seconded the Motion.

Although it is not my intention to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House through the various points of the very wide question to which he has called our attention, I am quite willing to admit that the question itself is one of the utmost interest and importance, not only for the reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but because it affects a body of men whose services are of the greatest importance to the country, and whose mistakes or misconduct too often result in the most serious consequences. It is important, also, not only because the amount of money annually paid in respect of diplomatic services is large, but because it relates to a service which, to use the eloquent words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) is one of the highest triumphs of civilization, inasmuch as its object, in the disputes of nations, is to avoid the necessity of the last appeal to arms, and to bring to the settlement of the contests of peoples and of nations that spirit of conciliation and calm deliberation which we desire to see maintained in private life. The hon. Gentleman, it is fair to say, has manifested a singular constancy of purpose with reference to this subject; and I am free to say that in that respect his efforts have been extremely praiseworthy. On this occasion, however, he has somewhat narrowed, in terms at least, the question which he has introduced to our attention, because the present Motion has reference only to the method adopted in the payment of salaries and pensions for diplomatic ser- vices. I certainly, therefore, did not expect that on this occasion we should have heard any of those sweeping accusations with respect to the extravagance of Ambassadors, of their houses, chaplains, and outfits, to which on former occasions the hon. Gentleman has so frequently referred. All those observations with respect to the expense of the ambassadorial establishments, and the extravagant scale on which our foreign political missions are carried out, really have nothing at all to do with the question before the House. But, Sir, constant as the hon. Gentleman has been in his endeavours to bring the House to bear upon this question, I am afraid that I can only express the same dissent to his conclusions, the same opposition to his views, which upon various occasions have been expressed by those who have preceded me in the office which I have at present the honour to hold. I do not complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has brought the subject forward, or question the accuracy of the account which he gave of the way in which this charge was placed upon the Consolidated Fund. Up to 1832 it was a charge upon the Civil List; and when the hon. Gentleman expresses his fear that some opposition might be raised to his Motion, on the ground that it trenched upon the prerogative of the Crown, I assure him that—although I think it is a point which should be touched with great delicacy, and one which should not be undervalued or overlooked—I should be the last person to interfere with the just claims of the House to deal with the expenditure of any portion of the public funds by making an appeal with respect to the strict prerogatives of the Crown. In 1831 the reformed House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to take this subject into consideration; and, after giving it their fullest attention, alter discussing the question in all its bearings, after availing themselves of every aid, and by the best evidence they could procure to enable them to arrive at a sound conclusion, that Committee of 1831—came to the following conclusion, upon which the whole of the present system rests. In their Report, they say:

"The next branch of expenditure which your Committee proceeded to examine was that of the diplomatic service; and on this subject their inquiries were aided by the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs, who attended for the purpose of giving any explanations that might be required from his department; but, before they applied themselves to the examination of the details of this Estimate, it appeared a matter of serious consideration to examine in what manner it might be most consistent with the public interest to provide for the diplomatic servants of the Crown. Hitherto this branch of expenditure has been borne on the Civil List; and at the accession of His present Majesty it stood as follows:—£196,950 for the effective and non-effective diplomacy. The Select Committee of 1831, having excluded this charge from the Civil list, the first point to be decided by your Committee was, whether the diplomatic expenditure should be hereafter charged on the Consolidated Fund or should be voted annually in Supply."

That is the exact question which the hon. Gentleman has now brought under the notice of the House. I will now proceed to read the decision of the Committee:

"In either case, the expenses of foreign missions would be brought under the full knowledge and control of Parliament; but it appears to your Committee, after the fullest information upon the matter, that it would not be expedient to introduce charges of this character into the annual Estimates."

So that that the Committee, appointed by the House specially to consider this question, after hearing every argument which could be urged either on the one side or the other, came to a deliberate conclusion, which the hon. Gentleman now asks the House to reverse. The Report proceeds:

"Your Committee, therefore, recommend that a provision should be made for this service, chargeable on the Consolidated Fund. This arrangement will insure that all savings which may be made shall at once go to the public account, and will enable Parliament at all times to take cognizance of, and pronounce a judgment upon, any diplomatic expenditure which may properly be made the subject of inquiry or animadversion. In order to afford an additional security against abuse, it is the opinion of your Committee that a statement of these accounts should be annually laid before the House."

That recommendation was afterwards embodied in an Act of Parliament, and has been substantially adhered to by the Foreign Office down to the present time. The next recommendation of the Committee is worthy of remark:

"These arrangements appear to your Committee to be at once calculated to protect the public interests in the foreign relations of the State, and to guard against improvident or lavish expenditure."

The result of this recommendation of the Committee was, that an annual charge of £180,000 odd was placed on the Consolidated Fund, with a view to the discharge of all diplomatic salaries and pensions, and the result of that, far from being, as the hon. Gentleman has tried to persuade the House, conducive to an extravagant expenditure, was the very best means of securing economy; for, although the amount of £180,000 was by law chargeable upon the Consolidated Fund for diplomatic services, yet at the end of every year since 1842 a very large sum, amounting in some instances to nearly £20,000, had been returned and made available for the general services of the country. The hon. Gentleman has advocated that the salaries and pensions connected with the diplomatic service should be submitted every year in the same manner as the ordinary Estimates, and in illustrating the question he alluded to the case of the extravagant expenditure of £87,000 for an ambassadorial residence at Paris; £90,000 for that at Constantinople; £10,000 for a chapel at Paris, and other items Why, Sir, is the hon. Gentleman aware that every one of those items is dependent upon the annual Vote of Parliament? It is in fact in the fixed part of the expenditure of the Foreign Office which is thrown on the Consolidated Fund — the salaries and pensions—that the most careful economy is displayed; while those very charges which the hon. Gentleman brought under its notice as points of extravagance, are those very items which are annually submitted to the House, and the expediency of allowing which it is open at any time to any hon. Gentleman to question. But, Sir, I ask whether our experience of annual grants is not that year after year they have a tendency to expand, and whether it is not the fact that many an annual grant which in its origin was insignificant —or at least trifling—has, owing to the way in which the Estimates are voted in this House, become so large that it has been the subject of general attention and animadversion? So far from increasing economy by obtaining additional control over the expenditure for diplomatic services, which is the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman, experience shows that it would be likely to lead to the most extravagant expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has referred to one subject of considerable importance. He has stated that the result of bringing the question of the salaries of the diplomatic service under the control of Parliament would be, that it would be perfectly within the power of the House to discontinue certain small missions, more particularly those in the smaller German States. He stated that he thought all our relations with Germany might be satisfactorily carried on by Ministers at Berlin, at Frankfort, and at Vienna. Now, upon that point I will quote the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston)—and I will say that whatever may be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen with respect to the general Foreign policy of the noble Lord, there is but one opinion in this House, that as regards everything concerning the administration of the Foreign Department, and particularly that portion of it to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of this House, there is no man in this country who is capable of giving so authoritative an opinion as that noble Lord, who has so long and so ably presided over the Foreign Office. The noble Lord in 1853 expressed his opinion in this House to this effect:—

"Having had several years' experience of these matters, be could assure the Committee of the value and importance of this means of diplomatic intercourse with the members of the German States, and that those means could not be supplied by our Minister at Frankfort, because he was accredited to the Diet there, and the representatives of those several Courts had no authority to deal with the general policy of their respective Courts, but were only charged with relation to the aggregate functions of the Germanic body. Besides, it was to be remembered that the smaller States often acted an important part in the affairs of Europe, and it often happened that we got important information through diplomatic intercourse with those States with regard to the proceedings of more important States."—[3 Hansard, exxvii. 460.]

