said, he would now beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this subject.

said, that previous to the right hon. Gentleman leaving the chair, he wished to give such an explanation in reference to the question as might possibly induce his noble Friend not to proceed with his Motion for going into Committee. It would be in the recollection of the House, that at an early period of the Session his noble Friend moved a Resolution with the view of making more general the examination by open competition for admission into the civil service. A discussion took place, followed by a division, after which the question had been postponed until the present time. Since that discussion took place the system then in force had continued in operation, and a considerable additional number of examinations and appointments had taken place. He would state to the House the number of examinations and appointments since the existing system was introduced in May, 1855, up to the 30th of June in the present year. The number of candidates nominated was 2,390, and of these 1,055 were examined in London, and 693 in the provinces, making a total of 1,748 persons examined. Certificates were granted to 564 persons on the London examinations, to 445 persons on the provincial examinations, and to sixty one persons on the reports of heads of departments, making a total of 1,070 persons to whom certificates were granted. The number of certificates refused on the London examinations was 318, and on the provincial 238; making a total of 556 certificates refused against 1,070 granted. Therefore the result was as nearly as possible that two persons succeeded in obtaining certificates to one who failed. That had been the practical result of the existing system up to the present time, and the House would see that it had the effect of separating the worthy from the unworthy candidates. His noble Friend proposed to carry to a still greater extent the system of open examinations, so that whenever a vacancy occurred in a public office any persons might offer themselves as candidates without any qualification beyond that which appeared on the examination, and if they happened to be the best they should be accepted. The plan at present adopted in reference to the superior departments of the Government, such as those of the Secretaries of State and the Treasury, was that, whenever a vacancy occurred, several candidates were selected by the head of the department and subjected to competitive examination to determine who was the fittest person to fill the vacancy. Now, the head of a department, though holding office by the precarious tenure of political power, therefore being only temporarily in his department, yet always had a strong interest in obtaining efficient servants for the conduct of the affairs of the department. He was, moreover, surrounded by permanent officers, who, by their advice, confirmed him in that feeling. Any gentleman acquainted with the spirit which now animated the heads of the public departments would be satisfied that, in reference to the appointment to vacancies, it would be the study of those heads to present such a number of candidates as would enable the Civil Service Commissioners to select persons fully adequate to discharge the duties they would be called on to perform. The House, therefore, would see that the system now introduced offered satisfactory securities for proper appointments. He would now take the case of those civil servants who performed functions the least responsible and important. There is a numerous body of these persons in the Customs, the Coast, the Excise, and the Post Office. The House would understand that any system of competitive literary examination was wholly unsuited to civil servants of that class. To discharge the duties of a tidewaiter, who had watch on the deck of a vessel and prevent smuggling, a man of sobriety and honesty was required, and it would be absurd for Government to require any superior qualifications. Let the House consider the ease of a letter-carrier in the country. The wages of that officer, if engaged every day, amounted to 12s. or 14s. a week; and, if engaged for only three days out of the seven, his wages were not more than 6s. a week. Now, anything of an extensive competitive examination in respect to such a class of persons, with questions proposed by examiners, would have an air of ridicule attached to it, and the House must admit that such a system was not applicable to them. There was, besides, an intermediate class, and he very willingly admitted that the principle advocated by his noble Friend had great recommendations in respect to that class, comprising, as it did, many persons in the superior branch of the Revenue Department and clerks nominated by the Treasury. With respect to the Secretary to the Treasury, that officer, not being the head of the department for which his nominations were made, was not interested to the same extent as the head would be in obtaining efficient servants. Therefore that class of appointments required some additional security to that which now existed. Having communicated with the Civil Service Commissioners (Sir Edward Ryan and Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who were most excellent public officers, he could state that the result of their experience was that examination by competition, where the number examined was not considerable, did, on the whole, produce more satisfactory effects than any other kind of examination, and the candidates were more efficient in the performance of their duties. Their experience, however, was in favour of the gradual and cautious extension of the principle of appointments by competitive examination. The question, then, was by what means, and in what form, that principle should be extended? The House must see that there was a difficulty in laying down any universal rule, which would operate so that all candidates for office in the public service should be brought up to London in order to undergo a competitive examination. If the examination was merely for the purpose of ascertaining that the candidate possessed a certain prescribed set of qualifications—that he had attained a certain standard, that examination could be conducted in any part of the United Kingdom by proper arrangements. But if every appointment was to be made on the principle of competition, it would be necessary to bring every candidate to one place. They could not conduct an examination by competition in different places any more than they could have a race of different horses without bringing them all to one spot. Supposing that the three capitals—London, Edinburgh, and Dublin—were selected as the places for examination, a great advantage would thereby be given to persons living in or near those cities, but a person resident in Wales or Cornwall might not be willing to incur the expense of a long journey on the uncertainty of the result of the examination in his case. The consequence would be, that under such a system, a sort of monopoly would be given to persons residing in the vicinity of the three capitals. Therefore there was considerable practical difficulty in the way of laying down any universal imperative regulations on the subject. He thought that means might be found for having examinations in different parts of the country, and for affording facilities for candidates to come forward; but he did not think it would be fair immediately to lay down any such universal regulation as would impose on all candidates for public office the necessity of coming up to any one particular place, He quite admitted, however, that experience was in favour of the principle recommended by his noble Friend, and it would be the study of the Government, by gradual moans, by feeling their way as they advanced, by avoiding those difficulties the existence of which experience might point out, to give as much extension as could with safety and propriety be done to the principle advocated by his noble Friend. He trusted that his explanation would satisfy the House that it was the sincere wish of the Government to carry into effect, and to give as much practical extension as circumstances would permit, to the principle of competitive examination for appointments in the civil service. That principle was adopted last year, and had afforded to the public the greatest amount of security for efficiency in all the branches of the civil service.

