in the latter Union, no outdoor relief is given at present; but it is a Union in which there is little pauperism. There are, at present, only 32 persons in the workhouse.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTfurther asked whether the Local Government Board had urged on the Guardians of the Union of Dunfanagby the advisability of using their existing powers with regard to outdoor relief?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A Circular to that effect was sent to the Guardians of all the Unions. We have no complaint yet that the Guardians of Dunfanagby Union have, in an unusual degree, failed to exercise their powers of relief.
  MR. O'BRIENasked what was the amount of outdoor relief actually given by the relieving officers in the Union referred to?
  [No reply was given.]

  IRELAND—CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, DUNDRUM.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If ho can state the number of deaths occurring annually in the Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Dundrum, from the date of its opening to the present time; the number of post mortem examinations held annually; whether fees were paid to the former resident medical officer, or whether it was in the time of the present officer only that such fees commenced; and, whether it is a fact that the number of deaths and post mortem examinations latterly have been out of all proportion with those of former years?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of deaths in each year could be given; but, as the Asylum has been open since the year 1850, they could not be conveniently stated in an answer to a Question. I am informed that, in consequence of some of the records of the asylum having been destroyed in a fire some years ago, the particulars as to post mortem examinations could not be given for an earlier period than 1870. The fire occurred before the appointment of the present Governor, who states, however, that, as far as he knows, fees for post mortem examina-

  1409
  tions were paid to his predecessor. It is true that, during the past 28 months, the number of deaths has been greater than in any similar period since the asylum was opened. The Inspectors state, however, that this is not referable to any particular exceptional causes.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If an investigation has been held into a charge of tampering with the faith of a patient at the Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Dundrum, by refusing his request to be attended by the Roman Catholic Chaplain; whether the Report of the inquiry will be printed in the forthcoming Parliamentary Report on Lunatic Asylums in Ireland; and, if not, whether he will give it as a separate Paper?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, at the close of 1881 and beginning of 1882 an inquiry was held into various matters connected with the Dundrum Asylum— including religious observances. I am informed that there was no particular case brought under notice in which a patient entered on the books as a Roman Catholic was prevented from seeing the Roman Catholic chaplain. If the hon. Member will communicate to me any particulars which have been furnished to him of any such alleged case, I will inquire as to the facts and let him know the result. It is not intended to lay before Parliament the Report of the inquiry referred to.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SECTION 14—POLICE SEARCHES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the case that the house of James Gilgan, of Cartroughibbaagh, near Manorhamilton, was searched by the police on 14th August last, and again on 13th instant by a resident magistrate, sub-inspector of police, and a large number of police; and, whether anything objectionable was found in his house in August last; and, if not, what reason was there for the search on 13th instant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case, Sir, that Gilgan's house was searched on both the occasions mentioned without result. I mentioned a few days ago the case of a man named Cullen, living in the same locality, who, by a mis-
  1410
  leading communication to the authorities, brought about the search of his own premises. In the same communication Cullen involved his neighbour Gilgan, whose house was searched before the authorship of the letter had been discovered.
  MR. BIGGARwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to show him the letter, as the man referred to utterly denied having written it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that would be a rather irregular proceeding.

  EAST INDIA—CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (NATIVE JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretory of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement, which lately appeared in the Indian correspondence of the "Times:"—
  "While the Criminal Procedure Code of 1882, which it is now sought to amend, was pending before the Legislature, criticisms upon the measure were invited from the local Governments, and from the officials interested in the administration of the criminal Law. Upwards of one hundred and fifty reports from officials, many of whom were Natives, were received in answer to that invitation. Among these were fifteen reports from High Court Judges, thirty-two from Sessions and Assistant Sessions Judges, fifty-seven from District Magistrates, four from Presidency Magistrates, thirty-two from Commissioners of Divisions, seven from Judicial Commissioners, six from Chief Commissioners, and five from Inspectors General of Police, besides others from Small Cause Court Judges, moonsiffs, Residents in Native States, and Law officers of the Government. Only one of these reports, that of a Native, not belonging to the Covenanted Civil Service, who was then acting as Chief Magistrate of Calcutta, advocated the abolition of the existing rights of European British subjects;"
  and, whether the statements contained in the said letter are substantially accurate?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the Criminal Procedure Code of 1882 is merely a consolidating and amending Act, and made hardly any substantial alteration in the law. In May, 1879, the Government of India issued a Circular, calling for opinions on the draft Bill, which was first published in the Government Gazette in the spring of that year, and afterwards became law as the present Criminal Procedure Code Act of 1882. The replies

  1411
  to that Circular were submitted in 1879 and early in 1880, and appear to be the reports referred to by the right hon. and learned Member. As, however, the Bill did not propose or suggest any alteration of the privileges of European British subjects, it is not remarkable that none, or scarcely any, of the officers consulted made any observations on this point.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SUTHERLAND.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that the party selected by the Police Commissioners of Sutherland to act as Chief Constable of that county has been rejected on account of having mis-stated his age; whether he can state who recommended Mr. Fraser; whether the Commissioners were guilty of irregularity in appointing him to the office without first having seen a certificate of his birth; and, whether the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Sheriff M'Konzie, Dornoch, called a meeting for the purpose of cancelling Fraser's appointment; and, if so, whether such a course is competent in the absence of proof that his ago had been intentionally misstated, and what action, if any, ho proposes to take?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have been requested by my right hon. Friend to answer this Question. Mr. Fraser, the person selected by the Police Commissioners of Sutherland as Chief Constable, has not been rejected; but the fact that he made a mis-statement of his age having been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, he thought it advisable to withhold his confirmation of the appointment until the county authorities had had an opportunity of reconsidering the appointment. The Secretary of State is not aware upon whose recommendation Mr. Fraser was selected by the Police Commissioners. There is no rule as to the evidence required by county authorities in proof of a candidate's age; but due care is observed in the Home Office to ascertain that the candidate is in all respects within the Secretary of State's regulations before the appointment is confirmed. It is true that the meeting was summoned for the purpose stated in the Question— and the Secretary of State thought that
  1412
  as the appointment was based on a misstatement of fact, the Commissioners should have an opportunity of reconsidering it—but it is open to them to re-appoint Mr. Fraser if they are satisfied on inquiry that the mistake was unintentional, and they have been so informed by the Secretary of State.

  POOK LAW (IRELAND)— ELECTION OF A GUARDIAN, BALLYMACWILBAIN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Whether his attention has been called to the recent Poor Law election for the division of Ballyrnacwilbain, in the Edenderry Union, when Mr. Barnard Ennis, the National candidate, received the votes of 23 ratepayers, while his Conservative opponent received the votes of only 9 persons; yet, in consequence of the system of multiple voting, the return actually made by the returning officer was, Reddy 84 votes; Ennis 50 votes; whether he is aware that, in another division of the same Union, Mr. Eustace, the National candidate, obtained the votes of 31 ratepayers against 9 ratepayers who supported the Conservative candidate, Mr. Kerr; and that, nevertheless, the candidate of the minority was declared elected by 105 votes to 50; whether it is the case that Mr. Raite Kerr, J.P. gave a number of votes in favour of Mr. Reddy, largely in excess of the 18 votes laid down by the Local Government Board as the maximum of votes inherent in any one ratepayer; whether Mr. David Kerr, the successful candidate in the second instance above referred to, was allowed to cast 36 votes in his own favour, and whether the remainder of his majority was made up of 45 votes cast by three magistrates, and 12 votes given by a non-resident lady; whether the ascertainment of the facts was impeded by the refusal of the returning officer to permit Mr. Ennis, one of the candidates, to take a note of the number of multiple votes admitted in each case; and, whether, if the facts be as stated, he, in any forthcoming legislation with respect to Poor Law elections, will make provision further to define the powers and qualifications of returning officers to determine the Law with respect to the votes of tithe-owners and immediate lessors, and to curtail the enormous disproportion which exists between the numbers and

  1413
  the voting strength of the landlord class in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a Report from the Returning Officer, which shows that the hon. Member has been greatly misinformed as to the facts of this election. The numbers of votes given are quoted with tolerable accuracy; but the number of ratepayers who voted for Messrs. Ennis and Reddy respectively were 18 and 20—not 23 and 9, as stated. In the other division referred to, Messrs. Eustace and Kerr received respectively the votes of 24 and 21 ratepayers, not 31 and 9, as stated. The allegations as to excess voting by Mr. Raite Kerr, and as to the votes given by and for Mr. David Kerr are without foundation. Both these gentlemen held proxies for a number of ratepayers which were duly registered. The Returning Officer denies that he objected to Mr. Ennis taking a note of the multiple votes admitted, or that he asked for this information. I see nothing in this case which suggests the necessity for legislation as to the powers and qualifications of Returning Officers.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—SPIKE ISLAND.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What progress had been made in the removal of Convicts from Spike Island, and when that prison will be closed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it has not been possible as yet to remove more than 105 convicts from Spike Ireland— owing to the numerous and important changes which have first to be carried out in other prisons; 395 convicts remain in Spike Island. The general Prisons Board do not expect to be able finally to close Spike Island Prison before the 15th of June; but they hope before that date to have large numbers of the convicts now confined there located in other prisons.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether a new convict establishment would be rendered necessary in consequence of the changes in Spike Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that was a serious and important Question, and required some consideration. At present the greater number of the convicts went to Mountjoy Prison.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the closing of Spike Island Prison would interfere with the naval works at Haulbowline?
  [No reply was given.]

  BURMAH—OBERVANCE OF TREATIES WITH INDIA.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for India, How Her Majesty's Government propose to carry out the determination of the policy of His Excellency the Viceroy of India in Council, contained in the Despatch from India of the 13th of February last to Lord Kimberley, and approved of by Her Majesty's Government in a Despatch from Secretary of State to the Viceroy dated 16th March last, in the former of which His Excellency states that—
  "For the present our efforts must in all probability be limited to securing observance of existing Treaties, and to the protection of British subjects visiting Upper Burmah;"
  and, again, in the words of the Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Department (of the 26th of January last) to the Burmese Foreign Minister—
  "It is only necessary to say that the Government of India adhere to their former opinion, and consider it all the more important to observe closely existing Treaties because the attempt to negotiate a revised Treaty has failed;"
  whether he is aware that, by Clause 7 of the Treaty of Yandaboo, it was agreed that a Resident (representing the British Government), with an escort of fifty men, should be established at the place of Durbar, or capital of Burmah; and, whether this portion of one of the Treaties is to be observed closely?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: It is impossible, Sir, at the present moment, to define the precise manner in which it is intended to give effect to the policy towards Burmah which is declared in the passages quoted by the hon. Member. Much must depend upon circumstances, with which it will be for the Indian Government to deal as they arise. Passages on pages 27 and 50 of the Blue Book show that that Government is perfectly aware of its right under the 7th clause of the Treaty of Yandaboo, but that it must be allowed discretion in enforcing them.

  ARMY (INDIA)—CIVIL PAY OF MILITARY OFFICERS.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will give a Copy of the Rule sanctioning the half civil pay or any civil pay, in addition to military pay and allowances when on military duty, for officers in India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the rule is brief and to the point, though slightly technical. It is contained in a financial notification, published in 1867, and is embodied in the Indian Pay Code as follows:—
  "An officer on permanent civil employ, acting in a military appointment, will draw, in the Military Department, the allowances to which ho would have been entitled under military rules had his substantive appointment been an appointment in the Military Department."
  Under the military rules referred to an officer draws half the staff salary of his substantive appointment with that of his acting appointment.

  THE DANUBIAN COMMISSION.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Protocol of the European Danubian Commission of the 2nd of June 1882, in order to make intelligible the proceedings of the recent Conference recorded in "The Danube (No. 2, 1883);" and, if he has any objection, if he will be so kind as to state to the House what are the reasons for such objection?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There is no objection, Sir, on the part of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table the Protocol in question; but, before doing so, it will be necessary in the usual course to obtain the consent of those Governments whose Commissioners were also parties to it. There will consequently be some slight delay before it is in the hands of hon. Members.

  FRANCE AND ANNAM (TONQUIN).
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could give the House any information regarding the encroachments of France in the province of Annam (Cochin China)?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made upon this subject on the 23rd instant. Her Majesty's Government have no further information.
  MR. ONSLOW: Might I ask what means the Government are taking to get information? Is there anyone appointed to get it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that the Government had no means of obtaining information other than that which was possessed by the Government of France.

  THE SLAVE TRADE—BRITISH SLAVE OWNERS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the report of Mr. Consul Holmwood (Slave Trade Papers, No. 1, page 165), and to the number of British subjects therein reported to be the owners of slaves, and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to discourage this practice and the encouragement of the East African Slave Trade by subjects of the Crown?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, in the Report on Johanna, from which the hon. and gallant Admiral quotes, Consul Holmwood does not speak of the slaves as being "owned" by British subjects, but as "employed by European and American planters." The labourers are paid directly for their services, and the British authorities cannot intervene between them and their employers. Consul Holmwood will return to Johanna at an early date with the ratifications of the Treaty of the 10th of October last for the suppression of Slavery and the Slave Trade, and it is hoped that this Treaty will prove effectual.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— CLAUSE 19—FARM LABOURERS.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the fact that the Land Commissioners have no means of knowing whether their orders made by virtue of Clause 19 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act are carried out or not, he will advise Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary powers for giving effect to the recommendation

  1417
  of the Commissioners; and, in accordance with it, to appoint inspectors charged to watch over the interests of Irish farm labourers in the matter of cottages and allotments, and to see that they obtain the benefit of the provisions on their behalf contained in recent Acts of Parliament?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, as I stated a few days ago, I am at present taking steps to ascertain to what extent the orders made by the Commissioners are complied with. After the inquiries are completed and I am in possession of the results, I will endeavour to answer the hon. Member's Question more fully.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—IMPRISONMENT OF A PUBLICAN AT HAMILTON.
  MR. RAMSAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he can inform the House of the grounds on which Mr. Edward Hunter, a respectable resident in Hamilton, was apprehended there on the third day of October last, at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal, and, on the following day, after having, on examination before the sheriff, declared his innocence of the charge made against him, was handcuffed to a policeman and taken to the prison at Glasgow, where he was confined for eight days and then liberated, without ever having been brought to trial or any evidence adduced against him; whether he can state the persons on whose testimony the imprisonment took place; whether the public prosecutor who conducted these proceedings was also law agent for the nobleman at whose instance they originated; and, whether, in the circumstances, such imprisonment was justifiable according to the law of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The person referred to in my hon. Friend's Question—Mr. Edward Hunter, a spirit dealer in Hamilton—was apprehended on 3rd October last, and charged on the following day before the Sheriff with complicity in thefts of game and embezzlement of the proceeds alleged to have been committed by his uncle, a gamekeeper. He denied the charge, and was committed to prison for further examination, and was confined for eight days and then liberated. The circumstances of the apprehension and detention in prison
  1418
  are correctly stated, except that I am unable to say whether Hunter was handcuffed or not, as the report which I have received this morning does not give the information which I desired on that point. The Procurator Fiscal was not the law agent for the Nobleman whose game was said to have been stolen, and the prosecution was not instituted on the information or instigation of him or his law agents, but upon other information which the Procurator considered credible. It is not contrary to the law of Scotland that a prisoner, after being brought before a magistrate and charged with an offence—which was done without delay in the present case —should be committed to prison for further examination—or, as it is called in England, remanded—for a period which in practice does not exceed eight days.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—JAMES KELLY.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that any official or policeman visited a prisoner named James Kelly in Ballinasloe bridewell on different occasions in the month of February, and was locked into the cell with him, and while there gave him whiskey to drink on each occasion, and solicited certain information from him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: James Kelly, Sir, was on one occasion visited in the Bridewell by the Sessional Crown Solicitor, who was accompanied by the prisoner's father. There is not the slightest ground for the suggestion that he was offered whiskey. I have already, in reply to a former Question, distinctly stated he was not visited by a detective.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether he has asked any question on this subject of James Kelly himself, or whether he will give him an opportunity of making an affidavit in support of the allegation set forth in the Question?
  MR. PARNELL: As this is a very serious charge of unlawful interference with an untried prisoner, made by the hon. Member for Westmeath against the prison authorities, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will direct an inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case; at which inquiry the statement of the prisoner may be taken as

  1419
  well as the statement of the prison authorities?
  [No reply was given to these Questions.]
  MR. PARNELL: I shall repeat the Question on Thursday next.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE LAW ADVISER.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the reasons which have induced the Lord Lieutenant to withdraw from the magistrates the assistance they have hitherto been accustomed to receive from the Law Adviser to the Government, in cases in which they have felt a difficulty in dealing; and, whether he will confer with the Lord Lieutenant on the desirability of cancelling the Circular issued by Mr. Hamilton on the 23rd instant?
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Government, by a recent Circular to the magistrates of Ireland, have apprised them that they can no longer obtain advice from the Law Adviser at Dublin Castle, and that they must rely on their own experience and that of their clerks; and, whether, since this change will deprive the unpaid magistracy of this opportunity of being well advised on difficult matters of Law, he will state what is the intention of the Government as to the future status, qualification, and pay of the Petty Sessions clerks, whose responsibility is thus sought to be increased?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that petty sessions clerks in Ireland are not professional legal men, as is the case with petty sessions clerks in England; and, what means of advice in difficult legal matters country magistrates in Ireland are now to be furnished with, as it appears that the office of Law Advisor has been abolished?
  MR. TREVELYAN: While it is a fact, Sir, that petty sessions clerks in Ireland are not professional men, yet their position has in late years been considerably improved, and I have reason to believe that the persons now appointed are as a rule of superior attainments to those formerly appointed. The Government issued the Circular referred to
  1420
  by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) after full consideration and in the belief that the magistrates will be able satisfactorily to dispose of the questions arising before them without obtaining advice from the Law Adviser, and that it is more satisfactory that they should act on their own judgment in cases brought before them judicially. The number of applications for such advice has of late considerably decreased. I have, however, to add that should it turn out that any public inconvenience results from the discontinuance of the practice of magistrates obtaining advice, the Government will take care to make arrangements for the purpose of obviating such inconvenience.
  MR. GIBSON: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the unpaid magistrates will not, as a matter of obvious common sense, now that they are deprived of the assistance of the Law Adviser, refuse to accept the responsibility in deciding difficult cases, and postpone them for the magistrates who are paid to incur the liability involved in this Circular?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I should be very sorry to answer a Question of this kind straight off, without the assistance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland; but I can quite imagine that such would occasionally he the case. The present system, however, appears to be full of very grave disadvantages, and I am extremely alive to the difficulties which may result from changing it. After all, the office of Law Adviser is not founded by legislation. It is only part of a system on which a change is considered desirable.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although these clerks are of a better class, they have no legal attainments?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am quite aware of it.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the cases of Chairmen of Boards of Guardians and Town Commissioners, who often have knotty points of law before them, and who have been accustomed hitherto to apply for advice?
  MR. TREVELYAN: We are not now on a question of the fresh appointment of a Law Adviser. I am not

  1421
  aware that very much of the work of that officer was with reference to the bodies which the hon. and gallant Member has named. The seriousness, which I fully admit, is with reference to the question raised by the right hon. and learned Member opposite.
  MR. GRAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there exists in England any official corresponding to the Law Adviser in Ireland to whom local Magistrates, Chairmen of Boards of Guardians, Chairmen of Town Commissioners, and other gentlemen in similar positions, are entitled to apply for advice under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; no such official exists. It cannot be said that the circumstances of England and Ireland are precisely parallel. [Ironical cheers.] I can assure hon. Members that these cheers do not bear upon the point of view to which I am going to refer. The difference between England and Ireland is this—the magistrates' clerks in England are invariably of a different standing, and possessed of very different professional qualifications from that of magistrates' clerks in Ireland.

  FISHERIES—TRAWLERS.
  LORD ELCHOasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government propose taking towards redressing or inquiring into the damage inflicted on fishermen by the action of trawlers?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the noble Lord is, no doubt, aware that the complaints of the different classes of fishermen the one against the other are of very old date, and they have been inquired into, I think I may say exhaustively, on more than one occasion, and especially by the Royal Commission which sat in 1866, and upon which Professor Huxley, the present Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and others served. I should also say that, as regards wilful damage, or damage done by gross negligence, the present law already provides a sufficient remedy; but I judge from the complaints which have been addressed to me, that some of the fishermen wish to go further than this. What they want the Government to do is to prohibit the most effective machinery for fishing on
  1422
  behalf of the less effective and older methods. That is, of course, more than any Government can undertake to do.
  MR. A. GRANT: Is it decided to refuse the inquiry asked for by the fishermen?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: As at present advised, I do not see that any further inquiry is necessary, or would serve a useful purpose.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 18S2—SECTION 14—MR. KENNEDY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in the "Cork Examiner" of April 25th, signed William Kennedy, Kildonery, challenging him to prove that the papers seized on Mr. Kennedy's premises by the police contained any matter tending, even by inuendo, to the commission of crime, and respectfully inviting him either to institute proceedings against him at once, or to restore to him the business memoranda seized by the police, and withdraw the injurious imputation on his character; and, whether he proposes to take any steps in the direction indicated? The hon. Member complained that his Question had been altered. What he wished to ask was— Whether, under the circumstances, Mr. Kennedy's application was not a just and reasonable one, that if guilty he should be prosecuted at once, and if innocent, his character should be relieved from an odious imputation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I will answer the Question I find on the Paper. Kennedy has already been informed that he can, if ho requires it, have back the book containing the business memoranda, which are merely a few trifling items relating to repairs of harness. I must decline to state whether or not any proceedings may yet be taken which would involve the production for purposes of prosecution of any of the documents seized.

  ARMY (INDIA)—CIVIL PAY OF MILITARY OFFICERS.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Under what head of expenditure the Civil pay drawn by Military men while on active service in Afghanistan is charged, whether to the War Expenditure or to the ordinary

  1423
  Military Expenditure; and, if charged to the Public Works Department, whether it goes to increase the standing charges for Public Works, or is charged to the working expenses of the Railways?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I have no reason to doubt, Sir, that the civil pay referred to is included in the war expenditure. The only information we have in detail is given on page 158 of the East India Finance and Revenue Accounts for 1880–1, presented to Parliament last year, and in other similar Returns.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— THE WELLINGTON STATUE.
  MR. GERARD NOELasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to the future site of the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the Committee which I appointed to advise the Government as to the site for the statue of the Duke of Wellington have unanimously reported that in their opinion the statue should be placed, upon a fitting pedestal, upon a site immediately within the present railings of St. James's Park, facing the Horse Guards, and upon the central axis of the archway of that building. Beyond this I am unable at present to give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman. The removal of the statue and a fitting pedestal for it will involve expenditure on which it will be necessary to consult the Treasury, and probably this House.
  MR. GERARD NOEL: Is the new site where the refreshment lodge now stands?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Close to that.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—ACTION OF MR. JOHN SHEPSTONE.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following telegram sent by the Maritz-burg Correspondent of the "Daily News," and reported in the "Daily News" of March 19, 1883:—
  "We have very grave accounts of Mr. John Shepstone's action in the Zulu Reserve. Besides imposing fines right and left, he is said to have personally assaulted one chief, and caused others to be severely beaten for not renouncing Cetywayo;"
  1424
  to a second telegram reported in the "Daily News" of March 22, in which the same correspondent states:—
  "I have received further information respecting the alleged Dragooning practised in the Zulu Reserve. Some of the Zulus have, it is said, been fined five head of cattle, equal to £25, for expressing their loyalty to Cetywayo. Others were detained in custody for ransom with ten head of cattle;"
  and, whether he has received any official corroboration or denial of these statements?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, in consequence of the statement to which the hon. Member draws attention, we sent off one of the numerous telegrams we have had lately to despatch on similar errands, and this is the reply from Sir Henry Bulwer—
  "Wholly untrue. Shepstone neither struck, nor caused to be struck, any Chief. On the contrary, he interposed to stop fight between two factions. He fined seven Chiefs for continued disregard of summons—not for reason stated; there has been no detention in custody."

  THE MAGISTRACY—PENZANCE—MARTIN NASH.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the case of a young man named Martin Nash, who was sentenced on Monday last to fourteen days, by the Mayor of Penzance, for no apparent reason but the absence of cash; whether he will order the release of the prisoner from remainder of his punishment; has his attention been drawn to a decision last week by same magistrate, in which the prisoner presented a charged six-chamber revolver at a Mr. Heran, and received no punishment whatever, but was bound over to keep the peace; and, whether ho will inquire into the conduct of the Mayor of Penzance?
  MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, that the case of Martin Nash appeared on inquiry to be an ordinary case of vagrancy. In the second case, the inquiry showed that the prisoner did not make a serious attempt on the life of the magistrate. He was bound over to keep the peace for 12 months in two sureties of £250 each. Neither of these cases called for the interference of the Home Secretary.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—ARRESTS NEAR MILTOWN MALBAY.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the arrests of several respectable farmers in the vicinity of Miltown Malbay; if they have been charged with conspiracy to murder; if it is true that no outrage has occurred in the district for upwards of twelve months; if it is a fact that four men were first arrested and examined at the police barrack with a view to extract information from them respecting the alleged conspiracy; whether failing this they were discharged and arrested again the same night and conveyed to Ennis Gaol; if they have been kept there since Thursday April 19th, by order of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, special resident magistrate, without permission to see any of their friends; if one of them, Francis Egan, was kept separate from the others, and then sent home under police protection; and if such was intended to convey that Mr. Egan had become an approver; if he has since been followed everywhere he goes even into church by policemen; if it is a fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has informed Egan that he will prosecute him until he consents to give information; if Mr. Egan has repeatedly and emphatically declared that he has no information to communicate; and, whether, since no evidence whatever can be procured to prove the complicity of any of the men arrested in conspiracy, Her Majesty's Government will order their immediate discharge from custody?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there is strong reason to believe that a widespread conspiracy, from which atrocious murders and many other crimes of violence have sprung, has for some time existed in the county of Clare, and the authorities are engaged, with good hope of success, in endeavouring to bring to light and suppress that conspiracy by the exercise of the powers specially conferred on them for such purpose by the Prevention of Crime Act. A number of persons have been arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder and treason-felony. The cases against them are pending, and I must decline to make any statement as to the evidence which has been or may be produced before the
  1426
  magistrates. With regard, however, to the several allegations made in this Question, I may state that it is not the fact that there has been no outrage in the Miltown Malbay district for upwards of 12 months; though even if it were that would be no reason why efforts should not be made to discover the perpetrators of crimes of violence which occurred more than 12 months ago. The allegation as to the preliminary arrest of four men is incorrect. An inquiry was held under the Crimes Act, and, of the persons then examined, some were on the next day arrested, and have not since been discharged. They are allowed to see their solicitors, but not the general public. The statements as to Francis Egan are quite inaccurate. He had given evidence, and was protected by the police. On a subsequent occasion, he refused to be sworn, and was committed to prison. The Government has certainly no intention of interfering to procure the immediate discharge of the prisoners.
  MR. KENNY: Might I ask the Chief Secretary, what protection there is for men like Francis Egan, who are examined before secret tribunals, that the evidence, which is taken down by the Resident Magistrate, or whoever else may preside, is not deliberately cooked, and what evidence there is to show that Egan gave any information whatever; and in support of that fact—[Cries of "Order!"]—is it not true that Egan refused to be sworn, and that up to the present time the public mind is entirely unsatisfied that Egan made any such admissions as are imputed to him? [Cries of "Order?"]
  MR. O'DONNELL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary, also, if it is the case that all those arrest smade in Miltown Malbay were on the alleged statements of a convict under sentence of penal servitude for life, and whether Captain Clifford Lloyd, R.M., has held out hopes to this life-convict of release from his punishment if ho gives satisfactory information against a sufficient number of suspected criminals; and I ask the Government what guarantees there are in the case of convicts like him who give evidence in the hope of release?
  MR. HARRINGTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask if similar overtures have not been made to a prisoner named

  1427
  Michael Walsh, who is at present in Mountjoy convict prison also under a life sentence, and if he has not been offered his pardon on condition of giving information?
  MR. KENNY: May I ask the Chief Secretary—[Cries of "Order!"]—if under this committal to prison Egan has been committed to prison.
  [No answer was given to these Questions.]
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, under whose authority the untried prisoners mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) are deprived of the right of receiving visitors guaranteed to them by the Prison's Act of 1877 and by the Prison Rules which were framed by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That question was raised in debate and discussed at some considerable length with regard to prisoners now being tried at Kilmainham. The Government on that occasion acted under the advice of the Law Officers, and satisfied themselves that they had power to act as they have done.
  MR. PARNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland stating that the Government of Ireland have a right to break the law of the land?
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. KENNY: I wish to give Notice that, in consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer which I have received, I shall repeat the Question, with additions to it.