Now, I do not pretend myself to have much experience with reference to this matter; but what little I have leads me, especially with respect to the States of Germany, to agree most cordially in that opinion expressed by the noble Lord. The hon. Gentleman would be very much astonished if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter) did not pay any attention to the vote of an individual Member of the House because he was not a frequent speaker or so important as some others. That, however, if I am rightly informed, is not the policy which is pursued by the right hon. Member for Wells; and in my opinion it would be the height of folly in any British Government to disregard the opinions and the policy of the minor Courts of Germany, when at Frankfort as individual members of the Diet they can exercise such an important influence. It is not at Frankfort that you can learn the opinions and policy of the smaller Principalities to which the hon. Gentleman has directed attention; that knowledge can only be acquired by direct intercourse carried on through the accredited representatives of the Sovereign. There is another point upon which I wish to say a few words. The hon. Gentleman thinks it desirable to bring the diplomatic establishments under the direct control of the House, because he says it would bring popular opinion to bear upon the subject; and that, having hitherto been the refuge of incompetent patricians, the diplomatic service would be thrown open to other classes of greater knowledge and ability. Now, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to state what he thinks of the present representatives of the Sovereign in foreign Courts. Who is our Minister at the Court of St. Petersburgh? Sir John Crampton, who is certainly not an incompetent patrician, but a man who has fairly earned the distinguished position he occupies, In Spain, our Minister is Mr. Buchanan—is he again an instance of patrician incompetence? Lord Stratford, our Minister in Turkey, I admit is a nobleman; but why is he so? He is a nobleman, because the brilliant services he has rendered to the country have raised him to that position. Who have we at Vienna? Sir Hamilton Seymour; and where will the hon. Gentleman find a more distinguished Member of the diplomatic service than that Gentleman: then Lord Cowley, our Ambassador at Paris, is a nobleman; but his peerage was conferred for diplomatic services rendered by the first Lord. Any attempt, therefore, to cast odium on the diplomatic service, by Baying that it is the refuge of incompetent patricians, and to upset a system established on the recommendation of a Committee of this House, after the greatest deliberation, on the plea of throwing it open to able plebeians—for that, I believe, is the term which the hon. Gentleman used—is, to say the open truth—and I do not mean to speak disrespectfully in the least — nothing more nor less than clap-trap, which I am sorry should have been used. Another advantage which the hon. Gentleman thinks would be gained, by bringing these appointments under the direct control and sanction of Parliament is, that the merits and sufficiency of any one of the Ambassadors might be brought under review, and that a ready means would thus he obtained of controlling the expenditure of the country in this department. It seems to me that nothing could have been more invidious, nothing more injurious to the public service than the adoption of such a line of argument. When we send a man to represent us at a foreign Court, we do so because he has distinguished himself by a particular knowledge of the bearings of questions likely to arise, and is presumed to have peculiar claims to public confidence and respect; but if, according to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, the services, merits, and salaries, of our diplomatic agents are to be made year after year the subject of public discussion and objection in this House, I believe no more ready course can be taken to impair the efficiency of our diplomatic service and lower the position of those engaged in it. The hon. Gentleman stated, that it was not only to the smaller missions in Germany that he objected, but also to foreign missions to such States as Naples. I must frankly express my opinion, that the hon. Gentleman could not have referred to a more unfortunate illustration of his argument than that of the Neapolitan States, for I sincerely believe that, if at the time of the seizure of the Cagliari we had had a regular accredited representative at Naples, the whole course of events would have been altered; we should not have had to regret the lengthened imprisonment of our fellow-countrymen, and to regret equally, if not more, a state of circumstances which, up to the present moment, has tended to produce most embarrassing, if not most dangerous questions. For these reasons, which I have very shortly stated, I venture to hope that the House will not give their sanction to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. If I do not follow him into the other subjects to which he has drawn the attention of the House; if I do not refer to the question of unpaid attachés; to that of the necessity of a training for the consular office; if I do not refer to the importance of the study of Oriental languages, or enter into a discussion with him as to the merits of our system as compared with that adopted by France, I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that it is from no disrespect, from no wish to undervalue the importance of these questions, but simply because the Motion has reference solely to the payment of the salaries and pensions of Ambassadors, &c, and as to the expediency of placing the charge in the Estimates instead of upon the Consolidated Fund. I do not think that those other matters come within the scope of the Motion, or can be properly the subject of discussion under it, I hope that the House will refuse its assent to this proposition. I do not believe that it would conduce to greater efficiency or greater economy; and there are so many evils to which it would, in my opinion, be likely to conduce, that the House ought to pause before it introduces a change in the system under which services so important and so distinguished are rendered, and with reference to a department in respect to which this nation is as well, as efficiently, and as honestly served as any country in the world.

said, he could not consent to give a silent vote upon a subject of so much importance as that now under the consideration of the House. He saw no reason why the diplomatic expenditure should not be placed among the Estimates, so that it might be brought under the annual cognizance of Parliament. If it was necessary that our Ambassadors at foreign Courts should give expensive entertainments, and thus keep up the reputation of the country for hospitality, he would not begrudge the necessary funds; but as for maintaining what were called ambassadorial functions, he had been quite unable to discover any necessity for it whatever. In this age of telegraphs and railroads he could not but regard the diplomatic service in any other light than as a snug retreat admirably adapted for the scions of the aristocracy. He adopted the view taken by an ancient writer, who maintained that an Ambassador was "a man sent abroad to tell lies for the good of his country;" but we did not want anything of that kind. The appointments of Ambassadors at foreign Courts enabled them to get up quarrels, and when things had gone a certain length we sent out Envoys Extraordinary to make peace. The differences which last occurred between America and England arose from the fact that Mr. Crampton never read the despatch which he had received from the Earl of Clarendon. He had acted in utter ignorance of the facts and of the intentions of Ministers in this country, and hence the misunderstanding which so nearly embroiled two great nations in war. Then as regarded treaties, he should like to know when were treaties ever kept? It had been said by Voltaire, and with some truth, that the only treaty he had ever known to be kept was that in which the name of the Deity had not been invoked—namely, Penn's Treaty with the Indians. He should support the Motion, because he believed if the ambassadorial services were voted by Parliament in the Estimates, and the state of our diplomacy in every quarter brought annually in this way under the notice of the House, we should speedily got rid of that exclusive and aristocratic policy which was the curse of the country, the source of innumerable difficulties and of incalculable expense. He would, moreover, remind the House that it was the dictum of a Premier (the late Lord Melbourne) that, in order to secure perpetual peace, it was required only to shut up the Foreign Office.

said, he would not trespass long on the attention of the House, but he did not think they would be treating the subject with the respect due to its importance, if they did not express their opinions upon some of the points involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford. His hon. Friend had made a very simple proposal, which he (Mr. Horsman) considered it would be very difficult for the House upon any sound principle to refuse. That proposal was, that the same principle which had been so beneficially applied to our home expenditure should also be applied to our foreign expenditure, and that as the home expenditure came annually before the House of Commons, the same sound and wholesome principle should be adopted in regard to our foreign expenditure. The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. S. Fitz Gerald) had rested his opposition—which he (Mr. Horsman) confessed he heard with some regret and surprise—upon the Report of a Committee appointed nearly thirty years ago, and nominated, as he said, by the reformed House of Commons. Now, as the hon. Gentleman attached so much importance to a Report proceeding from a Committee of the reformed House of Commons, he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that he was quite in error with regard to the source from which the Report emanated; and as it had, in fact, proceeded from a Committee of the unreformed House of Commons, he was bound to suppose that the hon. Gentleman would not attach any importance to it. The speech delivered by the hon. Member for Stafford was, it should be remembered, made after considerable experience and much consideration of the subject. He had illustrated it with great ability, and the hon. Gentleman opposite had made as good a reply as he could be expected to make to a speech in itself so unanswerable. Cut the hon. Gentleman had used similar arguments to those which were used in opposition to the changes made in the year 1831. Amongst the changes then made was one with reference to the payment of the great officers of State; and the Duke of Wellington in reference to the change, and using the same arguments of which the hon. Gentleman opposite had availed himself, declared that it would be dangerous and degrading to make the salaries of those persons dependent upon the caprice of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman opposite, following in the wake of the Duke, declared that it would be degrading to our Ambassadors to have their remuneration included in the annual Votes; but surely it would not be more degrading to them than to the hon. Gentleman himself, or to the First Minister of the Crown, whose salaries were voted annually. What, he asked, was the distinction between voting the salary of the Head of the Foreign Department, and that of the gentlemen nominated by that Minister? The objection, in his opinion, would not hold good for a moment, because experience showed that the House of Commons had never been niggardly in rewarding known and acknowledged services. Since the year 1831 the salaries of all the great officers of State had been annually voted by Parliament, and no inconvenience had arisen from the practice, neither had there been any reason to regret the change. On the contrary, there was, he believed, no class of public servants who felt that their salaries were safer than those who depended upon the Votes of that House. His hon. Friend the Member for Stafford had said that the system of keeping permanently from Parliament any circumstances connected with our foreign administration was unwholesome. He (Mr. Horsman) entirely agreed in that observation, as he considered that great injury arose, and much distrust was created, by the secrecy in which our foreign transactions were involved. Everybody would admit, that while diplomatic negotiations were being carried on, great injury might result to the public interest from publicity being given to them; but, on the other hand, under the present system our ignorance with respect to foreign affairs was, he thought, inconsistent with the principles of constitutional government There were diplomatic transactions which had been carried on for years, but which never met the eye of any one out of the Foreign Office. The arguments used by the hon. Gentleman opposite in favour of the principle of secrecy might have been equally well applied thirty, forty, or fifty years ago. In this respect, at least, we had made no progress and no improvement. He was of opinion that the same principle of improvement which had been carried out at home of late years should also be applied to our administration abroad. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitz-Gerald) had read to the House rather unnecessarily the names of four or five eminent diplomatic servants; but his hon. Friend the 11 ember for Stafford had no wish to impugn the character of our agents abroad— he merely said, and truly enough, that while foreign governments had men trained and educated for this special service, this country took no pains to secure the requisite attainments. There were, it was true, high political and personal morality, and great integrity of character, among our diplomatic officers, which served as a safeguard; hut they had not those special attainments which were found in the diplomatic servants of other Governments—they had not even in many instances a knowledge of the language of the countries to which they were accredited. For these reasons he thought the House ought to feel indebted to the hon. Member for Stafford for the pains with which he had addressed himself to the subject. It was only occasionally, and, as it were, by a lucky accident, that the House was enabled to penetrate the mystery in which our foreign relations were enshrouded; and if the House did not avail itself of the opportunities thus afforded, it would be impossible to make any progress in the reform of our foreign administration. Holding these views, he tendered his personal thanks to the hon. Member, and he hoped the House would not concur in the objections taken by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, which were not based upon sound or constitutional principles, and which he did not think had been supported with anything like solid argument.