said, he would submit to the noble Lord whether it would not be desirable, after the explanation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Order of the Day for a Committee on the subject should be discharged? The position of the question was now satisfactory to those who desired to see the system of competitive examination further but cautiously extended, and it would be unwise, in his opinion, to press the matter too hastily. It would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the understanding that the system would be carried out in the spirit indicated.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on a former occasion, delivered such a speech as the one just made, he should have felt it his duty to have left the question in the hands of the Government. He felt bound, however, to say that nothing could be more gratifying than the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the present occasion. In the Address which he (Viscount Goderich) had moved on a previous occasion he took care to use terms calculated not to tie up the hands of the Government, because he felt then, as now, that they were of course far better judges on such questions than any private Member. He was most ready to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the promises contained in his speech; and, though the measures Government proposed to take were not specified, yet he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman adopted the principle enunciated in the Address as a sound principle, and was ready to act on it in those branches of the Civil Service to which he thought it applicable. He therefore did not propose to proceed any further with his Motion for going into Committee, especially as it would be useless to do so at the present period of the Session. He was willing, therefore, that the Order of the Day should be discharged, undertaking, however, to bring forward the subject again if he found that the Government did not act in the spirit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech.

said, he entirely concurred in the course taken by the noble Lord in withdrawing his Motion. He thought the principle might be carried out quite as far as the noble Lord intended when he first brought forward his Motion, but at the same time he was always ready to accept the honest and earnest promises of the Government. What they wanted to get rid of, as far as they could, was the principle of nomination. The recent examinations by the Society of Arts had shown that properly qualified persons would be obtained from various parts of the country, persons who had been educated in Mechanics' Institutes, and other humble institutions of a like character, those being persons who would probably never obtain nominations. At the same time he was willing to accept the offer of the Government, and he quite agreed that any change of the kind must be carried out prudently, cautiously, and wisely.

said, he also was willing to accept the compromise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he looked upon it as only a step in advance towards the attainment of the ultimate end—full and free competition. The Dean of Hereford, perhaps the highest authority on national education, in discussing the advantages of open competition for public offices, said, in his pamphlet on the reorganisation of the civil service, that—

"If established by legislative enactment, it will do move for the advancement of education than a Parliamentary grant of many hundred thousands a year, or than any Bill for the extension of it which the country is prepared to adopt at the present time; it will do this also on the best possible grounds, by holding out motives of an honourable kind to all classes of society to educate themselves, and will show them that good character, knowledge, industry, and fitness for the discharge of official duties, in whatever rank of life, will meet with their appropriate reward. It will be the very best Education Bill which Government can bring forward."