  IRELAND—THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What salary is attached to the Under Secretarial office accepted by Mr. Hamilton?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the salary attached to the post of Under Secretary is £2,000 a-year. As long as Mr. Hamilton holds it, he will receive a personal allowance of £500 a-year.
  MR. O'DONNELL: With reference to the answer lately given by the Chief Secretary that Mr. Hamilton was induced to give his "valuable services"
  1428
  to Ireland, may I ask the Chief Secretary whether the additional £500 was the inducement?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I thought the hon. Member would probably say something about Mr. Hamilton, and I brought down with me two letters I have received from him, parts of which I will read to the House—
  "I see Mr. O'Donnell has a Question about my salary. Of course, you know the facts. The post with an addition of £500 a-year was, as you know, refused by me so long as I had the option. When the thing became a matter of duty I accepted, but personally I would, as you know—"
  And then he says one or two words which I omit, but which comes to this, "that as a pecuniary matter certainly £2,500 in Dublin is not so advantageous to me as £2,000 in London." One of the circumstances to which I refer is the extraordinary success which his sons have obtained in getting scholarships in schools around London, and another circumstance to which he would be the last man to allude is that something may happen to the successor of Mr. Burke, which is a serious consideration to a man who has a family dependent on him. In a letter written some time after he had accepted the position, Mr. Hamilton says—
  "Now that matters are settled as regards myself, I begin to feel quite resigned to a life devoted to Ireland; but after all it will not be devoted merely to Ireland, for to take part in serving Ireland is to serve England also. Perhaps in no other position to which I could look could I have better opportunities of doing useful work."
  That is the spirit in which Mr. Hamilton accepted the post.
  MR. O'DONNELLbegged to give Notice that on the Estimates he would call attention to the fact that the best paid places in Ireland were handed over to persons coming from England.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 —CLAUSE 16—SECRET INQUIRIES.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as stated in the "Standard" of the 27th instant, with regard to charges brought by a convict named Tubridy against twenty-five persons in Clare, that—
  "The witness Patrick Sullivan, assistant postmaster at Ennis, had been previously exa-

  1429
  mined before Mr. Clifford Lloyd at a secret inquiry under the Crimea Act, held at the police barracks on the 20th April, and on his information being read he stated that it contained many statements which he had not made, and which he wished to have altered, Mr. Morphy then read the deposition, and asked the witness whether each paragraph was true or false, the result being that he made several material changes in the original statement;"
  and, if he can state what rules have been adopted with regard to the taking of evidence in private at such investigations?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have already stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), that the authorities are engaged in endeavouring to bring to light and break up a murder conspiracy which is believed to exist in the county of Clare. Inquiries under the Crimes Act are pending in the matter, and I must respectfully decline to make any statement as to the evidence which has been or may be taken at such inquiries. No special rules have been made on the subject. With regard to questions as to arrests made in districts where there have been few recent outrages, it is necessary to remind hon. Members that during the last three years no less than 54 murders and about 3,500 serious outrages, which remain undetected, have been committed in Ireland. The Government intend to do their best to bring the perpetrators to justice.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I want a distinct answer to a distinct charge. A witness has in a public investigation sworn that his evidence at the private inquiry was altered by the examining magistrate, and I ask the Chief Secretary whether he will make any inquiries as to whether that charge is true, and whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd substituted the words "secret societies" for "associates" in the evidence of Patrick Sullivan? I beg also to repeat the Question, What rules have been adopted with regard to the taking of the evidence in private at such inquiries?
  MR. TEEVELYAN: The Irish Government are endeavouring to the best of their imperfect powers and possibly imperfect judgment to carry out the intentions with which Parliament instituted these preliminary inquiries. We have quite satisfied ourselves that to answer Questions of the nature of that put by the hon. Member would be to defeat the intentions of the Legislature.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to continue the powers of private examination vested in a magistrate who has been accused upon oath of having changed the depositions of witnesses examined in private before him?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not cognizant of the whole circumstances to which the hon. Member refers; but so far as I have heard the answers of my right hon. Friend, and gathered the position from them, the answers have my hearty concurrence.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, I beg to lay the evidence on the Table of the House, and I challenge investigation. [Cries of"Order!"]

  IRELAND—ASSISTED EMIGRATION.
  COLONEL COLTHURST (for Mr. MOORE)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can give any further information, in the shape of Papers or Reports, on the assisted emigration from Ireland, more particularly with reference to the steps taken to provide for the emigrants on landing in America; and, whether Major Gaskell has made any Report since returning from that country; and, if so, whether he will lay this Report upon the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Major Gaskell has made a Report since his return from America, and there is no objection to lay it on the Table. There are not, I think, any other Papers which could be usefully produced at present; the recent Papers consist principally of correspondence with Boards of Guardians, members of Emigration Committees, and others, on matter of detail. But I may mention that 44 Unions, or parts of Unions, have been scheduled, and that the applications from these Unions are so numerous and pressing that it has been found necessary to increase the number of Members of the Government Committee from two to six. The anxiety of the poor in the West of Ireland to take advantage of the aid thus afforded to them continues unabated, and the Emigration Committee find it difficult to keep pace with the action of Boards of Guardians in the selection of emigrants, and in making the necessary arrangements for their embarkation, and for their reception and disposal abroad. On the latter point,

  1431
  which is specially referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I may mention that only those are allowed to proceed to the United States who have friends there able to do something for them, and that the emigrants sent to Canada are generally aided to find employment by the agents of the Canadian Government.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the names?
  MR. TREYELYAN: The original members of the Emigration Committee, which perhaps is not a very satisfactory official title considering the nature of the work they do, were Major Gaskell and Mr. C. T. Redington. There have been since appointed Sir Robert Jackson, M.D., C.B., Captain Ross of Bladensburg, Mr. Wall, and Mr. Sampson. The last-named acted as a vice Guardian under the Local Government Board.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—BELFAST ASSIZES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a letter has been addressed to Earl Spencer by the Rev. James O'Laverty, P.P. M.R.I.A., Holy-wood, "as a priest and most loyal subject," representing to His Excellency that—
  "Widespread dissatisfaction is felt by the Catholics of Belfast and its neighbourhood at the insult offered to them, and the want of reliance on both their loyalty and conscience, which has been more than merely implied by the party or parties called ' the Crown,' in the late treason-felony trials at the Belfast Assizes;"
  whether it is the fact, as stated in that letter, that on the first of these trials no Catholic was admitted on the jury, which was an exclusively Protestant one, and that on the second trial only one Catholic juror was empannelled; and, whether, in view of the Rev. Mr. O'Laverty's deliberate statement that the proceedings of the Crown officials during these trials "have contributed as far as in them lies to foster rebellion and disaffection" among the Catholics of Antrim, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to institute an inquiry into the system upon which juries in political cases in Ireland are struck?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case, Sir, that the Rev. Mr. O'Laverty ad-
  1432
  dressed such a letter to the Lord Lieutenant; but it is not the case that any jurors were set aside because they were Roman Catholics. As a matter of fact, no inquiry was made by the Crown as to the religious persuasions of any of the jurors on the panel. No exception is ever taken to the cause for which a prisoner challenges any juror, and in case of challenges made by the Crown the circumstances which the officials of the Crown look to are circumstances entirely apart from religious persuasion.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say by what fortuitous circumstances it happens that, though the religion of jurors is never inquired into, it always happens that the persons told to stand aside are Catholics?
  MR. PARNELL: Will the Chief Secretary inform the House who has given him the extraordinary information which he has just communicated to the House?
  [No reply was given to these Questions.]

  OPEN SPACES (METROPOLIS) — ST. JAMES'S BURIAL GROUND, WESTMINSTER.
  MR. J. HOLLONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a report has been received by the Home Office from Dr. Hoffman, Inspector of Burial Grounds, with reference to the disused burial ground, Hampstead Road, belonging to St. James's, Westminster; whether such report contains the following passage:—
  "The importance of preserving existing open spaces in the midst of a large city cannot I think be overrated, and, except for the sake of undoubted public improvement, disused burial grounds should not be disturbed, but should be turfed and planted with flowers and shrubs, and permanently kept in good order. In an Act entitled ' The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881,' the Metropolitan Board of Works (s. v.) have power to deal with disused burial grounds in this very way:
  "In this instance the comparatively large size of the ground renders it still more important that the necessity for the Company's scheme should be carefully considered before any extensive encroachment is permitted;"
  whether it is estimated that 50,000 bodies have been buried in this ground; whether he is aware that the London and North Western Railway Company are seeking powers in a Bill now before Parliament to appropriate one-half of this burial ground; and, whether he

  1433
  will lay such report upon the Table of the House.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, said, he had to reply to the first three Questions in the affirmative. He believed that the London and North Western Railway Company were seeking powers to appropriate half the burying ground, and there would be no objection to lay the Report on the Table.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (IRELAND).
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that all private as well as public sale of cattle has been prohibited in the township of Mullingar, and several other townships in the county of Westmeath, by Orders of Privy Council; whether the April fair at Mullingar was prohibited contrary to the protest of the Board of Guardians, who pointed out to the Council that no case of disease had occurred in the township for fourteen days previously, and offered a site for the fair in an uninfected district; whether, notwithstanding this prohibition of sales and fairs, it still is lawful for any person possessing a certificate to drive sound cattle through an infected district; and, whether drivers and herds who attend one lot of sound cattle are bound to have themselves disinfected before taking charge of another lot, while veterinary and other inspectors may pass from an infected to a sound lot of cattle without having themselves disinfected?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the townships in the county of Westmeath are not treated exceptionally in this matter. It has been considered necessary to prohibit the holding, except under licence, of public sales and to some extent of private sales, in the district of any local authority in Ireland in which foot-and-mouth disease exists. It was impossible to comply with the application of the Board of Guardians of Mullingar Union for a licence for Mullingar fair, because on the 2nd of April, four days before the usual time for holding the fair, a fresh outbreak of the disease in the township was reported. It is lawful to drive sound cattle through an infected district, with the licence of the local authorities through whoso districts the
  1434
  animals are moved; but it rests with each local authority to grant or withhold such movement licences. Drivers and herds who have been attending only on sound cattle are not bound to have themselves disinfected as suggested. The only persons who are required to be disinfected are cattle dealers and drovers arriving at Irish ports from Great Britain. It is the practice of members of the Government Veterinary Staff, who come into contact with infected animals, to disinfect themselves before passing to any other animals.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NORTH DUBLIN UNION.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, on the 18th instant, the North Dublin Union Board of Guardians elected Mr. James Jenkinson, ex-petty officer of the Navy, to be master of the Union Workhouse; whether the public advertisement, by which the Board invited candidates to present themselves for the vacant offices, specified, among the conditions of election, one, expressed in the following terms, "a knowledge of the duties indispensable;" whether it is the fact that Mr. Jenkinson's official experience, being confined to the Navy, afforded him no knowledge of the duties of a workhouse master; whilst Mr. Thomas Murphy, the candidate second on the poll, had nine years' experience of the duties of the office, as Master of the Kilkenny Workhouse; and, whether the Local Government Board will decline to sanction the election of Mr. Jenkinson, because of his failure to satisfy the indispensable conditions, and will declare Mr. Thomas Murphy, as the candidate, satisfying all conditions, who received the highest number of votes, duly elected to fill the vacant office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts are, in the main, as stated. The question of sanctioning Mr. Jenkinson's appointment is still under the consideration of the Local Government Board, who have instructed their Inspector to report as to his fitness for the office. The only question the Board have to decide is whether they can sanction Mr. Jenkinson's appointment or not. They have no power to declare Mr. Murphy elected.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—EXTRA POLICE TAX— THE KING'S CO.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, in the levy of extra police tax on townlands, in the district of Eglish, King's County, the only persons exempted from the tax are Mr. George Mitchell, son of the Sessional Crown Solicitor, and Mr. W. Maxwell, Mr. Mitchell's brother in law; who suggested or caused this exemption; whether it was known to, and approved by, the superintendent magistrate of the district; and, whether the reasons for it, if any, were made known to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and obtained his sanction?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts as to the exemption are as stated. It was recommended by the Resident Magistrate and Sub-Inspector of the District, approved by the Special Resident Magistrate, and sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant, to whom the reasons were made known.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT—THE EMIGRATION GRANT.
  MR. KINNEARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the cause of the delay on the part of the Board of Works in lodging the grant for emigration purposes under the Arrears Act; and, whether he is aware that, in the Letterkenny Union, county Donegal, the contracts are entered into, the emigrants ready, and no money to hand?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I learn by telegram that the emigration grant to the Letterkenny Union was paid on Saturday. So far as I can ascertain, there has been no avoidable delay in dealing with the case.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) — LICENSING SESSIONS, DUBLIN.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Edward Quinn, of Newport Street, Dublin, was refused the renewal of a beer dealer's licence at the annual Lisensing Sessions held for the city of Dublin in October, 1878, on the ground of habitual violation of the
  1436
  law; whether Mr. Quinn afterwards made repeated applications for a licence both at the Police Court and at the Recorder's Court, these applications being refused; whether, on June 13th 1882, Mr. J. A. Curran, Q.C. on of the Dublin Divisional Magistrates, heard an application by Quinn out of Annual Licensing Sessions, and granted the licence which had been refused thereat; and, whether Mr. Curran had been counsel for Quinn in his repeated and unsuccessful applications before the Recorders and Police Magistrates, and if there were any special grounds, as required by Law, for hearing the case out of the sessions fixed by statute for the purpose?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is the case that in October, 1878, Edward Quinn was refused a renewal of his beer dealer's licence. The licence for which, both before and since that forfeiture, he has several times unsuccessfully applied was a publican's licence, which is quite a different and more important kind of licence. This he has never obtained. In 1877 he made the earliest of these applications, and on that occasion only he was represented by Mr. Curran. With regard to the renewal of his beer dealer's licence, it has been the practice for the Dublin magistrates to renew such licences after lapse of three years, if applied to, as they considered that in most eases loss of trade for three years was a sufficient punishment. Acting in accordance with that practice, Mr. Curran last year renewed Quinn's licence as a beer dealer. I have received a letter from Mr. Curran, in which he informs me that upon that occasion he had not the slighest recollection of having represented Quinn five year previously in his application for the larger licence, and it cannot be for a moment supposed that he was in any way influenced by that circumstance. It will be seen from this statement that there is no ground for the allegation that Mr. Curran granted to Quinn a licence which he had been refused by other authorities, and I see no reason to find any fault with Mr. Curran's action in the matter.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. FIRTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government

  1437
  still hope and expect to be able to introduce the London Government Bill to the consideration of the House during the present Session; and, whether, in arriving at a decision on this point, they have considered the enormous evils and loss attendant upon leaving the various questions of Metropolitan reform, and especially the quest of London water supply, still unsettled?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, to the latter part of this Question, I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the further postponement of the consideration of this subject as a serious public evil and inconvenience. Respecting the first part of the Question, I thankfully acknowledge the patience my hon. Friend has shown in connection with this subject; but I am sorry to say I must ask him still further to exercise that patience until we shall have made further progress with the Affirmation Bill. On the latter subject, as it is very doubtful whether those who are opposed to the Bill will have laid their sentiments sufficiently before the House this evening, I wish to remind the House of the practice of continuing de die in diem, not including Wednesdays, in order to accelerate the conclusion of these very prolonged debates. Should the debate not close to-night, I hope the House will not think it unreasonable if I move to-morrow that it take precedence of the Notices of Motion.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that he had a Motion on the Paper for Tuesday night which interested a great number of people, and he wished to know whether he had understood the right hon. Gentleman aright; if so, would the right hon. Gentleman propose his Motion with reference to precedence that night or on Tuesday?
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Does the Prime Minister intend to crush the question alluded to by my hon. Friend out altogether, or leave it to the chance of a 9 o'clock Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The practice to which I alluded was not that of taking Morning Sittings, but was a practice adopted under circumstances of great necessity and public interest, and such necessity has driven me to ask for the appropriation of the evening in order to forward the debate which constitutes, for the moment, the main Business of the House. That Motion will be made at
  1438
  the commencement of the Business tomorrow.
  MR. CHAPLIN: In the event of the Prime Minister to-morrow moving to appropriate the private Members' night, I beg to give Notice that I will oppose it.
  MR. HICKSasked whether the Government would not see the propriety of putting the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, to which there were important Amendments, as the First Order of the day on Tuesday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry that the state of Business does not allow us to hold out any expectation of placing the Bill as the First Order.
  MR. HICKS; Then I shall join the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire in opposing the Motion.
  MR. LEWISasked when the Lords Alcester and Wolseley Annuity Bills would be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must fall back upon the reply just given to the hon. Member for Chelsea.

  PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that Members had been working very hard, not only in that House, but upon Select Committees and Grant Committees; and he wished to ask the Prime Minister what time he proposed to allow for the Whitsuntide Holidays?
  MR. HOPWOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to take a Morning Sitting to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There will be no Morning Sitting to-morrow. I propose to state to-morrow what the Government think upon the subject of the Question asked by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot); but I may be allowed to say now that it is not a matter which can be disposed of as easily as in ordinary years, because we do feel that Members have been working very hard in Select Committees and Grand Committees, and, at the same time, we know that the pressure of Business and of subjects is very great, and the time for discussion very scanty.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he could state, in view of the fact that several Questions of a legal character had been asked to-day, when the Attorney General for Ireland was likely to be in his place?
  [No answer was given.]

ORDUES OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Bill 89.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, The Marquess of Hartington, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General)
  PARLIAMENTARY OATHS ACT (1866) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Bill 89.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    [THIRD NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [23rd April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the question before the House was one which appeared to him on examination to be so great that he was quite of opinion that he was wrong not to have left the matter in the hands of those who might have had long and large experience of what was good and what was bad for the government of men. He was bound to say that the difficulty of the debate had been increased rather than diminished by the speech of the Prime Minister. He quite admitted that when he joined with those who, in 1880, began to show resistance to Mr. Bradlaugh, he did not expect that the conflict then begun would ever reach the proportions which they witnessed at the present time. But now they had all gone too far to recede from the respective positions which they had taken up. The widest and most vital issues were involved in the question before them, and he did not imagine that any hon. Gentleman on his side of the House could afford to give way. He listened, as he supposed everyone would in the House, with the deepest interest to the wonderful oration of the Prime Minister on Thursday last; but he must confess, in all shame and humiliation, that there was much of that speech which was far above his feeble comprehension, and which, after an attentive and careful study of it in print, still remained quite
    1440
    beyond his grasp. He thought at times while he was listening to that speech that he had been carried back to the Middle Ages, and was hearing a discourse from one of the fathers or schoolmen of that time. Of this he felt sure, that if Augustine, or Origen, or the Venerable Bede, or Jerome were to revisit this earth for the purpose of propounding some now and strange theological problem, the Prime Minister would meet and confront him and send him back in confusion and dismay. If he might venture on a criticism of that great speech, he would say that he was of opinion that to a considerable extent it was above the question, and that some of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments were of too abstract a nature. One feature of the speech struck him very much. The right hon. Gentleman did not dwell upon the rights of Northampton, or of Mr. Brad-laugh. He did not even mention them, for he knew that in connection with such matters as the House was now considering, Parliament recognized no rights but its own. It had never treated these claims for electoral or representative concessions as rights; it had always regarded them as high and valuable privileges which it was in its power to withhold or bestow, and it had never been guided by any other principle than expediency and policy. The constituencies might elect whomsoever they pleased, and Parliament might admit or reject those who were chosen. When he read of Mr. Bradlaugh going about from place to place, and announcing in the loudest language that he intended to take his seat in that House, Bill or no Bill, law or no law, whether the House of Commons liked it or whether it did not, he simply laughed. Parliament would do just what it thought best, and Mr. Bradlaugh would find that Parliament was a good deal stronger than he. He only thought that when he held out these menaces, and when he summoned mass meetings in the vicinity of Westminster, he was injuring his cause, and only strengthened the determination of the the House to proceed in this matter as deliberately as if no such threats were uttered or meetings held. He did deplore that the Attorney General, the chief Law Adviser of the Crown, should get into such a panic, and with bated breath and artificial solemnity should

    1441
    have warned the House of the peril it was incurring, of the abyss into which it was walking, by resisting a man who defied the law and those who made the law. The Prime Minister did not titter any such warning. He knew that the House of Commons ran no danger whatever from Mr. Bradlaugh. They were not afraid of noisy agitators. "Demagogues," said Mr. Lowe, during the discussions on the Reform Bill, when similar terrors were held up—
    "Demagogues are the commonplace of history…Their names float lightly on the stream of time; they are in some way handed down to us, but then they are as little regarded as is the foam which rides on the crest of the stormy wave, and bespatters the rock which it cannot shake."—(3 Hansard, [182] 2117.)
    So they might leave the Attorney General isolated in his terror, and discuss this matter with the most perfect calmness. He had said that the question was one of policy; and, in deciding it, the House could not act unwisely if it were, to some extent, guided by the light of the past. Was it expedient to alter the laws of England for the benefit of one man, and that one man not like Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Pease, or Alderman Salomons, representing a large, influential, and respectable class in the community, but representing, as far as they knew, only himself? You could not separate, do what you would, this measure from the person who would be the first to take advantage of it—it was purely and simply a "privilegium." They did not know for certain that there was a single other person in the country besides Mr. Bradlaugh who would be benefited by it; but this they did know for certain, that if there were such persons, their number was comparatively small; and this they knew further, that the number of persons who would be shocked by it, and morally injured by it, was inconceivably vast, so that the measure was, on the first blush of it, a "privilegium" of the most dangerous character. If they could erase from their minds all that had occurred in this House in connection with Mr. Bradlaugh, if none of those events had taken place, and if the Government of this country, acting on the representations of large classes of persons, and on a considerable amount of public opinion, had proposed to abolish all promissory Oaths, from the Oath of the Sovereign on the Throne, to the Oath of the magistrate on the
    1442
    Bench, that would have been a measure of a wide and comprehensive character not altogether out of keeping with the general principles of the Liberal Party; and though it might have encountered some opposition in this House, it would have received from the House a consideration widely different from that which was being given to the present proposal of the Government. The Promissory Oaths Act of 1868 was based on the grounds he had indicated; the object of that measure was not to admit notorious Atheists into the Army and Navy, or into any public offices and positions, but was to reduce the enormous number of promissory Oaths which were at that time incumbent, which were necessary for the performance of the most trifling matters; and it was also, by substituting declarations for Oaths in many cases, intended to meet the conscientious objections of many who, while on great and solemn occasions ready and willing to take an oath, were, nevertheless, of opinion that the indiscriminate multiplication of Oaths was, on many obvious grounds, objectionable, tended, to profanity, and detracted from the solemnity of Oaths which were considered to be of value. And that Bill was agreed to almost unanimously by Parliament. It was for the benefit of the whole nation; it was considered and passed deliberately, and in the absence of any religious or political pressure. The circumstances which had led to the introduction of the present Bill were in every detail diametrically contrary; it was not for the benefit of the whole nation, it was for the benefit of one man, and it was brought in in deference to clamour and violence. Let them consider for a moment who were the classes outside who were opposed to the Representative of Atheism. They were the religious, the moral, the law-abiding, and the industrious. Who were the personal supporters of Atheism outside this House? For the most part, they were the residuum, the rabble, and the scum of the population; the bulk of them were persons to whom all restraint, religious, moral, or legal, was odious and intolerable. Why were they so anxious to give these latter a victory and a triumph over the former? What good object could they possibly expect to gain by such a course? Further, the design of the Government had been carried out in the most unfortunate manner that

    1443
    could have been selected. The Bill proposed that Members of Parliament should swear or affirm at their pleasure. What would be the result of this? The Oath and the Affirmation would become Party battle-cries. The House would divide into jurors and non-jurors. The Radical Party, remembering the origin of the Bill, would, of course, for the future, affirm; and the idea would rapidly spread that the Affirmation, undoubtedly less solemn than the Oath, would more conveniently cover and allow of Republican and revolutionary enterprizes. On the other hand, the Tory Party, faithful to the Constitution, would, of course, adhere to the Oath, always willing to testify, in the most solemn manner, their loyalty to the Throne and to the institutions of their country. Was it wise or politic to make new Party distinctions in this country, based on such a difference as that? The whole speech of the Prime Minister, if it meant anything, was directed against all promissory Oaths. He said the Parliamentary Oath now had become merely a Theistic test, and, as such, was unsuited to its purpose. But he forgot that he was responsible for the present form of Oath; if it was a Theistic test, it was his fault. The Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 was the work of the right hon. Gentleman; he did not object to a Theistic test then; but, if he objected to it now, why did he not do away with it altogether? Why did he adopt a particular form of Bill which might have the effect of connecting an Affirmation with Atheistic opinions, and of denoting to the House and the public the individual who held such opinions? They wore told that the Oath was useless, because any Atheist could take it. He maintained that no Atheist who acted in the manner adopted by Mr. Bradlangh could take the Oath. By the law and Constitution of England an avowed Atheist could not take an Oath. Let the House remember what occurred in 1880. Mr. Bradlaugh came to the Table, and stated that he claimed to affirm as one of those who, by virtue of the Evidence Law Amendment Act, was entitled to affirm. That was the only knowledge which the House had, or could have, of his being an Atheist; because it was only Atheists who, on those grounds, under that Act could affirm. They had nothing to do with
    1444
    his writings; they had only to consider his acts. What did this action of his mean? It did not mean that Mr. Brad-laugh had the slightest conscientious objection to taking an Oath—they knew that he was quite willing to take the Oath afterwards, and had no repugnance to it. The only moaning his action could have was that by it he meant to inform the House of Commons, in the plainest way he could, that the House of Commons was entirely given over to superstition, that their most solemn forms were ridiculous and obsolete, and that he would be no party to them. Mr. Bradlaugh's action in claiming to affirm was a deliberate and premeditated avowal of Atheism to the assembled House of Commons, and a declaration of war against Christianity; and the first attack upon the fortress was the repudiation of the Oath of the House of Commons. For his part, he made no complaint. If Mr. Bradlangh liked to run a tilt against Christianity, let him do so in the name of whatever master he might serve. But he asked hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Prime Minister, if they could wonder that tho glove thus rudely thrown down was promptly taken up; that an army in defence of Christianity at once sprang into life; and could they wonder that they were not prepared to give way now, when a Bill was brought in which was to give a complete victory to Mr. Bradlaugh? It was said that Mr. Bradlangh could take the Oath in the next Parliament. That he (Lord Randolph Churchill) denied entirely, unless the law was altered. Parliament was seized of the fact that Mr. Brad-laugh was an avowed Atheist, and therefore could not take the Oath; the fact was stated in the Records of Parliament and every Successor of Mr. Speaker would be bound to follow the valuable ruling which he laid down when Mr. Bradlangh first presented himself at the Table and claimed to make an Affirmation. By that ruling Mr. Bradlaugh's right to take the Oath might be called in question at any time, and the Speaker would be bound to remit the claim and the objection to the consideration and judgment of the House of Commons. Now the Government asked Parliament to do for Mr. Bradlaugli—who, for all they knew, stood to all intents and purposes absolutely alone in the country—what Parliament did not do either

    1445
    for the Roman Catholics or for the Jews; and, more than that, Parliament was to do it immediately, and in obedience to the first demand. Did Parliament abolish the Oath for the Catholics or the Jews when they refused to take the Oath? Not at all. It altered the Oath, but it refused to part with it. Catholic Emancipation was the necessary consequence of the Union; we could not continue to withhold from 8,000,000 or more of our people Constitutional privileges; but the Catholics waited 29 years before their difficulties were removed, so fearful was Parliament of tampering with the Oath. But, at any rate, when Catholic Emancipation was granted there was no question of endangering the Christian character of the Constitution. The Catholics were as faithful and as loyal guardians of that as the Protestants; all the tenets of their religion were on the side of a Christian law; and it was, without doubt, those considerations which finally induced both Parties in the State to grant them the same privileges as the Protestants. Well, of course they were told, over and over again, that when they admitted Jews into Parliament they destroyed the Christian character of the Constitution. He absolutely and totally denied that assertion. The moral sanctions which controlled both Jews and Christians were in many respects similar. The belief in a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments was devoutly held by both, and the Ten Commandments were equally to Jew and Christian the rule of life. There was nothing in the Jewish creed or character which could in the slightest degree detract from any pledge which they might give, or unfit them for public confidence, or deprive them of general respect. He would examine that a little more closely, because, to a superficial observer, it might appear that Jewish Emancipation was the weak point in the case of the opponents of the Bill, whereas it was the strongest. The God of the Christians and the God of the Jews was one and the same. The difference of opinion arose as to the nature and the form; but there was no difference as to the essence or the attributes. Judaism was only separated from Arianism by a degree, or, rather, he should say that Arianism was an improvement, and an advance on Judaism. [A laugh.] He
    1446
    did not know why hon. Members should laugh; he was endeavouring to discuss the subject seriously and with gravity. An impartial student of the life and times of Athanasius would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that, as far as it was possible and lawful to pry into the causes which regulate the progress of religious thought, it was owing to an accident, or what they called an accident, as much as to anything else that the whole of Europe at the present moment was not Arian. The acceptance of the settlement of that great religious schism, which divided the world at one time into two bitterly hostile camps, depended entirely upon the caprices of a despotic Emperor, the intrigues of an Oriental Court, and upon the hairbreadth escapes of an adventurous Bishop. He had only stated that as an argument that it was not wonderful that in the 19th century, when these facts were known and acknowledged, the State should have been extremely tolerant, when Jewish Emancipation was under discussion, of all forms of Arianism. Now, though nothing could be more distasteful to him than to bring questions of abstract theology into debates in the House of Commons, he could not refrain from reminding the Prime Minister, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, and who dwelt so much on the question of Jewish Emancipation, and drew such large and such unjustifiable inferences from it, that the true Christian not only believed in, but looked forward to, a time when the Jewish nation should recognize the doctrine of the Trinity, and when the scattered exiles from Palestine should be exalted far above all the other Gentile races of the earth. There was, then, nothing extraordinary in the fact that the Christian inhabitants of a Christian country should admit people with such a future to equal privileges with themselvos. The claims of the Jews for admission to Parliament were so forcibly put by Mr. Disraeli, and contrasted so remarkably with the claims of Mr. Bradlaugh, that he could not resist quoting them to the House. Mr. Disraeli, in doing so, said—
    "I have always, Sir, upheld that opinion because I believed that the Jewish race was that one to which the human family in general has been under the greatest obligation, and when I am told…that by admitting Jews into