I wish to state very briefly the reasons which will prevent me from concurring in the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford; and I trust that the House, in dealing with this question, will not found its decision upon any preconceived opinions or upon any party views, but will regard the subject simply as one involving a material point of national importance. It is upon that ground only that I wish to address to the House a few observations. In the first place, I must remark that the Motion tends to reverse a decision which was adopted deliberately by this House after full consideration, as to the manner in which diplomatic salaries and retired pensions should be paid. It is, I think, incumbent upon those who propose to alter that arrangement to show that public inconvenience arises from it, and that public advantage will accrue from the change which is recommended. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) has said that the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has opposed the Motion (Mr. S. FitzGerald), did not rest his objection upon any constitutional grounds. Now, I do rest my objection to it upon constitutional grounds. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) diverged in his speech far beyond the limits of his announced Motion—he wandered into topics upon which those who were prepared to resist his proposal have had no opportunity of informing themselves, so as to be able to deal with the very extensive range of his observations. One of the main arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and which has been repeated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman), and which we have often heard, is, in my opinion, founded upon a complete fallacy—namely, an objection to what is called the secret system of diplomacy. My hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) desires that the diplomatic transactions of the Government should be brought under the constant supervision of this House. Now, I hold that to be a most unconstitutional doctrine, and one totally at variance with the interests of the country. There appears to me to be no medium between those two courses: Parliament must either place confidence in the responsible Ministers of the Crown with regard to our foreign relations, holding those Ministers answerable for the result of their conduct of such relations; or it must appoint a Standing Committee of diplomatic relations, and thus take the administration of those affairs into its own hands. It is almost unnecessary for me to say that the latter course would be neither consistent with the principles of our constitution nor compatible with its interests. Why, there could not by any possibility be a worse machine for conducting diplomatic transactions than a popular assembly. Two rations whose diplomatic relations were conducted by popular assemblies would inevitably be involved in perpetual difficulties and disputes. We had an instance of this not many years ago in the case of France and America. A question arose between the Governments of those two great countries; that question was taken up by the popular assemblies on both sides of the Atlantic; and had it not been for most earnest exertions on the part of friendly powers, a very serious rupture might have occurred between the two nations. When the secrecy of diplomacy is objected to, I would quote the admission of my right hon. Friend who last addressed the House, that while diplomatic transactions are in progress, it is impossible that they should be made public. How, then, is this House, whose transactions must be public, to deal with diplomatic relations? If the doctrine of my right hon. Friend is just—and just it is—that diplomatic transactions must, as a matter of obvious State necessity, be secret until a result is arrived at, we all know that under the present system the result of diplomatic arrangements is always made public. When the result is attained, Parliament has the power —and the exercise of that power is its constant practice—of calling upon Ministers to afford information with regard to questions of national interest, and to lay upon the table the papers necessary to enable it to understand the details of a particular transaction. We need not go further than a recent event for an illustration of this fact. I will venture to say, that if there had been at the present moment a popular assembly in France, exercising the same right of political discussion with regard to public affairs which takes place in this House, the recent occurrences would have led to a very different state of relations between England and France from that which now happily exists. I say, then, that the proposal of my hon. Friend to transfer these charges to annual Votes, instead of leaving them upon the Consolidated Fund, and thus to give Parliament the opportunity of detailed and constant intervention in the transactions connected with our diplomatic relations, would lead to consequences which I think there might be great reason to regret—would tend to the disturbance of all order, and to the constant disquietude of our foreign relations. My hon. Friend, going far beyond the limits of his Motion, dilated at great length upon Votes of this House for diplomatic expenses, which he considered to have been improvident and extravagant; and he then argued that because he had shown that the House of Commons, by its annual Votes, had sanctioned expenditure which he thought improvident and unnecessary, a Resolution ought to be adopted transferring that portion of the diplomatic expenses now chargeable upon the Consolidated Fund to annual Votes, although, as he contended, the House had not exhibited a due regard to economy of the public money in assenting to such Votes. Why, my hon. Friend must either abandon his opinion, or he must admit that one portion of his arguments answers and refutes the others. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) says it would be no degradation to the diplomatic body if their salaries were voted by this House; and he observed that no degradation attached to Ministers of the Crown in whose case that course is pursued. In one respect I perfectly admit that my right hon. Friend is quite right in that opinion; and so far as regards the feeling and impression in this country, instead of being deemed a degradation, it may be rather satisfactory to any officers employed by the Crown that the salaries awarded to them should receive the annual sanction of Parliament. But as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. FitzGerald) well observed, I think it would have an injurious effect on the position of our diplomatic relations generally, that the question of the salaries of our reprentatives abroad should be made the subject of an annual Vote by this House. The hon. Gentleman opposite evidently did not allude to the impression which such a practice would make here, but to the impression it would be likely to make abroad. I think it is manifest that such a system would impair and weaken the influence of our diplomatic servants abroad if every year the observations and criticisms, which would no doubt occasionally arise in respect to those salaries, were to be published in the newspapers, and to be read at those Courts where our representatives resided. He must be a. fortunate diplomatist who succeeds in performing his duties without giving unintentional offence to some of his wandering countrymen that are to be found in the different cities on the Continent. A traveller whom he had, perhaps, unintentionally offended would be sure to write home a volume of abuse to some Member of this House, who, knowing nothing more of the matter than what he reads in the letter, would nevertheless feel it his duty when the Estimates came on to repeat in the House all the criticisms and fault-finding which were contained in the written com- munication. The diplomatist whose conduct was impugned would have no opportunity of defending himself, and the Ministers of the Crown in this country could not know whether there was or was not any foundation for the charges; but these charges would go forth to the Court at which the diplomatic agent was stationed, and must tend to lower him in the estimation of the society in which he moved, and with the Court to which he was accredited, and must impair his means of rendering useful public services. I need not refer to the other objection, that those who were dissatisfied with the political action of a particular Minister would naturally, when his salary came to be voted, express their opinions upon his conduct, and that is, I think, a strong reason for not adopting the Motion of my hon. Friend. Having had considerable experience with regard to questions of this kind, I do entreat and conjure the House not to sanction a proposal which, I believe, would be attended with most serious and injurious consequences to the public interests as connected with our foreign relations. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into many of the topics not immediately connected with the Motion which he introduced into his speech; but I may make one observation. We have been told that this House ought to do certain things because they are done by other countries. Now, I think that argument falls short of a legitimate conclusion. Those who tell us that the arrangements which exist in other countries ought to be introduced in our own should prove that such arrangements are more beneficial than those which we have already adopted. My hon. Friend has used an argument on this subject which I think is somewhat contradictory. In the first place he would reduce very materially the salaries, and impair therefore the position of the missions and embassies that we have abroad. And then, on the other hand, he says that the diplomatic service ought to be improved and reformed; that young men ought to be induced to enter into it with an expectation of promotion. So that while, on the one hand, he wants to bring young men in with this expectation, on the other hand he advises us to diminish their temptation to enter by rendering the chief positions such that it would answer no man's purpose to fill them with the salaries which he wishes to confine them to. It was stated by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. FitzGerald) that, so far from the diplomatic service having been prodigally administered, there was a limit of expenditure which could not be exceeded. In fact, it will be found that many of those who hold offices under this department are obliged to economies their expenses to the amount of the salary attached to their office. That, in itself, I think, is a sufficient proof that the Foreign Office has limited the expenses of those functionaries to a reasonable amount. And I would ask, which department is the most able to judge what is the proper salary to be paid to Ministers—that department which is in daily correspondence with such Ministers, and which knows all the circumstances on which the decision as to the amount of salary depends; or this House, which cannot by possibility possess the requisite information? It is perfectly clear that it is the responsible Government alone which ought to be left to determine the amount of the salary in each post, varying that salary according to circumstances, and according to what they consider should be the proper amount for each specific place. My hon. Friend says there ought to be a fusion of the diplomatic and consular appointments. To a certain extent that has taken place—not that there are instances, as far as I remember, of consuls being brought into diplomatic situations; but there are many cases in which men have been transferred from diplomatic to consular appointments, where the functions of those consular appointments have partaken in some degree of a diplomatic character. I will not, however, weary the House by dwelling upon details which are, perhaps, more suitable for the consideration of a Committee upstairs; but I entreat the House not hastily and rashly to agree to a Resolution which, in my humble opinion, founded on considerable experience, I think would be extremely detrimental to the interests of the public service.

said, that it might be presumption in him to attempt to answer the noble Lord, but he hoped that his noble Friend would not be dissuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord from taking a division. The noble Lord founded his opposition to the Motion on constitutional grounds. Why, if the expense of the consular establishments were submitted to the House in the Estimates, should there not be Votes for the diplomatic service? He thought that neither the Government nor the noble Lord had answered his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had been accused of bringing forward extraneous matter in making his Motion; but he was sure that when the speech of his hon. Friend was read out of doors the country would feel that they owed a deep debt of gratitude to him for the information he had brought forward. He should cordially support the Motion.