said, he rose to move that the order for going into Committee on this Bill be discharged. Considering the late period of the Session, and following the advice which he had received from various Gentlemen whom he had consulted, he had come to the conclusion that he should not be doing justice to the merits of the question if he were to call upon the House now to go into Committee on the Bill. If the Session, however, had not been so far advanced he should not have been deterred by the singular expedient which the Government appeared to have adopted of calling upon the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) to go shares with them in the blame of rejecting the Bill, He had too much reliance on the shrewdness and sagacity of that hon. Gentleman to think for a moment that he would allow himself to be made the cat' spaw of the Treasury Bench in getting rid of a measure which they themselves were "willing to wound, yet afraid to strike." He did not think that the hon. Gentleman was the man to lend himself to helping the Government out of the predicament into which their own intrigues had brought them. The interpolation of the Nawab of Surat Treaty Bill into the private business on two successive Wednesdays had prevented his bringing the Bill on before, and the abridgment of that day's sitting, coupled with the state of business in the House, did not allow the least hope that it could be satisfactorily disposed of during the course of the Session. He should therefore leave the Government in full possession of the advantage which they had so honourably achieved, though it was no great exertion of chivalry or generosity on his part to say that he did not grudge them one particle of the credit which their proceedings in this matter had gained for them in that House and in Ireland. Of the personal explanation which he had been fortunate enough to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary it would be superfluous cruelty to say one word, because, though it was most exceptional in tone and temper and was rather offensive than defensive, to attempt to refute it would be something like the undertaking of a well-known alderman "to put down suicide." If the right hon. Gentleman should on any future occasion feel it his duty to oppose any measure of his, he only hoped that he would accompany that opposition with arguments and statements such as those which he had advanced against the Bill now before the House. According to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had been ordered by the Government to make, the Government had voted for the second reading of the Bill because they acknowledged the justice of its principle; but they opposed its further progress because they wished to prevent that principle being carried into operation. It might be said that he had no reason to complain of that course, because it was precisely the course which the Government adopted with their own Bills; but, as nobody that he knew of took the slightest interest in their Bills, while a whole people took a deep interest in this Bill of his, he might be permitted to object to the parity of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman apparently found ample satisfaction for his own intellectual shortcomings in dwelling on the state of destitution to which, he said, the Irish Tenant League had been reduced. Though the Irish Executive might be bankrupt in sense, the right hon. Gentleman found consolation in the fact that the Irish Tenant League was bankrupt in circumstances. That, he apprehended, was not a very strong argument at best, but its strength was very much diminished by the fact that it was unfounded. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion was to the effect that the Tenant League was so bankrupt that six of its members were obliged to club together to guarantee the payment of £6, but he had been misled partly by a typographical blunder, and partly by his own wilful indiscretion. On the death of the Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) a temporary suspension took place in the operations of the League, and it being found that two sums amounting to £54 and £60 (not £6) were owing, the payment of them was guaranteed by several of the members of the League, but at the next general meeting the whole matter was settled. How the right hon. Gentleman used the argument which he drew from the weakness of the League he could not see. If it was good for anything it was an argument against the second reading, and not in favour of it. The policy which guided the quantula scientia was, that when Tenant League was strong and active the just principles which it advocated must be paltered with, but if it was weak and inactive the principle might be trampled on. It was to be hoped that during the recess the right hon. Gentleman would devote himself to a study of the geography of Ireland and of the habits and wants of the Irish people, of which he seemed at present to be profoundly ignorant, and perhaps in the course of the next Session he would be able to furnish the House with some ideas of his own as to the justice of the principles on which this Bill was founded. Instead, too, of engaging himself in importing into Ireland a scheme of English legislation which was as unacceptable an importation as himself, he might well employ his leisure in devising some scheme for the reformation of those Irish Members by whom he was at once supported and besieged. He should conclude by moving that the Order for the Committal of the Bill be discharged.

said, he felt himself called upon to condemn the anomalous course taken by the Government in respect to their support to the second reading of the Bill; and he would also enter his protest against the proposition that the true sense of the House was taken on that division on the principle of that most objectionable measure. He had been greatly opposed to the Bill, but all those who were in the same circumstances had waited for some exposition of the views of the Government on the subject. The consequence was that the Bill had a majority in its favour on a division taken early in the day in a very small House, when many hon. Members who intended both to speak and vote against the measure were not present. He protested, therefore, against the assumption that the deliberate sense of the House was recorded on that division.

said, he considered there was a deeper and graver question connected with this Bill—namely, whether that House was the proper tribunal to redress an amount of grievance admitted to exist by tourists, writers, Englishmen, and every one who had taken the trouble to look into the question of Irish grievances. It was admitted on all hands that the question of landlord and tenant which had agitated so long the Irish mind ought to be settled. He objected to English and Scotch Members deciding questions which had reference to Irish wants. Was Ireland to be legislated for by Scotch and English ignorance? Were those Members the proper parties to legislate for Ireland? On a previous division there were not fewer than eight Irish Members to one in favour of the measure—that was with regard to the whole division; the majority on the other side being made up of English and Scotch Members. The retrospective clause was also defeated by forty-eight to nineteen Irish Members, the others being English and Scotch Members, the majority against the clause being only thirty-six. It was determined not to give justice to Ireland, lest a precedent should be set of doing justice either in principle or detail, It was high time for the Legislature to interfere, and to say how Ireland's opinion was to be expressed through their representatives the Irish Members.