    1447
    Parliament we are endangering the Christian character of…the community, I must say it does appear to me that it is because we are a…Christian community that the claim of the Jews to enjoy all civil and political privileges is irresistible. Sir, when I remember for how much we are indebted to that people, of what ineffable blessings they have been the human agents—when I remember that by their history, their poetry, their laws, our lives are instructed, solaced, and regulated—when I recall other considerations and memories more solemn and reverential, I confess that I cannot as a Christian oppose the claims of those to whom Christianity is under so great an obligation."—(3 Hansard, [133] 961.)
    and, in concluding what must have been one of the most powerful speeches he ever made to the House of Commons, he said—
    "I cannot help remembering that the Jews have outlived Assyrian Kings, Egyptian Pharaohs, Roman Cæsars, and Arabian Caliphs, and…it is my conviction.…that the time will come when the Jews.… will receive in this country full and complete emancipation.…I have faith in that Almighty Being who had never deserted them."—(Ibid., 904–9–70.)
    Could Mr. Bradlaugh or any of his crew support their claims for admission to that House by arguments so weighty and so solemn as those? He ventured to say that if any Member of that House advocated the claims of Mr. Bradlaugh by comparing them with the claims of the Jews, he inflicted upon that ancient people a fouler insult and a crueler wrong than was ever devised by mediæval fanaticism. Yet the Jews had to wait many years before the door was opened, so deliberate and so hesitating, but so sure, had been the progress of our Constitution; and finally Parliament did not abolish the Oath for them, it did not allow them to affirm, though that course might have appeared the most natural and the most easy. To admit the Jews into Parliament, an irreproachable race having an immense stake in the fortunes of this country, after nine years of weary waiting, seven words were omitted from the Oath. For one sect only had Parliament made a greater effort and abolished the Oath, substituting an Affirmation— an essentially Christian sect, whose pure lives, peaceful doctrines, and high morality constituted an argument which could not be resisted that the admission into the House of Members of that sect, rather than endanger the Constitution, would adorn the Senate. But here, again, it was long before Parliament took the stop of abolishing the Oath, even under such circumstances of abso-
    1448
    lute security—nay, more, of positive advantage; and he thought it was only in 1858 that the Parliamentary Affirmation of the Quakers became part of the Statute Law. Yet the Quakers did not refuse to take an Oath because they did not believe in the solemnity of it; it was because of their sense of its excessive solemnity that they objected to combining it with matters purely human, and in their adhesion to that objection they were prepared to sacrifice all hope and prospect of distinction or advancement among their fellow men. Contrast this with Mr. Bradlaugh's position, who said—"Rather than be debarred from the advantages of a Parliamentary position I will take your Oath, or any number of oaths, or any kind of them; whether it be on the Testament of the Christian or on the broken saucer of the Chinese, it is all one to me." And this was the man whom the Government proposed to place on a better ground than the Catholics or the Jews, and on the same ground as the members of the Society of Friends. It was well to recall those historical facts in the face of the speech of the Attorney General the other night, who informed them that he introduced this Bill in order to remove the conscientious objection of those who could not tolerate the profanation of the Oath. A more audacious proposition was never before put forward by a lawyer. He took this Bill of the Government, and he stripped it of all those flimsy disguises with which the Prime Minister so ingeniously but so uselessly clothed it, and he placed it naked before the Parliament and before the country—a Bill for the admission of avowed Atheists into the House of Commons— and he said that that was a fundamental change in the Constitution of such vital and momentous importance that the people of this country would not hastily ratify it, and that the opinion of the country must be ascertained before the Parliament could assent to it. The peculiarity of the English Constitution was that it was founded upon, and incorporated with, the Christian morality. It was a characteristic which was possessed by no other nation; however free, or however great; and did it not occur to them that the extraordinary prosperity and duration and apparent future of our Empire was not, perhaps, unconnected with this famous characteristic, and was it not

    1449
    certain that the great statesmen who were concerned in opposing Catholic Emancipation, the admission of the Jews, and the Affirmation of Quakers, were possessed of this idea, and were fearful of this characteristic being endangered or lost sight of? They were not necessarily, as some hon. Members opposite might think, fools, and idiots, and bigots; and yet their steps were extraordinarily cautious. From the days of King Alfred to the days of Queen Victoria, by the Common Law of England, open and notorious Atheists were absolutely incapable of discharging any public duty, or filling any public position of confidence and trust. He was more surprised than he could say to hear this statement contested by the Attorney General and the Prime Minister. It had never been denied till the present day. He knew it was denied by Lord Coleridge the other day; but Lord Coleridge was obtaining an unfortunate celebrity for allowing his political opinions to be incidentally set forth from the Judicial Bench; and though Lord Coleridge might be a distinguished Judge, no one had ever yet claimed for him that he was a great lawyer. His law might be dismissed without further notice. Against Lord Coleridge he would set the far higher authority of Lord Erskine, who, in his great speech on The Age of Reason, said—
    "The Christian religion is the very foundation of the law of the land; to profess the Christian religion is the sanction of all our public duties, and the only pledge of our submission to the system which constitutes the State."
    In the case of "Cowan v. Milbourne," in 1864, long after the removal of Jewish disabilities, where a man had contracted to let some rooms and refused to carry out the contract when he ascertained that they were to be used for the purpose of delivering Atheistical lectures, Baron Kelly said—
    "There is abundant authority for saying that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land; and, therefore, to support and maintain publicly the proposition that one who has contracted to let rooms for a purpose stated in general terms, and who afterwards discovers that they are to he used for the delivery of lectures that our Saviour is defective and his teaching misleading, hut is, nevertheless, hound to permit his room to he used for that purpose, such a proposition is a violation of the principles of law, and cannot he done without blasphemy."
    1450
    Baron Martin concurred in that judgment. Baron Bramwell said—
    "I think that the plaintiff was about to use the rooms for an unlawful purpose, because he was about to use them for the purpose of teaching or advised speaking denying the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to he of Divine authority. That being so, his purpose was unlawful, and the plaintiff could not enforce the contract."
    But the proposition he had laid down as to the civil disabilities of open and notorious Atheists was incorporated in the Statute 9 Will. III., c. 35, "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy and Profaneness," which enacted that a person convicted of—
    "Blasphemous and impious opinions, contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion, greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God, and destructive to the peace and welfare of this Kingdom,"
    should, for the first offence—
    "Be adjudged incapable and disabled in law to all intents and purposes whatsoever to have or enjoy any office, or official employment, or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military, or any part in them, or any profit or advantage appertaining to them or any of them; and if any person or persons so convicted shall, at the time of his or their conviction, enjoy or possess any office, place, or employment, such office, place, or employment shall he void, and is hereby declared void."
    That Act was amended in favour of the Unitarians in 1813, but, otherwise, was then in force; so that, in fact, it had, to all intents and purposes, been confirmed within the last 70 years; and the above Statute was in Volume 2 of the Revised Statutes, issued by authority in 1871. If the Government wished to get Mr. Bradlaugh into Parliament — if they wished to qualify Mr. Bradlaugh for holding high Office in their Administration, the}r ought to repeal that Statute. Dared they do it? He challenged them to put down an Amendment repealing that Statute; but, as a matter of fact, this Bill, in the most insidious manner, without mentioning either Common Law or Statute Law, flew in the face of both. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Common Law in particular.] He might be told, of course, that these laws he had quoted were obsolete and never enforced, and that many Atheists had sat, perhaps were now sitting, in Parliament, in spite of those laws; and then they had Mr. Gibbon and Lord Bolingbroke thrown at their heads. But, as far as their knowledge of Mr. Gibbon's opinions

    1451
    went, they were not known until he published the 15th and 16th chapters of is History, which did not appear until after he sat in Parliament; and as to Lord Bolingbroke, there were not any of his contemporaries who knew of his Atheistic opinions. The whole was derived from his works, which were posthumous; so that he did not think Bolingbroke and Gibbon did them much good. But, anyhow, he would ask—was evasion of a law a conclusive reason for repealing or not enforcing it? It might just as well be said that, because there was smuggling or illicit distilling, therefore our Customsand Excise Revenue ought to be abolished. Secret or semi-concealed evasion of a law was undoubtedly criminal; but open defiance of a law was not only equally criminal, but far more dangerous; and to say that people who concealed or, at any rate, did not advertise their Atheistical opinions had sat in Parliament was no reason whatever for altering the law in order to admit among the Governing Body of the country persons who boasted of, and lost no opportunity of disseminating, Atheistical and unlawful doctrines. But they must not only think of the relief of Mr. Bradlaugh, or of the relief of that House from a slight difficulty; they must think what would be the effect on the people of this State of a recognition of unlawful doctrines, and of giving a place in the immediate Governing Body to one who professed and who preached that the Christian religion, on which our law was founded, was false, its morality defective, and its promises illusory. Were they not giving to those doctrines a tremendous impetus by altering the Constitution of this country in order that they might be officially represented in our councils and might influence our decisions? Could they contemplate without alarm the revulsion that such an Act might occasion among those masses of the people who, with some hope of a happier state hereafter, were toiling their weary way through the world, content to tolerate, for a time, their less fortunate lot — the revulsion that would occur should they infer from the action of the Legislature that it was even possible that their faith was false? Surely the horrors of the French Revolution should give some idea of the effect on the masses of the State recognition of Atheism. It was from awful disasters such as those
    1452
    that we had boon very probably preserved by the Christian characteristics of the community; or, to quote again the words of Lord Erskine—
    "The religious and moral sense of the people of Great Britain is the great anchor which alone can hold the vessel of State amidst the storms that agitate the world."
    They were invited to destroy and abolish the Christian character of our Constitution in the name of religious liberty. Religious liberty had nothing to do with this question; if he thought that religious liberty was in danger, he would join the ranks of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but let him ask them to look at it in this way, and if they told him that his argument was an argumentum, ad hominem, he replied that their legislation was legislation ad hominem. Would any Member of that House receive a man holding and boasting, and living by the preaching, of such opinions as Mr. Bradlaugh's into his family by ties of relationship? Would any Member confide to him the training up his sons or daughters, or of anyone connected with him? How, then, could they propose to alter the law of the State in order to give to such a man a higher and far more important post— namely, a share in the providing for the welfare of millions of human beings? If the profession of Christianity were the surest guarantee for the faithful discharge of private and social duties, much more must it be the best or the only known guarantee for those high and important functions on which the character and happiness of our people depended. Mr. Burke, in his writings on the French Revolution, said—
    "All persons possessing any portion of power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in trust, and that they are to account for their conduct in that trust to the one great Master, Author, and Founder of society."
    This was no question of religious liberty; it was a question of common prudence and common sense. Good Heavens! to think that this banner of religious liberty, which had waved over causes most noble and most pure, which had been carried triumphantly to victory on battle fields, where were elicited all the loftiest emotions of which the intelligence of man was capable, that that banner should now be taken down from its shrine of almost universal adoration in order to attract supporters to the cause of a man

    1453
    to whom religious liberty was nothing more than superstitious licence, and to whom religion itself was but as a mania, as a disease, almost as a crime, to be combatted, scoffed at, insulted, and profaned on every convenient or conceivable opportunity; and that that monstrosity should be perpetrated by the Party who, of all others in those conflicts to which he had alluded, had won for themselves undying fame. He was, however, glad that the Government did not bring up the people of England, or of Scotland, or of Ireland as supporting them in this matter; that they did not try to make them their accomplices in that dark design. The people of those countries were absolutely guiltless of any complicity with the Government. The diminished number of supporters of the Government in that House, the striking results of the various elections at Northampton and in the country, the enormous number of Petitions, confirmed what he said. The Prime Minister told them that they were, on this occasion, to disregard the feelings of the people. He was surprised at such a command from him. What a torrent of denunciation would they have had from him if Mr. Disraeli had ever uttered such a sentiment as that He firmly believed that it was because the people were certain that from the right hon. Gentleman no changes of this kind were to be expected that they had continually reposed in him such an amount of confidence; and if that Bill were to pass into law, owing to his powerful advocacy, the Christian Constitution of Great Britain might have received a mortal stab from the hands of the man whom the people had armed in its defence and had promoted to its highest honours. He desired now to clear up a little controversy which had arisen between the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) with reference to the feelings of the Wesleyan community, also with regard to the signature of the Rev. Mr. Garratt. Mr. George H. Chubb, an eminent lay member of the Wesleyan body, had addressed to his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) a letter, in which he said—
    "I am glad to have this opportunity of stating a fact which may be of interest to you. Mr. Gladstone last night said that the President of the Wesleyan Conference had written to say that
    1454
    he was in favour of the Bill; if that is so, it must be in his private capacity, because I have before me a copy of a Petition against the Bill adopted by an official sub-committee only a few days ago, and signed by Charles Garratt, President of the Wesleyan Methodist Conference. This Petition was, however, never presented to the House, chiefly through the action of two Wesleyan Liberal Members of Parliament; and I, therefore, with the concurrence of leading ministers and laymen, sent out a Circular asking for signatures from Members of the Conference and its committees; in a week I have received nearly 1,000 signatures, and others are daily coining in, together with letters from all parts of the country, and from all classes of Wes-leyans, which show that the Government Bill 'is opposed to the judgment of mankind.' I may add that almost the whole of these signatures have been received since the Government announced that the Bill was to be non-retrospective."
    He might also take this opportunity of stating that up till Friday last 4,854 Petitions had been presented against the Bill, signed by 597,353 people; while the number of Petitions in favour of the Bill was only 1,362, signed by 153,290 people. Thus the proportion was about four to one against the Bill. He was grateful to the House for having allowed him to make these remarks. He was convinced, as strongly as he could be convinced of anything, that, under all the circumstances of that most difficult controversy, it was the bounden duty of the Tory Party fearlessly to have resisted at the very outset these calamitous proceedings, to oppose that man on every occasion, to contest that legislation stage by stage, and to arouse the alarm of the nation. It was, of course, possible— he trusted it was not probable—that in this matter the Opposition might be ultimately defeated; but should that be so, and should the time arrive, as in that case it most certainly would, when The Fruits of Philosophy should become the Bible of the people, and when the age of so-called "Reason" should have supplanted the age of Christian morality, at any rate it should then be recognized by a suffering posterity that their great principles were not sacrified, and that their great cause was not lost, except after the bitterest conflict which could be recorded in the annals of a Parliament or in the history of a people. The present Government proudly claimed the task of carrying the cause of religious liberty to its furthest imaginable limits; but be it theirs on this side of the House —nor was it less noble—to endeavour to restrain such aspirations within the

    1455
    bounds of reason and of policy, so that the men. of the future, when studying the story of the struggle, would exclaim of the Conservative Party of to-day— "Well, they did their duty."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could not help thinking, while the noble Lord was speaking— "How long is this debate likely to last?" The main object of the noble Lord seemed to be to show that the mantle of Elijah had descended upon him, for his speech consisted of a defence of the admission of the Jews into Parliament entirely because it had been supported by Mr. Disraeli. The noble Lord was frequently cheered by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), but perhaps not when he referred to the Jews; because, in opposing their admission, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire said he did not think it advisable that they should have sitting in that House individuals who regarded Our Redeemer as an impostor, a view which was not precisely that of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had said that the Prime Minister's speech was entirely above his feeble comprehension; it would seem, therefore, that when a grand and exhaustive speech like that had been made on the part of the Government, any Member of the other side had only to say that it was above his feeble comprehension, and then proceed to repeat all the allegations and misrepresentations which were current before the speech was made. The noble Lord's views on law and Church history were as much beyond his (Mr. Labouchere's) comprehension as the Prime Minister's speech was above the comprehension of the noble Lord. No one disputed that Atheists had been disqualified for occupying positions of trust, and if the noble Lord had gone back to the time of Elizabeth he might have found Judges laying down that Infidels wore the allies of the Devil; but the late Mr. Justice Willes said that the Judges who laid down such law were allies of the Devil. He (Mr. Labouchere) was, however, willing to admit that the speech of the noble Lord was the ablest which had been delivered from his side of the House, for more wretched debating than was exhibited in the speeches of the Opposition he had never heard in his life. He had been accustomed to regard the right hon. and learned Gentle-
    1456
    man the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) as one of the ablest Members of his Party; but a worse speech than that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman he had never heard. Then a Member of the Hebrew faith came forward to lecture them on their duties as Christians, and to tell them that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was bearing aloft a banner with Blasphemy and Bradlaugh inscribed upon it. Another Member had told them that the motto on the Royal Arms stuck in his throat, and so he could not vote for the Bill. A Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench actually told them that if Atheists were allowed to affirm in Parliament they would be allowed to affirm in a Court of Justice, and did not seem to know that Atheists were allowed to affirm in Courts of Justice. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) got up to answer the speech of the Prime Minister, and said that this Bill was the lowest and basest form of fraud. Had they not now a right to hope that this very orgy of rampant verbosity would at some time cease Conservatives had been, he admitted, thoroughly consistent, for they had always opposed every attempt to remove disabilities which stood in the way of all citizens equally exercising civil rights. He did not say that they were not actuated by conscientious motives; but he was inclined to think that most of them were actuated rather by Party motives. ["No!"] They wanted to persuade the public that they had a monopoly of regard for religion. But the head of the Party was actuated entirely by Party motives. ["No!"] Well, he would prove his assertion. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had defended his Leader from the allegation that he advised that legislation should take place on the part of the Government on this question, and how did he defend him? By saying that it was true he did say that, but that his object was to oppose the Bill. If hon. Gentlemen were satisfied with that statement, he did not wish to disturb their equanimity. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) was in many ways invaluable to the Liberal Party. He not only made speeches and wrote articles in reviews, but he wrote letters. Not long ago he wrote a letter

    1457
    which attracted a considerable amount of attention, in which he said—
    "When Sir Drummond Wolff and Lord Percy originally raised the question of Mr. Brad-laugh's claim to take the Oath of Allegiance Sir Stafford Northcote supported the views of Her Majesty's Government; and it was not until Lord Beaconsfield had been referred to, and had expressed a strong opinion that the contention of the Members for Portsmouth and North Northumberland was in accordance with the practice of the Constitution, that Sir Stafford Northcote refrained from supporting the Government against his own followers,"
    It was well that these facts should be recalled when the Leader of the Opposition was gaining great renown as the Defender of the Faith. Further, a speech had been made by one of the most trusted and cautious Members on the Front Opposition Bench—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), who said that the noble Lord and the Members of the Fourth Party were to be congratulated on having brought this subject before the House, and that if they had not interfered it never would have been brought before the House. He (Mr. Labouchere) had now proved his statement. It was clear that the Leader of the Opposition wished to support the Government when they discountenanced interference with Mr. Bradlaugh taking the Oath; and it was only when an appeal was made by some of the Tory Party to Lord Beaconsfield that the right hon. Gentleman, in defiance of his better judgment, assumed the part he had since taken in resistance to Mr. Bradlaugh. He did not complain of this; he only wished the Leader of the Opposition would more often act on his own sensible views, and not be dragged through the mire by the silly gentlemen who supported him. The staple of the debate on the Opposition side of the House had been invention and invective, and the object of the speakers had been to obscure the issues, and to ignore the most palpable facts. It had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that Mr. Bradlaugh had been in intimate relations with the Government for a very long time. Mr. Bradlaugh had written to him (Mr. Labouchere) as follows:—
    "I should be obliged if you would state to the House that there is not and never has been the slightest foundation for the statement made by Sir R. Gross that the late Mr. Adam pro-
    1458
    moted my candidature at Northampton. In 1868 I stood in opposition to the sitting Member, Lord Henley, and in that election I complained that I owed my defeat to a letter written against me by the present Prime Minister. I never held, directly or indirectly, the smallest friendly communication with the late Mr. Adam before my return, and I always considered that in my election the whole weight of the moderate Liberals had boon used against me."
    As for the letter written by Mr. Adam respecting the Northampton Election, the facts were very simple. He was himself standing for Northampton at the time, and being in London on electioneering business he chanced to pass by Mr. Adam's office, and thought he might as well look in and ask how the elections were going. Mr. Adam showed his statistics, and expressed his confidence as to a Liberal victory, if but the Party would work together in a united manner. He then remarked to Mr. Adam that the electors of Northampton would not improbably let in a Conservative candidate by the unwise habit of plumping and not splitting their votes, and suggested that Mr. Adam should write him a letter advising them not to do so. This Mr. Adam good-naturedly did; and his letter, written in these circumstances, was the only foundation, if such it could be called, for the statements of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was a mistake to suppose that that was written after consultation with the Liberal Party. As to the Prime Minister having inspired it, he was in Mid Lothian at the time; and he (Mr. Labouchere) took it that neither he nor his Colleagues were aware that the letter had been written. [Cries of "Morley!"] That had nothing to do with the question. Now, a great deal had been said as to the feeling of the country towards the Bill, to which it was said to be altogether hostile. He must say he was surprised that the Opposition should think Liberal Members were actuated by such high and lofty motives that, knowing their constituents were thoroughly against them and would turn them out, they insisted on voting for the Bill. He could believe a great of the Liberal Party, and did not doubt that many of its Members would rather lose their seats than vote against their consciences; but when he found all the Liberal Members, with but few exceptions, intending to vote for the Bill, he could not believe that they were all going to offend their constituents.

    1459
    Only one Welsh Member was opposed to the Bill, and only eight Scotch Members, a fact which had been controverted in a somewhat illogical manner by the assertion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that only three Irish Members would vote for it. Again, the House had been told repeatedly that the large majority of the very numerous Petitions that had been presented were against the Bill; but the manner in which they had been obtained was not pointed out. It was an undeniable fact that there had been a regular system of paid organization to get them up. Was not the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) a member of an association by which money was expended to get up Petitions? Were not notices sent all over the country, with stamped envelopes for reply? Mr. Chubb, who had been alluded to, belonged to another organization which sent stamped circulars all over the country to Wesleyans; the other organization sent circulars to members of the Church of England. Was it surprising that, under these circumstances, a very large number of signatures had been obtained? He was surprised that when signatures were so solicited, and when gross misstatements about the Bill had been made all over the country, and people had been told that it was an attack on religion, that its object was to introduce Atheism toParliament—he was surprised, considering all this, and considering the strong religious feeling of the country, that the signatures should still be counted by thousands and not by millions. With reference to the collection of signatures by paid canvassers, he might add that at Dumfries one of the canvassers had only lately left prison, boys and girls had signed the Petitions; in a village near Halifax a clergyman of the Church of England collected the whole of the signatures of the little children in the schools; at Cambridge, persons were invited to sign more than once; and at a place near Bury St. Edmund's, those signing were requested to sign also the names of their relatives. He did not doubt that many of the signatures were honest; but he complained that Petitions had been promoted by a system of organization, that they did not represent the opinion of the country, and that, in many cases, they were signed by babes and sucklings. His Colleague had asked
    1460
    him to say that he was prepared to prove before a Select Committee that three-fourths of the signatures to the Petitions against the Bill had been collected by paid agents, and among the signatures were several thousands of children under 12; and that the Petition from Northampton bearing more than 6,000 signatures included the names of several babies less than six months old. This was the way in which public opinion was manufactured against what was alleged to be a "Bradlaugh Relief Bill." The opponents of the measure misrepresented not only public opinion, but the Bill also. Mr. Bradlaugh needed no Relief Bill at all, but simply stood aside, not wishing to give the House any further trouble. At the same time Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that he had an absolute right to go to the Table and take the Oath of Allegiance. He was prevented by the House, but he was prevented in defiance of the law. The Lord Chancellor had said that it was his duty to go to the Table and swear. How could it be supposed that Mr. Bradlaugh wanted a Relief Bill? The people who wanted a Relief Bill were the House of Commons. They had committed, and guiltily insisted on committing, a series of illegalities, and they wanted some species of relief. The Bill was not retrospective, and therefore excluded Mr. Bradlaugh from its operation. He might observe in passing that the Attorney General had stated erroneously that the non-retrospective character of the Bill was according to precedent. The Attorney General had followed the precedent of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, but had forgotten the Relief Bill in the case of the Jews, which was so far retrospective that it did not make it necessary for Baron Rothschild or Mr. Salomons to be re-elected. However, he absolutely denied that this was a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. He absolutely denied that the Bill affected Mr. Bradlaugh more than any other hon. Member. They had been told that this was a Bill to admit Atheists into Parliament. How often must that statement be denied? At the present moment, according to the ruling of the Speaker, Atheists could sit in that House provided simply they held their tongue when they came to take the Oath; and he really was surprised how the noble Lord could possibly entertain the idea that if Mr. Bradlaugh were elected in a subsequent Parliament, and pro-

    1461
    vided he adopted this course, he could be prevented by some new Speaker from taking the Oath of Allegiance. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) started an exceedingly curious doctrine. He said—"It is perfectly true that there are Atheists in the House; and that provided they do not say they are Atheists at the Table and took the Oath we have no objection; we will look through our fingers." [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Provided we had no knowledge.] That was, practically, the same thing. ["No, no!"] Supposing the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the works of some of these men, and did know that they were Atheists, he would have no official knowledge; and, therefore, he would not object. That seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) to be pretty much the doctrine of the marine storedealer, who, when someone came to sell something, looked through his fingers; he knew that the goods were stolen, but he took care not to ask, and profited by the occasion. The right hon. Gentleman distinguished between Atheists and avowed, notorious, and active Atheists; but he would point out to him that the law drew no such distinction. All would be allowed to sit if they took the Oath, and all would be allowed to sit if the Bill passed by affirming instead of swearing. If the right hon. Gentleman objected to Atheists sitting in the House, and if he agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) that this case was a more important question than the repeal of the Corn Laws, why not bring in a Bill or move a clause to prevent Atheists doing what they might do now— namely, sit in the House. That would be far more reasonable than to persist in misstating and misunderstanding the purpose of the present Bill. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered what was involved in the religion which he advocated? In this religion, which they were called upon to admire, and to square their legislation to, every human being, provided that he recognized, or said he recognized, something which he called a divinity, was to be included. He might be the most abject and most despicable savage that ever worshipped a block of stone; his god might be a reptile or an obscene image; his god might delight in human sacrifices, or he might
    1462
    be the very Fiend himself; and yet, no matter how debasing and degrading this superstition was, hon. Gentlemen would receive that man into their arms as a spiritual brother. Never was there anything so absurd and so repugnant to the very elementary principles of religion as that which hon. Gentlemen opposite dubbed with the name of religion. He did not wish to say anything to offend hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he could not help thinking that hon. Gentlemen who accused the Prime Minister of having "Bradlaugh and Blasphemy" on his banner, these Defenders of the Faith who told them this Bill was a mean and base fraud—these were the self-righteous Pharisees who, thanking God that they were not as he and others were, denounced them because they dared to say that this had never been, and never would be, the religion of Englishmen. He confessed he did not know what they were talking about when they spoke of their test. Hon. Gentlemen did not seem to understand that there was a difference between a Theist and a Deist. There were plenty of persons who believed in the existence of God, but did not believe in a controlling Providence or in a future state. He would recommend hon. Gentlemen to learn the elements of the case before they discussed it. He was sorry that the Prime Minister, instead of taking the course he had done, had not proposed to do away altogether with any promissory Oath and substitute an Affirmation, for the tendency of modern legislation was, it seemed to him, in that direction. He wished that some of those well-intentioned, but misguided persons, who had signed Petitions, were present when a new Parliament was elected, and when Members were taking the Oath. He himself had been much struck by the thorough profanity of what went on. He need not describe what took place; but there were two matters to which he would call attention. The Prime Minister had pointed out that the kissing of the Book was an essential part of the Oath. Now, he ventured to assert, without fear of contradiction, that a very large proportion of Members never kissed the Book. A batch of, perhaps, 40 Gentlemen came up to the Table, the Clerk read the Oath, and many of them merely pointed to the Testament with their fingers and walked up and signed