I think, with regard to the particular Motion before us, the answer of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. FitzGerald) proved that, in all probability, if these Votes were submitted to the consideration of the House instead of being paid out of the Consolidated Fund, it would tend rather to confusion than to economy. I believe that to be a sound argument, and I am therefore contented with the present mode of paying the salaries of Ministers. At the same time I do not like to vote, as I shall vote, against the Motion of my hon. Friend without saying that I think there are many of his observations, having no immediate reference to this Motion, which are well worthy of attention. In the first place, with regard to the service itself, I think the plan of having unpaid attachés is a bad system, inconsistent with our usual practice, and that every person who enters the service (perhaps he should not be admitted so young as is at present the case) should have a certain salary apportioned to his position and duties. In the second place, it seems to me that it would be useful to have a general revision of our diplomatic services; for while, on the one hand, there are men in high posts who do not receive salaries proportionate to the stations which they occupy, there are posts or many minor places which might well be abolished. The result of such a revision might not be to effect any great economy, but I think the service generally would be the better for it. In the last place, although I do not agree with all that my hon. Friend has urged upon the subject, I think if diplomatic papers were more frequently submitted to the House of Commons, that, instead of being injurious they would be useful to the public service; because very often false rumours are current which might be removed by the production of those papers. While, therefore, I shall think it my duty on these grounds to vote against the Motion, I must say that my thanks are due to my hon. Friend for the important subjects which he has brought under our consideration.

rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the destitution existing in the Guadore and Cloughanelly district, county of Donegal. The hon. Member said that his Motion had particular relation to the northern part of that county, with a wild mountainous district with large tracts of barren land, where the people were living in a state of wild poverty. The state of that part of the county was brought under the notice of the Devon Commission, and Lord George Hill, one of the great proprietors of the county, in his evidence before the Commission, gave a graphic description of the condition of that part of it. He showed that the people were in the habit of living on very small farms, eking out their subsistence by means of grazing a few cattle upon the neighbouring mountains. Mr. Nicholls, a gentleman engaged in the Poor Law inquiry, corroborated the statements of Lord George Hill, as to the condition of Donegal, especially in its northern and western parts. Latterly, the proprietors of this mountainous district were anxious to get rid of the cottier system, and introduce sheep farming, and they had brought in a number of Scotch tenants and Scotch sheep. This did not meet with the approbation of the native inhabitants, who were thus reduced from a state of rude plenty to one of destitution. Lord George Hill stated that each inhabitant had three dwellings, one in the mountains, one on his farm, and another on the sea-shore; and families were always changing their residences according to the means of obtaining grazing; the people were quiet and inoffensive, and naturally of kind manners; many of them, especially the women, did not understand English, and among their peculiarities they disliked living in detached houses, which they considered to be lonely. In the same year Lord George Hill gave evidence before another Commission, which went to Ireland to obtain information, with a view to the establishment of the poor law; and Mr. Nicholls, in his report to Lord John Russell, said of Donegal that the people congregated where the soil was most easily cultivated and no exertion was necessary; while, in order to get their rent, they depended on a few cattle. It must strike every one that the system lately introduced into Donegal was only a repetition of that which had been done in Scotland a few years ago, when Sutherlandshire and the mountainous parts of the country were almost entirely depopulated in order to make room for sheep, and the people either sent to America or located on the sea-shore. His (Mr. Bagwell's) feeling and opinion was against any one's having the power to deal with his fellow-creatures in that way. He believed, indeed, that the Duke of Sutherland had carried out the system on his estates with all the humanity that was to be expected from him; but he (Mr. Bagwell) wished to know how such clearances would be regarded abroad? All the world looked up to the institutions of this country, and when it was possible to find a flaw in them republicans and the friends of despotism were equally ready to pick holes in them. Sismondi said— "This driving away of people from their firesides may be legal, but will any man dare to say that it is just?" and a writer in the Quarterly Review declared that the Highland clearances were a scandal to a civilized country. He did not think the plan of transporting the people from a country and replacing them by cattle at all calculated to improve the condition of that country. As an instance of the consequences, he might state that a short time ago the nation was startled from its propriety by a statement which appeared in the newspapers, signed by ten of the Roman Catholic clergy, in reply to which a resolution was drawn up by a board of guardians. The Government sent down an inspector (Mr. Hamilton) to investigate the matter, and the report of that gentleman was so much at variance with that of the clergymen, that if the case rested on that alone a further inquiry was necessary in order that the blame might rest on the parties who were in fault. The taxation that had been imposed on the district was most frightful. In one part the police tax amounted to £490 4s. 11d., and the sheep tax to £864 12s. 7d., making a total of £1,354 17s. 6d., being considerably over the property valuation. The total valuation of the district was £2,080 11s. 8 d., whilst the taxes raised amounted to £2,000 15s. 4d. The payment of these taxes proved that the people did not wish to evade the law, but had paid them to the utmost. In consequence of the address issued by the clergymen to whom he had alluded, a committee was formed in London for the purpose of raising subscriptions, and similar committees were formed in different parts of Ireland. The contributors included many landed proprietors who had made inquiries into the matter, and amongst them he might mention Mr. Sharman Crawford, who stated his belief that the complaints which had been made were well founded; and many other persons of name and station also contributed, thus affirming their conviction of the existence of destitution. He thought it due to the charitable individuals who had contributed to the relief of these poor people that some means should be devised for ascertaining the truth of the statements which had been put forward, and trusted the House would agree to the appointment of a Committee for that purpose. He demanded this in the name of justice, in the name of humanity, and, above all, in the name of the Irish landlords, many of whom believed that property had its duties as well as its rights.

seconded the Motion.

said, that he thought the hon. Gentleman who had moved for this Committee could not have visited the district in question, or he would not have made the Motion, for in that case he must have known that the statements upon the authority of which he had moved for it were unfounded. He must protest against the attack upon Mr. Hamilton, who was one of the most able and zealous of the poor-law officers in Ireland, and whose report he believed to be entitled to entire credit. And with respect to the amount of contributions which were said to have been collected for the poor of this district, he did not believe that one-tenth part of the money raised by charity was appropriated to the poor of this district. For his own part, he knew the county of Donegal well, and he must say that he had never seen a county progressing more rapidly than this had lately been. It was true that a great outrage had been committed by a section of the community who had taken possession of property to which they had no right, and that the Government had thought it right to lay on an impost to protect property. But the fact that that impost was paid was a proof that the district was not in such a state of poverty as had been represented. He objected to the appointment of a Committee of inquiry of this kind, which, not having the power to examine witnesses on oath, could end in no good, and would not attain the object of ascertaining the truth of the contradictory statements which had been made on this subject.

wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had visited the district in question, as he asserted that the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) ought to have done? He did not wish to attack Mr. Hamilton or the integrity of his report, for he had no doubt that that gentleman had reported what he believed to be the fact; nor did he wish to say one word against Lord George Hill (knowing what that noble Lord had done for that district) nor against the landlords of Donegal generally: but they had the statement of ten Roman Catholic clergymen that such a state of things existed in that district as no man could wish to exist, supposing it to be true. Nor was the evidence taken by Mr. Hamilton inconsistent with this statement, because most of it was given as matter of opinion; and he believed that a feeling of pride led many of the witnesses to endeavour to conceal those privations which the clergymen, with their larger opportunities of investigation, were able to detect. On account of the discrepancy which existed between these two statements, and of the reasons which existed for doubting that of the witnesses examined by Mr. Hamilton, be thought there should be an inquiry by a Committee of that House. It had been said that a large quantity of sheep had been destroyed in this district, for which the grand jury had assessed a compensation upon the district, and that therefore any burden which might have resulted from that was justly inflicted. But it was certain that several of the sheep supposed to have been destroyed had been afterwards found, and that their disappearance was a case, not of wanton destruction, but of felony. A very strong feeling had been excited on this subject, and, therefore, without impugning the conduct of the magistrates, or the poor law authorities, and merely contending that the inquiry which had already taken place was incomplete and inconclusive, he thought there ought to be another before a Committee of the House of Commons, which alone had the power of arriving at the real facts of the case. He should therefore support the Motion.

felt it his duty, from the position which he held, to state briefly to the House the opinion he entertained on this subject, and also to place before them the information at his command with regard to the condition of the district in question. When the House had heard his statement, they would perhaps agree with him that this was one of the most extraordinary cases that had ever been submitted to their consideration. The representations made on either side had been directly contradicted one by the other, and it would be for the House to form their own conclusions as best they could from such conflicting-testimony. The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had not made out a very strong case for a Committee; he had abstained from entering into specific details, confining himself merely to general statements, and giving the House to understand that a system of depopulation was now going on in parts of Donegal similar to what occurred some years ago on the estates of the Duke of Sutherland in Scotland. But as the hon. Mover had given few facts, he would call their attention to the statement which had been published by ten Roman Catholic clergymen of the districts of Guadore and Cloughanelly respecting the conduct of the landlords and the distress among the population. This was the statement on which this Motion is founded. Before proceeding with these gentlemen's allegations, he ought to state that the people of this part of Donegal were, and always had been, very poor; they bad been rarely visited by strangers; and perhaps there was not in Ireland, or in the western islands of Scotland, a wilder district, or, he might add, a wilder population. It was asserted that all the landlords of that locality, save one, had simultaneously deprived these poor people of their mountain grazing, and given them to Scotch and English graziers; and that in other cases they had doubled, trebled, and even quadrupled their rent. He held in his hand a statement put forth on the part of the proprietors which declared that no tenants had been evicted; that the landlords had not sold any goods by distress warrant for rent; and that they had not interfered with the tenants' right in any case. That alone ought to convince the House of the doubts and difficulties that hung over the case, owing to the contradictory statements put forth on both sides. Up to a recent period there was a large tract of waste mountain in that district which was occasionally used by the population as a run for their cattle. This property seemed to have been held very much in common by the inhabitants, who paid their rent more according to the number of cattle they possessed than according to the actual quantity of their land. It went by the name of the "run-dale" system. That was a state of things which nobody would say was satisfactory. Numberless disputes among the tenantry arose under this system, which were productive of the worst results. Some years ago certain of the proprietors took up a considerable portion of this mountain waste land and let it to Scotch and English graziers for the purpose of its being turned into a sheepwalk; the proprietors alleged, however, that they still left in the hands of the poor people a sufficient extent of land for depasturing the number of cattle they possessed, the remainder being surface drained and otherwise improved. In one district, where there were 2,000 acres of this mountain land, which the landlord let, reserving 700 acres for the people, the greater part of it never had been used by them. In another case, a landlord gave his tenants 500 acres, at the same time paying his tenantry to dig a ditch for the purpose of separating the 500 acres from the 1,200 that had been let for a sheep walk, though he believed that since then the landlord added the 500 acres to the rest. Lord George Hill reserved 9,500 acres of mountain land for his old tenants, besides paying for them their poor rates and their income tax. If these waste lands were thus used for grazing, while the land of the poor tenants was cut off and reserved for their separate use, surely such conduct ought not to be held up to opprobrium in that House, and represented as though it were accompanied by wholesale eviction. The statement often Roman Catholic clergymen, in their appeal for charity for the peasantry of these districts, was certainly very startling. They said: —

" There are at this moment 800 families subsisting on seaweed, crabs, cockles, or any other edible matter they can pick up along the seashore or scrape off the rocks. There are about 600 adults of both sexes, who through, sheer poverty are now going barefooted, amid the inclemency of the season, on this bleak northern coast. There are about 700 families that have neither bed nor bedclothes, but are forced to he on the cold damp earth in the rags worn by them during the day. There are about 600 families who have now neither cow, sheep, nor goat, and who, from the beginning of the year to its close, hardly ever know the taste of milk or butter."