said, he wished, as an Irish Member, to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. He from the first had lamented that a private Member should have brought forward such an important measure. His hon. Friend was fully justified in bringing in the Bill, though he knew there was no possible chance of succeeding in even carrying it through that House. Such important measures brought in by private Members were only a sham, as every one knew they could not be carried by private interest. He would tell the Scotch Members that they had as great an interest in this measure as the Irish themselves, for the national weal could not be promoted without Ireland was made happy by just and wise legislation. It was admitted on all hands that this measure was essentially necessary, and he would advise the Irish Members to press on the Government the necessity of making it a Government measure, and announcing in the Royal Address at the opening of Parliament that some such measure would be immediately brought forward. He implored the right hon. Gentleman to give a promise to introduce such a Bill early next Session, so that the Irish people should not be driven from the country to seek foreign shores, as had been the case for years past. At the time this country was embroiling itself with Russia, thousands and tens of thousands of Irishmen were leaving their country. He entreated the right hon. Gentleman not to drive the people of Ireland to despair, as they almost despaired of justice being done in this direction, but to redeem the pledge which he had virtually given to see justice done in this case. The right hon. Gentleman had met with many mishaps in the course of the Session; but he would forget all the right hon. Gentleman's shortcomings, and many that were to come, if he would promise to lay on the table a measure early next Session that should deal equitably with the question. He wished to preserve the people of Ireland to the empire; for he believed if the Irish people were retained in their own land, they would do more to recruit the national army than all the Foreign Enlistment Bills that could be projected.

said, the question of landlord and tenant was a question of life and death in Ireland, inasmuch as it was a question of self-preservation. He warned the Government that, when a new election took place it was not unlikely that the Members who would be sent to that House would be Members pledged to an equitable settlement of the question. The Bill was only a compromise, and he trusted, when a new Bill was introduced, it would be based on sounder principles of political economy, such as fixity of tenure and value in corn rent.

said, he must deny that the entire of the Irish Members were in favour of such a Bill, and if the Irish electors did, as the hon. and learned Member suggested, study political economy, he was sure they would never vote for such a Bill, which, in fact, was originally only got up for an election cry. He had no objection to a measure being introduced that would consider contracts between landlord and tenant; but if such a Bill was carried as was advocated by Mr. Sharman Crawford, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore), and other Irish Members, the only result would be to unsettle property and contracts, and to create business for lawyers.

said, it was his belief that the support given to the Bill was sincere. In all countries where tranquillity was enjoyed the tenants had received some security for their tenures, the only exception being Ireland. It was, however, more essential that that security should be given to Ireland, in consequence of difference of religion and other social estrangements, which were well known and admitted to exist. Whiteboys, oakboys, peep-of-day-boys, ribbon societies, and Orange societies, might all be traced to the want of security to tenants, and the anomalous state of the law between landlords and tenants. He would appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench to consider how the question would affect the representation if the people returned Members pledged to this question and open to every other question. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had obtained great fame as the statesman who had been the first to stem Russian aggression; but would it not be as well for him to augment his reputation and his laurels by securing a measure of justice for the Irish people?

Sir, the course which Her Majesty's Government have to pursue in regard to this question is, I think, sufficiently clear. My own opinion on the relations between landlord and tenant has never been concealed; it was plainly expressed in the Committee of which I was a Member some years ago, and it has also been fully expressed in this House on former occasions. On general principles I think it undesirable, and indeed highly objectionable, that Parliament should interfere with the transactions between parties who may make bargains with each other. There can, I imagine, hardly be two opinions on the proposition, that it is most hurtful for the law to interpose between landlords and tenants, or between buyers and sellers of any description, and prescribe to either on what conditions their mutual contracts shall be based. But Her Majesty's Government have felt and have avowed that, in the very peculiar position in which Ireland stands in regard to the relations between landlord and tenant, an exception might be made to that general and just principle. On that ground, dealing with this matter as an exceptional case, we last year undertook the charge of a Bill which—although we might not approve in the abstract all the arrangements it proposed—we were still led to believe would, if passed into law, put an end to those local disputes which have disturbed the tranquillity of the country and prevented that harmony which ought to prevail between different classes in the sister kingdom. We did our best to settle this question last Session, but we were disappointed in our expectations. Owing to the conflict of opinion between different parties as to the provisions of the measure, that Bill failed. We come, then, to the Bill now under discussion, which is certainly very different in its character and scope from the measure which we declared our intention last year to support. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland did not deem it his duty to oppose the second reading, in order that ample opportunity might be afforded for a full expression of the opinion of the House on the Bill; but I cannot regard the measure as one which ought to be passed into law, and, as we have now arrived at another stage of its progress, I shall certainly feel it right to—[MR. HORSMAN: The Bill has been withdrawn.] I was not aware of what occurred earlier in the discussion, having been detained elsewhere by other business; but, as I learn that the Bill has been abandoned, of course the debate upon it ought to close. The proposers of the measure are entitled to insist on the observance of the maxim, "De mortuis ml nisi bonum." If it is dead, let us be silent on the subject. One word as to the intentions of the Government respecting this question in the next Session. I have already stated our opinion on the general question; and although we do not think that in the present temper of Parliament there is any likelihood of any Bill on this subject passing which we might be disposed to bring in, we shall of course feel it our duty to give the most respectful consideration to any measure which any independent Member may introduce.