    1463
    the Roll. That was not all. There were Gentlemen in that House who had never either taken the Oath or made the Affirmation. [An hon. Member: They must.] He was speaking of what he knew. They had themselves told him so. ["Name!"] He was not going to give names. The common informer might bring an action against them. But how it happened was this—they were new Members, who did not exactly know what the course of procedure was, and they signed the Roll, being under the impression that they were to take the Oath afterwards; and when they asked what they had better do they were told that they had better say nothing about it. Those Gentlemen had made excellent Members, although they took no Oath at all. He really must protest against the attacks made upon Mr. Bradlaugh. Of his speculative opinions on religious matters he said nothing. He disagreed as much as anyone could do with those dreary and forlorn negations which Mr. Bradlaugh put forward; but when it was said that he was a person to be publicly shunned on account of his immoral qualities he (Mr. Labouchere) thought he had a right to protest. The Judge Advocate General had said that the only thing he knew of Mr. Bradlaugh before this storm bad been raised was that he had appeared in a police court. Anybody reading that would have supposed that Mr. Bradlaugh had picked a pocket or something of that sort. These sort of allusions were not fair to Mr. Bradlaugh. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen whether Mr. Bradlaugh had not conducted himself as well in that House as anyone else, and better than some hon. Members. He bad been his Colleague, and he had found him a perfectly honourable and straightforward man; and he did think it was unfair on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to assume that Mr. Bradlaugh was a thoroughly immoral, base man, because they chose to disagree with him upon his speculative opinions as to religion. He therefore protested against the imputations upon Mr. Bradlaugh's character. He could not understand how the Bill could be called a Bradlaugh Belief Bill. The principle of the measure was that Affirmation should be allowed. Had it not been for Mr. Bradlaugh, the introduction of the Bill this Session would, he admitted, have been improbable; but that ought not to in-
    1464
    duce them to refuse to recognize what was a good and sound principle. Whenever a proposal to remove disabilities was made, hon. Members belonging to the Opposition lost all their pretensions to common sense; and, therefore, it was useless to argue with them. There were, however, some hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite to whom he would appeal. The Irish Members, in the course which they proposed to take, were playing with edged tools. Would they, he asked, have been present in that House if the religious disabilities of former times were still in existence? The present Bill was based, they should remember, on the same principle as that to which they were indebted for the removal of those disabilities—namely, that opinions upon matters of religion ought not to act as a barrier to the enjoyment of civil rights. If the House were now to decide that Mr. Bradlaugh could not be allowed to take the Oath because hon. Members did not approve his religious opinions, might it not at some future time be argued that an Irish Gentleman just released from incarceration for violating the Constitution could not be believed, no matter how many the gods by whom he might swear. He thought, from their point of view, Irish Members never made a greater mistake than in opposing this Bill. This Bill contained several issues. The first was, that Members who were elected by constituencies, and wore not disqualified by law, had a right to sit in the House of Commons; and, secondly, that an Affirmation was as valid and as binding as an Oath. They could not have two measures of truth; and if they believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), who made an Affirmation, they could, not more believe any other Member who took the Oath. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the country was opposed to the Bill. He agreed that that was so until they knew the exact state of the matter; but the Prime Minister had put the matter in so clear a light that he hoped his speech would be distributed through the length and breadth of the land; and he could not believe that anyone, after reading that speech, would not see clearly and distinctly that the supporters of this Bill were the friends of religion, while hon. Gentlemen opposite were acting as its enemies.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that, although he admired the power and eloquence of the speech delivered by the Prime Minister, and had listened with much pleasure to that of the Attorney General, he had failed to find in either any argument which could shake his confidence in the rectitude of the course which was taken by the opponents of the Bill. He agreed with some of the principles laid down by the Attorney General. The principles which he approved were that—every constituency had a right to elect any person not legally disqualified, and that any disqualification attributed by the House to a Member after his election should be made known to the constituency; that there existed no law disqualifying any elected Member on the score of his religious belief; that Parliamentary Oaths were not religious tests; that they had been proposed for political objects, and as tests of loyalty; and that there was no power in that House to interrogate a Member proposing to take the Oath upon his religious belief. The argument of the Prime Minister that an Oath which had passed through so many changes as this had must, as a religious test, be absolutely valueless or altogether mischievous fell to the ground in the face of his declaration, as well as that of the Attorney General, that the Oath was not a religious test. It had been changed successively to admit Nonconformists, Quakers, Roman Catholics, and lastly Jews. No doubt, the Liberal Party would take the credit for those changes. The Oath, as it now existed, was simply a pledge of loyalty, fortified he an appeal to the high sanction of a Supreme Being. There was no such ambiguity in the words of the Oath appealing to a higher power as the Prime Minister argued. Christians of all sects and Hebrews alike recognized one God; and he looked upon this central point of union as an element of great strength and the essence and foundation of civilization. With respect to the Bill itself, the first point that struck him was that the action of the Bill was dependent upon the volition of those to whom it applied. There was no precedent for making an enactment entirely dependent for its action on those it benefited. The practical effect of making the Oath optional in that manner was to abrogate it altogether. "Thinks
    1466
    fit!" What words to form an introduction to that most important Act— making laws for the whole country! This was not the first time they had had these optional declarations. A Resolution was adopted by the House in July, 1880, enabling a Member, saying that he was what he was not, to assume the privilege of Affirmation exceptionally provided. This Bill pursued the same perverted policy, by seeking to enable any Member—neither being nor having been a Quaker, Moravian, or Separatist —to enter Parliament through the form provided for those Societies. An Atheist could no more make a solemn Affirmation than he could take an Oath, for there was nothing solemn which had not a reference to the Supreme Being. It had been said that Atheists had sat and did sit in the House of Commons, and that the law requiring them to pronounce a sacred name which to them conveyed no meaning was an infraction of their independence of religious convictions. He rejected that allegation. A seat in that House might be an honourable ambition to any man; but it could only be honourable so long as it was obtained by honourable means, and he believed—he was bound to believe— that that House was composed of Gentlemen who would scorn to equivocate or play a false and deceptive part in order to secure a seat there. And now he would say a word upon the true reasons for this miserable Bill. He had felt the sincerest sympathy for the noble Marquess when he was persuaded by political exigencies to take part in the little comedy performed by himself and the sitting Member for Northampton. Cause and effect were then visibly connected. To avert a disorderly scene in the House, and gratify their Secularist supporters, the Government engaged to bring in an Affirmation Bill. They had done so; they had fulfilled their engagement. They promised to bring in a Bill; they did not undertake to pass it. He did not believe they really wished that a Bill like this, fraught with such consequences to the peace, the order, the morality, and the credit of the country, should pass. The Prime Minister pleaded that he promoted this Bill in the interests of justice. Justice towards whom? Northampton and its elect were in his argument; but might they not claim justice for that House

    1467
    and for all the constituencies of the country? It was true that no legal disqualification attached to Mr. Brad-laugh when first elected. It was true again that there was no precedent for the course taken by the House in refusing to allow him to take his seat; hut it was true, also, that the circumstances under which the House intervened wore equally unprecedented. Never in the history of this country had such an event as the Bradlaugh incident occurred. A person returned to Parliament claimed to affirm upon the plea that the Oath; had no binding effect upon his conscience, and when his claim to affirm was negatived he demanded to take the Oath, which he had previously declared to be an unmeaning form. He first denied God, and then offered to invoke Him. The House, in the absence of precedent, resolved that it would not permit a profanity of which it was sought to be made an accomplice. The voice of the country had declared, and at a General Election would declare, that the House, acting within its legal rights, had exercised its authority, be as to entitle it to the gratitude of all loyal I and religious subjects of the Queen. No law prescribed the dress in which a Member should appear to take the Oath; but if he presented himself at the Table in the undress of a pugilist, the indignation of the House would speedily expel him, and yet the personal indecency would be a less flagrant offence than the moral indecency of a man coming with blasphemy on his lips. The pretence that the Bill was the only means of escaping from mob law in Trafalgar Square, and of averting violent disturbances within the House was contradicted by past experience. The efficient police under the orders of the Speaker and the authority of the Homo Secretary would easily quell any disturbance and maintain order in its vicinity. If this Bill was to be pressed, the voice of the country ought to be ascertained upon it. The Bill virtually abrogated the Oath and solemn Affirmation hitherto in use for if the Oath was rendered optional no one would feel bound to take it at all. The Oath was taken as a duty owed to the State and to the Crown; but if it was rendered optional, surely there would be no reason for taking it at all. To an Atheist the words of a "solemn Affirmation" lost their sense. A distinction had been rightly drawn between
    1468
    an attempt to exclude Atheists, which must be a failure, and the exclusion of an avowed Atheist, which had been proved to be practicable. With an Atheist the House could not deal at all, for it could not ascertain his secret thoughts. The Atheist they could not exclude, although, as an Atheist, they regarded him as unfit to be a legislator; but an "avowed Atheist"—a man who, within the House, declared his disbelief in a Supreme Being, to whom he would hereafter be responsible—declared, at the same time, his incapacity to give any reliable assurance of his truthfulness, and declared himself unfit for a civilized community, which must be based on mutual confidence and trust. Should the requirement of Oaths be altogether abolished? Oaths were interwoven with man's history from the very earliest ages; and in our own country they had been interwoven with the Constitution, with the administration of the law, and with the function of legislation. If Oaths were no longer required from the legislator, would they be required from ecclesiastical dignitaries, from Judges, and from State officials? If they were no longer requisite as from the subject to the Crown, could they be required to bind the Crown towards the subject? The trust reposed in a legislator was one of the most important; and he thought the Prime Minister, when he charged those who opposed the Bill with being indifferent to religious liberty, and said they would admit such as Voltaire, entirely misjudged those who resisted the measure. The law as it stood he held it was their duty to uphold, because he was certain that the abrogation of it in present circumstances, and with the transparent evidence of the motive for which it was done, would have a most serious effect upon the public morality of the country. If the Government were determined to press this Bill upon the House, they were bound, first of all, to appeal to the country; without doing so, they had no right to make a change in the law of such immense magnitude. If the Government did appeal to the country, he was not in the least degree doubtful as to what the verdict of the country would be. The English were essentially a God-fearing people; they read and reverenced their Bible; they would recollect that it was written in that Book that "the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God;" and they would

    1469
    unmistakably declare—"We will not allow fools to make the laws of England."
    MR. W. H. LEATHAM: Sir, I fear I cannot fairly criticize the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), because I did not hear the whole of it. After the luminous and exhaustive speech of the Premier on Thursday last it may seem unnecessary for me to say a word; but as I have constituents who have, in my humble opinion, entirely misunderstood this Bill, I seem obliged to make some statement, because I do not wish to be misinterpreted in the vote I am about to give in favour of the Bill. If I thought, Sir, that I was passing a slight on the Divine Being, whom we all revere, nothing could induce me to support the Bill; but I am unable to see how this can be the case, for the Oath remains for those who took it before, and the Affirmation remains for those who do not wish to take the Oath; but some hon. Members are pleased to say that the Affirmation was conceded to the Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, as religious bodies, who dislike the Oath, but, being religious persons, will respect the Affirmation. I ask, why should not an Atheist respect the Affirmation? Differing as I do from the Atheist in my own opinions, I cannot see any law by which he can be legally deprived of his rights as a citizen; neither do I see why he should be expected to tell a lie because he is an Atheist. I know that the clergy and a large number of the Wesleyan ministers, 950 out of 1,300, have taken up an opinion that, because a man is an Atheist, he is not to be admitted into this House. This is simply making a new law for Parliament. A good deal, Sir, has been said about Petitions, as if they were spontaneous productions, showing the minds of the people. I happen to know how the only small Petition I have presented against this Bill, out of a large constituency, was prepared and got up. It came from the village where I reside —in Yorkshire It emanated from the rectory. It was sedulously carried about by one of the rector's sons. It was brought to my house, and was signed by my wife, by my son and daughter, and by some of my servants, whilst I was in London. It contained rather over 400 names, and amongst these I counted 110 persons who had made
    1470
    crosses, being unable to write their names. Now, I do not wish to say a word against the young man who carried it round, nor do I know what arguments he used to induce people to sign it, for I believe he thought he was doing God service; but I entirely doubt that this multitude of Petitions is a spontaneous growth of the English mind, but the result of mistaken zeal on the part of the clergy and others. I think, after that magnificent speech of the Premier on Thursday night, some of these parsons must feel a little ashamed of having roused up the minds of their flocks by arguments which will not hold water, and which, to say the least of the case, were not reconcilable with justice or the rights of citizenship. But, much as we may dislike the opinions of Mr. Bradlaugh, we must see that even-handed justice is done, both as regards himself and the constituency he has been duly elected to represent; and for that reason I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. WHITLEY: Sir, if I could give a silent vote on this Bill, I should much desire to do so; but, representing, as I do, a large constituency which opposes this Bill, I feel that it would be inconsistent to the duty I owe to them if I were not to express, as strongly and ably as I can, the great objections which I entertain towards this Bill. I have listened very attentively to those debates; but I will only refer to two speeches which deal with the matter—the speeches of the Premier and the Attorney General. The eloquent tones of the Premier seemed to carry us away; but when we come to read the speech over and consider the burden of it, I think we must all be convinced of this—that the Premier was speaking against his own convictions, and against the principles he has so long, so often, and so eloquently maintained. A few years ago in this House he said that religion was interwoven with the life of this country, and that he would never be a party to anything that would take it away—that the very foundations of the country were based on religion, and if they were interfered with, they would, by an easy transition, be overturned. Those were the words the Premier used at the time. We were told of a change, and we asked ourselves what is the cause of the change, in the Premier's views, and we

    1471
    paused for a reply. No reason has been given for a change of view, no arguments have been adduced which would weigh with any Member of this House if they were calmly reviewed. What had the arguments been? The argument of the Attorney General and of the Premier was this—that we at this time were contending for Theism, that religion such as we have known, such as we believe it has been in the House of Commons and of the country, was not involved in the question, but that it was a mere matter of Deism. I confess I was struck—and I believe a great many Members were also struck—to see the ingenuity with which the Prime Minister diverted the views he entertained on this question. He told the House that these Oaths were not a religious test, and he went to ancient history to prove it. But I think he must have proved conclusively to the satisfaction of this House that they have been held as religious tests. What was the meaning of the debates on the Catholic Emancipation Bill, or on the Bill for the admission of Jews to Parliament, if those Oaths were not looked upon as religious tests? The Premier went on to say that those grounds had become defective; and ho ventured to tell us that we were contending for a mere rag and remnant of bigotry. I am not conscious of any feeling of bigotry; but there is such a thing as duty—a duty which we owe to our constituents, a duty which we acknowledge when we take the Oath. It is to that duty we address ourselves in endeavouring to maintain the sacred-ness of the Oath by which Members were admitted to this House. And I would ask what has been the cause of the change, or what has been the cause of the introduction of this measure? Will anyone tell me, or attempt to say, that there has been an expression of feeling in the country to cause it? How different to the days of Catholic Emancipation, when meetings were held all over the country! But with regard to this measure, there have been no meetings in favour of it, and no expressions of feeling throughout the country. But what expressions of feeling there have been, what meetings there have been, have been expressive of the horror of the country with regard to the introduction of this Bill. In the great constituency which I have the honour to
    1472
    represent, there was a largo meeting, many of the attendants being of all shades of politics, presided over by a man who had been a strong Liberal all his life, and he was surrounded by men of every religious view; and that meeting, by an unanimous vote, sent up a Petition to this House against the Bill, with a letter from the Chairman to me, saying—
    "I have been a Liberal all my life, yet, when the religious institutions of ray own country are attacked, I could no longer support the Government."
    Such, I believe, are the feelings and opinions of the people throughout the United Kingdom. I do not doubt for a moment that this is a view taken by the constituencies at large; and I do say that in a question of this kind, which so materially affects the future of our country, it is not right that a Government should force through this House a measure that would be ruinous to the future of this country. It is all very well for the Government to tell us that this should have no material bearing on the question; but we are told that there is no virtue in the Oath. If there is to be no Oath in the two Estates of the Realm, what is to become of the Oath taken by the governing Sovereign? Has that question ever been argued? The Prime Minister evaded it, the Attorney General evaded it; and I venture to say that if the Oaths with regard to the two Houses of Parliament are interfered with, there is no security that any Oath administered to the Sovereign would be maintained. Say what you will, this Bill is looked upon throughout the country as a departure from those religious principles which have ever been maintained in this country. Never, in my experience, has the heart of the country been so stirred. We ask you to give us an opportunity of appealing to the country. It is a vital question, for constituencies feel that we are tampering, against their knowledge and against their wishes, with the most sacred condition of a great religious country, who feel that those bulwarks which have so supported and strengthened the country will be removed. The other day the Judge Advocate General taunted us with the remark that we must regard our religion as a very puny thing, if we think it needs the protection of the Oath. We are fully aware that

    1473
    the cause of religion cannot be injured; but the safety of the State may be endangered; and it is because we believe the safety of the State will be endangered—because we say—"You are taking a leap in the dark, the end of which it is impossible to foresee—that you would permit the Government to thrust this Bill through an unwilling House of Commons, that we say let them make it an open question, and we cannot have a doubt then what would be the result of the vote about to be given." But I must say this—that I hesitate to believe that any of the Representatives of the people of England will have the boldness to go against the known wishes of their constituents. I do not believe the constituencies of England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales will support you in favour of this Bill. The illegality is not the illegality of the House of Commons; but it is the illegality of the electors of Northampton. I venture to say that in spite of all the arguments of the Prime Minister—arguments which I am sorry to hear him use, and supplemented as they were by the remarks of the Judge Advocate General, who said in that most extraordinary, that most inconclusive speech, that there was nothing to prevent a Fire-worshipper or a Devil-worshipper from coming to that Table to take the Oath—I confess that I heard such statements with horror. It is the inherent right of the House of Commons to protect itself; and if a Fire-worshipper or a Devil-worshipper presents himself at that Table, it is quite right for the House of Commons to do as it did in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh—prevent him from swearing at that Table. It is idle to bring up such cases as these. It is only to deceive the House of Commons and the country. But Englishmen, when cool and collected, will not be led away by such illustrations as these. They know—and everyone knows at the present time—that call this Bill what you may, it is simply a Bill to admit Mr. Bradlaugh into the House of Commons. Speaking for thousands—nay, millions— of the working classes of this country— speaking on behalf of many happy homes, which thrive under the religious institutions of this country, who believe that those institutions are safe in the custody of the Representatives in this House—I do ask the House to throw out a Bill which would be dangerous to
    1474
    the interests of the country. Let us not be afraid to give expression to our views. Let us endeavour to free the matter from the influences of Party. It can never be made a Party question. Let us maintain the Oaths which the Premier said a few years ago were interwoven with our public life, which he never would surrender. I have heard that we on this side of the House do not falter in our earnest convictions. We have no personal antipathy to Mr. Bradlaugh; but we hate and detest the doctrines which he advocates. We say they are dangerous to this House of Commons, and that it ought not to encourage them, and we ought to show our view of the miserable Bill by saying "No." And I ask you to appeal to the constituencies of this country; and I venture to say, if you do, they will return to this House men whose Oath this Bill seeks to destroy.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that in regard to the constituency he represented he had never, during three years, heard but one expression of opinion, and that was in favourof sustaining the rights of the electors of Northampton. He did not take the view of the Bill which many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had done. Because a largo majority of the House of Commons, or the large majority of the people of this country, disliked and shrank with abhorrence from the views of the Member for Northampton, that was not a reason why they should deny to that Member, or any elected Member, his rights. There had been Members of the House, of the highest position and respectability, who had been perfectly well known in society to hold opinions of an extremely negative character. If, however, they once laid down such a doctrine they might not stop there. It had been indicated by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the time might come when other opinions, even political opinions, might be brought in review. But ho wished to say that though they quite understood how generally all people in this country disliked the views which had been expressed by Mr. Bradlaugh, he thought quite as many men had been affected by his political and social views. But it had been admitted almost on every side of the House that the House neither had the power, or ought it to have the will,

    1475
    to exclude an Atheist. Everyone admitted that this Parliament, for the time of its duration, was able, contrary to law, by an arbitrary act, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from coming to the Table and taking the Oath. But it was generally admitted that if Mr. Bradlaugh, with all his notoriety, were to be reelected in a now Parliament, and were to come to the Table, there was no power in the House that could prevent him taking the Oath. It was not, therefore, as had been contended, a Bill of relief for an individual, except to the extent of the two or three years during which the present Parliament might have to run. Therefore, the Bill was a relief for the majority of the House, and not for an individual Member. He agreed, however, that he should have preferred some other legislation than this. He would have a Member come into the House as he came into a Town Council or any other elective body. Bet his election be authenticated, and let him take his seat. The whole tendency of modern legislation had been to sot aside these Oaths and to substitute an Affirmation; and he could not help thinking that, if there must be any declaration, it would be far better to have a statutory declaration. What was the value and meaning of the Oath to which so much importance was attached? Tie would point out that the whole history of these Oaths came down from barbarous times. He felt sure that nine-tenths of the Members of the House, if they were asked whether they considered the obligation of allegiance to law and the Crown were enhanced because they had taken the Oath at the Table, would say that it was not. It was said that the object of the Oath was as a guarantee of allegiance; but what in practice could be attached to the Oath as binding on the allegiance of hon. Members? They had seen a Convention meeting in Philadelphia to consider whether they should advocate a simple revolution, or whether they should add dynamite to their mode of proceeding; and they had received from England, from a Member of the House who had taken the Oath of Allegiance, letters and telegrams which, although couched in guarded language, were expressive of sympathy and approval. What, then, was the value of the Oath of Allegiance? Some of the
    1476
    most earnest men held a position towards received modes of thought which made them shrink from formulating their religious views. Carlyle was certainly opposed to materialism; yet he shrank from giving formal expression to his religious thought. Tennyson, in a well-known passage in his In Memoriam, summed up the varying views of this subject with the expression "behind the veil;" and he had understood that even the Member for Northampton rejected the doctrine of Atheism in its popular sense, his position being rather that he was unable to apprehend the meaning of the word God as ordinarily understood. [Mr. BRADLAUGH dissented.] Whether that was so or not, he had been informed by a Roman Catholic Member of the House that St. Thomas Aquinas felt that difficulty. ["Oh, oh!"] At any rate, was it wise to raise this storm in the country, and to alarm a great many ignorant consciences, and to begin a warfare which would result, sooner or later, in the establishment of the same religious freedom both for the Atheist and the Freethinker? It must be remembered that religious freedom did not mean merely freedom for religious people. Religious freedom must be freedom to form whatever conclusion on this subject the thinker pleased, whether positive or negative; and the present controversy was educating the people of the country to identify the cause of political justice with the cause of extreme religious free thought, and on that ground he disapproved of the present agitation against the measure.
    MR. M'COANsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the able speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley); but he desired to correct the erroneous impression it was likely to convey as to the real character and tendency of the opinions and teachings of the hon. Member for Northampton. That Gentleman had stigmatized Christianity as a system at once intolerant, bigoted, and false. On another occasion he had said—
    "Christianity has been a corroding, eating cancer, poisoning our life-blood, the enemy of progress, and the foe of science. What is Christianity? A blasphemy against humanity, a mockery of humanity, which has crushed our efforts and cursed our hopes."
    He would only quote one other extract, which related to the character of Christ—

    1477
    "The plan of salvation by an atoning sacrifice is repulsive in its details and immoral in its tendency, Christ's mission was a sham. In his agony ho proved himself a coward, and on the Cross his language proved that he himself had been deluded, and that he believed that he had deluded others."
    MR. BRADLAUGH(loudly, from his seat under the Gallery): No!
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): Order, Order!
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman—
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): Does the hon. Gentleman rise to Order?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will be good enough to state from what source ho is quoting, and what is his authority?
    MR. M'COAN: I perfectly understand the object of the inquiry, and, out of courtesy, I shall willingly answer it. I am quoting from a publication the accuracy of which has never been questioned, containing extracts from Mr. Bradlaugh's works, as published in a newspaper he edits, and other authentic documents. If anyone questions the accuracy—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman by whom they are published?
    MR. M'COAN: These statements have not been repudiated by Mr. Bradlaugh.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps, has not seen the contradiction; but they have been denied by Mr. Bradlaugh over and over again.
    MR. M'COAN: The statements I have quoted appear to have been made on various occasions. One of them is taken from page 12 of the report of Mr. Bradlaugh's discussion with the Rev. Mr. Robertson, the authenticity of which, I believe, has never been questioned. Another is from the discussion with Mr. Holyoake, a Secularist, but a man of a very different kind from the Member for Northampton. Both these discussions were public, and the reports of both were published. The third quotation is from the Newcastle discussion. None of these, to my knowledge, have ever been questioned.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise, Sir, to Order. I wish to ask you if the hon. Member has a right to state that these extracts are taken from the works of Mr. Bradlaugh, when Mr. Bradlaugh has absolutely denied that they are to be
    1478
    found in any published work of his, and when he has denied these statements?
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): That is a question for discussion, not a point of Order. If the hon. Member has made a statement which cannot be substantiated, it can be contradicted in discussion.
    MR. M'COANsaid, that Mr. Bradlaugh was also a part proprietor of The National Reformer. He held in his hand a bundle of similar quotations from that publication; but he would not trouble the House with them. He would now approach the simple issue before the House, which was, What did the present Bill propose to do, and for whom did it propose to do it? As he read the Bill, fence it as they might, its effect would be to dethrone the Supreme Being in that House, and to wipe out the name of God from the records of Parliament. At present, if Parliament were no longer unsectarian, it was, at all events, a Theistic Body, a Body believing in God. But this Bill would do away with the name of God altogether from the House. The Attorney General, in his speech, told at length the history of Parliamentary Oaths. But there was one great defect in that speech. He had concealed or overlooked the fact that, although such Oaths might have been primarily imposed for political purposes, and not as a theological test, yet they derived their whole force and value from the religious sanction which was inherent in them. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also concealed the fact that in the case of Quakers, and other persons allowed to affirm, their Affirmation was intended to be, and was, as religious as the Oath. If the Oath was now to be replaced by an Affirmation which retained the religious element and implied a sense of responsibility to God, in whose Name they made laws, he would not be much disposed to quarrel with such a change. But they were now asked to have an Affirmation which implied no sense of religious responsibility whatever. This might, perhaps, suit the tender conscience of Mr. Bradlaugh; but were they who knew his opinions and his teachings—which were alike odious and abominable—to regard his Affirmation as of equal moral value to that, say, of the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Could the two be placed on the same level? It had been held by the Courts of

    1479
    Law that Mr. Bradlaugh could not affirm. With all deference to the; opinion of the Attorney General, he believed also that Mr. Bradlaugh could not legally take the Oath. The fact was that, in bringing in this Bill, the Government had yielded to Radical pressure. No one who had spoken in favour of the measure had attempted to show that since 1868 any necessity had arisen for legislation on that subject, except in the solitary case of Mr. Bradlaugh; and it was trifling with the intelligence of the House, and with truth itself, to seek to deny that the object of the Bill was simply and solely to relieve him. So obvious was this that it was at first proposed to make the Bill retrospective; but that was more than some Gentlemen on the Ministerial side would swallow, and accordingly it was made prospective. That, however, was a change in form rather than in substance, because, if the Bill passed, Mr. Brad-laugh would go through the farce of another election and again present himself at the Table; so that no real concession would be made to the general feeling and conscience of the House. Another fallacy which pervaded the reasoning of the advocates of the Bill was the pretence that it was only another link in the chain of religious liberty, and that, as they had first admitted the Roman Catholics, and then the Jews, they should now logically go further and admit Atheists. It was, however, an insult to the intelligence of the House, as well as to the whole Roman Catholic body, to draw any parallel between them and Bradlaugh. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Bradlaugh.] He begged pardon; Mr. Bradlaugh. Again, there were Jews who were religiously as good as any Roman Catholic or Protestant. Equally, therefore, was there no analogy between the concession made to them, and this attempt to force avowed Atheists upon the House. The endeavour to establish such an analogy, indeed, only showed the logical straits to which the supporters of the Bill were reduced. Of hon. Members below the Ministerial Gangway he had no hope on this question; but he had faith of the constituencies behind them. He believed that nine-tenths of the constituencies of the Kingdom, if they were balloted to-morrow, would pronounce against the Bill. All Ireland, from Capo Clear to the
    1480
    Giant's Causeway, was against it; but he was sorry to learn that the hon. Members for Ulster had not the courage of their convictions, and, regardless of what they know to be the unanimous feeling of their constituents, had resolved not to vote. This was a pusillanimity which he could neither understand or respect. If the division on the Bill were to be taken by ballot, he believed that the majority in its favour would be a very small one—if there were, indeed, a majority at all. While a Judge and a jury had sent Messrs. Foote and Ramsey, two of Mr. Bradlaugh's fellow-blasphemers, to Holloway Gaol, a Liberal Government sought to bring Mr. Bradlaugh himself into that House—and, if Mr. Bradlaugh, dozens or scores perhaps like him a year or two hence. If it were, therefore, the last vote ho should ever give in the House, and if the fate of the Government were at stake, he would record it against this Bill.
    MR. E. A. LEATHAM: Sir, the hon. Member who has last addressed the House (Mr. M'Coan) concluded his remarks with an inconsistency which was quite Hibernian. He told us that if this Bill should pass, 500 Bradlaughs would be returned to this House; but a little while before he had informed us that the Bill was so unpopular in the country that those of us who ventured to support it would all lose our seats. The hon. Gentleman furnished us with a convenient synopsis of the fallacies by which this Bill is being opposed. He said that it was not desirable that avowed Atheists should be returned to Parliament, and therefore he opposed the Bill. Now, the answer to this objection is not far to seek. It is that the Oath does not exclude them. Even Mr. Bradlaugh has expressed his willingness to take it. But beyond this—and here is the very kernel of our contention — even if it wore possible to exclude them by an Oath, it would not be just to do so; because, in a country in which men of all creeds and of no creed are freely admitted to the rights of citizenship, and where the right of voting implies the right of being voted for, the Constitution suffers violence when a man not legally disqualified is returned to this House, but is prevented from voting and speaking as the Representative of those who have the right to send him here. The hon. Member opposes the

    1481
    Bill, also, because it is a Bradlaugh Relief Bill; and he seeks to prejudice the Bill by quotations, or what purport to be quotations, from Mr. Bradlaugh's writings and speeches. I have the authority of Mr. Bradlaugh, who is unable to open his lips in this House, for saying that those quotations are garbled and misleading. They are taken not from printed reports of Mr. Bradlaugh's speeches, but from a pamphlet by a Mr. Varley, which was published in 1880. When Mr. Bradlaugh saw that pamphlet, he wrote to the right hon. Member for North Devonshire (Sir Stafford Northcote), contradicting Mr. Varley's quotations, and offering to submit the truth of these to arbitration; but this Mr. Varley refused. Sir, I think we can afford to be fair, even to an Atheist. Now, I am not here as an apologist for Mr. Bradlaugh. It may very well be that he has written and said many things of which I do not approve. It may very well be that he has said and done some things in the prosecution of this very claim in which he sinned grievously against good taste. But, if what he demands be just, what have sins against good taste, what have any sins to do with our refusal of that? This is not a Court of Manners, or a Court of Morals, but a Court of Justice; and it is altogether unworthy of the judicial reputation of Parliament to deny any man justice, whatever his manners, and whatever his morals may be. Nor is it fair to call this Bill a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. We have passed other Bills for the relief of other classes of Her Majesty's subjects. They are not known as the O'Connell Relief Bill, or the Pease Relief Bill, or the Rothschild Relief Bill. And so it will be with this. It will be known as an instance of the fearless justice of Parliament long after the name of Mr. Bradlaugh in any other connection is forgotten. It will be known as an instance in which Parliament, in its anxiety to do justice, triumphed over pique, triumphed over resentment, triumphed over indignation, triumphed even over those respectable and inveterate prejudices which Mr. Hare thinks are the stopgaps in the hedge of truth, and, like other stopgaps, are often more difficult to get through than the hedge itself. And what, Sir, is the measure of relief which this Bill affords Mr.
    1482
    Bradlaugh? If the Bill were retrospective I could understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. But since it is not retrospective surely the relief is infinitesimal. Where is the hon. Member who, after being compelled to face his constituents twice already in the same Parliament, would find much relief in the fact that when the Parliament was on the wane, and when he knows that on the last occasion he was only returned by the barest majority, he had to face them a third time? But the hon. Member tells us that this Bill will dethrone the Supreme Being in this House. That such an argument should be used at all in an Assembly which day by day opens its proceedings by solemn and Christian prayer only shows how far hon. Gentlemen permit their judgments and their declarations to be warped by prejudice and passion. The real test and proof of our devotion to Christian principle is to be found in the completeness with which we impress it upon the legislation and the policy of this House. And so long as this remains, what does it signify if once in five or six years we omit the dubious spectacle of hon. Members scrambling for places round that Table, swearing by platoons, and kissing the Book in a volley? I do not accuse the House of intentional irreverence; but if this perfunctory performance be all that marks our recognition of the Deity, the Sceptic and Agnostic may go on their ways rejoicing. Now, this Oath is not a religious but a political precaution, and in times in which there is no dispute as to the Succession, it has lost most of its significance even as that. There are some religionists, as the noble Lord who spoke early in the evening (Lord Randolph Churchill) pointed out, who regard an Oath as absolutely forbidden in the Scriptures. Whether we go so far as that or not, we shall all admit that an unnecessary Oath is condemned; and just in proportion as an Oath loses its necessary character does it acquire the character which is condemned. I will go further; I think our whole system of Oaths-taking pernicious; but it becomes not only pernicious, it becomes positively impious, when we compel those to swear who deny the sanction of the Oath; and in that impiety we who compel them to swear, although we do not intend it, make ourselves accomplices. It has

    1483
    been feebly contended that we do not force Atheists to swear, because we do not force them to be returned to this House. That childish argument is of a piece with what used to be said when you forced Dissenters to be married in church. It was said that there was no compulsion, because no one compelled them to be married at all. All imposition of disability is the use of force; and, in conclusion, I would ask hon. Members who are attached to this Oath, and I have no doubt, conscientiously attached to it, where in the Book which they kiss they can find a single scrap of authority for the promotion or maintenance of religion by force? Sir, for these reasons I heartily support the Bill.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had rather pointed his observations at the Irish Members, he would trouble the House with a few observations. Although it was true that Petitions had not come in so freely against the Bill from Ireland as from different parts of Great Britain, it would be a mistake to assume that Irish public feeling was indifferent to the question before the House. Irish public opinion had been too often and too systematically ignored by that House; and it was only on questions in which very narrow class or personal interests were concerned that the Irish people ever troubled the House with a Petition. For his part, he did not regret this; on the contrary, he was very proud of the self-respect which had inspired such a determination on the part of his fellow-countrymen.. The attitude of the people of Ireland towards the Bill was not one of indifference; it was rather one of disgust; and the hon. Member for Northampton would find that upon this question there was more unanimity among Members representing Irish constituencies than upon any question which for a long time past had come before the House. On the opening night of the debate he had listened very carefully to the speech of the Attorney General, being anxious to know what arguments he had to advance in support of a measure which seemed to him to aim at the very foundation of religion and morality; but he confessed that he was disappointed. It was, perhaps, very ingenious as a piece of special pleading; but it certainly failed to carry conviction to hon. Members,
    1484
    and least of all to the hon. Gentleman himself, for he seemed to be labouring under an uncomfortable consciousness that every argument he advanced told against the principle which he sought to establish. The hon. and learned Attorney General indulged in an historical retrospect; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was clearly not satisfied with the retrospect of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and had pursued a different line. The Prime Minister quoted one instance where the House had imposed a test which appeared to be religious, but which the right hon. Gentleman admitted was in reality political — namely, the form of Oath in the Reign of Elizabeth. It seemed to him that this was an unfortunate illustration, which did not support the Prime Minister's position. If there were any analogy between that instance and the measure now before the House it must consist in this—that the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters were convinced of the loyalty of Atheism, and required no test of allegiance and no solemn Oath; while they cast suspicion on the loyalty of the Catholic, the Protestant, the Jew, and the Quaker by requiring them to asseverate their loyalty. The Prime Minister remarked that in the time of Elizabeth the Oath referred to was only required from Members of the House of Commons, the Crown, he said, being satisfied by other means of the loyalty of the Peers. Was the right hon. Gentleman, who would not require Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, "satisfied by other means" of the loyalty of the elect of Northampton? It was an insult to the religious convictions of the Christian and the Jew to say the Crown was so satisfied of the loyalty of Mr. Bradlaugh—of Atheism—that they would only require him to take an Affirmation, while they required the Christian and the Jew to guarantee their loyalty by a solemn Oath. The position of those hon. Gentlemen who supported the Prime Minister would be logical if they proposed to abolish the Oath altogether; otherwise he could see no consistency in the Bill. Was there anything in the Bill before the House to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh coming to the Table after it had passed and again scandalizing the Christian religion by taking the Oath? The Bill proposed to leave it optional with him whether he

    1485
    would take the Oath or an Affirmation. Was there any guarantee that Mr. Brad-laugh would not, when he came to the Table, demand the Oath instead of the Affirmation, and thereby again offend Christiam decency? Perhaps the Attorney General, who called upon the House to observe how respectably Mr. Bradlaugh had conducted himself since his election, would now assure them that Mr. Bradlaugh would not come forward under this Bill and outrage morality by taking the Oath instead of the Affirmation. But there was a broader question involved in this measure than the mere admission of Mr. Bradlaugh; and it appeared to him that the Members of the Government and their supporters who had joined in this discussion deliberately endeavoured to conceal the real issue. They accused the opponents of the Bill of trying to enforce on the hon. Member for Northampton a religious test. He denied that anyone on that side of the House desired to impose such a test. Those who maintained that they did were leading the House and the public astray from the real issue. What Members on that side objected to was that the moral foundation upon which the Oath and the Affirmation had been built should be swept a way for the accommodation of the elect of Northampton. If the Bill passed they would have no guarantee that the Atheism for which the Government was now legislating would be satisfied with the concession that had been made to it. Had they any guarantee that the civil institutions of the country would be safe from the further encroachments of Atheism? If the institutions of that House were altered in order to admit Mr. Bradlaugh, had they any guarantee that he would not soon set to work to extend to the man who blasphemed or profaned in the streets the same consideration that had been shown to himself? The senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), in the course of his speech, had warned the Irish Members that they were playing with edged tools in opposing this Bill, and some of the hon. Member's remarks seemed to have a particular reference to his (Mr. Harrington's) own case. The hon. Gentleman hinted at the possibility of the question being raised whether an Irish Member who had been in prison was qualified to take his seat. If the remark came from
    1486
    a person less friendly to the Irish Members he would have regarded it as a sneer at himself; but he would now only state that he was much prouder of the position he occupied as a prisoner for justice in Ireland than of his present position as a Member of that House, and if he were to appeal to his fellow-countrymen for their confidence he should rely most hopefully upon the fact of his having been imprisoned. References had been made to the admission of Catholics, Jews, and Quakers; but he denied that there was any analogy between their case and the present. The Oath was altered for Catholics, because the House knew that the amended Oath would be binding upon their consciences. In the same manner, Jews were admitted under an altered Oath, because the House knew that in its new form they would be morally bound to observe it. The same was the case with the Quakers. But did the House imagine that in the ease of Mr. Bradlaugh, who acknowledged no superhuman power, an Affirmation or an Oath would rest upon any moral obligation or bring with it any moral responsibility? His Affirmation would be no more binding than his verbal promise in any of the ordinary affairs of life. Why should this exception be made in his case? It seemed to suggest that the loyalty of others was more questionable, because in their case it had to be affirmed with a solemnity which in Mr. Bradlaugh'a case would be wanting. The Prime Minister said he did not fear Atheism; and that part of his speech simply amounted to an appeal to the House to abolish God and trust in Providence. The right hon. Gentleman also dwelt with great force upon the fact that all the measures the House had as yet passed for the relief of conscience originated in the grievance of some particular man, and he instanced the cases of O'Connell and others; but he would ask him if he thought this measure recommended itself to the House or to the public opinion of the country, because it was associated with the name of Mr. Bradlaugh. To him and to his political Friends it was the strongest reason for voting against it.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he could not but regret that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms),

    1487
    who, like himself, was identified with those whom Parliament had relieved from disabilities, should have referred to the Prime Minister as carrying a banner on which should be inscribed—"Bradlaugh and Blasphemy." He believed that in his calmer judgment his hon. Friend would regret those expressions. The hon. Member seemed to have thought that because it had been alleged that the admission of Jews into Parliament would endanger the religion of the country, therefore it was incumbent on him, as one of that body, to do what he could to protect the religious feeling of the country. This ground he (Mr Serjeant Simon) altogether repudiated. He had watched the whole struggle for Jewish Emancipation from its commencement. He remembered the first debate in Parliament upon it, and he recollected that the ground taken by those who advocated the removal of Jewish disabilities was, from first to last, that it was the right of every citizen to enjoy the privileges of the State while he bore its obligations, and that no man should be under disability because of religious belief. That was the broad issue upon which the battle was fought, and it was the same issue now. It was true the objections were raised by the Party opposite, who said that it would imperil the Christian character of the country; but those objections were given up when it was found that public opinion could be no longer resisted. He had no reason, as the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworlh) seemed to think, to feel grateful to Parliament for having given him that which was his birthright; but he did feel grateful to the great Party on his (Mr. Serjeant Simon's) side of the House, and to the eminent men who took the lead in advocating the cause, and who laboured through long years and under circumstances of great discouragement, until they achieved success. He felt it his duty, therefore, to obtain for others the same rights which he and his community had acquired. Indeed, he thought that the principle of religious liberty had been accepted by the Party opposite, and he was surprised to hear a repetition of the arguments that had been used against Nonconformists, against Catholics, and against Jews; for they were the self-same arguments. He should be the last to offend any man's religious feelings; but when the hon.
    1488
    Member for Greenwich talked about the religious feeling of the country, it should be remembered that religious feeling was a very elastic term, and that it had covered much that the progress of human thought now condemned. So-called religious feeling had stirred the worst passions and instigated the most heinous crimes. Religious feeling established the Inquisition; religious feeling lighted the fires of Smithfield and sent thousands to the stake. Calvin burnt Servetus, no doubt, from religious feeling. Religious feeling enacted the Penal Laws, and proscribed Roman Catholics, Nonconformists, and Jews. It should be remembered, then, that when religious feeling was evoked, it was a dangerous element, and not always entitled to implicit trust. In these days of toleration every phase of religious opinion was represented in the House, all the Members meeting on the common ground of man's inalienable right to think for himself in matters of religion —a right which surely could not be denied to the Atheist. To profess to allow a man to think for himself, and then to annex disabilities to his opinions, was to destroy religious liberty altogether. To limit the right of a man to think and to form, his own judgment was to deny freedom of conscience. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) could not accept such a position. He acknowledged no power on earth that had the right to stand between a man and his conscience, and to coerce, or control it. Par from shrinking from the Atheist, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South- West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said he did, he would try to win him over by gentleness and charity. Now, what was the position of Mr. Bradlaugh? He and his claim to enter Parliament might have been the occasion of the measure; but it was no more a Relief Bill for Mr. Bradlaugh, as it had been said, than the measure which permitted Baron Rothschild to take his seat was a Relief Bill for Baron Rothschild. It was simply intended to carry the principle of religious liberty to its logical conclusion, and he repudiated the notion of its being a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. Indeed, it would relieve the House rather than Mr. Bradlaugh; it would extricate the House from the difficulties in which it had placed itself by its erroneous interpretation of the law. As for Mr.

    1489
    Bradlaugh, if there were a General Election to-morrow he would be able to take the Oath without question; for a new House would not, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph I Churchill) had said, be charged with the knowledge of what he had done in a previous one. The House would have no power in the matter. The House was, and it would be the witness, and the witness only, to the act of taking the Oath. Reference had been made to the Evidence Act, under which Mr. Bradlaugh and others of his views were permitted to give evidence in Courts of Justice; and hon. Members who opposed the Bill had made very light of the matter, as if evidence in a Court of Justice was a more trifle. But had they considered what were the issues arising in Courts of Justice? They concerned not only property, but reputation, the happiness and well-being of families, perhaps of generations, and even life itself. The evidence of an Atheist might determine any one of these issues. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) could not conceive a position of greater importance and responsibility; and yet the same man was not to be trusted to make a promise of Allegiance. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had referred to the words of the Affirmation proposed in the Bill, and he had taunted the Prime Minister with them. He said that the words "solemnly declare" could not be uttered by Mr. Bradlaugh, because the word "solemnly" implied or included a religious sentiment. "How, therefore," he asked, "could Mr. Bradlaugh profess 'solemnly' to affirm, when he disclaimed all religious belief?" But the same word occurred in the affirmation made by Atheists in Courts of Justice. The witness, as an Atheist, and because he was an Atheist, was empowered and required by law "solemnly" to "declare" and "affirm" that he "will true evidence give." Thus, then, Mr. Bradlaugh, or any Atheist, could in a Court of Justice "solemnly declare" away property, and every right of the subject, even human life itself; but he must not come to the Table of the House and "solemnly"make a promise. Surely such a position was untenable. In its practical effect, what was the importance of the promise in comparison with the enormous importance and consequences of the other? The
    1490
    noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had accused Lord Coleridge of introducing political opinions into his judgment. No defence was necessary for a judgment such as that to which the noble Lord referred. If Lord Coleridge had not been already a distinguished man, it would at once have made his reputation as the author of a most masterly and luminous exposition of the law, and have placed him among the foremost of the judicial hierarchy. It was a judgment that stood in striking contrast with that of another Judge delivered not long ago, which displayed all the narrow prejudices of a shallow mind. Besides, all who knew Lord Coleridge knew that there was not a more earnest Christian. He hoped that the Bill would pass. He hoped so in order that there might be an end to unseemly controversies such as they had had for the last three years. It was time that these discussions about men's religious opinions should cease. It was not the function of the House of Commons to pass judgment upon such matters; and he took leave to say that it was not qualified to do so. He hoped it would pass, because it was the necessary and logical climax of the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and because it was the Constitutional right of constituencies to choose for themselves those whom they desired to represent them.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had stated that he did not identify this measure in any respect with Mr. Bradlaugh. His hon. and learned Friend could neither have read nor heard the speech of the Prime Minister when he made that statement. The hon. Member for Northampton had tried to show that the Petitions presented to the House did not express the honest sentiments of the country. But he must say that during the 18 years he had the honour of a seat in the House he had never known—not even in 1868, at the time of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church—such a spontaneous exhibition of feeling on any subject. He had been inundated by letters, pressing him to give the strongest opposition to the Bill. On Thursday next there was an idea that a division would be taken on the measure. On that day three years it was that this miserable controversy

    1491
    commenced; and from that time to this they had been disturbed by incidents, many of them most unpleasant, and some most deplorable. It was not the Opposition that were responsible for those unfortunate events. On April 26, 1881, a Resolution was moved by his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote), to the effect that Mr. Bradlaugh, on being re-elected,should not be allowed to take his seat. The Government was defeated, and that was the fons et oriqo of all those great difficulties and unfortunate incidents. The Prime Minister told the House that he would take no steps in consequence of that defeat, because there were judicial difficulties. But the right hon. Gentleman had in his day got over much greater difficulties, and if he had made the effort ho might have got over those. The Government of the day were then placed in this anomalous position — they handed over the rule of the House into the hands of the Opposition. They said that, upon all other matters except this, they would attempt to govern. At last, after many divisions, after numerous proceedings in the Law Courts, after a series of agitations and threats, they wore brought face to face with a mob at Westminster at the meeting of Parliament, and a demand made by Mr. Bradlaugh, backed by that mob, that he should be admitted to the House. That was a lamentable state of things. They were told by the Prime Minister that if they accepted this Bill it would be to the advantage of religion and Christianity. Why, 99 men and women out of 100 in this country, if they were not blinded by political or Party prejudice, considered that if the House gave way at this moment they would give a signal triumph to the cause of Atheism. Nor was it a triumph of the cause of Atheism alone; those who had read the history of other countries must know that the cause of Republicanism and Socialism was allied to the cause of Atheism. The Opposition were told that in resisting this Bill they were pursuing the ancient traditions of their Party. He ventured to assort that this Bill was not connected with the question of civil and religious liberty. It was not a question of toleration, or intolerance. What had the Prime Minister said on the 21st of May in the debate on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff)
    1492
    to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the Oath? He said—
    "The case raised is one of the utmost novelty and nicety. I believe it is a case absolutely new. There have been cases when Members of this House have themselves raised the difficulty. Members of this House belonging to the Society of Friends have in other days declined to take the Oath prescribed by law, and demanded the substitution of an Affirmation; but there is no parallel between their predicament and that of the hon. Member for Northampton."—(3 Hansard, [252] 195.)
    These words expressed the whole of the contention of the Opposition. It was a case of extreme novelty, and when they wore taunted with having opposed the admission of members of the Society of Friends, Jews, and Roman Catholics, the words of the Prime Minister were against such an assumption. The members of those Bodies represented large sections of the community, who believed in a Divine Being. The Prime Minister had told their that they tore religion in shreds, and only desired to retain this one shred. Their claim, however, was to retain that part which, in their opinion, was the be-all and end-all of their religion. If the Prime Minister was right, why was it they retained that form of prayer in which the High Court of Parliament was specially mentioned? Why did they not do away with prayers altogether in connection with the proceedings of the House? He must again repudiate all idea that they raised this question in any spirit of intolerance, still less that it was a mere Party move. So far as he was personally concerned, the movement had come to him from his constituents, and not to his constituents from him. But, supposing it was a political move, he did not quite know whether such an accusation came altogether well from hon. Members opposite. When the Liberal Party were in Opposition, there was nothing—a Slave Circular or anything —that they did not make a matter of Party move. There had been a good many political moves on the other side during the last week or two; one extraordinary movement almost seemed to suggest to them that there was some political crisis coming. It was the obvious desire of Her Majesty's Government to sweep all the fads and crotchets into one bag, and there was very great uncertainty and much danger as to what the result might be when they were formulated in legislation. In

    1493
    his experience—and he had seen a great deal of the working of Governments—it was not the important questions which decided their fate, but small questions which grew like this one. It was obvious, from the speech of the Prime Minister, that this was a question which he did not like, and ho gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for this—that when first the difficulty arose his first impulse was not to touch it. But they were now brought face to face with it; and, as far as his own efforts were concerned, he would give to this measure an uncompromising resistance to the bitter end, for he believed it to be fraught with nothing but mischief.
    MR. MARRIOTT: Sir, in the majority of the speeches made the speakers have objected rather to the circumstances in which the Bill has been introduced than to the principle of it. Of the many arguments now against the Bill, the first is that it is very unpopular in the country; and the second is that the circumstances under which it is brought in are humiliating. Well, Sir, these are somewhat contradictory arguments. The first charge brought against the Government, after these other charges, is that they are yielding to popular clamour—[Mr. WARTON: The mob.]— and, at the same time, we are told that the Bill is against popular opinion; and the Government can interpret what is popular opinion far better than the rest of us; and, if popular opinion is against them, it cannot be said that they are yielding to popular opinion. But, Sir, it seems to me that hon. Members opposite are yielding to it. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members say "No, no!" that they are not yielding to popular opinion; and yet they say it is on their side, and they point, in proof of this, to the enormous number of Petitions against this Bill, and to the few that have been presented in its favour. The number of the Petitions against the Bill and in its favour have been given by hon. Members opposite, and they have gone further, and have collected the number of signatures both for and against the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in his singularly able and masterly speech, has told us that the number of signatures against the Bill are four times more than those in favour. [An
    1494
    hon. MEMBER: Fives times.] Well, it is hard to say how far these Petitions are or are not a guide to public opinion. A debate has been referred to that took place in 1854, on Lord John Russell's Bill for the relief of the Jews. At that time only three Petitions, with 166 signatures, were presented to this House in favour of the Bill; and the Petitions against the relief of the Jews were 481, with 60,171 signatures. Therefore, the Petitions, so far from being four times, wore 400 times against that Relief Bill; and what happened after that manifestation of public opinion? Notwithstanding, and in spite of that enormous feeling against the Bill, four years after the debate referred to, the Jews were admitted to seats in this House under the Government of the late Lord Derby. Therefore, notwithstanding the number of Petitions presented against this Bill, we may prophesy that they will not have the effect of defeating the Bill now before the House. Hon. Members have taunted the Members of the Government with a want of sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh; while the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Gross) has stated that, before and since his election for Northampton, the Government have done their best that Mr. Bradlaugh should retain his seat in this House. ["Hear, hear!"] "Hear, hear!" says an hon. Member; but I think that the attitude of this House and the Government has been one of antipathy rather than of sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh, whose appearances here have had much the same effect as of a ghost appearing among women and children, and they have tried to avoid him altogether. I think it would have been far better if the Government had, two years ago, dealt with the question. If they had grasped the nettle and met all the difficulties of the position and brought in their Bill—if they had been true to their principles then and brought in their Bill, it would now have been passed and become law. But whether the Government were right or wrong then has nothing to do with the principle of the Bill, whether it is right or not. We have not heard much against the principle of the Bill, which is simply the extension of the principle of toleration. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members may say "No!" but, surely, when the Bill was brought in which enabled the Quakers, Separa-

    1495
    tists, and other religious people to take the Oath, it was on the great ground of toleration, and the great principle that opinion shall be no bar to civil rights. [An hon. MEMBER: Religious opinions.] All opinions. I say true toleration allows a man to hold what opinions he may, and says that they shall be no bar to his civil rights. Well, hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they will have toleration for a man's religious opinion, and not accord it to his scientific opinion. Well, if that is so, I think it is a new interpretation of toleration of opinion that will not find support in this country. I admit that hon. Members have not spoken much with regard to the principle of this Bill. They have rather dilated on what might happen if this Bill passes. If hon. Members go back, and read the debates which took place in 1854, they will find that those who opposed the admission of Jews indulged in similar prophecies, every one of which has proved untrue. In those debates, an hon. Member spoke who held very much the same position as the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) now holds. That was Sir Frederick Thesiger, afterwards Lord Chelmsford, who prophesied that if the Bill was passed it would be an attack on the Established Church, and it would weaken the Protestant religion and destroy the Christian character of the House. I would wish to ask if the Church of England is weaker now than it was in 1854? ["Yes!"] Well, then, all I can say is that if the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) thinks so, he disagrees with every Bishop in the country, as well as with the new Archbishop. They say the Church is stronger than it was 29 or 30 years ago. Is Protestantism weaker, or is the Christian character of the House destroyed? If Protestantism and the Christian character of this House depend on the utterance of certain words, and the performance of a certain ceremony in this House, then they are really destroyed. If the Christian character of the House depended, as all thinking men would say, on what it does, then he hoped that this Christian character was rather promoted than retarded. Hon. Members came forward and said they wished to maintain not the Christian, but the religious character of the House. He did not know if they thought that a particular form of words would have the
    1496
    effect of maintaining the Christian character of the House. In 1866 there was a debate on the Parliamentary Oaths Bill in this House; and a right hon. Gentleman, whose words had been received with attention, made these remarks, he said—
    "For my part, I have ever boon of opinion that the Established Church in this country does not depend upon oaths. I think the Church of England in all its branches is too strong, too deeply rooted in the affections of the people and traditions of the country, to depend for its maintenance upon any form of words of that character."—(3 Hansard, [181] 1713.)
    Do hon. Members opposite agree with that sentiment? Those were the words used by Mr. Disraeli. A word was dropped by the right lion, and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and also by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) with regard to the word "solemn," and the argument was that the word appealed to a higher power. I perfectly admit that in the old days the Latin words had that meaning; but the words now used depend not on the ceremony, but on the thing engaged. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has quoted the ancient Fathers, and, if I may so, with full deference to him, he mixed up the periods in which they lived; he makes a statement, which shows that the drift and all his thoughts was in connection with matters of opinion. He referred to the Arian heresy, and told us that the want of success of Arianism depended upon the will of a despot who lived at the time. That seems to me the whole value he placed on opinion. He does not think that things will prevail or not succeed because they are right or wrong, but that they depend upon the arm of the civil power. I say the whole history of the world shows that persecution, so far from retarding them, increased their spread. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What about Arianism?] I believe it exists at the present day. If the noble Lord wishes to go into the theological question, he will find that Arianism still influences Trinitarians, Socinians, and Quakers. Every religious theory has either succeeded or failed according to the amount of truth contained in it. We know that the result of the Edict of Nantes was to expel the Protestants from France, but the other result was to sow the seeds of revolution; and, at the present time, you may trace the great

    1497
    animosity towards the priests in that country to the persecution which had its origin in the application of the Edict of Nantes. I feel convinced that had it not been for the action of this House the opinions of Mr. Bradlaugh, to which I myself have the greatest possible dislike, would not have so far triumphed. Thousands of persons in the country have been stirred up to see what those opinions are. If an opinion gets abroad that a man is losing his civil rights, Sympathy arises with him in spite of the worse opinions he may hold; and now Mr. Bradlaugh is a more popular man than he was three years ago when he entered this House. I do not wish this Bill to be passed for Mr. Bradlaugh. He is the first instance—and it is for Mr. Bradlaugh in many respects—to whom the Bill would apply. But the question is, is the Bill right or wrong? [Several Conservative Members: Wrong!] I do not think it is wrong, but right, and that is why I shall give it my hearty support.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that those who had listened to the debate, and especially to the able speech of his noble Friend near him (Lord Randolph Churchill), must have felt that hon. Members who had addressed the House from the opposite side had hardly appreciated the importance of the subject involved in the Bill. Some hon. Members had addressed themselves to the task of attacking the Conservative Party now in consequence of the attitude they assumed on this measure; and some, like his hon. Friend who had just sat down, were in a difficulty because, at one time or other, they had voted in favour of the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh into Parliament. But if those who attributed to the Conservatives that they were actuated by Party motives in their opposition to the Bill would take the trouble to analyze the speeches delivered in favour of the Bill that night, they would hardly find that a single new argument had been addressed in support of the measure. And yet it was a Bill of very great importance. Nobody who had listened to the speech of the Prime Minister the other night could doubt that they were discussing a question of the utmost possible gravity, which, however grave it might be at this particular moment, was very likely to be of still greater importance before
    1498
    any very long period elapsed. For himself, he confessed that it was the gravest question he had had to approach in the whole course of his political life; and he did not desire to approach it in the spirit in which it had been approached by many hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. He had no wish to depreciate the motives of his opponents. He had no doubt that hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite to him, and who supported the Bill, were actuated by as honourable motives as he might claim for himself; but, at the same time, he said that they took a considerable amount of responsibility upon themselves when they ventured to assert that it was the Conservatives who were actuated by Party motives, when, in point of fact, they were opposing a measure which they conscientiously believed to be wrong. It was a satisfaction to them at last to grapple with the specific proposal by which the Government desired to settle the question, and as to which, apparently, they were unanimous. It was quite true that in order to arrive at an unanimous settlement the Government had considerably changed the view they first took; and, what was more remarkable, the change they proposed was one which cut away from under their feet the only logical ground upon which they had rested the Bill. The only ground on which the Bill was originally founded was the inherent right of a constituency to return to Parliament any Representative it might select. If, in other respects, the change was remarkable, it was most remarkable on account of the defence of the change in the Bill which had been made by the Prime Minister. None of them could forget the language used by the right hon. Gentleman the other night. The right hon. Gentleman told them first that the Bill was no longer to be retrospective in its character, because the constituency had had notice of the intention of Parliament to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh; but at last the right hon. Gentleman had to abandon that defence, and to fall back upon the allegation that the change in the Bill was founded upon the precedent of Roman Catholic Emancipation. This change was remarkable also because, as far as he was able to form an opinion, it was the very first time that Her Majesty's Government had taken one single step in the course of the three years' proceedings in oppo-

    1499
    sition to Mr. Bradlaugh. That might be a proposition which the other side of the House would hardly accept; but he ventured to say that whenever the question before the House was how Mr. Brad-laugh was to be admitted the Government supported him, and whenever it was a question of how Mr. Bradlaugh was to be kept out of the House, the Government went against the Conservative Party, and took no steps to exclude him. The Government now placed before the House a Bill which they alleged to be the true remedy for the situation in which the House was placed. Let him point out in one sentence what the situation was. An avowed Atheist came to the Table and claimed to take his seat. All legal means having failed, and Mr. Bradlaugh had attempted every one of them, ho next endeavoured to succeed by means of threats of violence; and the Government, who had refused to persevere in any measure for his relief until ho used those threats of violence, immediately they were brought forward came down to the House and introduced the Bill now before it. And they justified the Bill by alleging that it was based upon principles that were the very foundation of the existence of the Liberal Party; and they urged the House to pass it at once, because it was based upon principles which they said were immutable, and which ought to be applied to the present case. They had been told often, in the course of the debate, that they were making a great mistake when they alleged that the Bill was brought forward solely in the interests of Mr. Bradlaugh. He should like the House to apply this one single test. Putting Mr. Bradlaugh aside for the moment, would they have ever heard of this Bill? Would the Bill have been persevered with now? Would it have been brought forward now? Would any hon. Member in that House say that it would have been brought forward to the exclusion of all other Business if it were not for Mr. Bradlaugh? Then it was said very often that their objection to the Bill was on account of their objection to the man. Well, he did not altogether deny that. He shared the opinions that were felt on the opposite side of the House, and he was sure he was expressing the opinion of many men sitting on that side of the House when he said that this man had offended their feelings of religion almost
    1500
    as much as he had shocked their feelings of decency. He could not understand the remarkable parallel which had been drawn by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), when he attempted to draw a parallel between the early Christians and modern Atheists, inasmuch as their attempts to obtain recognition were equally characterized by bad taste. They were told that there were Atheists in the House already. Of course, they were sorry to hear that; but they had been so often told so that he supposed there could be little doubt of the fact. But was it any reason, because a man had slipped in without anything being known of him, and without publicly avowing his opinion on the subject—was that a reason why they were on that account to admit a man who came to that Table and openly avowed that his objection to take the Oath was because he did not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being? He believed, unfortunately, that they had Republicans in that House; he believed they were not absent even from the Treasury Bench. But those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had judiciously veiled their opinions; and could anybody say that because they had been able to enter the House by concealing their opinions, that a man was to be entitled to come to the Table and say—"I refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance;" and thereupon the Government were to introduce a Bill to enable him and all future Members of the same way of thinking to dispense with the obligation of taking the Oath? But now they were face to face with this Bill; and, looking at it fairly and impartially, he believed he might say with truth that the hatred of the Bill was not confined to that side of the House. The majority of the House on the one side and on the other hated the Bill. The Prime Minister had told them quite frankly that he detested it. The religious feeling of the country was, undoubtedly, opposed to it. They had heard that night how the Wesleyans regarded it. They had it upon incontestible authority that the Wesleyan Body was, by an enormous majority, utterly opposed to the passing of the Bill. If his hon. Friend who spoke early in the evening had chosen to prolong his observations so that he could have produced a Petition signed

    1501
    by a vast number of past Presidents and very prominent members of the Wesley an Connection, he would have found upon it the name of a man who almost commanded as much respect from those who differed from him in religion as those who agreed with him—the Rev. Dr. Rigg. Not only was this a respected name, but the names of most of the leaders of the Wesleyan Connection were attached to the Petition against the Bill, despite what had been said by one or two hon. Members as to the opinion of the Wesleyan Body. So also was it in regard to the Church of England. By an enormous majority the opinion of the Church was entirely opposed to the principles of the Bill. He believed also that the opinion of an enormous majority of the people of the country was opposed to it. It was perfectly true, as the Prime Minister told them the other day, that, after all, Atheism was not the main evil they had to contend with. There were some subtle forms of unbelief and Agnosticism that were eating like a cankerworm into the religious life of the country. That was a dangerous thing for them to contemplate and deal with; but the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell them that the public opinion now opposed to the Bill was only a momentary public opinion, and that it was a thoroughly unsafe guide to rely upon in determining the course they should adopt on a question such as that before them. But was Her Majesty's Government a safe guide in this matter? He should like to ask that question. They were generally wrong in their law, and they had always, he thought, misinterpreted the feelings of the House and of the country. On the Opposition side of the House, however wrong they might have been, they might, at least, claim credit for having been consistent from the first step to the last in opposing the admission of Atheists into Parliament. But if public opinion was so clear—if it was so absolutely clear that the Prime Minister admitted, it—ought not that public opinion to be followed? It was not a new phase of public opinion, because the country had had three years to reflect on the subject; and, as far as he could form any judgment upon it, the opinion against the Bill had strengthened from year to year. It was not as if the subject before them was a difficult one. The facts were perfectly plain. The
    1502
    question at issue before the House was a very simple one that everybody could understand; and he ventured to say that, having had this question before it for the last two and a-half years, the country had absolutely and finally decided upon it. It hated the Bill, and it hated the Bill first and foremost, he frankly confessed, because of its association with. Mr. Bradlaugh; and, in the second place, because it desired to maintain the religious character of the House, and because it wished to associate the religious element with all its proceedings from the beginning to the end. It was unnecessary for him to enter into the history of former precedents which had been brought forward in respect to the matter. He did not think that any one of them really touched the point they were now dealing with. His noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had pointed out, in the most conclusive manner, the way in which the present proposal differed from the proposal to which Parliament consented for the admission to that House of Jews and Quakers. He would prefer to direct the attention of the House to the consideration of the main argument which, as far as he had been able to gather in the course of the debate, had been urged in favour of the Bill. It was alleged that they, on that side of the House, desired to establish a test which was of no real utility, but which involved a denial of justice to Mr. Bradlaugh. Now, let them consider the question of justice. They were told that justice to Mr. Bradlaugh was of so urgent a character, that it was a matter which required to be dealt with so urgently, that they ought to put aside all other Business, of whatever importance, in order to press forward the Bill. He should like to ask, if that were so, and if it was so urgent that they should do justice to Mr. Bradlaugh, why was not this Bill brought forward long ago? Why was it not brought forward in 1881 or 1882? Why was it reserved for a time when it was open to the opponents of the Bill to say that it was no longer due to a sense of justice, but that it was extorted from their fears? Justice! To whom was it justice? Justice to Mr. Bradlaugh? Well, he did not think anybody on that side of the House would for a moment say that Mr. Bradlaugh did not deserve the fullest measure of justice; but so

    1503
    did the religious feeling of the people of this country. And if they assumed for a moment that justice was involved in this matter at all, then he said that the great mass of the religious feeling of the country, which was of opinion that great injustice was being done by this Bill being brought forward, was at least as much entitled to notice as the demands of Mr. Bradlaugh himself. But it was not a question of the denial of justice It was not a question of justice at all. What right had Mr. Bradlaugh to come forward to that Table and refuse to comply with a condition which they had imposed upon admission to the House? What right had he to call upon them entirely to abrogate the traditions to which they attached, perhaps an undue, but, at any rate, a conscientious importance? That was not justice; it was not common sense; and they were at least entitled to respect the feelings of the country as much as the violence of Mr. Bradlaugh and his party. In the second place, they were told that the condition which they desired to impose upon the admission of Members to that House formed a very narrow ledge upon which to rest the religious feelings of the country, and that it afforded a very poor safeguard. He might answer that in the words of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who had pointed out that even if this were an insufficient safeguard it was better than no safeguard at all. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) desired, also, to support that safeguard on a stronger ground. He supported it because it appeared to him to afford a common ground on which men of all religion, taking religion in its broadest and widest sense, wore able to combine for the purpose of declaring war against all forms of irreligion. It was quite true that Atheism was not the main evil. They had to deal with more subtle forms of evil; but what they contended for in the strongest manner was that they should close the doors of Parliament against men who professed open and avowed Atheism. If it were true that this afforded a common ground on which they could all meet and all oppose the common enemy, then it was a ground which they ought not hastily to abandon. They must not allow the enemy to attack them in detail. Let them endeavour, all of them who professed a
    1504
    religious opinion, whether they belonged to one sect or another, and upon whatever ground they founded their objection, to combine on a common platform in endeavouring to repel the common enemy. Upon this point he could not do better than venture to quote the opinion of one who, it would be admitted, was a great authority on the subject. Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the French Revolution, speaking of those who tolerated in the true spirit of toleration, went on to say—
    "They would reverently and affectionately protect all religions, because they love and venerate the great principles upon which they all agree, and the great object to which they are all directed. They begin more and more to discern that we have all a common cause, as against a common enemy."
    Then they were told that it was absolutely necessary to settle this question. That was an argument that came home to everyone with very great force. He quite agreed that it was most desirable to settle, if they could, this most irritating question, which had now reached a point which, he ventured to think, it never would have reached, if it had only been grappled with and dealt with properly at the outset. But, admitting all that, it was quite impossible to deny that there were modes of settlement which were oven more dangerous and objectionable than leaving the question unsettled. The point before them was not only how the religious people of this country would regard this settlement, but also, even more, how would the irreligious people of the country regard it? They would regard it as a victory and a complete triumph; they would hold that they had stormed the stronghold of the enemy. They would say that they had achieved a triumph of violence and had introduced Atheism, in high places. He would venture to read an extract from a letter which he had read that day, and which recently appeared in The Newcastle Chronicle, from "An Avowed Atheist." Any hon. Member who had not read that letter ought to read it, in order to ascertain how an avowed Atheist understood the Bill, and he believed that a great deal of information was to be gained from it. He would read one single passage from this letter of an avowed Atheist. [Cries of "Name!"] "Name?" The writer did not give his name. If

    1505
    he would give his name he should know how to deal with him. [An hon. Member: Does he sign his name as "An avowed Atheist?"] The letter was signed "An avowed Atheist," and this was what the writer said—
    "The Atheist objects to an oath chiefly because it identifies civil obligations with religious duties—because it is a leading sign among all civilized communities of an omnipresent and omnipotent Sovereign; of an Almighty God— the fear and knowledge of whom they say is the master-spring of every principle which can permanently secure the stability of a people With the aid of Christian Liberals, whose cause he has served so well, we Secularists believe that Mr. Bradlaugh is about to add to his other achievements by destroying the degrading symbol referred to. And the Parliamentary Oath once abolished, why should the Coronation Oath remain?"
    That was the spirit in which they saw an avowed Atheist approaching this matter, and the manner in which he regarded the result of the struggle now before them. Far be it from him to attempt, for a single moment, to minimize the very great mischief that was being produced in the country by the struggle now going on in that House. He was afraid it was producing consequences of a very grave character. But the real cause of the mischief, and the real cause of the existence of the evil now going on in the country, was not the struggle that was being carried on within the walls of that House, but it was the support which was being given to Mr. Bradlaugh, step by step and year by year, by men who were prominent in the political history of the country. Who had given Mr. Bradlaugh his prominence? [Cries of "You and the Opposition!"] He was very glad to hear that expression of opinion from hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it enabled him to tell the House what the very first step was which gave Mr. Bradlaugh his prominence. There could be no doubt of it—it was a matter beyond dispute, and he would like to read to the House what it was. In the year 1871, a right hon. Gentleman went down to Blackheath to make a speech to his constituents, and he took an opportunity of quoting in the course of that speech — which was directed in a Party sense against hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House—he took an opportunity of quoting, and quoting with approbation as full of good sense, some verses which he then read to the meeting, and which there could
    1506
    be no doubt whatever were written by Mr. Bradlaugh himself. The verses were taken from the Secular Hymns of Mr. Bradlaugh, and published by him in defence of Atheism. They were verses known to everybody who knew the writings of Mr. Bradlaugh to be written by him, and they were written for the purpose of spreading in the country the principles of Atheism against religion. [Cries of "Bead!"] That was the first time that many of them ever looked at the writings of Mr. Bradlaugh. It was the first time he himself ever looked at those writings or over thought of them, except as the writings of an obscure and mischievous agitator. The man who brought them to their notice was the Prime Minister. [Cries of "Read!"] He was not going to pollute the House by reading any of the verses from the Secular Hymns. The particular verse quoted by the Prime Minister was, no doubt, of an innocuous character; but it was one taken from a miscellaneous body of hymns which no man in the House could road without forming an estimate of their true character. The settlement now proposed was one which, at any rate, they could not accept on that side of the House. The settlement meant nothing more nor less than a surrender along the whole line. It meant that they abandoned their outworks and allowed the enemy to come in. It was neither a just nor a reasonable proposal, and they on that side of the House, however much their motives might be misinterpreted, and however much they might be attacked for endeavouring to keep a man out who had been elected by the constituency of Northampton, were not prepared to sacrifice their convictions to any consideration of external violence; and they were not prepared to trample with reckless indifference on the religious feelings or even the prejudices of the people of this country.
    MR. WALTERmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Walter.)
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would put it to the House whether it was the proper course to adjourn the debate after the intimation they had received from the Government that they proposed to take a private Members'

    1507
    night to-morrow? He should have thought, naturally, if they were to follow the ordinary custom in regard to prolonged debates, they would at least have an hour in which the debate could go on. It was far too early to adjourn the debate, especially if the Government were so pressed for time that they felt it imperatively necessary to take to-morrow night from private Members.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would be quite disposed to agree with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman if there was the slightest possibility of the debate being concluded that night; but that was not possible. If it were, it would not be unreasonable to ask the House to go on in order to accomplish so desirable a result. But as there was no possibility of the debate terminating that night, he thought it was desirable that they should adjourn it now at a time which would render it possible to proceed with some of the Business which remained upon the Paper, and which it was universally admitted ought to be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. He failed to see any connection between the question of adjournment at that particular hour and the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take the debate to-morrow.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Government were taking a new and a novel course. They were asked to adjourn the debate soon after midnight, when it was frequently the practice in debates of this nature to carry them on until 2 o'clock in the morning. Hon. Members on that side of the House were constantly being accused of Obstruction; but he would venture to point out that the House could scarcely feel much fatigue after an eight hours' Sitting. The Government had announced their intention of taking the whole of to-morrow night for this debate, but they had an alternative course; they might have taken a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and have left the evening for private Members. Their only advantage in taking the whole of to-morrow was that, by so doing, they would gain another hour or two. Still, why not take those two hours now, and leave the privileges of private Members undisturbed? It appeared to him that those who had Motions on the Paper for to-morrow had good reason to complain of the pressure put upon them, espe-
    1508
    cially when it was proposed to adjourn the debate at that early hour. He hoped the House would not assent to the Motion.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) could not have had much experience in the House, or he would have known that that was about the usual hour for adjourning debate. Whether earlier or a few minutes later was no very great matter, but it was the time usually taken for adjournment. There would be nothing at all unusual in adjourning now; whereas, after another speech, they would, perhaps, only have another wrangle for adjournment, and would waste a little more of the time which it was possible to utilize for the progress of other Business.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not fear another wrangle about adjournment, such as was hinted at by the Prime Minister, if the debate were to continue for another hour; but an opportunity would be given to a large number of Members who were not usually in the habit of addressing the House, but who desired to address it on behalf of their constituents on this question, and who had certainly a right to be heard upon such a question. Ho thought a great advantage would be gained by giving to such hon. Members an opportunity of continuing the debate for a short time longer. If his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) would withdraw the Motion for adjournment, and move it after one or two more speeches had been delivered, the debate would be greatly facilitated.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Berkshire would not be indisposed to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. It was an unusual thing, on an important question like that now under discussion, for the adjournment to be moved at so early an hour, and it certainly was unusual to hear the Prime Minister arguing in favour of adjournment at such an hour. They constantly found the Prime Minister resisting Motions for adjournment at hours much later than the present. He (Mr. Chaplin) had already intimated his intention, in which he should certainly persevere, of resisting the appropriation of a private Members' night to-morrow, and that intention was much strengthened by the course now being taken. He re-

    1509
    garded it as a mere device for obtaining an hour or two to-night for other Business at the expense of private Members to-morrow. He did not know how far the Government desired to avoid the question which stood first on the Paper to-morrow—namely the question of the repeal of the Vaccination Act. Personally, he thought it was desirable, in the interests of the country, to have a plain and unmistakable declaration from the Government as to the course they intended to pursue upon that question, and he certainly could not consent to the adjournment of the present debate at that hour.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought it was very unreasonable on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to resist the Motion for adjournment. The House would be aware that many hon. Members had been attending the sitting of Committees since 12 o'clock in the day, and he thought the Government were justified in the course they had taken. He therefore hoped the Government would consent to the adjournment of the debate, in order that they might proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he merely rose to make a suggestion. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Chaplin) that it was a very unusual thing to hear the Prime Minister favouring the adjournment of the debate at that hour. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not unusual, so far as he had a knowledge of the early history of the House. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) dare say it was not unusual in the happier days in which the right hon. Gentleman had known the House; but as long as he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had sat in the House it had been a very unusual thing to adjourn a debate at so early an hour. They were told that the object was to enable an important debate concerning the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to be brought on. Then why not take a Morning Sitting for that purpose, and allow his hon. Friends on that side of the House to continue the debate for another hour or two, when the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) could move the adjournment?
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that many hon. Members had risen to take part in the debate, and that a reasonable hour had already passed when they ought to
    1510
    be called upon to consider another important measure. In the event of the Motion for adjournment being carried to a division, it would be, at least, half-past 12 o'clock before the division would be over, and the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill could be reached. Did the Government propose to proceed with that Bill, because there were some very important questions to be discussed with regard to it? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state distinctly whether the Government proposed to go on with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill at so late an hour, because the answer might materially influence the course which hon. Members would take upon the present proposal.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that if a division was taken and the debate was adjourned, he should go on with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill for a certain distance; and he did not think that half-past 12 was an unreasonable hour for discussing the questions raised in that Bill.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had accused Members on that side of the House of having been guilty of unseemly conduct. He (Mr. Macartney) would ask if it was reasonable or unreasonable on the part of hon. Members to wish to continue the debate until the usual hour for adjournment on a subject that was so much disturbing the country and the public mind, and upon which they were all anxious to come to a proper and definite conclusion? There were a number of hon. Members who were not often in the habit of speaking at great length, and who were anxious to express their opinions upon the matter; and he thought the Government had consented to the Motion for adjournment less for the purpose of prosecuting Government Business than for postponing till to-morrow evening the consideration of a very serious and important question which the Government most likely wished to shunt, in order that they might have another week to make up their minds.
    Question put.
    [A Division being called for, Strangers withdrew.]
    Question again put.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): The Ayes have it. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Agreed!"]
    The DEPUTY SPEAKER thereupon left the Chair.
    Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

    CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 140.]
    (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. MACARTNEY and Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR rose to Order.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, there was no Question before the Committee. He would put the Question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MONKsaid, he had thought that Clause 7 was passed last week.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to move that the Deputy Chairman should leave the Chair. He did so in order that the Deputy Speaker (Sir Arthur Otway) might re-occupy the Chair, and that a point of Order might be submitted to him. Some minutes ago, before the Deputy Speaker left the Chair, his decision was challenged by hon. Members sitting on the Benches below the Opposition Gangway, and they had a right to have a division taken.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Deputy Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to raise another point of Order. The Deputy Speaker left the Chair without putting the Question whether he should leave the Chair or not.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the question was one of the progress of a Bill which had already been in Committee, and according to the practice of the House the Speaker left the Chair without putting the Question whether he should leave the Chair.
    MR. MACARTNEYasked in what way he could contest the question? When the Deputy Speaker first put the Question "Aye" or "No," there were loud and repeated cries of "No!" The Bell was rung and Tellers were appointed, and the Question was put a second time. There were a good many cries of "No!"—loud and repeated cries of "No!"—from every side of the House; but the Deputy Speaker refused to take a division, and chose to assume to himself the authority of upsetting the Rules of the House.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The hon. Member will see that it is impossible for me to give any answer to the question he has put, or to advise him in regard to it.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, a Motion had been made that the Chairman leave the Chair for the purpose of allowing the Deputy Speaker to come back again when the Question might be put to him.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was quite evident if the Chairman did leave the Chair, it would not enable the hon. Gentleman to raise the question as to an Order of the day from which they had already passed. [Cries of "No!"] They had passed from the Order relating to the Affirmation Bill and they were now on the second Order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman in the Chair left the Chair, that would not enable the Deputy Speaker, without a clear infraction of the elementary Rules of Business, to go back to the discussion of an Order of the Day which was anterior to the Order they had now reached. He apprehended that the proper time to complain of anything that might have taken place with respect to the first Order of the Day, would be after the rest of the Orders of the Day had been gone through, or else before the recommencement of Business at the next Sitting.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought they could not proceed with the present Business without the infraction of one of the most elementary Rules of the House, and it was for that reason that he supported the Motion, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair," the object of which was that a question might be submitted to Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the ground that he had passed over his clear duty in putting the Question from the Chair. When Mr. Deputy Speaker

    1513
    was reminded of the fact he felt sure that the present difficulty would be cleared up, and that the House would not then committ the grave illegality recommended by the Prime Minister of proceeding with one Order of the Day before a previous Order of the Day had been disposed of. The circumstances were these. A division had been called for, and Tellers had been appointed. The decision of Mr. Deputy Speaker that the Ayes had it was again and again challenged, notwithstanding which he left the Chair without the division being taken. He felt sure that on his attention being drawn to the circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the advice, if necessary, of the Clerk at the Table, would decide that they were now proceeding in error.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he felt sure there had been a misapprehension on the part of Mr. Deputy Speaker, and he thought the error they had fallen into in consequence ought to be corrected before they proceeded further with the Business of the day. He could personally bear testimony to the fact that the decision of Mr. Deputy Speaker was challenged by several Members on those Benches. So far from being in favour of the Motion for adjournment, he was at the time thinking of addressing the House on the question before it. He repeated his belief that Mr. Deputy Speaker had acted under a misapprehension; but there could be no doubt as to the facts that had occurred, which were as follows:—When the division was called, the Clerk at the Table came forward and asked who were the Tellers; having received an answer he retired to the Table, whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question from the Chair, and his decision that the Ayes had it was met with loud shouts of "No!" In face, however, of that challenge, he proceeded as if his decision was not challenged at all, and left the Chair. He felt sure that on the facts being laid before Mr. Deputy Speaker, he would at once correct the irregularity which had occurred; and for that reason he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor).
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, although it was most undesirable that time should be wasted, he ventured to think it would be but reasonable that
    1514
    some step should be taken with regard to what had occurred, which, as he understood it, was this. That, as frequently happened, the "Ayes" having been given and the "Noes" called for, there were loud cries of "Agreed!" owing to which the cry of the "Noes" did not reach the Chair. This last, however, was a point on which Mr. Deputy Speaker alone could decide, and he felt sure that everyone would be satisfied with the decision of the hon. Gentleman, who had always shown the greatest possible impartiality in the discharge of his Office. He thought there could be no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for Queen's County being assented to in order that a question of Order might be put to Mr. Deputy Speaker, whose reply he felt confident would bring this incident to a satisfactory termination.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, before the question was put in order to carry out the object stated by the right hon. Baronet, he would venture to suggest that the more proper Motion would be to report Progress, inasmuch as the Motion "That the Chairman do leave the Chair" would raise a difficult question with regard to further progress being made that evening with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had known an instance of a question of Order having arisen in Committee which could not be settled without the assistance of the Speaker; and the Chairman having in consequence been ordered to leave the Chair, so that the question might be settled, it had not put an end to the Business in Committee.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, this was not a question of Order. He felt sure the only correct Motion would be that Progress be reported.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he contended that by adopting the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, they would be admitting that the Deputy Chairman of the Committee had properly taken the Chair.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman should not be adopted. If a Motion were made to report Progress,

    1515
    unless he was misinformed, it would be impossible to proceed further with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. It was for that reason he moved that the Deputy Chairman leave the Chair, with the distinct object of submitting to the Deputy Speaker the point of Order which had been raised. He believed if that course were followed, it would be competent to them to proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 194: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 75.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTrose to Order. He wished to ask the Deputy Chairman whether he had been properly placed in the Chair? He felt sure no one was more anxious than the Prime Minister to maintain the regularity of their proceedings, and he had distinctly understood that right hon. Gentleman to say that on no occasion was a casual Chairman to be placed in the Chair without the consent of the House. If he understood the matter rightly, the hon. and learned Member (Sir Farrer Herschell) had taken the Chair without having been placed there by any authority whatever. He, therefore, appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as being cognizant of the Rules of the House, to say whether he ought not to have been voted into the Chair; and if that were so, whether a division, if necessary, ought not to be taken upon that question? For his own part, he regarded the hon. and learned Gentleman as not having been properly placed in the Chair, and he was anxious to know what was the course that ought to be taken under the circumstances.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would suggest what appeared to him to be the best course of proceeding. He might, however, first observe that his promised Resolution for altering the position of a casual Chairman had not yet been passed. The course which he submitted to the House was this. A certain number of hon. Members were under the impression that they had gone through the regular course of proceeding necessary to bring about a division; they had been, however, by some error of proceeding, or otherwise, prevented from
    1516
    obtaining that division. Speaking on his own conviction only and without pledging himself, he recognized that a difficulty had arisen and that they should find a remedy for it if possible. This they ought to do without violating any Rule of the House. He believed it to be a fundamental Rule that they could not go back and interpolate anything between one Order of the Day and that which preceded it; that was to say, if they arrived at a later Order of the Day by an irregularity, that irregularity must he questioned on its own ground, and not by setting aside the Order of the Day at which they had arrived. How then could satisfaction be given to hon. Gentlemen who desired to know how it was they had been prevented from obtaining a division on the previous Motion? It was too late then for his right hon. Friend to proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and that circumstance he believed would make the desired opening. The most regular and usual course would be that the matter should be raised upon Notice to-morrow. But he did not believe there would be any violation of Order in their prosecuting another course—namely, that when, after reporting Progress in the regular way, the present Order had been disposed of, they should go through the other Orders of the Day—the Government not wishing to raise any debate upon them that evening—simply for the purpose of postponing them. When those Orders had been gone through, it would be perfectly competent to any hon. Member, before the adjournment of the House, to raise the question with reference to Mr. Deputy Speaker having left the Chair under the circumstances. As he believed this course would meet the views of the House, he would move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Deputy Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, said, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister appeared to miss the point of contention. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that they were really sitting in Committee; but he and his hon. Friends altogether demurred to that assumption. The Deputy Chairman had been placed in the Chair for the purpose of going

    1517
    into Committee by a mistake on the part of the Deputy Speaker, who, on his decision being challenged, had not gone through the regular process of dividing the House; and, therefore, according to the proper course of Parliamentary procedure, they had not advanced to the second Order of the Day at all. That being so, he did not see how the error could, be corrected until the Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
    THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir ARTHUR OTWAY): I think it desirable to offer an explanation to the House with regard to the misapprehension which I regret has occurred. I put the Question of the adjournment of the debate, I believe, three times; and although the first decisions were challenged, there were afterwards loud cries of "Agreed!" and accordingly I put the Question a fourth time, and as I heard no response to the decision that the Ayes had it, I considered the Opposition to the Motion was withdrawn. If through a mistake of mine any inconvenience has arisen, I beg to assure the House that I greatly regret it.

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNRE-FORMED) BILL.— [BILL 6.]
    (Sir Charles Dilke, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. GLADSTONE, said, a short time ago he proposed to run through the Orders of the Day. He now proposed that they should enter upon no opposed or contested matter; and that the present Order, to which there was no opposition, should be allowed to go forward.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, said, it was clearly understood from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that no other Order of the Day should be proceeded with; and it was upon that understanding that several Members to his knowledge had left the House. For his own part, he thought there was a good deal of matter in this Bill that required consider-
    1518
    ation; and he would therefore move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Deputy Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, said, he desired that the Bill might pass through Committee, so that it might be reprinted with the Amendments that were on the Paper, and which had been agreed to. The great majority, he might say the whole, of the Corporations were desirous that the Bill should go forward. There should be time for the Bill to be reprinted.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTrose to a point of Order. He observed that the Deputy Chairman was in the Chair, and he wished to know how he had got there? As a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker made an explanation just now in the Chair, and walked out of it before Progress had been called. He (Mr. Sidney Herbert) wished to know, as a point of Order, how he (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL) had got into the Chair?
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The hon. Member is aware that a certain proposal has been put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with a view to fixing for the future the system on which casual Chairmen are to be appointed. Notice of opposition has been given, and the Motion has not come on; therefore, the old practice continues. When Progress was called on this Bill, at the request of the Member in charge of it, I took the Chair in the manner in which it has been usual to take it when the regular Chairman has been unable to do so. The regular Chairman is now occupied in filling the post of Deputy Speaker; therefore, I am in the Chair in accordance with the usual practice.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he had not meant to refer to any personal matter. He had only desired to draw attention to the fact that the Deputy Speaker had left the Chair without putting the usual Question.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The hon. Member would be quite right in the case of a Bill going into Committee for the first time; but when a Bill is already in Committee, the Speaker having left the

    1519
    Chair on a previous occasion, when that Bill is called on, and the Member in charge of it wants it to be proceeded with, he simply says "Progress," and the Speaker leaves and the Chairman takes the Chair.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, they were in a kind of "Comedy of Errors" just now. It was proposed to go on with this Bill; but it was a well-known Rule of the House that if a measure was opposed it could not come on after half-past 12 o'clock. There were Amendments to this Bill; and many hon. Members had left the House, believing that all the Orders would be run through, as had been proposed by the Prime Minister. It would be hard on those hon. Gentlemen to go on with the Bill in their absence. It seemed to him that the Government were taking an unfair advantage of hon. Members.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already said that hon. Members who have Amendments to the clauses which will be considered to-night were aware that the Bill was coming on. There are 18 Amendments on the Paper; 14 I can accept, two will not be moved, and the other two are in charge of hon. Members who wish thorn to be considered tonight. Under the circumstances, I do not think it can fairly be said that we have taken advantage of hon. Members.
    MR. MACARTNEY: Are all Members interested ready and prepared to have their Amendments discussed?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I had no idea that the hon. Baronet had been so successful in arranging with his adversaries. As I do not wish to impede the Business of the House, I will withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. O'DONNELLwished to know whether it would not be better for them to stick to the arrangement originally proposed by the Prime Minister and accepted by the House? If they did not stick to it, this would be a precedent authorizing, in the future, alterations of arrangements which had been apparently entered into and accepted by both sides of the House. Of course, it was always possible to bring forward reasons for changing almost any arrangement entered into, and, no doubt, there
    1520
    was good ground, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, for departing from the agreement into which he had entered with the House. The House, however, should maintain their side of the contract, whatever might be the views of the Government on the subject. Therefore, let Progress be reported, and let them run through the Orders formally, and meet on another occasion to go on with this Bill, when even the knotty question of casual Chairmen would be settled. He was prepared to make every allowance to the Government in regard to the habit they had contracted and the right they claimed of changing their principles on the shortest possible notice; still, he thought that the House, when it had been party to an arrangement, should adhere to that arrangement and see it carried out.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Deputy Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I would ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman to this fact. This Bill is necessary in the interests of the Corporations mentioned in it. A considerable waste of property has been going on for some time, and they are all anxious that some decision should be arrived at by the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he understood recently, from the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that the waste of public property was not confined to these Corporations. The allegation was made against Her Majesty's Government, so that it would, perhaps, on the whole, be well to enter into this important question, generally, on a future occasion. He knew the importance attached to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Head of the Local Government Board; but, even in consequence of that importance, would it not be well for them to discuss the matter at some more reasonable hour?
    MR. THOROLD ROGERS: The statement of the hon. Member is incorrect. The Prime Minister only said he would not proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he would point out to the Committee that, owing to what the right hon. Gentleman the Head of Her Majesty's Government

    1521
    had said as to going through the Orders of the day pro formâ, and not taking contentious Business, a great number of Members had left the House. They had just now been informed that those who had Amendments on the Paper were present and were prepared to move them—two Amendments, it was said, were to be moved. Well, he (Viscount Folkestone) looked at the Paper, and he found four Amendments down in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and he did not see the noble Lord in his place.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I stated that there were 18 Amendments on the Paper, 14 of which I could accept. I approve of all the Amendments of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, there might be some hon. Members who had left the House who might have thought it right to remain to move Amendments if they had not believed that the Bill would not be taken. It might be that the Government, by the course they had taken, had occasioned considerable opposition to the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)reminded the Committee that his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had stated most distinctly that every Member who was interested in the Bill was in the House or had given him charge of his Amendments. Therefore, the undertaking of the Prime Minister had not been departed from.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEthought most Members had understood the Prime Minister to say that he would go through the Orders pro formâ, in order that they might be read from the Table and a day fixed for their resumption. A great many Members had gone away under a misapprehension, and he felt that the Government had broken faith with the House by expressing their intention to proceed with the Business on the Paper.
    COLONEL MAKINSwished to appeal to the noble Lord not to persist. The Amendments on the Paper were, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had explained, Amendments which had been considered by the Members in charge of them with himself, and also by a deputation from the various corporations and constituencies concerned. He believed there was nothing of a contentious nature which
    1522
    would now be brought forward, and it certainly would be advantageous to many of the constituencies if the Bill could be gone through to-night. If any question should arise it could be taken on the Report. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no intention to take advantage of hon. Members who were absent.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, that as he had an Amendment on the Paper which the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept, he would appeal to the noble Lord to allow the Bill to be proceeded with, on the understanding that there would be an opportunity for moving Amendments subsequently.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had treated the House with the utmost fairness. Every engagement he had made he had kept most faithfully, and it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman to say so. At the same time, he could not quite accept the explanation given of what the Prime Minister had said, and he thought a fair compromise would be to go on with the Bill practically as unopposed, and then not take the other Orders.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, there was no intention to take any other of the Orders.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it was contrary to the practice to take Business which was opposed after half-past 12. To do that would be to establish an undesirable precedent. It might be desirable to go on with this Bill, but the House ought to be very cautious in establishing precedents even for the best possible object.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member had twice spoken under a misapprehension. There was no Rule of the House against proceeding after half-past 12 with a Bill which was already in Committee. This was not an opposed Order of the Day. It had been already in Committee, four weeks ago, when it was referred with the understanding that it should proceed.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the objections to proceeding with the Bill would not be pressed. On the whole, he thought a substantial explanation had been made by the Government.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it seemed to him to be a very great assumption on the part of the right hon.

    1523
    Gentleman to assume that only those Members were interested in this Bill who had placed Amendments on the Paper. There were a great many Members who were interested in the Bill who had not placed Amendments on the Paper; but now was it reasonable to expect them to wait to discuss the Bill at this hour? He had been engaged in Parliamentary duties since 12 o'clock in the day, and there were many hon. Members who, like himself, had been sitting on the Grand Committee on Trade all day, and subsequently had been in the House. To-morrow, at 12, another Grand Committee would sit, and it was not reasonable to expect Members to sit through so many hours as the Government seemed to wish. The Government not only had their own nights, but they proposed to take to-morrow; and now they wished the House to sit into the small hours. They ought not to throw an unreasonable burden on the House; and although he would not instigate his hon. Friend to go against what he might believe to be the sense of the House, he must protest against this system of taking important Bills at such an hour, when they could not properly be discussed.
    MR. BIGGARrose to Order, and said, the question whether the Chairman had any right to be in the Chair had been twice raised, and, as far as he could see, it had not been decided. One of the New Rules, as he understood, provided that no Chairman of the Committee should be in the Chair unless he had been formally appointed by the House, by a special Resolution of the House to that effect. It seemed to him that if the principal Chairman had to be elected by the vote of the House, the Deputy Chairman who took his place ought also to be elected by the House.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): On the point of Order raised by the hon. Member, I have already stated that although a change in the Rule with regard to casual Chairmen has been proposed, no such change has been made, and, therefore, I took the Chair in accordance with the established practice under which I and other Members have occupied the Chair.
    MR. BIGGAR: I know very well you said so.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): The hon. Mem-
    1524
    ber raised a point of Order with which I have dealt. On a Motion to report Progress the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing matters of this kind. He must confine himself to the Motion that I leave the Chair.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that until the question as to the position of the Chairman had been decided, Progress should be reported. The hour was now late; this Bill was one of considerable length, and a number of Amendments were of such a nature that they would require a great deal of discussion. He objected to the principle of going through important Bills in a haphazard manner, because the general result was that a fresh Bill had to be brought in in the following Session. This was one of the proposals by which time was wasted, and which caused the deadlocks of which they had already had experience this Session. He hoped his hon. Friend would not allow the Motion to report Progress to be withdrawn.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, they were passing through all the Business of the Government in a formal mode, and at this moment what more binding pledge could be expected from the right hon. Gentleman? He could fully enter into the spirit of the appeal made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna); but he wished to insist on the real point and substance of the whole issue—namely, that an agreement had been entered into with the House; and although the Prime Minister might have regretted that engagement, he had no power to go from it, and it would be an exceedingly bad precedent for the future to allow that to be done. The hon. Member had reminded him that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill had always treated the House kindly. He did not deny that a milder-mannered Minister never bombarded Alexandria; but the question was whether, having a regular agreement with the Government, they were to allow the Government to slip out of their agreement upon their own Motion? In order to protest against that he must take advantage of the Forms of the House.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 124: Majority 104.—(Div. List, No. 76.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Future abolition of corporations, except as provided by new charter, or by scheme under 40 & 41 Vict. c. 69).
    On the Motion of Sir CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord Randolph Churchill), Amendment made, in page 2, line 36, by leaving out from "scheme" to the end of the clause, and inserting, as a new paragraph—
    "2. Provided that until any such scheme takes effect the said property shall continue to he held, managed, and enjoyed as heretofore in like manner as if a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, in pursuance of this Act, had provided for such holding, management, and enjoyment, and for that purpose the persons managing the property shall continue in like manner as if they were a body constituted by the scheme for the administration of such property, but the legal estate in the property shall vest in the official trustees."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Inquiry as to places mentioned in first part of First Schedule).
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTmoved, in page 3, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words "the Privy Council shall cause an inquiry to be made into the expediency of advising," and to leave out the word "to" in line 21, and insert "shall." If the Amendment were agreed to, the sub-section would then read—
    "As soon as conveniently may be after the passing of this Act Her Majesty shall grant a charter extending the Municipal Corporation Acts to the several places mentioned in the first part of the First Schedule to this Act."
    There was a very strong feeling in most of the Corporations prizing their ancient Charters, that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) having put them in a Schedule by themselves would be to take away from them their old Charters. Was it to be understood that their old Charters would exist, and that fresh Charters would be granted, placing them under the Municipal Corporations Act?
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 20, to leave out the words "the Privy Council shall cause an inquiry to he made into the expediency of advising," and to leave out the word "two" in line 21, and insert "shall."—(Mr. Sidney Herbert.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilton (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had proposed this Amendment, as it enabled him to make a statement which he thought was expected by some of the Corporations as regarded their Charters. He had no doubt the statement would be satisfactory to them and to the hon. Gentleman also. To fix boundaries would be a work of great difficulty for the House to undertake, and it was the belief of all those who had carefully considered the matter that there must be an inquiry for the purpose of fixing boundaries. There was the difficulty of the School Board and Local Board districts, conflicting with the existing Corporation authority or any new one, and to grapple with the difficulty it was considered that some kind of inquiry must be held. He had consulted the Lord President of the Council, and he was able to state on behalf of the Privy Council that no real distinction would be made between what might be called the first half of the First Schedule and the second half of the First Schedule. They nevertheless proposed to grant the Charter recommended in cases where there was a desire amongst the inhabitants that a new Charter should be granted. There were some boroughs in the first part of the Schedule which did not desire it, but there were some in the second part of the Schedule which did desire it. Amongst the boroughs in the first half of the Schedule there were two where inquiries had already been held, and which by the Bill would receive their Charter at once, namely—Henley and Woodstock. An inquiry was held at Sutton Coldfield a long time ago; and as regarded Lampeter, Christ-church, Axbridge, New Romney, and Wilton, there was a strong local desire for the granting of a Charter, and he would do his best to have an inquiry held in those cases as soon as possible. As regarded Wilton he had received a Memorial signed by almost all the electors on the register, and by everybody who was in the town at the time except the actual members and officers of the present Corporation who did not like to sign the document on account of the position they occupied. The Memorial was in favour of the granting of a Charter, and he could not regard it otherwise than as representing the

    1527
    unanimous feeling of the town. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment for reasons he had given. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no delay should occur in making the inquiries.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken about the fixing of the boundaries. Would it be competent for any Corporation to make any proposal with regard to the extent of their boundaries?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, Corporations would have such right, and he intended to accept an Amendment which would enable Corporations even to exclude a neighbouring village or place.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, he understood Henley and Woodstock would have new Charters instantly, but under what authority?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had stated that an inquiry had already been held in those cases since the Royal Commission reported. In the case of Woodstock the granting of the Charter which should have been made last autumn was suspended on account of a local difficulty, and in the case of Henley the boundaries were under discussion at the present moment.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked if he was to understand that any Corporation who applied to the Privy Council might have their cases settled without the Act at all?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the cases he had mentioned would be the places where the inquiries would be held most rapidly.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked if there were any boroughs entitled to receive new Charters without any Bill of this sort?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there were not. He had spoken of a local difficulty existing at Woodstock, and that local difficulty was caused by the absense of this Bill. If a new Charter were granted to Woodstock and this Bill were not passed, there would be two Corporations co-existing in the borough; and that, of course, would be quite impossible.
    MR. EVANS WILLIAMSasked why there should be any inquiry at all? If the boroughs were put in the Schedule because they were considered fit to be reformed, and if they were willing to be
    1528
    reformed and brought under the Act of 1835, why should they not be allowed to come under that Act without further inquiry? one of the boroughs he represented was perfectly willing to be reformed; but it did not see why it should have a new inquiry, because it had already been inquired into by the Royal Commission of 1876, whose Be-port was the basis of this Bill.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, what he pointed out just now was that inquiries were necessary for the purpose of fixing the boundaries. It was most important there should be no conflict with the School Board boundaries or the Local Board boundaries. For instance, in the case of Henley, the old Corporation boundary ran through the middle of the town, and it was absolutely necessary to extend the boundary in order to bring in the population.
    MR. EVANS WILLIAMSasked if the Committee were to understand that the only object of the inquiry was to fix the boundaries, and not to ascertain the fitness of the borough to be reformed?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the general wish of the population must be ascertained. He had pledged himself that the Privy Council would not lay down so rigid a rule with regard to boroughs which had had a lot of old institutions as they would in the case of places applying for municipal institutions for the first time.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked if it was proposed to deprive existing Corporations of their old Charters? Corporations greatly valued their old Charters, and therefore he supposed the Charters would be handed over to the new Corporations under the Act. The borough he was particularly interested in (Wilton) held its Charter from the time of Henry III.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, Corporations would be granted new Charters, so that they could obtain the new powers. The old Charters would remain with them.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. HORACE DAVEY, Amendment made, in page 3, line 23, after "Act," by inserting—
    "and also whether it is expedient that any adjoining district not included in the existing Corporations shall be included in the places to which such charters may be granted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from "since" to the end of the clause, and insert "the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine." There was an inquiry at Sutton Coldfield just before the date mentioned in the Bill. It was thought better to bring the borough in without any fresh inquiry, and the Amendment was proposed with that object.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 30, leave out from "since" to the end of the clause, and insert "the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Power to Privy Council to preserve certain courts and officers).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEbegged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—namely, in page 3, line 36, after "Parliament," to insert "or as town clerk for the purpose of the registration of parliamentary voters." The Amendment was intended to clear up the question as to the registration of freemen in Parliamentary boroughs.
    Question, "That those words be there insorted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEalso moved for the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) to insert, in page 3, line 36, at the end of the clause, as a new paragraph—
    "(2.) Subject to the provisions of any Order of the Privy Council any person who at the passing of this Act holds an office by virtue of which he is such returning officer or town clerk as aforesaid may during the time limited for the tenure of his office continue to perform the duties of such returning officer or town clerk as aforesaid, and on the expiration of such time, or his otherwise ceasing to perform the duties, the said duties shall, so far as regards the returning officer, be performed in manner provided by the Act of the Session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter fifty-seven, intituled 'An Act to amend the Law relating to the appointment of returning officers in certain cases,' and so far as regards the town clerk shall be performed by the person in the parliamentary borough who is town clerk within the meaning of section one hundred and one of 'The Parliamentary Registration Act 1843.'"
    1530
    This and the several following Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) were the incorporation in this Bill of the clauses on this subject which were in the Act of 1835. As to the saving of right, the noble Lord had taken the same provisions as were contained in the Act of 1835.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Power of Charity Commissioners).
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that in line 2 of the clause provision was made for the appointment of interim trustees and otherwise. It would be well the Committee should have some idea who the trustees would be—to whom would be given the custody of the valuable documents and so forth.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, three years were allowed for the Act to come into force, and he hoped that in the course of that time all the inquiries as to boundaries and the like would be completed. The clauses relating to interim matters were only intended to guard against possible dangers.
    MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that supposing by any chance the Privy Council did not grant a new Charter, what was to become of the ancient valuable Charter?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, in case a new Charter was not granted, the documents and maces would be part of the property which would not be dealt with by trustees.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)moved, in page 4, line 34, to leave out from "scheme" to end of line 37, and insert, as a new paragraph—
    "(2.) If any such property has after the first day of March one thousand eight hundred and eighty three, and before the date at which a charter or a scheme under this Act, or 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as the case may be, takes effect, been alienated by way of sale, mortgage, grant, lease, charge, or otherwise, and such alienation has not been made in pursuance of some covenant, contract, or agreement bonâ fide made or entered into on or before the said first day of March, or of some resolution duly entered in the Corporation books of the Corporation on or before the said first day of March, or in pursuance of any right saved by this Act, and such alienation has been

    1531
    made collusively and for no consideration, or for insufficient consideration, such alienation may be set aside in the like proceedings (instituted with the consent of the Charity Commissioners or of the Attorney General) and in like manner as a lease of land of a charity granted without duo consideration may be set aside: Provided, That if a charter is granted or a scheme made whereby the property is affected, the said proceedings shall be commenced within one year after the charter or scheme takes effect."
    Also, in page 5, line 5, at end, to insert as a fresh, paragraph.—
    "(4.) Any Corporation or person aggrieved by an order of the Charity Commissioners under this Act may appeal to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council may, after hearing the parties, make such order as in their opinion the Charity Commissioners ought to have made; and such order shall have the same effect under this Act as if made by the Charity Commissioners."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9 agreed to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)moved, in page 5, before Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Reservation of rights of property and beneficial exemptions to freemen, their wives, and children.)

    "(1.) Every person who now is or hereafter may be an inhabitant of any borough mentioned in any of the schedules to this Act, and also every person who has been admitted or might hereafter have been admitted a freeman or burgess of any such borough if this Act had not been passed, or who now is or hereafter may be the wife or widow or son or daughter of any freeman or burgess, or who may have espoused or may hereafter espouse the daughter or widow of any freeman or burgess, or who has been or may hereafter be bound an apprentice, shall have and enjoy and be entitled to acquire and enjoy the same share and benefit of the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and of the rents and profits thereof, and of the common lands and public stock of any such borough or any municipal or other Corporation thereof, and of any lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and any sum or sums of money, chattles, securities for money, or other personal estate, of which any person or any Corporation may be seised or possessed in whole or in part for any charitable uses or trusts, as fully and effectually, and for such time and in such manner as he or she by any statute, charter, bye-law, or custom in force at the time of passing this Act might or could have had, acquired, or enjoyed in case this Act had not been passed: Provided that—

    (a.) The total amount to be divided amongst the persons whoso rights are herein reserved in this behalf shall not exceed the surplus which shall remain after payment of the interest of all lawful debts charge-
    1532
    able upon the real or personal estate out of which the sums so to be divided have arisen, together with the salaries of municipal officers, and all other lawful expenses which, on the first day of March one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, were defrayed out of or chargeable upon the same;

    (b.) Nothing hereinbefore contained shall be construed to apply to any claim, right, or title of any burgesses or freemen, or of any person, to any discharge or exemption from any tolls or dues levied wholly or in part by or to the use or benefit of any borough or Corporation; and after the passing of this Act no person shall have or be entitled to claim thenceforward any discharge or exemption from any tolls or dues lawfully levied in whole or in part by or to the use of any Corporation, except as hereinafter is excepted;

    (c.) Nevertheless, every person who, on the said first day of March, was an inhabitant, or was entitled to be admitted a freeman or burgess of any borough, mentioned in any of the Schedules to this Act, or who on the said first day of March was the wife or widow, son or daughter, of any freeman or burgess of any such borough, or who on the said first day of March was bound an apprentice, shall be entitled to have or acquire and enjoy the same discharge or exemption from any tolls or dues lawfully levied in whole or in part by or to the use of any borough or Corporation as fully and for such time and in such sort as he or she, by any statute, charter, byelaw, or custom in force on the first day of March, might or would have had, acquired, and enjoyed the same if this Act had not been passed, and no further or otherwise;

    (d.) Where, by any Statute, charter, bye-law or custom in force at the time of passing this Act within any of the boroughs mentioned in any of the Schedules to this Act, any person whose rights in this behalf are herein reserved would have been liable in case this Act had not been passed to pay any fine, fee, or sum of money to any Corporation, or to any member, officer, or servant of any Corporation, in consideration of his freedom, or of his or her title to such rights as are herein reserved, no such person shall be entitled to have or claim any share or benefit in respect of the rights herein reserved as aforesaid, until he or she shall have paid the full amount of such fine, fee, or sum of money to the treasurer of such borough, elected under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1382,' or to such other person as may be appointed in that behalf by a schema under that Act or under this Act;

    (e.) Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to entitle any person to any share or benefit of the rights herein reserved who shall not have first fulfilled every condition which, if this Act had not passed, would have been a condition

    1533
    precedent to his or her being entitled to the benefit of such rights, so far as the same is capable of being fulfilled according to the provisions of this Act, or to strengthen, confirm, or affect any claim, right, or title of any burgesses or freeman of any borough or Corporation, or of any person, to the benefit of any such rights as are hereinbefore reserved, but the same in every case may be brought in question, impeached, and set aside in like manner as if this Act had not been passed.

    "(2.) From and after the passing of this Act no person shall be elected, made, or admitted a burgess or freeman of any borough mentioned in any of the Schedules to this Act by gift or purchase.

    "(3.) Every scheme under 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 18S2,' or this Act, shall, if need be, provide for carrying this section into effect, and for the enrolment of persons from time to time entitled under this section, and a scheme may be made for that purpose or for the purpose of managing any property to which the said persons may be for the time being entitled."

    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Saving for vested interests).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)moved to insert, after "profit," in line 41, "or any other profit of a pecuniary value;" and, in page 6, after "rate," in lines 17 and 21, to insert "toll or due."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Saving as to Cinque Ports).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEintimated that clauses would be brought up on the Report saving the rights of the Lords of Romney Marsh. The Commissioners of 1876 were of opinion that the Municipal Corporation Acts might be applied to New Romney, but made no mention of Winchilsea. In the event of Winchilsea being included the local authorities, who were the mayor, jurats, and commonalty, would be required to give up the licensing powers they now possessed, which were extremely anomalous.
    MR. INDERWICKthought there would be no difficulty in that matter.
    MR. DILLWYNinquired when his right hon. Friend proposed to take the Report?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it would be printed in time for Amend-
    1534
    ments, and he would put it down for that day week.
    MR. PUGHasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give any idea of the amount of compensation that would be necessary under the Act before a new Charter was granted to one of those Corporations?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the great majority of these places with Corporations had only a population of something like 2,000, and there were several with a population smaller than that.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Saving for lords of Romney March).
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLASmoved the omission of the words "but only to the Corporation of Romney Marsh" mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act. If it were provided that the Act should not apply to the lords, bailiffs, and jurats of Romney Marsh, these words would not be necessary; but if there were any doubt upon the matter, he would move an Amendment upon the Report.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "but only the Corporation of Romney Marsh."—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that there were two corporate bodies connected with Romney Marsh. The whole position of Romney Marsh was peculiar and anomalous, and there was some doubt as to whether Romney Marsh was a Municipal Corporation at all, and there would be great difficulty in providing it with a separate existence. He admitted that there was a claim for considering the two bodies separately; but they were rather liberties than boroughs, and in the capo of both of them the licensing jurisdiction was anomalous. Licences could be bought or sold, which was highly objectionable. He asked hon. Members who were interested in those places to consider whether it was not desirable to effect some compromise, and to allow the county magistrates to exercise the licensing jurisdiction, re-

    1535
    taining the ancient custom for other purposes?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 19 agreed to.
    MR. LONGmoved, after Clause 16, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Saving as to Laugharne and Malmesbury.)
    "Whereas in Laugharne and Malmesbury divers of the Corporation, whether called burgesses, landholders, or any other name, have the right to occupy without rent or at low rents certain property belonging to the Corporation, and it is expedient to make provision with respect to such property, he it enacted as follows:—
    "(1.) In the event of a charter not being granted to Laugharne or Malmesbury, the property of the Corporation of the place to which a charter is not so granted shall continue to be held, managed, and enjoyed as heretofore, in like manner as if a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, in pursuance of this Act, had provided for such holding, enjoyment, and management, and for that purpose the Corporation in the said place shall continue undissolved in like manner as if it were constituted by the said scheme.
    "(2.) the Corporation of such place, subject to the approval of the Charity Commissioners, may sell all or any of the property of the Corporation for the best price that may be got for the same; and, after compensating or saving the rights of any person in such property, whether existing or prospective, may pay the proceeds to any public authority in the locality to be applied by such authority for the benefit of the inhabitants of the said place.
    "(3.) The provisions of this Act and of 'the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' for saving the rights and interests of freemen and of persons who might have become freemen, shall extend to the rights and interests of persons who are or if this Act had not passed might have become landholders, assistant burgesses, or capital burgesses in Malmesbury, and for that purpose freemen of Malmesbury may continue to be elected landholders, assistant burgesses, and capital burgesses."
    New Clause brought up, and read a first time.—(Mr. Long.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that if any hon. Member had any doubt as to the necessity of the clause, he would ask him to read the evidence taken by the Royal Commission.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM DAVIESmoved, after Clause 16, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Saving for Newport, Pembroke.)
    "Whereas it appears from the report of the Commissioners of 1876 that the office of mayor of Newport (Pembroke) is purely honorary, and that the Corporation has no revenue and no municipal function: be it therefore Enacted as follows:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent the election of the mayor of Newport (Pembroke) as heretofore, or to dissolve the Corporation of Newport (Pembroke), or deprive the lord of the manor or the burgesses of any tolls, rights of common, or other rights of a pecuniary value."
    The hon. Member said, he understood there was no objection to the clause.
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.—(Mr. W. Davies.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he assented to the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    COLONEL MAKINSmoved, after Clause 17, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Saving for Havering atte Bower.)
    "This Act shall not be deemed to apply to the tenants or inhabitants of the lordship or manor of Havering atte Bower."
    Havering atte Bower was not a Corporation in any sense; but he did not wish at that late hour to dwell upon the manner in which it differed from other Corporations. With regard to jurisdictions, the magistrates of Havering atte Bower had the right of licensing, but it was a right that was very rarely exercised. No doubt, they would feel great reluctance in giving up that right, if such a sacrifice were required of them alone. But as he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that all the anomalous jurisdictions in regard to licensing possessed by these bodies were to be put an end to, he would not ask to retain for Havering atte Bower privileges which were given up by other bodies similarly situated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause, and he might point out to him that there was already in existence an Act of

    1537
    Parliament 13 & 14 Vict. c. 105, which; enabled the county, of which this liberty formed part, to absorb the liberty if it so desired; but the fact that the county had taken no action under the Act to absorb the liberty, proved that both parties were satisfied with the condition of things now existing. There were certain privileges now attaching to the liberty of Havering atte Bower, which were valued very much indeed; and as Havering atte Bower was neither a Corporation reformed or unreformed, it did not come naturally under the Act. As its absorption was already provided for, he moved that this clause should be added to the Bill, saving the rights of the authorities.
    New Clause (Colonel Makins) brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEhoped his hon. Friend would not press the clause that night, if he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) undertook that further consideration should be given to the matter before the Report. The licensing powers possessed by Havering atte Bower were very curious and anomalous, and he feared that this clause would not have the effect of exempting the liberty from the operation of the Bill. The condition of Havering atte Bower was extraordinary and anomalous. There were three magistrates there, and two of them were actually nominated by a private individual, and the right of nomination had been sold before now. Although it was in excellent hands at the present moment, that might not always be the case; and it was certainly most undesirable to continue the licensing jurisdiction over a large area in the hands of three persons, of whom two were subject to the control of a private individual. He promised, if his hon. and gallant Friend would withdraw the clause, that he would consider the matter before the Report.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid he was quite prepared to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. Friend. He might mention in regard to these magistrates that the High Steward, who was one of them, was also a county magistrate, and also a licensing member, and therefore he acted in a double capacity. He quite
    1538
    agreed with his right hon. Friend that it was desirable to place the jurisdiction on such a footing that the state of things which had been described would no longer be possible, and with the permission of the Committee he would withdraw the clause, and communicate with his right hon. Friend, in order to arrange for another clause to be moved on the Report.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 1.
    On the Motion of Sir Charles W. Dilke, Amendment made in Schedule 1, page 1 2, line 4G, by leaving out "mayor, alderman," and inserting "high steward, bailiffs."
    MR. INDERWICKsaid he had given Notice of his intention to move to leave out "mayor, jurats, and commonalty of the ancient town of Winchelsea" from the First Schedule; but he did not propose to persevere with that Amendment.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 2.
    MR. BORLASEasked for information in regard to two boroughs that were included in the Schedule as places not mentioned by the Commissioners in 1876, to which the Municipal Acts might be applied, namely—Camelford and East Looe.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEstated that Camelford possessed a population of more than 2,000, and it was an increasing place. If there was any desire for the existence of a Corporation, there was no doubt that it ought to be provided. With regard to East Looe, it had a population of about 1,400, and it was desirable that inquiries should be be made in reference it.
    In reply to Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEstated that the case of Queen borough had already been considered. It was a place in the same category as East Looe. It was increasing rapidly, and had a good prospect of becoming a fashionable watering place, while it was already the terminus of a new route to the Continent.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

  MOTION.

    BILLS OF EXCHANGE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Monk, Bill to provide for the registration of dishonoured Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes, and to allow Summary Judgment thereon, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONK, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. LEWIS FRY, and Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 157.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— Second Reading— Court of Chancery of Lancaster* (43).
Committee—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation* (33).
Committee— Report — Mersey River (Gunpowder; * (46).
Third Reading—Contempts of Court * (45); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (Extension of Time)* (28), and passed.

LAND LAW (IRELAND)—LANDLOEDS UNDER THE IRISH LAND ACT.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDEESS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire whether the Irish landlords have sustained any loss owing to the working of the Irish Land Bill of 1881; and, if so, the amount of such loss; and to report whether according to legal precedent and justice they are not entitled to compensation for such loss,"
  said, he must ask the indulgence of their Lordships while he stated the reasons why they should agree to the Motion. At the same time, he thought that no apology was necessary on his part for bringing this important subject under

  1391
  the notice of the House. The subject was one of the greatest importance, and of vital interest to many of the most loyal of Her Majesty's subjects. To begin with, declarations made, both by the Prime Minister and the Bessborough Commission, made it clear that the landlords of Ireland came forward with clean hands in this matter, the former having given it as his opinion that "the landlords of Ireland have been on their trial, and, as a rule, have been acquitted;" while the latter had placed the fact what in England would be considered upon record that "it is unusual to exact full and fair commercial rent." The landlords, therefore, were free of any accusation of taking an unfair advantage of their tenants and exacting a rack rent. That the Act of 1881 had involved substantial loss to the landlords there could be no doubt. In the course of the discussions on the measure two years ago, the Prime Minister, the Lord President, and the Lord Chancellor, and other Members of the Government, had, indeed, most distinctly stated that there would be little or no reduction in rents; but these anticipations had not been realized, though he did not question the honesty of the opinions at the time they were expressed. When this question was brought before the House last year, the Lord President stated that the reductions would not continue, as they had taken place on a few high-rented estates; but, there again, the opinion of the noble Lord had not been realized. It was on these unfulfilled anticipations that the Bill of 1881 was passed; and their Lordships would see, therefore, that in all fairness and justice there was a legitimate cause for inquiry as to whether compensation was not due to the landlords. The Prime Minister, in referring to Mr. Parnell's claim that substantial reduction should be made in landlords' rents, stated "he could not distinguish between substantial reduction and public plunder." He would show that substantial reduction had taken place, and he asked for the inquiry to prevent public plunder. The Return of the action of the Land Court during the last three months of 1882 showed that there had been an average reduction, over all parts of Ireland, of 21 per cent; and when they remembered that that was a redaction from the net income of the landlords they would see how serious
  1392
  was the loss, because their taxes, payments, and other charges, continued exactly the same as they were before. But the loss did not end here, because a Return of the Lauded Estates Court showed that property in Ireland was very unsaleable at present; so that if a mortgage was called in it was impossible to borrow money. Thus it was quite certain that many unfortunate families, who had committed no crime, would be reduced to absolute penury and want. With regard to the claim to compensation under these circumstances, the Prime Minister, in 1870, said this—
  "The Legislature has, no doubt, the perfect right to reduce him to that condition" (that of a rent charger) "giving him proper compensation for any loss he may sustain in money.… if it think fit."—(3 Hansard, [199] 351.)
  And only last year he used this expression—"Landlords have aright to claim to have the loss that may be proved to be caused by the change in the law made good to them at the public expense." He was sure the State would not wish to act on any other principle, or take away the property of any one class without giving compensation. In all Bills dealing with private property for public purposes, a clause was inserted obliging the promoters to pay for such property under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act; and it was only owing to the acceptance of the repeated assurances of the Prime Minister and other Members of Her Majesty's Government that no loss would accrue to landlords under this Act that a similar clause was not inserted in this Bill. All that he asked their Lordships was to press Her Majesty to grant an impartial tribunal by which the losses sustained by the landlords of Ireland could be ascertained and redressed; and he did not see, looking at the precedents, how the Motion could be refused. What were the precedents in this matter? There was the Act of 1833, by which slavery was abolished, and regarding which Mr. Gladstone had said that while slavery was opposed to all English feeling, yet, as slavery had been accepted by law, it was only just and fair that compensation should be granted to the slave owners. £20,000,000 were granted in that case as compensation, of which the family of the right hon. Gentleman received £100,000. That was in respect of property in slaves. Looking at that prece-

  1393
  dent, he did not see how compensation could be refused to the Irish landlords. In the matter of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, full compensation was also granted to the clergy for their life interest; and again, on the abolition of Purchase in the Army, compensation was ganted to the officers to the amount of £12,000,000 or £14,000,000. In the matter of the changes which it was proposed to make in the licensing system, the principle that compensation should be granted to those who fairly sustained loss was accepted by the President of the Board of Trade. Again, in the case of change in the collection of the Income Tax, those who would be deprived of their situations were to receive compensation, though they held their places only during pleasure. Compensation had been, or was to be, granted in those cases because it was honest and just; and why should it be refused to Irish landlords? Another case in which compensation was paid by Government was that of the Alabama Claims, for the injury which that vessel did to American commerce. For a long time the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his Predecessor altogether repudiated the principles of International Law on which the claims were made; but the American Government insisted on the abrogation of all former rules, and under new rules the case was referred to arbitration, with the result that a sum was granted by the Government, which exceeded, he believed, by one-half the sum that the American Government received claims for. The American Government had force behind them; the landlords of Ireland had not, and they must trust in the justice of Parliament. Under the circumstances, he would ask their Lordships and the Government to decide fairly and justly, and to deal with the landlords of Ireland on the principle that they had observed in dealing with the property of Her Majesty's subjects in every other part of the country. He hoped the Government would put aside all considerations of Party, and would assent to the Motion which he now begged to move.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire whether the Irish landlords have sustained any loss owing to the working of the Irish Land Bill of 1881; and, if so, the amount of such loss; and to report whether according to legal precedent and
  1394
  justice they are not entitled to compensation for such loss."—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, his noble Friend had proved his case, in so far that he had shown that the landlords of Ireland had suffered much loss under the operations of the Land Act; but he was afraid his noble Friend was kicking against the pricks in asking for anything in the shape of direct compensation for an interest which had been injured by the Liberal Party. There were, however, public charges which pressed heavily and unfairly upon some classes in Ireland, and which ultimately came upon or affected the landlords, that should be dealt with. These charges included the interest paid on advances for the construction of railways and the instalments of drainage loans and land improvement loans, and they might be more equally distributed among the different classes, or reduced without serious loss to the Revenue. Since the Act of 1881 these charges, which were formerly distributed, now fell upon the landlords—that was, the improvements went to one class, and the charges to another. With regard to the minor drainage of the country, the so-called "improving tenants "—who were, it was said, going to do so much when they were relieved of the heavy hand of the landlords—had, in fact, ceased to make improvements, and were ruining their neighbours and themselves by neglect of ordinary works of maintenance. Lately, a case was before the Land Commissioners sitting at Naas, and it came out in evidence that lands were becoming deteriorated in consequence of the tenants neglecting the drainage. It was there stated, not by a landlord or agent, but by two Sub-Commissioners sitting in Court, that one of the most serious problems would be how they were to keep open the drainage of the country; and if some means were not found, the drains would be choked up, and lands would become worthless. He feared that with many tenants reduced rent would mean reduced production, to the loss of the community. The idea that rent was not a fair and just obligation, and was rather to be regarded as an odious tax, had been industriously circulated in Ireland, and the seed had fallen on such good ground that the opinion was now generally adopted. Country shopkeepers very often also held

  1395
  farms; they managed their trade concerns on commercial principles, but would not understand the rent of their farm to be met as a bill at six months. Even religion took side in this unfortunate controversy. He did not speak of the action of certain authorities in the Roman Catholic Church; but other forms of religion sympathized in the movement. He had heard of a case where a new valuation upon a large estate was unfavourable to the tenants, and the local preacher the next Sunday addressed his congregation upon the text—"The rent is made worse." There were certain conditions which were essential to the success of small farming; they were, good markets, good communications, and an industrial population of skilled agriculturists ready to work long hours; and all these conditions were wanting in Ireland, except in certain special localities. They must, therefore, fall back upon emigration, not the cruel banishment that had been described, but emigration judiciously promoted and encouraged by the Government; a judicious movement from places where it was now impossible to live, to places where the conditions of life were more favourable, and they must look for compensation more to indirect than to direct results.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he believed that it was at first the honest conviction of the Government that no injury would accrue to any fair-minded landowner from the operation of the Land Act of 1881; but he did hope that before the discussion closed they might have from some Member of the Government an admission that their expectations as to that had been disappointed, and that they had been mistaken. He ventured to say that outside the Government there was not a single Member of the House who had the slightest acquaintance with Ireland who was not convinced that the effect of that Act had been to work serious wrong in almost every part of Ireland. He was not going to discuss whether it was right or wrong to pass such an Act; but he wanted to point out, whatever was the intention of the authors, what had been the actual effect of the Act on the class who owned land in Ireland. The fact that there had been a very general reduction, and in some cases a most serious reduction, of rent could not be disputed. He would give the case of a considerable
  1396
  landowner in a Western county, in which the rents had been reduced 40 per cent, and yet those rents were very much as he had found them when he succeeded to the property. He also found charges on the property, and the result was that he was left absolutely penniless. Surely that was a case in which Her Majesty's Government should come forward and endeavour to afford some relief, either by paying off the charges or otherwise, so as to enable some portion of that estate so situated to be saved for the owner. In his case, the effect of the Act had been, so far from doing him no injury, to deprive him of every sixpence he had. He would give another case from a Southern county in which the estate had descended in the family from generation to generation, and in which the rents had had a character for being low. The tenants demanded a reduction of 30 per cent, and the landlord sent over the estate one of his tenants from another part of the country, and the result of his investigation was that, in his opinion, the rents were actually below the fair letting value at the present time; and yet the result would be that that landowner would also be left without one single farthing to live upon. It was exceedingly difficult for any landowner to know what to do. He had known cases in which valuers of practical experience had been sent over the properties by the owners with the simple instruction to put a fair letting value upon the land, and the owners had interfered in no sense whatever; and in every single instance the decisions of those practical men had been utterly upset by the Sub-Commissioners, and a large reduction had been made. Cases had also come before him in which rents which had been paid since the commencement of the century without any remonstrance had been cut down 20 and 25 per cent by the action of the Commissioners. That might or might not be right. But it was utterly impossible that the owner of that property should not consider that he had been injured by that Act. Another injustice was that the value put upon the tenant's interest in his holding was very often out of all proportion to what the actual value was. Within the last month a case had been decided by the Sub-Commissioners in which a farm had been let between four and five years ago at

  1397
  the rent of £50 a-year to a stranger, and had come into the hands of the landlord because of the insolvency of the former tenant. Within four years the tenant had appealed to the Sub-Commissioners, and they had decided that the rent had been and was a fair rent; but when they were called upon to fix the tenant's interest in the holding, they had fixed it at £250, which was exactly six years' purchase. Upon what principle, he asked, was that man, who had only been in the farm four years, entitled to six years' purchase, if the landlord wished to take possession of the land? A third reason for the deterioration of the property was the enormous sums paid by incoming tenants for possession. It was impossible, as everyone knew who was acquainted with the subject, for tenants to farm profitably under such an incubus; and the result generally was that they started considerably in debt for the money expended in purchasing the outgoing tenant's interest. That was his own experience; but he had also qualified that experience by the authority of one of the most experienced land agents in the North of Ireland, a gentleman who managed property, the rental of which amounted to £80,000 per annum. He had assured him that not only did the tenant borrow the money in the first instance to acquire the outgoing tenant's interest, but often had to borrow a second time to satisfy the chattel interests of his brothers and sisters in the land, so that the interest he had to pay for these loans obtained from the bank or the gombeen man frequently, exceeded the amount he paid for rent. Was it possible that a farmer loaded with such a weight at starting could do justice to the land? And, if not, was it not a distinct injustice to the landlord that the custom should be introduced where it never existed before, and where landlords had spent many thousands to avoid it? Was it not hard that the landlord should find his estates deteriorating year by year in consequence of this power of sale? He knew one case in which a tenant, after only five years' possession, sold his interest for three and a-half years' purchase, and left for America with the proceeds, leaving his successor to invest his savings, not in the land, but in the purchase of this right, when, but for the operation of the Act, he would not have been called
  1398
  upon to pay anything. If the land hunger really were such as the Ministers had described, they ought not to have stimulated it by introducing an enactment which only assisted an unhealthy competition, and benefited nobody except the present tenant. He did not wish to speak of any personal grievance, though he also had his own tale to tell; but this thing was steadily going on, and, for the most part, the small gentry of Ireland were ruined. He would give the House an illustration. Until four years ago a school of which he had some knowledge mustered 60 pupils; there were now seven, and the reason was because the smaller gentry were absolutely unable to give their children a liberal education. If that were the case, the time had come for the Government to take into consideration the position in which they had placed the landowners by their mistaken view of the effects of legislation. If they did not consider the time had arrived for any direct compensation to be awarded them, they certainly had a claim upon the sympathy— he might say, upon the justice—of their Lordships; and he was convinced that the more the matter was investigated by any reasonable and fair-minded man the more ready he would be to admit that the original expectation of the Act had been grievously disappointed, and that the result had been to do injustice to the large body of men whom he was convinced neither the Government nor their Lordships had any intention to injure.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down has been very fair in what he has said of the intentions of the Government in framing and carrying out the Land Act of 1881; but he has just concluded a speech which might have been made on the second reading of the Bill. He thinks that because a very important portion of the Bill—the provision for the sale of a tenant's interest—was thereby enacted and has since been carried into effect, this forms some grounds for a claim for compensation to the landlords. The noble Viscount admitted that he knew little of the Province of Ulster, and I think that was evident from the view taken by him of the sale of tenants' interests there. Now, our experience of the Province of Ulster was, to a large extent, what guided us in this matter.

  1399
  The noble Viscount seems to think that the right of sale of the tenant's interest implies and produces a low rent, while it also deteriorates farms and injures estates; but anyone who knows Ireland, and especially the North of Ireland, is perfectly aware that the fact is exactly the reverse. Our legislation, so far from being based upon theory—upon mere radical theory, as has been said— was based upon experience and upon the best Irish examples; and we know that the system prevailing in Ulster stimulates the industry of the tenant, and produces a state of things in which the farm is better managed, and the tenants more prosperous and contented than in any other part of Ireland. In spite of the occasional abuse of the tenant's right, the fact that the tenant obtains the value of his own interest, so far from reducing the rental in Ulster, has been, to say the least, compatible with a rental which is higher in Ulster, considering the nature of the land, than in any other Province of Ireland. All these facts were thoroughly within the contemplation of Parliament when the Land Act was passed. It is not for the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) or the noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) to quarrel with the consequences and to claim compensation; but in my belief the legalized system of tenant right, so far from doing any injury to the landlords, will increase the prosperity of the tenants, and with that the prosperity of the owners themselves. The noble Viscount mentioned two or three calamitous cases where, no doubt, landlords had suffered; but it appeared to me, as I followed him, that they were all but ruined before the Land Act took effect. These cases remind me of those which occurred at the time of the great Irish Famine, when many landlords were absolutely crushed by the public rates and taxes, and afterwards ruined by the forced sales which took place in the Encumbered Estates Court. I believe that those were far more serious cases than any which have occurred now. But, although I much sympathize with those landlords, the noble Viscount did not give us any proof that the Commissioners had violated the Act they administer by reducing rents. He only said these were old rents which had long existed. If there is one thing more clearly ascertained than another, both
  1400
  by the Land Commissioners and by the experience of numbers of Irish landlords, it is that there is many an old rent in Ireland which, although old, is not a fair rent within the meaning of the Act, but a high and excessive one; and, although it may be a presumption in favour of the rent, the mere fact of it having long subsisted is no proof that it is fair and moderate. Some observations were made by the noble Viscount and the noble Earl with which I must feel sympathy as an Irish landlord—that certain concessions or advantages should be given by the Treasury in the way of repayment of public charges. I should be glad to share in those advantages, but I am not authorized to represent the Treasury on that ground. When I come to the Motion of the noble Lord, I must say that I could not help contrasting it with that of the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Dunraven), which came before your Lordships this day week, which was of a useful and practical nature; whereas it appears to me that this discussion is one which can lead to no advantage to those whom the noble Lord represents, or to the House. As I am anxious not to get further than is necessary into the labyrinth of controversy upon this subject, I shall reply to the Motion as briefly as is compatible with respect for the noble Lord. But before I come to it I wish to say that the noble Lord evidently fixes his eyes on one side only of the questions; but does he suppose there are no other sides to it? I am not speaking of the tenants' point of view, on which a great deal might be said, but of the landlords'. Has he ever thought of the losses and evils from which the landlords of Ireland may have been saved by the legislation of 1881? Has he considered what the condition of the landlords would have been if the Government and Parliament had turned an absolutely deaf ear to the demand made on them by the whole tenant class of Ireland and the classes dependent upon them? That demand and movement was, no doubt, stained by outrage and crime, and was made use of for their own purposes by those who represent the cause of separation and revolution; but that demand and movement was a perfectly genuine one, founded, we believe, on good and sufficient grounds, and expressing the feeling of grievance and the desire for change by the whole

  1401
  tenant class, including the most loyal, orderly, and law-abiding of the Irish tenant farmers—the tenants of Ulster. And that was a movement so genuine, so universal, so strongly felt, so well based upon facts, that if it had been thoroughly Constitutional, as thoroughly Constitutional and orderly as the Anti-Corn Law agitation, or any other great popular movement, it would inevitably have had its effect upon Parliament, and must equally have succeeded. If we had turned a deaf ear to those demands, what would have been the condition of the landlords of Ireland? Does the noble Lord think that if the Government and Parliament had ignored all these facts they could have secured the landlords of Ireland from one end of the country to the other in the peaceful enjoyment of all their legal rights; that any Government in this or any other country could have permanently secured the landlords of Ireland in the peaceful enjoyment of their legal rights under the old and un-reformed condition of the Land Laws? I should like to put that question to the noble Lord, or to any other fair-minded man. If the noble Lord thinks so, I am bound to say I believe he labours under an entire delusion, and it is that delusion which has produced the Motion now before us. As to the Motion itself, he first asks for a Royal Commission—
  "To inquire whether the Irish landlords have sustained any loss owing to the working of the Irish Land Act?"
  I am not quite sure what the noble Lord moans by "loss." If he means to use the word in the way of comparing the condition of the Irish landlords under the Land Act with what it would have been without the Land Act, not comparing their condition with an ideal Ireland, but taking the Ireland of 1881, with all the facts of the case and all the dangers before them—if he means that kind of comparison, or means to use the word "loss" in that large sense, then, of course, it is not a question to be inquired into by a Royal Commission. If, on the other hand, he uses the word "loss" in the mere sense of a reduction of rent, as I believe he does, then I should say to him—"Is it not written in the Blue Books of the Land Commissioners? "The noble Lord is furnished with all the information he wants—he can ascertain what those reductions have been. They have been of
  1402
  the most varying kind, varying from nothing at all up to occasionally a high percentage. On the whole, the percentage has been steadily diminishing, and is, I believe, at this moment, something like 14 or 15 per cent, on the average, upon the cases coming before the Courts—not, of course, upon the rental of Ireland. The noble Lord spoke as if the whole rental of Ireland was before the Courts. That is far from being the case. Cases of excessive renting, being most complained of, have probably come first before the Courts, and the percentage of reduction is very considerably less than it was at first. Then the noble Lord asks the Commission—
  "To report whether according to legal precedent and justice they are not entitled to compensation for such loss."
  That, I submit, is not a question for a Royal Commission. It is one which we must decide for ourselves. The question is, what are the landlords to be compensated for? It is a very obvious fact, though the noble Lord seems to have dropped it out of his mind, that Parliament, when it passed the Land Act of 1881, intended that there should be a reduction of rent in Ireland in every case in which the rent was above the fair rent; and for such eases I do not suppose that the noble Lord intends to make a claim for compensation. How often such cases might occur, and how much of the rental of Ireland was above the fair rental, was a matter which it was utterly impossible to know for certain beforehand. But so long as the Land Courts in Ireland act within the terms and spirit of the Land Act, and there is no violation of its provisions, I submit to the noble Lord that nothing can have been done, no rent can have been reduced, and no loss can have been sustained by Irish landlords which Parliament, when it passed the Bill, could have contemplated as an injustice that would form a rightful subject of compensation. It is on these grounds that I put it to the noble Lord whether this is a Motion which he can expect this House to adopt. I have a very faint hope indeed that the noble Lord will ever be able to agree with me on the merits of this question; but as to his Motion, and to the appeal for compensation in consequence of those effects having followed from the Land Act which were clearly in the contemplation

  1403
  of Parliament when it passed that measure, I have some expectation that the noble Lord, or, at all events, this House, will be of opinion that such an inquiry as he proposes is absolutely unsuited to the circumstances of the case.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNwished to make one remark on an observation which fell from, the noble Lord the Lord President of the Council in reference to tenant right in Ulster. It was quite true that formerly in Ulster tenants had very often given large sums for tenant right; but in those cases no reduction was ever made from the rent of the landlord.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): That is what I said.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: But the noble Lord omitted to state that it was only since the Act of 1881 passed that large sums had been cut off from the rent of the landlord. The noble Lord was sanguine that the Act of 1881 would produce great benefits to Irish landlords; but, looking not only to the reduction of rent under that Act, but also to the large slice that was cut out of the landlords' interest for the tenant right, he (the Duke of Abercovn) was sorry that he was unable to concur in the noble Lord's happy expectations.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in reply, said, that according, he believed, to the last Returns before the House, the reductions of rent made by the Commissioners were 21 per cent. How, then, could the Lord President state that the reductions were but 13 per cent? The Lord President stated that the Land Commissioners were fair and just men. He did not deny that so far as it was possible in the circumstances in which they were placed; but what were those circumstances? A few days back the Prime Minister stated that they valued about 100 holdings per day. Those holding's might be taken to contain an average of 10 acres each, probably divided into fields of 1 acre each—that was to say, 1,000 fields—two-fifths of Land Commissioners and Valuers—say 30 each day. If they were as fleet as deer and as wise as Solomon, how could they go over, much less value, such an area within 10 hours? Again, these Land Commissioners held Office only during the pleasure of Her Majesty's Government. The Valuers appointed by the Com-
  1404
  missioners did not please the tenants. Her Majesty's Government discontinued them. With this example before them, how could it be expected that the Land Commissioners would act impartially? Again, the Lord President had asked, what rents would the landlords have got, save from the Crime Act? He asked how had the Crime Act become necessary, and what were the circumstances under which it had been passed? Whence had the agitation been encouraged? In the carefully-prepared speeches of the Prime Minister in Mid Lothian, what did he say to the Irish electors? "It was the Manchester murders and the Clerken well explosion that brought Irish affairs into the area of practical politics." These words were repeated at every Lund League meeting in Ireland. With what intent they were delivered he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) would not undertake to explain, but that they had contributed largely to encourage the organization of "The Invincibles" and the Dynamite Associations no reasonable man could doubt—nor could Irishmen forget that though there had been 50 murders committed in Ireland with entire immunity, the Crime Bill only came into the area of practical politics, when an English nobleman, the friend and kinsman of the Prime Minister, fell a victim! It was only then that Her Majesty's Government recognized the fact that it was their duty to suppress crime in Ireland. It was because they refused to fulfil this duty that Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster resigned. The Land League Conspiracy was a conspiracy, not only against rents, but against law, order, and English connection. Her Majesty's Government were well aware of this; but they valued the Irish vote far more than the fulfilment of their first duty, the preservation of life and property.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not rise to answer the general observations of the noble Lord, who has just spoken; but this is the first time I have heard the assertion made in this House that the Crimes Act was introduced after, and in consequence of, the assassination of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. That the Bill was actually brought into the House of Commons after that unhappy event is undoubtedly true; but I can assure the noble Lord that not only had the Government de-

  1405
  cided upon the introduction of that measure—and, if I am not very much mistaken, they had made an intimation to that effect in the House of Commons before that event—but the measure was in course of preparation, and it was as nearly as possible settled with the assistance of the present Lord Lieutenant (Earl Spencer) before he went over to Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As this point has come upon us suddenly I can only speak from memory; but I have a strong recollection that Ministers informed the House of Commons that considerable modifications would be made in the provisions of the Crimes Act in consequence of or after the sad event to which the noble and learned Earl has referred.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly, it is not possible to say that no modification was made, because, as I have just stated, the Bill had not been, in all its details, finally settled; but of all the modifications which were made, at all events, there was only one of any serious moment.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFOED: Mr. Forster, when he made a certain remarkable statement in "another place," said he would not have resigned the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Government had obtained further powers to strengthen the hands of the Irish Executive. I put it to your Lordships whether the very powers which this Bill contained would not have enabled Mr. Forster to remain in the Office of Chief Secretary? However that may be, we in Ireland, at any rate, believed that the Bill was in consequence of the frightful transaction which took place in Phœnix Park. I believe that even at this moment nine people out of every 10 in Ireland are of the same opinion, which is strengthened by the statement of Mr. Forster to which I have alluded.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I have not had the opportunity of referring to what took place; but I should be extremely surprised if my former Colleague, Mr. Forster, were to contest what I am about to say— namely, that the cause of his resignation was not in consequence of the refusal to give him fresh powers. So far as I remember, the point was whether certain persons should or should not be
  1406
  let out of gaol before further powers were granted. With regard to what fell from my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, I can confirm what he has said. The Bill which was brought in was agreed upon in all its substantial points, and was in print before that terrible murder took place in Phœnix Park. There were two or throe points left open for discussion, as would happen in measures of such importance, and, therefore, in that sense the Bill was not absolutely settled; but I repeat that in all its substantial details the Bill was settled before the murders of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, it is very difficult to enter into a discussion of this sort without Notice; but the facts, so far as I recollect, are these. Before the frightful tragedy in Phœnix Park the proposal of the Government was to take the Arrears Bill before any other legislation of a special kind with respect to Ireland; but after those murders took place there was a transposition, and the Crimes Bill then came to the front. Otherwise there could have been no promise whatever as to when that Bill would be brought on. None, I believe, was given to the House of Commons; but, naturally enough, when the murders took place, the order in which those two Bills were to be taken was transposed, though, no doubt, the Arrears Bill was to be considered pari passu with the Crimes Bill.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, the public were under the impression that, had it not been for the Phœnix Park murders, it was the intention of the Government to go on with the Procedure Resolutions, and then with the Arrears Bill, before introducing the Crimes Bill.
  On question, resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.