This statement was published in newspapers both in England and Ireland. The Poor Law Commissioners, acting under the direction of the late Government, very properly ordered an inquiry to be instituted into the truth of these allegations. The officer selected to conduct the investigation was Mr. Hamilton, a public servant of great experience and ability, who had been employed under the Poor Law Board throughout the whole of the famine. There was no public servant whose character stood higher. Before Mr. Hamilton arrived in the district, the Board of Guardians of the union in which it was comprised, namely, the Dunfanaghy Union, met and agreed to the following resolution:—

"That having seen with regret and astonishment in the newspapers an appeal signed by ten Roman Catholic clergymen setting forth a dreadful state of destitution at present existing in this union, we consider ourselves called on, as the guardians of the poor, both from our own local knowledge and upon inquiry, to say such a statement is quite false and without any foundation; and we think we are borne out in this by the fact of having only twenty-two paupers in the workhouse from the entire union."

As an additional proof of the incorrectness of the statements that had been made as to the destitution of the people, the guardians asserted that in the month of February last there were only twenty-two paupers in the workhouse from the entire union; and they recommended that, as the "appeal" had been published for the purpose of raising money, the Poor Law Inspector should be instructed to inquire into the facts on the spot. Mr. Hamilton proceeded with his inquiry, and examined on oath as many persons as he could find likely to give evidence. Among these was the clerk and master of the workhouse, and he stated that only twenty-seven persons had applied for relief since the late harvest, they were all admitted, and no applications for provisional relief had been made at the workhouse. The master went on to say that—

" If distress 'such as is described' in the appeal he has read existed in the Gweadore and Cloughanelly districts, he is satisfied people would seek relief in the workhouse, as they did during the famine years. He swears that the dietary table at present in use in the workhouse is quite sufficient for the several classes."

According to Mr. Hamilton the Dunfanaghy Union contained an area of £125,667 acres, was valued at £10,715, and by the census of 1851 had a population of 17,320. What did the House think the number of inmates in the workhouse was? In February, 1856, they were 41; in February, 1857, 28; and in February, 1858, 22. That he (Lord Naas) thought would show the extraordinary character of these misstatements. Mr. Hamilton called on the only four Roman Catholic clergymen who resided in the union who had signed the document, for the purpose of getting information as to the particular localities in which distress existed, but did not find any one of them at home. He said, however—

"I met the Rev. Mr. M'Fadden, P.P., and I told him I was making inquiry respecting the destitution described in an appeal which he had signed, and asked him to mention the localities in which the greatest destitution existed. He said ' it was general, and attributed it to excessive taxation, and to the landlords having raised their rents. I asked Mr. M'Fadden why the people did not apply for relief in the workhouse if destitution existed to the extent described. He said, that in consequence of the ' Gregory Clause' they could not be relieved under the Poor Law."

Mr. Hamilton visited the poorest villages in the Guadore district in company with Collector Gallagher, and he stated that in almost every house he visited during the early part of the morning he found from two to five or six head of cattle lying in the same apartment with the people. Their beds appeared to be very wretched, principally straw, but they all seemed to have bed clothes. He went on to say—

"I visited one house in Crossroads electoral division, and I was credibly informed the owner of it had twenty cows, nine pigs, two horses, and forty sheep, and I think the inmates of this House were as dirty, as badly clothed, and had as few comforts as the majority of the Guadore people."

Mr. Hamilton added, he found potatoes at every house, either stored inside or in pits outside the premises; and he saw an abundance of the potatoes pitted in the fields throughout the whole of the district, and there were unmistakeable marks of cattle in almost all the dwellings. He also said—

" In the course of my walk T did not see a delicate looking person, nor did I meet with a ease of sickness in any of the houses; and I think the population were as well if, not better clothed than the peasantry along other parts of the west coast of Ireland. I saw no person without sufficient covering; the majority of the people had no shoes, hut that is not an unusual circumstance in the county Donegal."

Mr. Hamilton then quoted the testimony of Mr. Foster, agent to Lord George Hill, who said—

" As to the rents, every shilling due to Lord George Hill on the 1st of November was paid me before the 10th of November; and the tenants came to the rent office in such numbers to pay their rents I was obliged to get an extra hand to assist me in receiving the rents, and several paid me £5 notes in mistake for £1 notes. They had a most extraordinary fine summer to make kelp, and they also got a great price for it. The sale of kelp alone brings several thousand pounds to the district; and the lobster fishery lately established has also been of great assistance, as the average sale is 500 dozen a week. They had a good crop of potatoes last year, and I am certain they never were so well off; of course the payment of the extra police tax, and for the destruction of sheep, has taken a very large sum from them, but I am not aware of any tenant in Guadore having sold a cow, horse, or sheep to make those payments. It is most difficult at present to get labourers in the Guadore district, except at exorbitant wages, and when there was really distress there was no end of the persons coming to look for employment.

"It is quite impossible to judge of the state of the people from their appearance, or the way they live in their houses, as they have not the least idea of either cleanliness or comfort, nor do they wish to be improved, or that strangers should come and settle in the country. I know numbers that have at this moment several hundred pounds, and you would not suppose from the appearance of themselves, houses, and families, that they were better off than any of the rest."

It was a painful thing for him (Lord Naas) to be obliged to contradict statements made by Roman Catholic clergymen. He feared the only object for which those extraordinary statements had been put forward was the collection of money; and holding the position he did, he should have been wanting in his duty to the House if he had not shown them that those statements were to a great degree exaggerated. But there was another painful feature in the ease to which he must direct the attention of the House. He was sorry to say that for some time past most extraordinary and serious outrages on property had been committed in the Guadore district. Mr. Hamilton stated that,—

"In the year 1853 Lord George Hill set a portion of his mountains to an English sheep farmer, and I am informed by his agriculturist that in setting this mountain he did not deprive his tenantry of any right they had hitherto been entitled to. In December, 1855, sheep were first put on the mountains, and for one year they remained there unmolested. In January, 1857, about 200 of the sheep were maliciously destroyed, and from that date to the present time the malicious destruction of sheep has gone steadily on. On Lord G. Hill's mountain about 1,130 sheep have been destroyed; and on the estates of Mr. Olpherts and Mr. Woodhouse about 425, making in all 1,555 sheep destroyed. The tax called the sheep tax is levied off the district for the purpose of paying the owner of those sheep the value of his property thus maliciously destroyed. There is but one English sheep farmer in the district; he has still about 1,300 sheep on the mountains. No later than last Saturday 21 sheep were destroyed, the carcases of some of which were discovered while I was at the hotel."

An attempt was made to show that the sheep were lost in the snow and from other causes; but that could not be, for numbers of them had been found buried in bogs, with stones round their necks; and it was only at the last assizes for Donegal that two persons were convicted for the offence of maliciously destroying sheep. [The noble Lord then read extracts from the charge of Baron Pennefather, the Judge who presided at the last spring assizes—in which this wanton and malicious destruction of property was characterized in fitting terms.] He had submitted all those facts to the House and he now left the matter in their hands. He doubted that the Committee contemplated in the Motion before the House would be of any use. But as ten Roman Catholic clergymen had signed a statement asserting, in the most decided terras, that the people of this district were suffering severely from the oppression of their landlords, and as charitable people in England and Ireland had contributed largely to their relief, he felt that a Committee might be appointed to inquire further about the matter; and if the labours of the Committee should elicit the truth neither their time nor that of the House would have been wasted.

said, he had been gratified by observing during his absence from the House, that there had been a cessation of discussions of this kind; which he had the satisfaction of imputing to the improved circumstances of Ireland; and he was proportionately grieved that such a debate should have arisen immediately that he returned to Parliament. He felt it his duty, however, to say a few words. It appeared to him to be very questionable whether the Committee now asked for would be productive of any beneficial results. He had been very much struck by some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, and if his statements had gone nnanswered, he should have felt it his duty to support the appointment of the Committee; but he thought that in the course of the discussion which had since taken place his allegations had been satisfactorily disposed of. Ten or eleven clergymen had made statements of a most serious and alarming character, and he was not about in any way to question their veracity, for they might have been assured of the accuracy of these allegations, and yet be much mistaken. Upon the alleged distress being made known to the guardians, they instituted the fullest inquiry, and the conclusion they came to was, that the allegations were not correct, and besides, the House had before them the sworn evidence of four persons to the inaccuracy of the statements set forth in the appeal. Those gentlemen stated the people were well off and that their rents had been punctually paid. So that the case stood thus—ten clergymen made a, statement, and four sworn witnesses gave an entirely different version; but these latter had made their statement before a competent gentleman, Mr. Hamilton, sent for the special inquiry by the Irish Government. Under such circumstances, he asked whether the House was disposed to nominate a Committee, and thus waste the time of hon. Gentlemen who had many most important public duties to attend to. He contended that there was not a single circumstance to justify the appointment of such a Committee.

said, he entirely disagreed with the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken. He could not conceive how the time of hon. Gentlemen could be wasted by serving on a Committee such as that which was now asked for. They had had Committees upon such trumpery matters as turnpike gates, and now that a whole population was plunged into misery he thought the least they could do was to admit that the circumstances was worth some attention on the part of the Government and a Committee of the House. He (Mr. Maguire) saw some time since a series of letters written by a gentleman who was personally known to him, and whose honour and honesty of purpose were only equalled by his ability. He alluded to Mr. Holland, the conductor of the Ulsterman, published at Belfast. That gentleman went into those districts to which the appeal referred in order to judge for himself, and the conclusion at which he arrived was that he had never seen a more horrible picture of misery. Upon the experience he had gained, and the facts he had elicited, he wrote those letters; wrote upon his legal responsibility to all those who had property there; and yet not one statement of Mr. Holland's had been brought under the notice of the House. If it were only for the purpose of having Mr. Holland examined, he thought an immense deal of good would arise from the appointment of the Committee. There were ten or eleven Catholic clergymen publishing to the world that these wrongs were inflicted and that these miseries existed; but, on the other side, certain members of the poor law board of guardians said there was not a particle of truth in their statements. He (Mr. Maguire) believed every word that had been uttered by the clergymen was true, and he believed that a great deal of the evidence which had been cited against them was not true —that it could not in any way be relied on. Mr. Hamilton himself said that the people were lying on straw, and the relieving officer admitted that some of them were in great distress. He was sorry that the noble Lord (Lord Naas) did not read that portion of Baron Pennefather's charge which stated that the people of the districts referred to were in a condition of opulence. Mr. Holland had described what that state of opulence was. He had taken his readers from Lord George Hill's splendid mansion, from the perpetual curate's house, and from the hotel at Guadore, to the mountains, and to the miserable hovel, to get at which he had to jump down a ditch. There was in that house a man with his wife and four children, and the mountain cow. They had a small deal table in the room, no chair, and only an old stool to sit upon. For their bed they had a heap of rags. For their dinner they had stinking potatoes and miserable seaweed. So horrified was Mr. Holland with this state of things, that he recommended any one who witnessed them to go hack to the Guadore hotel and to get a strong tumbler of punch. Mr. Holland expressed it as his deliberate opinion that the landlords had combined and taken from the people the mountain commonage, and raised the rent of the land which remained to them, in order to exterminate them; and was not this, he asked, a case worthy of serious inquiry on the part of a Committee of the House of Commons. One circumstance which pressed heavily on these poor people was what was known in Ireland as "the Gregory clause," a most iniquitous piece of legislation. That clause provided that if a man held more than a quarter of an acre of land, he should not get relief. It was not that relief which was obtained in England, it was imprisonment, it was social extinction. There was no hope of redemption for a man who was placed in that position. A small farmer, if he once quitted hold of his land and capital and went to the workhouse, became to all intents and purposes socially extinct. In the time of famine, the people, under the most horrible misery, died in their houses rather than surrender their places, in the hope of ultimate redemption. The Irish poor were not treated as the English, for the workhouses of Ireland were the most terrible engines of cruelty, the most horrible oppressors of. the poor. He believed that the clergymen who had signed the appeal would come well out of any inquiry that might be instituted; but, at the same time, as a Catholic Member, he bad no hesitation in saying, that if it should be proved that they bad stated what was not true, they would be worthy of the strongest and most solemn condemnation of that House.

agreed in all that had been said as to the duty of inquiring into the causes of destitution, but he did not like the notion of inquiry being instituted under false pretences. If this was to be an inquiry to investigate in what way landlords in Ireland dispose of their property, he warned the House of the consequences of consenting to such an investigation. It was proposed to inquire into destitution in Donegal, and to that he was willing to subscribe; but the hon. Gentlemen who asked for this inquiry first assumed that great destitution existed, and then ascribed it to the misconduct of the landlords. He could not forget that twelve months ago grave charges were brought against a Scotch gentleman who had bought large estates in Ireland, and at first the House was disposed to grant a Committee of inquiry; but a statement was afterwards made by one of the friends of that gentleman which showed that there was not the least pretext for an investigation. It appeared from the papers before the House that the tenants in the part of Donegal referred to, paid their rent to a day. What did the late Government do when ten clergymen signed a paper which not only justified but demanded inquiry? They deputed a Poor Law Inspector to make an inquiry on the spot. He did make an inquiry, and stated the facts which had been noticed by his noble Friend. Those who spoke of destitution should bear in mind these facts. The petition for inquiry which had been presented to the House had 2,039 signatures of persons calling themselves "farmers, occupiers, and inhabitants" of the district. The Committee on Petitions, however, in giving their opinion of it, stated that there were three signatures attached to it which appeared to be different, but that all the subsequent names seemed to be in the handwriting of one and the same individual; there were also many marks, and these wholly unattested. Such was the character of the petition for inquiry. The fact was admitted by the last speaker, that the object of the Committee was to investigate the conduct of the landlords. The Member for the county and the gentlemen of the county were all anxious for a Committee, conscious that their conduct would bear investigation, and under such circumstances it was not for him to object; but he begged to remind the House that the precedent now set might be applied to England and Scotland. Several prosecutions had been raised against those who had destroyed the sheep on these mountains, and the law allowed to the owner of the sheep, a Scotch gentleman, full compensation for his loss. The people of the district had to pay for the sheep a sum of £1,354 17s. 6d.; and the Lord Lieutenant, on hearing what was going on, sent down a sufficient force of police, which they were also called on to pay; and he must say that the tax for the sheep and the tax for the police were Loth paid with the greatest readiness. It should be recollected, too, that there were not more than 22 persons in the poor-house by the last accounts from the district. It seemed to be the wish of the House that there should be an inquiry, but he must repeat that he thought it might prove a dangerous precedent.

said that, as it appeared to be the opinion of the House that the Committee should be appointed, he should not oppose the Motion; but he wished to make one or two remarks upon some of the arguments that had been advanced. They had been told that there was great destitution in the country, and that it was borne testimony to by several Roman Catholic priests. He was ready to give perfect credence to their statements; but he would ask hon. Members whether they thought that by any general law they could remedy this evil, and what they thought, if they granted this inquiry, it could possibly result in? He would grant that great misery existed, as had been alleged; but bow did that misery arise? He was told that it arose in certain parts of Donegal from certain persons having been excluded from their runs upon mountain districts, that the landlords let their property there for more money to Scotchmen, and that the people consequently suffered. Proprietors had found that by letting their mountain lands to Scotchmen they could get more from them than by keeping them in their old state; and hence it is said arose the destitution of the people on the property. Well now, he wanted to know if the House was prepared to meet that difficulty? He had, be would say, for the purpose of argument, a wild district in England, and he found that certain persons were prepared to take that district from him, to farm it, to make it productive to themselves and remunerative to him. But there were certain persons living upon it who did not pay him any- thing, and from whom he derived no benefit of any kind. Could those persons step in and prevent him making use of his property? The hon. Gentleman said the poor people were eating sea-weed in the districts he had mentioned; but at the same time they were told that there were only 27 or 29 people in the workhouse. Why was that the case when there was a law which said that if a man had six children, and sent three of them to the poor house, he must go there also? Was the House prepared to alter that law? When that appeal was made to the Irish Members, they said, "Oh, dear me, no; for that would increase the poor rates." What could the House possibly say to arguments of this kind? He, as an Englishman, was, perhaps, like a man thrusting his hand into a beehive in meddling with Irish questions, but what was he to do? We were a United Kingdom, and an injury done to Ireland thrilled through England, and he felt as much sympathy for an Irishman as for an Englishman. But again he asked, what could they do by general legislation for this subject?—and that was the real inquiry before them. It was not enough to paint a picture of great disasters—it was not enough for eleven Irish priests to propagate a statement in reference to great distress and great disasters—they might get charitable persons to support them; but in coming to that House they could do nothing more than ask for a general law; and he asked therefore, what was really intended by that inquiry? Even should the inquiry make out all that the priests insisted upon, what was the House to do? It could do absolutely nothing. This was a mischief belonging to human nature— not to Ireland but to the world—and they could not by any general law, provide against that mischief. He was quite convinced that the result would be, after this Committee, that the House would be compelled to lay by its hand, and to say that for this mischief there was no remedy.

said, he was quite sure that if the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had been aware of the difference between the laws of England and Ireland, he would not have made the statements he had done. It was true that 1500 sheep were lost; but it was true that although a few were maliciously killed, the great bulk were not; and if such things as had occurred in Donegal had taken place in England, the law would have been appealed to in the usual way, and all the necessary formalities would have been gone through; but in Ireland the grand juries had all the power and acted upon their own free will. There were no summonses of any kind, but they placed their warrants in the hands of the constables, who went at once and seized everything they could get hold of, made a complete razzia amongst the people, and spread desolation and ruin around. In the late cases the inquiry would prove that persons sat upon the grand jury who investigated their own claims, and decided the amount of compensation which was due to them. Some of the owners of the sheep alleged to be destroyed actually adopted that extraordinary course. If this Committee were appointed such facts would be clearly established, and a great deal of good would be done for Ire-laud by such an exposure before Parliament. He (Mr. M'Mahon) condemned the Gregory clause, which he held to be productive of the greatest distress in Ireland, and believed it had been enacted for the purpose of exterminating the people. There was nothing like it in England or in any other part of the civilized world. The grand jury law was equally open to objection. He hoped that one of the results of the inquiry would be to assimilate the laws of England and Ireland in this respect. He was quite certain that if the grand jury law were altered and the Gregory clause abolished they would never have to appeal again to the House of Commons for the appointment of such a Committee.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to deny the destruction of the sheep. ["No!"] Then he admitted it—any way the hon. and learned Gentleman liked. Whichever assertion was true equally contradicted the statement of the ten priests, for they declared that these Scotch sheep were so averse to Irish grass that they would not live there. Now, he believed Irish grass to be the richest in Europe, and Scotch sheep to be as wise as any other kind of sheep. No doubt a statement had been made by ten most holy and most reverend priests. Now, it happened in the case of Mr. Pollok that a most awful case was made out by hon. Members opposite; but when he got the petition into his hand he found it signed by only two priests. There was a long paper, not affixed to the petition, which contained the names of a great number of people, who it was said could not write; but on inquiry almost all of these turned out to be mythical persons. The experience they gained in that case ought to make the House a little shy in believing any assertion upon the faith of these rev. gentlemen. It was curious that they were told that several sheep were taken to market and sold—so that sheep would live and would fatten, notwithstanding all the priests, and they did live and did fatten, and, moreover, were stolen and were sold. In this awful Bill of indictment there was not a single fact which was not contradicted totisdem verbis by respectable people on their oaths. But then it was sought to impeach the veracity of these persons, because they were officials—that was to say, because people whose duty it was to inquire did their duty and did inquire, they were to be held up as persons wholly unworthy of credit. Let the House observe how this thing (the petition) was worded. It was said that "the inhabitants of these wilds were Celts of the pure old race, with the pure old faith." If they were of the pure old faith, it was not the Roman. Every theological term came from the Greek, and the pure old faith was Greek. It complained of Englishmen and Scotchmen grazing their sheep in Ireland. Surely they had as much right to graze their sheep in Ireland, as the Irish had to come over to graze in England? That was part of the offence. Then it was said there was a great deal more behind. He believed there was a great deal more behind. He believed that this exaggerated inflammatory petition was nothing more than a mask by which it was endeavoured to foment discord between Irish landlords and their tenants. The hon. Gentleman was equally wrong in his law. The law of England was that a man should not receive relief out of the house. The hon. Gentleman said, "But he does receive relief out of the house." When a man with a large family applied for relief it was a question whether the rates would be more saved by giving him a small pittance to keep him out of the house or by taking him in; but that did not alter the law of the land. Then, it ought to be remembered that those who were pressing for this Poor Law and complaining that relief was not given were the very same persons who denounced the Poor Law from one end of Ireland to the other, Dr. M'Hale declaring that the intention was not to relieve the poor, but to make the lands of Ireland pass into the hands of foreigners. An hon. Gentleman, not then in his place, was the leader of the opposi- tion to the Irish Poor Law, and it was only carried by a majority of English and Scotch Members. Every charge in the petition had been answered verbatim upon oath. They were going to examine people not upon oath, and ho, for one, would not believe one word they said.

said, that those rev. gentlemen had never had an opportunity of confronting Mr. Hamilton, upon whose evidence so much stress had been laid by the Irish Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland.

seconded the Motion.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision for the better Government and Discipline of the Universities of Scotland, and improving and regulating the course of study therein; and for the Union of the two Universities and Colleges of Aberdeen. The hon. and learned Lord, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that the Scottish Universities sought to provide a liberal education for a larger proportion of the inhabitants of Scotland than any corresponding system in any other country in Europe; and it was possibly to this distinguishing peculiarity— which had gained for them the high character they had obtained—that were to be attributed some of the defects which the proposed measure was calculated to remedy. The admission of students into those Universities had never been trammelled by any religious distinctions, and although it had originally been the policy of the Universities to require every professor to be a member of the Established Church, a measure had been passed about four or five years ago for relaxing that rule, and the consequence was, that any man who was properly qualified to be a professor might be admitted to a chair without regard to the religious community to which he belonged. The result of the system was, that these Universities had been open to the whole youth of Scotland, and that the scope of the education imparted there had been very liberal. At the same time, he was bound to say that certain imperfections had arisen from the system which it was indispensable to remove. It was one of the consequences of their seeking this very wide field of operation that the Scotch establishments had lost sight of the main objects of the Universities, and their educational standard had descended below the requirements of the age. From this it had resulted that great excellence in any department of science was no longer one of the distinguished characteristics of the students of those Universities. That which appeared to him to he at the root of the existing evil was the want of value which was attached to the degrees in arts, and any measure, therefore, which should have the effect of enhancing the value of those degrees and of creating an intelligent body of graduates, would prove very advantageous. He was bound to say, however, in justice to the professors, that within the last ten years a great improvement had taken place. There was nothing novel in the Bill which he proposed to introduce. It was founded, in a great measure, upon the Report of a Commission which had been presented to Parliament so far back as 1830. That Commission was appointed in 1826. The Commissioners conducted a most elaborate inquiry into the whole system of the Universities. They were persons of the highest weight and ability; and the Report which they presented contained a mass of valuable and instructive matter upon this most important subject. He should further state, that in framing his measure he had been under great obligations to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Moncrieff), who, having had himself a measure on the subject in preparation, had furnished him with his materials and the sketch of his plan; and he (the Lord Advocate) had endeavoured to put in the form of a Bill such provisions as he thought would introduce into the Scotch Universities those improvements which were desirable. In the first place, in order to enhance the value of a degree in art, and at the same time create a body of enlightened men in connection with the Universities, he thought it essential that some means should be adopted to associate the graduates more intimately with the Universities by conferring on them a certain share in the administration of their affairs, and thereby to attach them to the Universities after the course of education there was brought to an end. He trusted that by this means it would be possible to improve the standard of qualification, and greatly to increase the aggregate amount of learning in the Universities without interfering with what was a most important element in respect to the efficiency of the Universities—the instruction and education of what were called "occasional students," who went to the Universities, not for the purpose of going through the regular course, but only for instruction in those particular branches of education which might be valuable to them. The raising of the qualification for degrees in art—the raising of the standard of excellence in all departments—would not prevent the Universities from affording instruction, as heretofore, to that class of occasional students. But it seemed indispensable, with a view to improvements in the Universities, that some change should be made in the government and administration of their affairs. As the matter stood at present, the whole administration, as well as regarded property and revenues as other matters, was vested in a body called "the body of teachers," composed of the Principal and professors of each University. The single exception from this arrangement was in the University of Edinburgh, where a great deal of the power, if not the whole, was lodged in the town council of the city, a body of whom he would venture to say that they were not better qualified for the purpose than the governing bodies of the other Universities. He thought that the way to improve the administration of the Universities was to adopt another most valuable suggestion contained in the Report to which he had already referred, and to institute what might be called a "University Board." It was important that a considerable amount of control should be placed in the hands of such a board, when it was considered what sort of questions were likely to come before a body of that kind for determination. In the first place, there must be many cases in which the professors of a University had different interests. He did not mean to say that those cases frequently occurred, but when they did they were at present productive of inconvenience, on account of the soreness and heart burnings they occasioned, the professors themselves having the power to decide on them. In the second place, there might on certain questions arise dif- ferences between the professors and the students, and it was extremely desirable that with respect to such questions there should be a power of appeal from a body composed entirely of professors. He also conceived that the control and disposal of the property and revenues of the Universities might more safely be entrusted to other hands. It was necessary that there should be some body whose duty it should be to regulate from time to time the course of the students, to introduce improvements into it, and to institute fresh subjects of study; and all these matters might be more beneficially placed in the hands of a body differently constituted from the existing governing power. He proposed, then, that this Board should in each university be composed, in the first place, of the Rector, an officer known in all Scotch Universities, and also of the Principal. In the next place, it should also consist of a body to be called "Assessors," who should be nominated by the professors and the graduates. Of course he should not now enter deeply into detail respecting all the powers to be exercised by such University Board, having sufficiently for the present purpose sketched out the nature of the Board. He now came to consider what improvements were necessary with respect to the position of the professors themselves, and he was bound to say that the professors, in many cases, had very just and well-founded cause to complain of their position. There could be no doubt that in some Universities the endowments of the professors were singularly inadequate. This arose from various causes. In the first place, it arose from the circumstance that their salaries had been fixed in money payments at a very distant day, and had remained stationary, while the relative value of money had very much altered. In the second place, a very great proportion of the revenues and funds belonging to the Universities accrued from tithes or "tends," and were subject to a diminution in value from time to time by the augmentation of the payments to the clergy, which formed the primary charge on them. Thus, as the necessities of the times required an augmentation of the stipends of the clergy, just in the same proportion were the revenues of the Universities diminished. [The hon. and learned Lord here road a statement on this subject in reference to the University of St. Andrew's.] He proposed that such a stipend should be allotted to the professors as would secure the services of able and learned men. He also proposed that moderate and reasonable retiring pensions should be awarded to aged and infirm professors, which would prevent them from continuing to occupy their chairs when they were disqualified for the active performance of their duties. In some of the Universities, also, additional chairs were absolutely required, and the Bill would provide for meeting that necessity. He further proposed that the professors of each department should continue at the head of their respective departments, but that they should receive the assistance of tutors or assessors to such an extent as might be deemed necessary. He proposed the appointment of what he might call an executive commission for the purpose of carrying out the details of the proposed improvements. He might add, that he did not think it would be necessary to interfere to any extent with the patronage of the chairs; and that no scheme of reform of the Scotch Universities would be perfect or satisfactory if it did not provide for the union of the two Universities of Aberdeen. Clauses would therefore be included in the Bill providing for the union of those Universities. The subject was one of great importance. He claimed no merit for originality; but he trusted that the measure he proposed would be found adequate to an object so much desired as the improvement of the Scotch Universities. He would now move for leave to bring in his Bill.

said, he had not had the good fortune to hear one-half of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and therefore, without offering any objection to the introduction of the Bill, he could give no pledge as to the course he might hereafter pursue. The object the right hon. Gentleman had in view was one which was popular in Scotland, and if properly carried out it would no doubt secure to the people of that country many educational advantages. The right hon. Gentleman proposed the union of the two Universities of Aberdeen. Now, the term "union" admitted of various constructions, and the union proposed by the Bill might be exceedingly acceptable to the citizens of Aberdeen and to the Universities; but if the right hon. Gentleman meant to propose a fusion of the two Universities, he (Colonel Sykes) could not promise to support such a project.

expressed his complete and cordial concurrence in the measure, the object of which, he understood, was substantially to appoint a Commission to carry out, as far as they might think it desirable or expedient, the recommendations of the Commission which reported on this subject in 1830. It was a singular fact that that Report should have lain upon the table from 1830 down to the present time without any attempt having been made to carry out its very wise provisions, and he trusted the main details of this measure would meet with the unanimous approbation of the representatives of Scotland. His right hon. Friend bad truly said that for the last four or five years no Professor in the Scotch Universities had been bound to take any test upon his admission to office, and he had added that the teaching in the Universities was of the most catholic and liberal description. That was the fact, and one consequence of this state of things was that persons of all denominations were able to unite in doing all in their power to promote education in the Universities of Scotland. He hoped this example would not be without its effect, and that when, by united efforts, an endeavour had been made to improve the University education of Scotland, the same union and energy would be applied to the improvement of the schools of that country.

had, like the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes), boon unable clearly to understand what bad fallen from the Lord Advocate, but he thought the circumstance was mainly attributable to the inattention with which the right hon. Gentleman's statement had been received by the House. The subject of university reform bad engaged much public attention in Scotland, and he regretted that the noise which had prevailed in the House had prevented him from catching accurately what was the nature of his right hon. Friend's Bill. If it was, as he had no doubt was the case, a carefully considered measure, it would be received with general satisfaction by the people of Scotland.

said, he had occupied a position in which he had had the good fortune to hear the lucid statement of his right hon. and learned Friend. He believed the Bill would be regarded with great satisfaction by the people of Scotland, and would be attended with very beneficial results. With regard to the union of the two Universities of Aberdeen, as an official connected with one of those institutions he would say that any plan of university reform in Scotland which did not embrace that object would be extremely fallacious. The measure of the learned Lord would receive his cordial approbation and support.

suggested it was desirable that the Bill should be laid on the table and circulated before the second reading came on. There bad been a general expectation throughout Scotland that when the number of graduates was increased, and a higher scale of education was adopted, there should be an application for a representation of these Universities in Parliament. Many advantages would flow from such an arrangement, and he would suggest the desirability of adopting it, and also of settling the relative status of the Professors on the old foundation and the Regius Professors.

seconded the Motion. He confirmed the statement of the noble Lord, that the Bill was brought forward at the instance of the Commercial Association and the Lay Association of Manchester. The lawyers considered the measure necessary in order to enable them to ascertain who were the acting partners in firms; while the commercial community believed it to be for their interest that they should have an accurate knowledge of those persons with whom they were dealing. The Bill had been discussed by the Law Reform Association of London, presided over by Lord Brougham, and had received the cordial assent of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to its introduction.

had no intention on the part of the Government of offering any opposition to the introduction of the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich), considering his position in that House and the importance of the interests which he represented, had no need to make an apology for bringing forward any measure which he thought likely to contribute to the public welfare. The present was an entirely new subject to the House, and, he might say, to the country at large, with the exception of the discussion which had been referred to, and it was one which well deserved consideration. He was glad that the noble Lord proposed to allow some time to elapse before moving the second reading, for the question was not so easy as might at first sight appear; and in agreeing on the part of the Government, to the introduction of the Bill, he must be understood as reserving to himself full power to take upon a future occasion whatever course might seem best for the interests of the commercial community.

then rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Public Health Act (1848). The grounds upon which he made this application might be briefly stated. The Public Health Act of 1848 constituted certain officers, of whom the head was the Chief Commissioner of Works, as a General Board of Health for five years. That General Board, exercising the powers conferred upon them by the Act, called into existence local boards, in various towns throughout the country, and then became to those boards their referee in a multitude of cases; serving at the same time as a court of final appeal. In 1854, when the five years had expired, another Bill wa3 introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who then filled the office of Home Secretary, the object of which was to reconstitute the General Board, but placing it under the Home Office. The House, however, wished that the General Board should be placed under a responsible Minister and erected into a separate department; and the Bill of the noble Lord failed to pass through Parliament. At a later period of the same Session another member of the Government of the day—the late Sir William Molesworth—who was then the Chief Commissioner of Works, proposed a Bill, which ultimately became law, constituting the General Board of Health into a department of State, with a President and offices of its own. The first President was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall); and no sooner was he installed than he dealt with the subject of the public health largely and decisively. In 1855 he introduced two Bills, and after reading them a second time, referred them to a Select Committee. One —the Removal of Nuisances Bill—he succeeded in passing into law, and, with some little modification and addition, it might be considered a satisfactory and permanent settlement of a difficult and important subject. He also passed in the same year two Bills, which dealt with the whole subject of public health as far as the metropolis was concerned. But the Bill which he introduced relating to the whole kingdom failed to become law, and Parliament sanctioned a mere Continuance Act for one year. In the year 1856 the question was again dealt with by the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), and subsequently by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey), but upon both those occasions the measures which had been proposed had failed to pass into a law; and the result was that several continuance Acts had been passed, under the operation of the last of which the General Board of Health, and with it a number of local boards, would cease to exist in the month of September next. He had under those circumstances felt it to be his duty to introduce a Bill upon the subject, and in doing so he had clone his best to deal with it upon a permanent footing. The general principle of the measure which he was about to ask the House for leave to introduce was one the object of which was to decentralize the whole system; to allow the General Board of Health to expire in September; and to enable all those towns which desired to possess the power of self-administration to constitute local boards through the medium of meetings of owners and ratepayers, two-thirds of whom must consent to the adoption of such a course; it being open to town councils or commissioners, who fairly represented the inhabitants of large towns, to exercise similar powers in that respect as the owners and ratepayers to whom he had just adverted. The Bill further provided that due notice should be given of the time at which the meetings for the constitution of local boards were to be held, and gave a power of appeal in those cases in which such notice was not duly given. He also proposed that the boards which might be constituted under the Act, as well as all the local boards now in existence, should have the amplest powers of self-administration extended to them, and should be no longer subjected to the necessity of referring to a central board in London. Those powers of self-administration would, however, be placed under proper check by granting to individuals who might feel themselves aggrieved by the action of those local hoards a power of appeal, and also by rendering it necessary that they should annually undergo re-election. The appeal would be made to the Secretary for the Home Department. Having stated thus much he believed he had put the House in possession of the various provisions of the Bill. The general medical functions of the Board of Health, as contrasted with its towns' improvement functions, he proposed to deal with in a separate measure, the former being distinctly central and Governmental functions, the latter essentially local.

moved the second reading of this Bill, which he said was intended to correct some of the deficiencies of the existing law on the subject.

said, that while he fully appreciated the objects which the noble Lord had in view in bringing forward the measure of which he had just moved the second reading, he must express a hope that the noble Lord would see the expediency of not pressing it upon the attention of the House. The fact was, that the main objects which the Bill sought to attain were provided for under the existing law, while the additional provisions proposed by the noble Lord were of a character so unreasonable that they ought not to be embodied in a legislative enactment. In the first clause of the Bill, for instance, occurred the words "or by wilful or avoidable negligence causing suffering to any animal." Now, the word "avoidable" was one the construction of which might lead to the infliction of considerable hardship upon persons who might not fairly be open to the charge of intentional cruelty to animals; while the provision for licensing slaughterhouses—the license for which might now be obtained by proper application at any time, but which under the operation of the Bill could be obtained only once a year—was equally open to objection on account of the inconvenience which it would cause. Without at all undervaluing the benevolent intentions of the noble Lord, he should feel it his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, that he was sorry the noble Lord would not withdraw his Bill, for under the guise of a Bill to pre- vent the infliction of cruelty upon animals it was one for inflicting cruelty upon man. It was full of pains and penalties. He would recommend him to go to France, where there was a society for protecting men against animals, who on one occasion proposed to give a reward for the person who brought over an ox without horns. If this Bill were passed his constituents would be prevented from dealing with any kind of animals, and amongst others, he supposed, with those minor ones which were so great a nuisance in London houses.

thought that, although the Bill contained some objectionable, it also contained some useful provisions, and he therefore hoped that the House would allow it to be read a second time, with a view to amendment in Committee.

thought that some Amendments might be introduced into it, with a view of defining more clearly the power of assessing damages which it conferred upon the Court of Chancery. He would be happy to co-operate with the Solicitor General in passing the Bill, with some Amendments.

had no doubt that the language of the Bill might be open to some Amendment, and would be glad to have the assistance of his hon. and learned Friend. He should propose that it be read a second time, for the purpose of having it committed pro formâ, with a view to the introduction of Amendments.

said, that in the absence of the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) he would postpone the Order to the following day, when his hon. Friend would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some arrangement to proceed with the Bill, so that they might come to that division of which the right hon. Gentleman was disappointed the day previously.