said, he should move that the House go into Committee that day three months; he trusted, however, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Craufurd) would withdraw the Bill.

said, he would second the Motion on the ground that the Bill was of on objectionable character.

, said, he had considered the Bill, and approved of its principle, as did also his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, the Attorney General for England, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. The Bill had been fully discussed, and the opinion of the House had been unequivocally pronounced upon it. On those grounds he thought the House ought to go into Committee.

said, as great doubts had been expressed as to the mode of carrying out the Bill, he thought that was reason enough for asking the House to pause before they proceeded with it. He knew also there was a very strong feeling in Ireland against the Bill, and especially among the commercial communities.

said, he must oppose the Bill, because he knew it was unpopular in Ireland. The theory might be right, but the mode of applying it might be pre-judicial. He did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was quite entitled to claim the confidence of Ireland, either in respect to civil or criminal matters.

said, he trusted the House would see the impolicy of passing the Bill at that moment. It was one of those instances which showed how dangerous it was for individual Members to attempt to change the law of a country they knew little of. The Bill looked smooth enough on paper, but when they examined it thoroughly many faults would be found. It would give no jurisdiction to the Courts in Dublin by which relief could be granted from a judgment fraudulently obtained. As the course taken was not in the right direction, he should oppose going into Committee.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman would lead the House to suppose that the Bill gave certain powers to creditors; but that was not so. All he asked was, that the House should go into Committee, and no doubt the Bill would be made perfect.

said, he should vote against the Bill. It was one of great suspicion, and in that light the commercial classes in Ireland viewed it.

said, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Craufurd) could not surely think of going on with the Bill when so small a majority was in favour of going into Committee. He should, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he would ask the question, whether the hon. and learned Member for Ayr really intended to persevere with the Bill, which was one of great difficulty, if not impracticable? He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) would only waste the time of the House by pressing his Bill now, and he would recommend him to postpone it until the next Session. The measure which the Attorney General for Ireland had intimated that it was his intention to introduce next year would probably effect the objects the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view.

said, he would request hon. Members on the other side of the House to allow Mr. Speaker to leave the chair. The only way to see whether the Bill could be worked out was to go into Committee. He could not imagine by what means the Bill could be considered an Irish Bill, as it applied both to Scotland and Ireland.

said, he thought it rather hard to ask the House to go into Committee when they had not seen the clauses in print which the right hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) said he had ready to apply to Ireland.

said, all he would ask was that they go into Committee, and immediately report progress.

said, he did not object to the principle of the Bill, but he certainly saw that it was too late in the Session to go on with it, as the details would require much revision. He would suggest going into Committee pro formâ.

said, he objected altogether to going on with the Bill. The support given by the Government was most unreasonable, seeing that upon that very subject they had abandoned all their own Bills. So strongly did hon. Members on that side of the House feel against the passing of the measure, that they must refuse to proceed further. [The hon. Member was speaking when a quarter to Six arrived, upon which he was stopped by Mr. Speaker,]

said, he had to move a Resolution, the object of which was to make an alteration in the duty payable by those who kept race horses. The annual duty at present was £3 17s., and was paid upon all horses kept for racing or training; but a complaint having been made by some persons that this tax was unjustly levied, and that they were anxious to pay a tax upon their horses for every race run by them, the Resolution was proposed to enable the alteration to be made.

said, he had now to move a Reso- lution, declaring that provision should be made out of the Consolidated Fund for the payment of retiring pensions to Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords.