said, that this Bill was very similar to the Red Sea Telegraph Bill which they discussed yesterday, and before it was disposed of he wished the Secretary to the Treasury to explain one of the clauses of the Bill, which seemed to him the most extraordinary he had ever heard of in a private Bill. He alluded to the 15th Clause, which was as follows:—

"It shall be lawful, for the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury and the Company by mutual agreement, from time to time to rescind, modify, or alter any agreement or arrangements now in force under the first recited Act, or which might be at any time hereafter made and entered into."

The effect of this clause seemed to be to dispense altogether with the necessity of the consent of the House of Commons. It went on to provide—

"That for assisting and facilitating the Atlantic Company's undertaking, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury might, on behalf of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government, from time to time make and enter into such agreement with the Company as they might think proper for appropriating and applying any fixed or varying annual payment or dividend upon all or part of the present or of any further capital of the company as a guarantee of the dividends of the company."

He asked the Secretary of the Treasury what was the nature of the powers that were sought to be taken by the Lords of the Treasury under this clause in a private Bill?

said, the object of the clause to which his noble Friend adverted was to enable the Treasury to carry out with the Company the terms of the contract which had been agreed upon by then-predecessors before the present Ministry came into office. The terms of the agreement were in substance, that the Government should guarantee a minimum dividend of 8 per cent on a capital of £600,000, the guarantee, however, being entirely conditional on the success of the undertaking. The guarantee was only to come into effect in case the cable was laid down successfully, so as to work at least 100 words per hour. He did not know that it was necessary for him to go into the details of the arrangement. It was not open to the objection that was taken to the Red Sea Telegraph guarantee, but was a guarantee conditional on the work done. He believed that if the cable were successfully laid, the commercial receipts would return the sum, or nearly the sum guaranteed. However, the arrangement had been made by their predecessors, and was therefore binding on the present Government; and after the decision of the House last night in the case of the Red Sea Telegraph, he trusted that the further stages of the Bill would not be opposed.

asked if the guarantee were to continue, in case the cable should be broken?

replied, that it would be continued only so long as messages could be transmitted at the rate he had mentioned.

said, the difference between the two cases was, that the guarantee to the Red Sea Telegraph Company was an unconditional guarantee for fifty years, whereas this was a conditional guarantee for twenty-five years. He thought it absolutely necessary, if this system of guarantees by the Treasury was to continue, that the responsible Minister should appear in his place in the House and state what was the precise nature of the arrangement that had been entered into. He hoped that this matter was about to undergo a prospective and serious investigation. He took the opportunity of saying that he did not, when making observations yesterday on a kindred measure, either directly or indirectly mean to infer that there was any neglect on the part of the Speaker with reference to the Bill. It was true that a money resolution had been moved, but somehow, either so early or so late, as not to attract the notice of the House. It was also true that the money clause was printed in italics, but as it was a private Bill, and not more than twelve or twenty were circulated, and unless a Member asked for it, it was not sent to him, that was no notice. He hoped there would be no more such loose arrangements, or that they would be more deliberately submitted to the judgment of the House.

denied that the arrangements made with regard to this telegraph were framed, as the right hon. Baronet alleged, in a loose manner. From his own personal knowledge he could state that they formed the subject of more than one anxious deliberation on the part of the Cabinet, and he believed that they were conducive to the public interest.

wished to point out that in this Bill Dr. Skinner was called a "bishop of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and Bishop of Aberdeen." Now, there was no objection to the former designation, but to describe him as the "Bishop of Aberdeen" was a highly objectionable innovation.

said, the general law on this subject was that no priest, unless he was ordained as a minister of the Church of England, should be allowed to hold a benefice or to officiate in any church in England, but a Scottish or an American episcopal clergyman might be allowed to officiate for two Sundays in any diocese. He believed that some four or five private Bills had been passed taking individual cases out of the general law, but he thought the House ought to regard with great suspicion any Bill which superseded the general law of the land. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that the title "Bishop of Aberdeen" was an invasion of the spirit of the statute. With regard to this particular case, Mr. Greive did not come into Court with clean hands. He held in his hand a letter from a distinguished dignitary of the Scottish Episcopal Church, whose name he was not at liberty to mention, and who spoke of this application of Mr. Greive's to be admitted into the English Church, without the sanction of his bishop, as an act of great presumption. Mr. Grieve belonged to a party in the Scottish Episcopal Church who wished to subvert its doctrines and formula, whose Romanizing tendencies had been condemned by its dignitaries. Mr. Greive himself incurred the censure of his bishop. The Rev. Mr. Cheyne had been summoned before him to answer a charge concerning the doctrine taught by him in six sermons which he had published. The bishop put the matter to the presbyters, and twelve of them honestly gave their opinion, but the other nine, of whom Mr. Greive was one of the most prominent, refused to give an opinion, and endeavoured to obstruct the bishop in the exercise of his duties, for which he censured them. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

said, he was not a promoter of the Bill, nor had he any acquaintance with the Rev. Mr. Greive, but he thought the course recommended by the hon. Member was at variance with all precedent, and unjust to an individual. After a person had gone to the expense of promoting a Bill of this nature in Parliament, in accordance with the practice which had heretofore prevailed, it was hard to suddenly turn round and say, "We will shut the door against you because we now think these cases ought to be dealt with by a general Act applicable to all cases." That might be a good propo- sition, but it was hard to make Mr. Greive the victim of a change of opinion on the part of the House. As to Mr. Greive being under the censure of his bishop, he wished to clear himself of the charges against him, and if the Bill were now read a second time, it would be referred to a Select Committee, which would, of course, inquire into the whole circumstances.

said, that speaking on the part of the Church of England, he thought the result proposed to be attained by this measure ought to be effected by a public Bill. If Mr. Greive was to be permitted to hold a living or officiate in the Church of England the opposition of the House would not necessarily prevent him, for he would be relieved by the provisions of the general measure if it were passed. He thought the House ought to resist this request of Mr. Greive.

said, that Mr. Greive's case was not that of a Scotchman seeking entrance into the Church of England. He was an Englishman born, but he happened to receive the close of his education in Scotland, and there he was ordained in order to enable him to hold a living near Aberdeen in the year 1850, and there he had remained ever since until now. Very lately his circumstances had changed. He (Mr. Stirling) believed that within a few months past his father had died leaving him to take charge of an infirm relative, who was a ward in Chancery, and to whom he had been appointed guardian. This compelled him to live in England. Then what was he to do? As regarded the circumstances under which he left Scotland, it appeared that he had been severely reprimanded by the bishop. And why? A certain gentleman was arraigned by the bishop for holding opinions supposed to be erroneous; and Mr. Greive, with eight other gentlemen, refused to give an opinion on the subject, because the gentleman arraigned had taken a technical objection to the charge, and refused to plead. He fully admitted that the bishop did make remarks on what was called Mr. Greive's contumacy; but in the letters of dismissal the bishop and others testified that for the space of three years, during which they had known him, Mr. Greive had lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and had written and taught nothing against the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, or of England. Therefore the ecclesiastical censure passed by the bishop had been washed away. There was only one other portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech to which he (Mr. Stirling) would refer, and that was the letter from the Bishop of Winchester. Now, the Bishop of Winchester was a Member of the House of Lords. Then why did not the right rev. Prelate oppose this measure whilst it was passing through the House of Lords?

said, the House had not been able very clearly to understand the merits of the case either from the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Steuart), or from his right hon. Friend who sat on the front Opposition bench (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt). It had been proposed to send this Bill to a Committee, who were to decide, he supposed, whether or not this gentleman held sound opinions, and whether he ought or ought not to be under the ban of his bishop. Now he (Mr. Bright) protested against the House of Commons being made the tribunal of any such controversy. This Bill did not profess to go to the Committee upon any principle. He (Mr. Blight) believed there was no principle in it, hut rather upon the practice of not allowing a gentleman ordained north of the Tweed to officiate south of that river. The Bill certainly tended to produce a free trade in clergymen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed spirits to pass across the Tweed free of duty, and he did not know why spiritual teachers should not be equally exempt from interference. The English Church was not so particular as to refuse the priests ordained by the Roman Catholic Church without further qualification; unless this gentleman were much deeper dyed than a Roman Catholic priest, there is no reason why a refusal should be extended to him. This subject, no doubt, should be dealt with by a general measure. At the same time it seemed that this opposition was not the fault of this gentleman. He (Mr. Bright) had very little sympathy with any of them, but he thought that the House ought to pass this Bill, no objection having been raised to any previous measure of the same kind; and then if a grievance were established, it might be removed by a general measure, and thus the House be spared the pain of a somewhat humiliating discussion.

pointed out that there was no legislative inability in the Bishop of Aberdeen holding his present title, inasmuch as the Scotch bishops were expressly excepted out of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

quite agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that this House was not the proper tribunal for ecclesiastical discussion. But the hon. Member was mistaken, if he thought that the House could legislate on this subject without practically expressing an opinion. But he thought there was no reason why they should not express their opinion on this particular case, because he doubted very much whether the House ought to pass any Private Bill of this kind. This Gentleman could not come before the House except by virtue of his connection with the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and the Episcopal Church of Scotland had passed him under its censure—he had been condemned by the authority, in virtue of which he appeared before the House—and yet this gentleman asked the House to grant him a special privilege to which the House generally objected. The House therefore could not fail to express its opinion with respect to this claim. The Episcopal Church of Scotland was not the Established Church, and in many important respects its formularies and its doctrines and acceptance of the Thirty-nine Articles were not those of the Church of England. This gentleman was condemned by the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and he (Mr. Newdegate) did not see how they could admit him to the benefits of the Church of England with which he still more widely differed. He must oppose the second reading of the Bill.

said, that the general question before the House was much more important than the personal merits or demerits of this gentleman, with which the House had nothing to do. The real question was, were they prepared to make an exception to a general law? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Estcourt) had said that the question was not fairly raised by this Bill. But it was raised; for if the existing law was a good law, some reason ought to be shown for departing from it.

said, he had observed that many Bills of the same description had been passed already.

This was far from being an old or an effete law. It was passed at the end of the last century, and had been recognized as an Act passed in the course of the present reign. This proceeding was, as the hon. Member for Birmingham said, introducing free trade into the Church of England, and the House should bear in mind that the Church of England had no control over the Scotch bishops, whose particular opinions were not sympathized in by a large number of Episcopalians in this country. Was it reasonable that an individual, who was a member of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, should be permitted to officiate and hold benefices in the Church of an adjoining country?

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) seemed to think that Mr. Greive had been censured by his Episcopal superior in Scotland. Now that was not the case. The whole complaint against him was that he declined to pronounce an opinion in a case in which only one side had been heard. Although there was no doubt that the Bishop in question did write the letter of censure, it was also true that the same Bishop had afterwards written a letter in which he spoke of Mr. Greive in the highest possible terms. The right hon. Gentleman who last spoke asked the House to reject this private Bill on the ground that it infringed what he regarded as a sound general principle. The subject was one in which, in his (Lord J. Manners') opinion, deserved mature consideration; but the question now to be determined was whether, on statements made on one side and rebutted on the other, they would refuse to an individual who had already incurred great expense in passing this Bill through the House of Lords, the same licence and liberty which Parliament had in numerous instances accorded to persons in analogous circumstances. He thought that it would be in the highest degree unfair, upon mere ex parte statements, to withhold the relief asked for in this instance; and he would therefore support the second reading of the Bill.

said, it appeared to him that a fair statement of this case had not yet been made. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) objected to any deviation from a general law which was a good law. He agreed with him in the objection. But what was the fact? There were two classes of men to whom he would direct the attention of the House—Catholic priests and Episcopalian clergymen. They acknowledge the ordination of the Catholic priest, and the moment he called himself a member of the Church of England, his ordination being admitted, he could at once take a benefice. But, when a Protestant Episcopalian clergyman of Scotland declared himself a member of the Church of England, he was obliged to go to a Bishop of the Church of England for ordination before he could hold a benefice. Now, he wished to know why they objected to the sham, while they did not object to the real thing? What was the real objection to the clergyman to whom this Bill referred? Everybody knew what it was—that he was too much like a Catholic priest. If he were actually a Catholic priest he would not have to come to that House; but being, as he said he was, a conscientious member of the Church of England, — having been ordained, not by a Catholic Bishop, but by an Episcopalian Protestant Bishop—they refused to admit him into the Church of England. They did admit Catholic priests, but they did not admit Episcopalian clergymen of Scotland. Now, it appeared to him that this was unfair towards our Protestant Episcopalian Brethren in Scotland. He put the case simply upon that ground. A rule was established with regard to the ordination of Catholic Bishops, and if that ordination gave admission to the Church of England, what man would say that ordination by a Protestant Episcopalian Bishop of the Church of Scotland should not have the same effect? As he (Mr. Roebuck) was a thorough-going Protestant, and believed in the benefit of free trade in religion as well as in everything else, he was in favour of the Bill, because he thought that the same rule which applied to Catholic priests ought to apply to Protestant Episcopalian clergymen of Scotland.

said, that in stating his views upon this question, he must be understood as expressing merely his own opinions. The state of the law had been, no doubt, accurately laid down by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. By an Act of the 32nd of Geo. III. clergymen ordained by Bishops in Scotland were not only prohibited from holding curacies or benefices in England, but from officiating at all in the Established Church in this country. That Act was revised in 1840, when its provisions were, with great caution, so far relaxed as to allow that a Scotch Episcopalian clergyman might receive permission from the bishop of a diocese to officiate for two days, only to be named in such permission, within that diocese, and that the permission might be renewed from time to time. Clergymen ordained by the Colonial Bishops, or in the East Indies, might, by another Act under certain conditions and restrictions, be admitted to the status and privileges of clergymen ordained by the Bishops of the Established Church in England and Ireland; but clergymen ordained by Bishops in Scotland were expressly excepted from the operation of this Act by the special statutes applicable to them. A good deal had been said about the relaxation of the general law, and he was not prepared to say that it should not be revised; but he thought it would be acting hastily to declare that a law which had been under the consideration of Parliament so recently as 1840 should be repealed without very careful inquiry into the status and position of the Bishops in Scotland, and of the clergymen ordained by them, as well as into the circumstances which led to the prohibition that had been imposed. In his opinion such an inquiry ought to precede any pledge given on the part of the House with regard to a Bill repealing or relaxing the existing law. Then the question arose whether, so long as the law remained in its present form, they should deal with these exceptional cases by private legislation. During recent years the House had sanctioned this practice by passing five Bills similar to that under consideration, exempting clergymen from the prohibitions imposed by the general law. If this were the first instance in which such a Bill had been submitted to the House, he would have no hesitation in saying that it ought not to be sanctioned. He would not say that under no circumstances ought the House to grant an exemption from the general law; but so long as the general law was maintained he thought its' operation would be most partial and unfair if exemptions from it were granted to a few individuals who could afford to pay the expenses of private Bills, without any very special circumstances. In his opinion the House was incompetent to decide that there was anything in the doctrine held by Mr. Greive to disentitle him to their indulgence, but they were justified in inquiring what were the peculiar circumstances under which they were asked to sanction a departure from the general law. Mr. Greive was ordained only about eight years ago; and the only ground he alleged for his Bill was that he had some aged relations in England, near whom he wished to live; and he, therefore, asked the House to give him the status of an English clergyman, subject to the consent of the Bishop of the diocese in which he might obtain a curacy or living. Were these circumstances such as should take the case of this gentleman out of the general category? He thought the House had acted incautiously in allowing Bills of this nature to pass without careful investigation; and, although he regretted that this gentleman should be put to any inconvenience, he was of opinion that some check should be put upon applications of this kind, and he thought the best course would be not to allow the Bill to proceed until inquiry had been made on the subject. What had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) with regard to Roman Catholic priests was quite true, except that the hon. and learned Member forgot to state that before a Roman Catholic priest was admitted into the Church of England he must sign the Thirty-nine Articles, which amounted to a renunciation of his connection with the Church of Rome. There was no question of re-ordination in the present instance. The ordination by a Scotch bishop was good, but the law had attached a condition to it which incapacitated the clergyman so ordained from holding a permanent cure of souls in England. He (Sir G. Grey) admitted that the state of the law in this respect was an anomaly, but an inquiry into the whole case should precede any alteration of it.

said, that the recognition of the ordination of the Church of Rome by the Church of England, while she refused to recognize the ordination of Protestant Dissenters, indicated a greater affinity between the Established Church and Romanism than existed between her and Nonconformity. The Vicar of Sheffield, a large minded and exalted clergyman of the Established Church, was prohibited from preaching in any Nonconformist pulpit, although he was allowed to preach in the open air. He hoped the day was not far distant when all religious denominations would be placed on a footing of perfect equality, and when the time of the House would not he wasted with these unseemly discussions.

wished to state, in a few words, the grounds upon which he should give his vote against this Bill. The discussion, as far as the legal argument had gone, had been a discussion on the merits of the law as it now stood, and no doubt on that point inquiry might be advisable. It might be a fit subject for the House to entertain, whether the present law should or should not be continued; and if not, in what degree it should be modified. But in principle there was a great objection to all Bills establishing exceptions to the general law of the land, and though he might regret that the rev. gentleman interested in this question should be put to unnecessary expense, it was nevertheless time to put a stop to private Bills of this description. If, however, it was deemed right that the law should be reconsidered on its own grounds, he was quite ready to assent to any such inquiry.

Sir. I have no wish to trespass on Her Majesty's Government for information which it may be inconvenient for them to give at the present moment; but I am sure they will allow for the deep interest which the country must feel in the present state of public affairs. Under these circumstances I would be glad to know from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has received any communication respecting the interview which was anticipated to take place yesterday between the Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria, and whether he can inform the House what has been the general consequence of that meeting?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received intelligence on the subject referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. At two o'clock this day I was informed by the Ambassador of the Emperor of the French that he had received a telegram, informing him that peace between the two Emperors was signed yesterday. Since my interview with the French Ambassador I have received a telegram from Lord Cowley, and I think I cannot better satisfy the anxiety of the House than by reading the statement contained in that document:—

"Paris, Tuesday, 2 p. m.

"The following telegram has been received:—

"'Valleggio, Juillet 11, 1859.

"The Emperor to the Empress.

"'PEACE is signed between the Emperor of Austria and me.

"The bases of the Peace are:—

"'Italian Confederation under the honorary Presidency of the Pope.

"'The Emperor of Austria cedes his rights to Lombardy to the Emperor of the French, who transfers them to the King of Sardinia.

"'The Emperor of Austria preserves Venice, but she will form an integral part of the Italian Confederation.

"'General amnesty.' "

That is the whole that is stated in the telegram. I may state further, because there has been a rumour for some weeks past that whenever peace came to be signed and Lombardy should be ceded to Sardinia, France would ask as compensation for her expenses in the war to have Savoy ceded to her, that I am happy to be able to inform the House that the Emperor of the French has made no demand of that kind, and that there is every reason to suppose that he does not intend to make any addition whatever to the territory of France. This is most gratifying, because any addition to the territory of France, however insignificant, following on the war, could not fail to arouse the suspicions and jealousies of Europe. I hope, that under the present circumstances, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) will not persevere in the notice of Motion which he has put on the paper, and that he will give the House to understand that it is not his intention to persevere in it.

In reply to the appeal made to me by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I wish to state that though I cannot admit as a general proposition that the Members of this House, or this House itself, is to be debarred from expressing an opinion on matters of this nature, I shall not press the Motion that stands in my name for Thursday next. I shall, therefore, on that day, ask for leave to withdraw it. But I reserve to myself the right, if it appears to me desirable to exercise it, of explaining in a few words what the motive was which induced me to place that notice on the paper.

said he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government proposes to re- commend the acceptance of the offer of the Sovereignty of the Feejee Islands; and, if so, at what additional cost to the Imperial Exchequer above the present outlay of above £4,000,000 per annum for colonial purposes?

said, the acceptance of the Sovereignty of the Feejee Islands had been very much impressed on the Government, both by persons who took an interest in the growth of cotton, and also by persons interested in Missionary labours in those islands. The matter, however, was under the consideration of the Government.

said, he hoped the noble Lord would allow this matter to come under the consideration of the House before any final steps were taken with respect to it. He (Mr. Bright) was himself a little interested in the growth of cotton; but he protested against being supposed on that account to ask for the acceptance by this country of the Sovereignty of the Feejee Islands.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government intend to reintroduce the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill of the late Government, or to introduce any new Bill of their own during the present Session? Whether or not the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the concluding paragraph of the Eighth Report of the Church Estates Commissioners, from which, and from the evidence annexed, it appears that between the mode of valuing the Reversions of Church-house property employed by the Surveyor to the Commissioners and that contended for by the Lessees of such property there is a difference in cases of Enfranchisement on the part of the former of £800,000 on the whole in favour of the Church, or the Ecclesiastical Commission, and, by consequence, adversely to the Lessees? Whether or not it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to leave such Surveyor in future to value without appeal, or to provide that the Lessees of such property shall be at liberty, in cases of enfranchisement, to claim a reference to arbitration?

said, it was not the intention of the Government to propose during the present Session any Bill alter- ing the relative positions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Lessees: but it was their intention to submit to the House a Bill containing some clauses intended to facilitate the operation of the Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commission. With respect to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, it was true that the Church Estates' Commissioners had, in their Eighth Report, stated that the principle on which they acted had been disputed, and that if that principle were admitted it would make a difference to the amount mentioned by the hon. Member; but the Commissioners entertained no doubt of the rectitude of the principle on which they acted, and they therefore did not recommend the adoption of any conflicting principle. With reference to the third question, Her Majesty's Government had no power in the matter. The question was entirely under the regulation of Acts of Parliament, and it was not their intention to propose any legislation on the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in its inquiry by the Militia Commission appointed on the 9th of July, 1858; and whether a Report may be expected from it during the present Session of Parliament?

said, the Commissioners had sent in their Report, and the Government was anxious to have an opportunity of deciding to what extent they could adopt their recommendations. He hoped to be able to state in a few days what decision had been come to on the question.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will be prepared to state the views and intentions of Government on the subject of church rates on the second reading of the Bill for the abolition of church rates.

said, he was quite ready to answer any question, such as was usually put in that House; but he was not aware that it was customary to ask a Member whether he intended to make any statement upon a Bill of which he himself was not in charge. If in the course of the debate on the Bill he should feel it his duty to address any observations to the House, he trusted the House would give him the opportunity of doing so.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General whether it is his intention to proceed this Session with a Bill brought from the Lords, intituled "An Act to Amend the Law of Debtor and Creditor, Bankruptcy, Insolvency, and Execution;" and what are his intentions in reference to the existing Law of Bankruptcy and its administration, and generally in reference to the Law of Debtor and Creditor and its amendment?

said, it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill in question, but it was their intention, regarding, as they did, the whole subject of the Law of Debtor and Creditor, and particularly the Law of Bankruptcy, as now being in a very unsatisfactory state, to give the entire question the most anxious consideration during the recess, with the view to the introduction of a comprehensive measure either in that or the other House of Parliament early in the ensuing Session.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Knapsacks, with Berington's slings attached, have not been tried at Aldershot, and whether any Report respecting them has been received at headquarters?

said, Mr. Berington's Knapsacks had been tried at Chobham in 1855, and subsequently at Aldershot, and a Board of General Officers had reported that in their opinion the disadvantages attaching to them were greater than their advantages. Mr. Berington afterwards made some alterations in his plans to obviate those objections; but still the Knapsacks were objected to by the Inspector General of the Medical Department on the ground of the pressure upon the chest occasioned by the straps by which they were secured. He (Mr. S. Herbert) believed that the matter was not one to be decided by a Board of General Officers, but by the men themselves, and that it would be desirable to issue a large number of the Knapsacks on trial, leaving the men themselves to say which they preferred.

said, that he had made no change whatever in regard to admission into the Army except with the advice of the Council on Education. It was on the advice of that Council that the rule was made with regard to allowing rejected candidates to be examined again.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Andrew Agnew) would not press the Motion of which he had given notice relative to saluting religious processions. He made this appeal with the more confidence because with reference to the salutes at Malta, of which complaint had been made, and in regard to which some acrimonious debates had taken place in that House, a very great change had been made during the present year, which it was hoped would remove objections. At the same time a feeling of irritation prevailed in the Ionian Islands, and there had been some small indications of irritable feeling between the population of Malta and the garrison. He should be sorry to see such a feeling augmented, and fresh fuel added to it by anything that might be said in that House. Since the arrangement made between Lord Hill and Lord Derby (when the noble Lord was Secretary for the Colonies), an alteration had been made. The late Secretary of State for the Colonies submitted a despatch to the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel), which was approved by him, directing the troops not to turn out or take part in any religious ceremonies. Orders were accordingly sent out that the troops were to pay the usual marks of respect to any persons engaged in a procession of a religious character, but they were not to turn out the guard to them or salute them. At present the Archbishop of Malta was saluted in his capacity as a civil dignitary of the island, and if he were taking part in any religious procession no distinction was made in consequence of his being there. He trusted that under the circumstances his hon. Friend would not press his Motion.

said, that after the appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the Motion that stood in his name. He might, however, take an opportunity of alluding to the subject again in Committee of Supply. He did not concur in the idea that the concessions made would conciliate the populations of Malta and the Ionian Islands. He would, however, in considerations of the appeal made to him, postpone his Motion for a fortnight.

in rising to move for Copies of certain Papers relative to Hong Kong, said it would be necessary to make a few remarks, in order to render intelligible to the House the grounds upon which he asked for the production of the Correspondence. Mr. Chisholm Anstey having been appointed Attorney General of Hong Kong, arrived in the island in January, 1856. On his arrival at Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring was Governor; Mr. Caldwell was the Registrar General and Protector of Chinese, and a justice of the peace; Dr. Bridges was Colonial Secretary, and a member of the Executive Council. Mr. Anstey had no very agreeable prospect of the duties before him, for two days after his arrival Sir John Bowring intimated to him the corrupt state of the island, and claimed his support in stemming the tide of corruption. In July, 1857 a young American was tried for piracy at Hong Kong. The trial was described in an interesting letter by Mr. Wingrove Cooke, who was then the correspondent of The Times in China. This young American was not like the Corsair of Byron. He was a young and amiable man with no beard upon his cheek. As he stood pleading for his life, he made distinct charges of complicity in piratical expeditions against Mr. Caldwell, the Registrar General of the colony, who was alleged to be in partnership with Machow Wong, a species of Chinese Jonathan Wild. Mr. Anstey, as Attorney General, conducted that trial, and in consequence of the charges incidentally made against Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Anstey, on the 13th of May, resigned the justiceship of the peace. The letter communicating this resignation was the first paper for which he asked. In this letter Mr. Anstey stated the grounds upon which he resigned, and alluded to the charges made against Mr. Caldwell by the young American. An inquiry was directed by Sir John Bowring to be made into the charges against the authorities of Hong Kong, and on the 20th of May a Commission was issued to certain authorities at Hong Kong, directing them to inquire whether there was any ground for these charges. The Commission found that certain charges were proved and established, and that Mr. Caldwell had been a partner in a lorcha, which had gone on a piratical expedition under the command of Machow Wong. There was no proof that he had shared the plunder, although it was proved that he shared the complicity of fitting out the lorcha upon that expedition. Now, as the Government of this country had gone to war with China on the question of a lorcha this transaction necessarily excited a great deal of interest in the colony. Machow Wong was afterwards indicted and convicted of piracy, and sentenced to transportation, although, through the influence of Mr. Caldwell, he was detained in the colony a year befere the sentence was carried into effect. He had also to move for the papers in the case of "The Queen v. Tarrant," tried at the November sessions (1858) of the Hong Kong Supreme Court. The statements in the report of the Commission led the editor of the Friend of China to publish an attack upon the Government of Hong Kong, in which he charged the Government and Mr. Caldwell with surpressing certain papers found in the possession of Machow Wong. These papers were said to be burnt, and the editor of the Friend of China made a manly and straightforward charge against Mr. Caldwell of having suppressed these papers. A criminal information was filed in November against Mr. Tarrant, of the Friend of China, who justified that statement on the ground that it was true, that it was published for the common good, and that the Government had suppressed the papers. The case was tried by a special jury of bankers and merchants. The jury found that the justification was true, a verdict was given in Mr. Tairant's favour, and the Government were condemned to pay the costs. Mr. Anstey, shortly before that trial of "The Queen v. Tarrant," received an intimation that he was suspended from his office of Attorney General, and that suspension was fully confirmed by the Colonial Government at home. As a matter of justice to an individual and for the sake of the proper administration of justice in [the Colonies, he hoped there would be no objection to the production of the papers.

said, he did not understand it to be the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman to raise any discussion on the subject, as that could only take place satisfactorily after the papers which were now called for had been placed before the House. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member was twofold in its nature, and he thought these two questions ought to he kept distinct. One was with regard to the propriety of Mr. Chisholm Anstey's suspension from the office of Attorney General of Hong Kong, and of its confirmation by the late Government; and the other was with regard to the grave and serious charges against Mr. Caldwell and other officials in the colony. The Governor and Executive Council had suspended Mr. Anstey from the office of Attorney General, and the late Secretary of State for the Colonies had confirmed the suspension. No doubt the Government had refused to communicate to Mr. Anstey the grounds upon which that decision was arrived at, because they could not do so without, in fact, com- municating the despatch of the Secretary of State to the Governor of Hong Kong. If Mr. Anstey had remained in the colony, no doubt that despatch, or its substance, would have been communicated to him; but he had left, and it was thought not advisable to communicate it to him in the absence and behind the back of the Governor. Sir John Bowring had, however, now arrived in this country, and his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office was now ready to convey the substance of the despatch to Mr. Anstey, and to receive any observations which he might have to make upon it. With respect to the charges brought by Mr. Anstey against other officials at Hong Kong, and especially against Mr. Caldwell, the late Government were of opinion that the graver and more serious portion of those charges had broken down before the Commission of inquiry; but at the same time they felt that quite enough had been disclosed in the course of the inquiry not only to warrant, but to require, a strict and searching investigation to be conducted upon the spot. In that view the present Government concurred. A new Governor was about to proceed to Hong Kong—a gentleman who had already done good service in another colony, but was entirely unconnected with Hong Kong or with any of the quarrels which had unfortunately arisen, and a new Attorney General, Mr. Adams, will also soon arrive there. The Governor would be instructed to institate a rigorous inquiry into the whole system at Hong Kong, and into the conduct of the parties against whom charges had been brought. He trusted this would be satisfactory to the hon. and learned Gentleman. With respect to the papers, the Secretary of State for the Colonies had no wish to keep back from the public anything which could throw a light upon all these transactions, hut his noble Friend had yet found it utterly impossible to make himself master of the whole mass of correspondence. His noble Friend was, however, prepared to give all information which a sense of public duty would allow, and he (Mr. Fortescue) would undertake to communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman within a fortnight as to what papers should be produced. Under these circumstances he hoped he would withdraw his Motion for the present.

thought the request of the hon. Gentleman was a reasonable one, and would withdraw his Motion.

seconded the Motion.

said, that as the hon. Member proposed to bring in a Bill to amend the Municipal Corporations Act, he begged to call attention to the fact, that the municipal franchise had to a great extent fallen into the hands of a class of persons who were not able themselves to pay their rates.

said, that in assenting to the introduction of the Bill he wished it to be understood that he entertained serious doubts whether the alterations proposed ought to be made, and whether there would be sufficient time for the consideration of any material change in the existing law in the course of the present Session. As he understood the matter the hon. Gentleman proposed, first, to alter the settlement which was come to when the Test and Corporation Acts were repealed. When the Bill came to a second reading the hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be able to show ground for the change he proposed; but he wished to point out that it involved the alteration of a measure which underwent much consideration at the time, and was in the nature of an agreement between different parties in the State.

said, he would withdraw from the Bill the clauses relating to that subject.

In that case he would only say that the other part of the Bill would receive the consideration of the Government.

rose to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to instruct the Civil Service Examiners that all persons who entered any service or profession prior to the 21st day of May, 1855, to which service or profession the present system of examinations is applicable, shall be considered eligible for promotion without being subjected to any examination."

He trusted that a proposition so just and equitable would not meet with any opposition on the part of the House. He had fixed upon the date of the 21st of May, because that was the day on which the Order in Council was issued, which appointed the Commissioners for conducting the examination of young men who were candidates for employment in the public service. Now, so much hardship had been occasioned by the severe manner in which the principle of examination had been carried out, that he was sure that when the House was aware of the facts, they would gladly accede to his Motion. He might state case upon case of young men who had entered different public offices as temporary clerks, three, four, or five years previous to the Order in Council, and who, subsequent to 1855, on their being appointed to permanent clerkships, had been put in competition with other gentlemen who had the advantage of having recently left school. The consequence was that they, though not inefficient, but because they had a smaller number of marks than the gentlemen they were put in competition with, lost their promotion and were compelled to leave the service they had selected at an ago when it was impossible for them to engage in a new profession. It was desirable not to state names publicly, but he was prepared to communicate them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One case had been brought to his knowledge that day. It was the case of an officer who had conferred very great and eminent services on this country, and whose son had been put into one of the public offices about nine years ago as a temporary clerk. Last year this gentleman's son went up for examination, and, having three or four other gentlemen appointed to compete with him, he was defeated, and was, he believed, out of the profession at the present moment. He had received yesterday a letter, in which the writer called attention to the position in which these persons were placed. The writer, whoso name he should be happy to communicate to the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately, if it were required, pressed upon him the vast importance of his present Motion, as on its success depended the hopes of many intelligent and well-educated youth, who were well fitted for and tried in the service, and directed his attention to the position in which those young gentlemen found themselves placed, with many others similarly situated. In one instance, the writer proceeded to say, a gentleman entered the Admiralty as temporary clerk in July, 1854, during the pressure of business consequent on the late war; he was constantly employed, and in some months until such a late hour of the evening, that it was impossible for him to devote time to the studies which the Civil Service Commissioners required; and now he found that owing to the competition coming into operation, which he never dreamt of when he entered the service, he had been passed over again and again, simply because his school knowledge could not be so rapidly displayed in examination as that of competitors. He would mention another case of equal hardship. A gentleman had been eight years in one office, when he was promoted to another. This was only a fair step of promotion after his previous period of hard work; but, not having had the opportunity, like his competitors, of getting up the information which was acceptable to the Commissioners, he lost in the competition, and was thrown out of the profession. It might be said that temporary clerks were not on the establishment; but if that were so it ought to be publicly stated, that people might know on what terms their relatives entered the public service. He would take the case of an unpaid attaché, whom no one could say was not in the public service. There were among the class of unpaid attachés gentlemen who had worked hard for seven, eight, or nine years, who had been sent to unhealthy climates, and who were not aware at the time of their appointments that before they were promoted they would be subjected to a stringent examination. Had they been aware when they entered the service that they would be required to submit to such an ordeal, they might have chosen some other profession; but now, if they failed in passing the examination, they would be thrown out of the public service when they had reached an age at which it might be impossible for them to adopt any other profession. Now, he was not speaking in a spirit of hostility to the system of examination — on the contrary, he thought it most fortunate for the country that—though so late as 1855—a system of public examination should at length have been instituted for the military and civil services. No one who read the Reports of the Examiners could fail to appreciate the conduct of those gentlemen who had maintained the necessity of a system of examination. On the first examination, in answer to some of the questions, the following answers were given:—That the Roman walls in England were built to keep the Tartars from invading the country, and were so thick that two carriages could be driven abreast; that the great plot which was discovered in the year 1678 was the South Sea scheme; that William Wallace invaded England in the reign of Henry VIII.; that the battle of Barnet was between Cromwell and Charles I., Culloden between the Earl of Leicester and Edward IV., and Marston Moor between Bruce and Edward IV.; that Marseilles is a town upon the Rhine; that Germany is in the Caspian Sea; that the Thames rises in the German Ocean; that Zante is the kingdom most recently added to Europe; and that the Isle of Wight is a part of Scotland. It was quite inconceivable how gentlemen could have ventured to go up for examination to give—unless in joke—such extraordinary answers. He thought, however, that many of the questions which were put were scarcely fair to the candidates. He would read to the House some of the questions put to persons who were applying for admission to the Irish police force:—

"Explain fully the meaning of the following geographical terms:—'Peninsula,' 'promontory,' 'estuary,' 'delta,' 'plateau,' 'watershed,' and give three instances of each. Describe the position of the following places:—St. Helena, St. Albans, Corfu, Toronto, Salisbury, Copenhagen, Agra, Vienna, Inverary, Singapore, Stirling, Cairo, Nillala, Meerut, Hastings, Owhyhee. Write a geographical description of any one country of Ancient Europe, stating its boundaries, physical features, products, manufactures, divisions, and principal towns."

Now, he thought it would be admitted that these questions were scarcely less absurd than the answers he had previously read; and however desirable it might be that this kind of knowledge should be possessed by a police constable, he doubted whether it was necessary for the preservation of the peace in Ireland. It might be so that the examinations to which unpaid attachés were subjected were such as gentlemen in their position ought to be competent to pass, but he confessed that on looking over the examination papers he did not think there were thirty Members of that House: who could answer many of the questions. It must be remembered that candidates for appointments as unpaid attachés were generally lads of seventeen or eighteen years of age, but they were asked such questions as these:—

"Explain fully the nature of the important change that was introduced in the tenure of land in Prussia in 1811, and its effects both present and probable. Write a geographical description of Denmark, mentioning its situation, extent, population, features, mineral, and vegetable products. Explain the following terms:—'Amter,' 'Stifter, Folksthing amtman,' 'Tons of hardcom, Landsting.' Discuss the most important political questions which have agitated Ireland for the last thirty years, mentioning the enactments they may have led to, and the eminent men who have taken a prominent part in connection with them. What was the constitution of the Canadas established in 1791? Mention the most important alterations which have been subsequently introduced."

Now, though he himself (Mr. Cochrane) had studied the history of our Colonies to some extent, he really should not like to be called upon to answer such questions as these. Candidates had also been required to write a letter to a friend describing how they had been employed during the last year, and what were their hopes of entering the civil services. Some of these questions really seem to have been devised in a spirit of raillery rather than seriously. As he had before said, he was not opposed to the system of examination, but he thought that if next year some hon. Member of consideration and influence would move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the effect of these examinations upon different branches of the public services the investigation might not be without advantage. He thought it was very doubtful whether the result of these examinations had been so satisfactory as they were led to suppose. It might be so that the Civil Service Examiners were not themselves responsible for the character of the examinations, which were probably directed by the Secretaries of State; but he thought recent circumstances showed that the Secretaries of State had urged the Examiners not to render their examinations too stringent and severe. He found the late Secretary for War, General Peel, complaining of the number of commissions vacant in the Household cavalry, the Life Guards, the cavalry of the line, and the infantry, and stating that it was evident that under the present system of examination the supply would not keep pace with the demand; Lord Mahnesbury had made a similar complaint with regard to the Foreign Office, and had stated that within six months four young men had been rejected, all of whom he believed were fully competent for the duties of attachés, two of them being remarkable for general accomplishments, and especially for their knowledge of languages. The noble Earl added that it appeared not to be premature or disrespectful towards the Commissioners to ask if they were not straining the cord too tightly, and if not, how under such a system the Queen's service in diplomacy was to be recruited and carred on. Although he (Mr. Cochrane) thought some examination was necessary for these positions previously to 1855, he feared they had rushed into an extreme in the opposite direction. He might remind the House that, under the old system, the character of their diplomatic agents had not been inferior to that of the diplomatists of any country. He need only mention such names as those of Lord Ponsonby, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord Cowley, Sir Henry Bulwer, Lord Napier, and Lord Lyons. They could not forget, either, that previous to the institution of examinations for commissions in the military service, the officers both of our army and navy, though they had never undergone this examination, had never failed to vindicate the national honour. He only asked the House and the Government to do justice to a most deserving class of young men who had entered the public service previously to the introduction of examinations, by agreeing that the new regulations should not have a retrospective effect.

My hon. Friend who has submitted this Motion has very ingeniously stated that a considerable portion of his speech did not relate to it; and it is material that he should himself have admitted this, because the same portion of his address—if it be not invidious to draw a distinction between different parts of it—was the one that was most effective and that seemed most to amuse the House; for the hon. Gentleman was successful in provoking the laughter of hon. Members when he recited certain questions put in certain examinations. On the other hand it is important to recollect that all this has no connection whatever with the Motion now before us. As part of a general discussion on the system of examination established under the Civil Service Commissioners it might be well to quote such isolated questions. At the same time I venture to remind the House that we have been very busy of late years, and with great public advantage, in urging and even compelling the Universities to adopt examination where they had not adopted it, and to extend it further where it already existed; and few indeed of the examinations in the Universities, if tested by particular questions picked out ingeniously for the purpose, and announced before an audience which necessarily has not bad time to look at the matter in all its bearings, would not probably lead to the inference that those who had put them had been guilty of great want of judgment and had pushed the system to excess. The truth is, when the time comes for inquiring into the system now in operation, it must be inquired into much more at large; and then these remarks of the hon. Gentleman, which are irrelevant to this particular and limited Motion, may be perfectly germane to the discussion. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has very exaggerated ideas of the hardship or injustice which has been done to any one under the working of this scheme; and I think the time that has elapsed since it was established, and the paucity, or the almost total absence of complaints to which it has given rise, may show that the Commissioners have not been guilty of that tendency to overstrain their system which he seems to impute to them. Indeed, I for one am convinced that if it be true that its present working is imperfect, it will deserve consideration whether this imperfection is not owing to the very timid and hesitating manner in which the principles on which the Commissioners wish to found it have been applied. My hon. Friend knows very well that in its present position the system is only in a stage of transition—that it does not rest on the principle of pure competition, nor, indeed, upon any one given principle which is so fully and fairly brought to an issue that you can condemn or absolve it by that principle; but that it is a mixture of many methods, applied according to the varying opinions of the heads of different Departments, and not according to any rigidly consistent or abstract rules; but operating on the whole usefully and in the manner in which, in England at least, a great many practical problems of Government are usually settled with greater satisfaction to the public than they otherwise would be. I now come to my hon. Friend's Motion itself. He moves:—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to instruct the Civil Service Examiners that all persons who entered any service or profession prior to the 21st day of May, 1853, to which service or profession the present system of examinations is applicable, shall be considered eligible for promotion without being subjected to any examination."

In the first place I do not think my bon. Friend, in the limited ground he has chosen, has shown sufficient reasons for any interference on the part of this House; and, in the second place, if the House is to interfere at all. I think it is quite clear that it ought not to be by a Motion like this. He will allow me to remind him that, where it is sought to deal with a great public abuse which prevailed before independent examinations were established, the general tendency of speeches such as his is much more to discredit the attempts made to cure that abuse than to discredit the abuse itself. No doubt his admission as to the necessity of some examination is perfectly sincere; but it is merely parenthetical, all his energy and fire being reserved for the supposed excesses of the Commissioners, who are labouring under circumstances of no ordinary difficulty to introduce a purer system of admission to the public service. What, then, are his grounds for interference? He assumes that fair consideration has not been shown in the application of the new rules to vested interests. And how does he show that particular classes of persons require protection? He cites two sets of cases: first, that of persons who were employed as temporary clerks in the public offices at the time when the Order in Council of the 21st of May, 1855, did not exist, and who are subjected to examination before they can be appointed permanent clerks; and, secondly, the cases of gentlemen who were appointed to he unpaid attachés prior to the same Order in Council, and who on passing over to the position of paid servants of the public have to undergo an examination which did not exist when they became unpaid attachés. Now, I think neither of these instances furnishes any ground for the interference of this House. I shall take first the case of the attachés, which will also illustrate the other remark I have to make —namely, that the Motion of my hon. Friend is hardly suited to the object he has in view. He desires the House to pray Her Majesty to be pleased to instruct the Civil Service Examiners to protect certain persons against examinations which are supposed to do them injustice. It would surely he strange if Her Majesty were to instruct those Examiners to disobey the orders of Her own Secretary of State. The Civil Service Examiners have no independent authority whatever in this matter. Whatever authority they possess is derived either from the heads of Departments — that is, in the case of the attachés, from the Foreign Secretary—or else from the Order in Council passed by Her Majesty upon the advice of the Government, and for which the Government, as a whole, are responsible. And all that the Commissioners are bound to do is strictly to adhere to the directions they have received. If they receive orders from the Foreign Secretary, on those orders they must act until they have been altered or retracted as formally as they were originally given. If they are acting under the provisions of the Order in Council, they must continue to execute those provisions even, if need be, against the Secretary of State, until Her Majesty has been advised to change what She was previously advised to adopt. In regard to the attachés, then, the Civil Service Examiners have simply carried out the instructions given by Lord Clarendon in December. 1855, nearly four years ago; and, in point of fact, the great bulk of those then unpaid attachés, and on whose behalf, if on behalf of any one complaint might have been made, have be-come paid attachés and underwent an examination before their promotion. The hon. Gentleman has not shown that there is anything unreasonable in the direction given by Lord Clarendon, nor is it likely that any one else will be able to prove it so. The matter is obviously one in which, before this House interferes to qualify the operations of a Secretary of State, there should be something in the nature of a formal and careful inquiry. The House itself is the proper tribunal, and therefore this cannot be made the subject of an appeal to Her Majesty. I am not prepared to admit that there is any pritnâ facie ground for supposing, much less for asserting, that the declaration of Lord Clarendon is unreasonable. Nobody could have taken a calmer or more moderate view of the whole subject of these examinations than that noble Lord; but he was desirous that, although not unrestrictedly competitive, the system should be a reality, and no longer a form or a screen, and therefore he said that unpaid attachés should be examined in a particular manner, and also that paid attachés should undergo another examination. Is there any breaking of faith with a man in requiring him to prove that he is fit for the position he seeks to occupy? It appears to me, then, that this part of the case, as a ground for this Motion, is entirely untenable. I think all fair regulations to secure competency arc applicable to those who enter the permanent service, even though adopted after they have entered that permanent service; but here the case is that of persons who had not entered the permanent service at all. We all know it is not uncommon for young men to become unpaid attachés in order that they may secure a few months' residence under the most favourable circumstances at a foreign Court, find this without any intention to enter the permanent service. If, however, they afterwards wished to become paid attachés, they have to undergo an examination as to their competency; and the hon. Member has not shown that such a condition goes beyond what is perfectly reasonable. My hon. Friend also referred to the case of temporary clerks, and proposed that they should have the same rights, as far as examination was concerned, as the members of the permanent service. I do not think the House will adopt that proposition. A temporary clerk is that which his name declares him to be. He has no right of succession whatever; he is employed from time to time; the conditions of the public compact with him are amply and literally fulfilled, and we are perfectly entitled to ask before he is allowed to cross the threshold of the permanent service that he should be subjected to an examination in order to test his competency. My hon. Friend alluded to one or two particular cases, but stated that for obvious reasons he could not give the names. I do not blame him for withholding the names, but he knows perfectly well that nothing could be more unfair than to take the character of an examination from the impressions of rejected candidates. It is an ex parte statement, where the parties who make it may possibly be under the action of strong feelings, and where, at all events, they must be under the immense disadvantage of imperfect information. If my hon. Friend were to examine into the particulars of the cases which he has adduced, I suspect he would find, when he heard the other side, that the facts are somewhat different from what they naturally appear to him to be from the representations of persons interested in the rejected candidates. My opinion is, therefore, that the Motion before the House is objectionable, not only in point of form, but upon its merits. I believe it would be ruinous to the public service. The Commissioners have reduced their demands within the narrowest limits compatible with the efficiency of the public service; but, even were it otherwise, I think my hon. Friend has not raised the question in a convenient form, inasmuch as, instead of asking the House to go into the general merits of the civil service examination, he takes his ground merely upon the plea of the vested interests of certain parties. For these and other reasons I nope he will not think it worth his while to press his Motion to a division.

believed too much importance was attached to this system of examination in the public department. It certainly had had the effect of preventing persons with interest who could hardly read or write from getting appointments; but the object would be much better attained by adopting the same course in the selection of public servants as was taken by merchants and manufacturers in the choice of their clerks. That would be better than asking those unaccountable and foolish questions. If a man had been some years in the public service, the inquiry should not be whether he could answer outrageous and out-of-the-way questions, but whether he had properly discharged the duties which had been before intrusted to him.

said, the hon. Gentle-man who introduced the Motion had entirely mistaken the object of the Civil Service Commissioners in putting the questions referred to. The object was not to ascertain whether a man had special knowledge of a particular subject, but they were simply a test of his intelligence. One question asked was, what was the most important measure with regard to Ireland brought forward for the last thirty years. He would say nothing had been more important than that of competitive examination; it had given the greatest possible stimulus to education. In every public office the distinction between temporary and permanent clerk was well known, and could not be done away with. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed; but if it was he should give it his most strenuous opposition, as he believed it was intended as an attack upon the whole system of examination.

rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a view of this subject which had not yet engaged the public notice, but in which great injustice was often wrought by competitive examination. Three candidates would be put to compete for the same office, and the first of the three would gain his thousand marks, whilst the second and third might have respectively 900 and 800 marks, and therefore be unsuccessful. The following day three other candidates would be put to compete, and the successful candidate would have but 700 marks, and yet be successful; so that the second and third of the former day appeared as plucked men, whilst the inferior man of the second day was successful.

thought it very hard that when a temporary clerk was appointed to the permanent establishment the time which he had served as a temporary clerk should not be counted to him.

This matter is one which as of necessity attracted a great deal of my attention, and I have no hesitation in saying that though, like other arrangements, there may be some defects in the system, it has tended very much to the advantage of the public service. It is quite true that it has frequently operated to shut out from the public service young men who might have been perfectly competent to perform the duties of the office for which they were competitors; but, on the other hand, it is quite certain that those who have succeeded have been in every way young men who were peculiarly qualified for the discharge of their duties. I have had occasion frequently to represent to the Civil Service Commissioners that some of the questions were open to that sort of criticism which the hon. Gentleman opposite has passed upon them —namely, that the knowledge required to answer them was not essential to the performance of the duties of the office competed for; but the answer which I have received from them is one to which it would be difficult to make any reply. They stated that their course was to examine upon certain matters of which a knowledge was essential — such as English composition, arithmetic, spelling, and some amount of mathematical knowledge; but then, they say, "it happens that the four, five, or six young men who are examined in these matters are apparently equally well grounded in them; and we add some other questions upon other matters to test their general intelligence, and to see which of them have gone beyond these elementary matters. These supernumerary questions are not those upon which any young man would be rejected, but they serve to test the comparative intelligence of the young men and the amount of education which they have received." That appears to me to he a sufficient and satisfactory answer. The young man who has made a mistake in arithmetic or spelling cannot be conscious of it, or he would not have made it; but he is perfectly conscious of not having been able to answer one of those redundant questions, and he goes home to his friends and says he has been rejected because he could not answer one of these questions—could not tell where Owyhee was, or something of that sort. That is a mistake. He is rejected, not because he is unable to answer those redundant questions, but because he has failed on one of the elementary matters, the knowledge of which was essential to the performance of the duties of the post which he sought. There is undoubtedly a prejudice in some quarters against the sys-tem of competitive examination, but I think it would be done away with if people were aware of the real principle on which it is conducted. Although the system may operate harshly upon some young men, on the whole it has given a stimulus to the system of education all over the country; it has set masters of schools, parents, friends, and guardians to look more closely into the process of education, and by that widespread operation it must tend to improve immensely the intelligence of the country. With regard to this particular Motion, I trust the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press it, because it is quite clear that those young men who have taken temporary clerkships knew very well when they took them that they were temporary, and they have no right or just claim to be transferred to the permanent establishment without going through the process of examination which is established for all other permanent clerks. An unpaid at-taché is perfectly aware that his future promotion in his profession depends upon his conduct in that position, and I cannot see that there is any hardship in requiring him to go through the same examination as other attachés.

, in with- drawing the Motion said, the discussion would have the good effect of making it known to the public that those who put their sons in the position of temporary clerks must never expect to have them transferred to the permanent establishments.

in moving that it be an instruction to the Printing Committee that on every Return ordered to be printed by this House, in addition to the date of the order for printing, there be also printed the date at which such Return was actually sent to press, said his object was to fix the responsibility of the great delays which occasionally took place in the delivery of Returns. For instance, an important mercantile Return ordered on the Motion of the Vice President of the Board of Trade on the 2nd of August, 1858, had only been presented on the 2nd of July last.

said, that perhaps the noble Lord was not aware that when papers which were ordered were not presented before the close of the Session the order became a dropped order. In order to obviate this inconvenience the practice was to present the papers, and they were then printed during the recess. In printing financial papers there was another reason for the delay, as it was necessary to send them back to the office to examine the figures by other Returns. The Motion, if carried in its present form, would often affix blame very unjustly on the printer, who was not responsible for the delay in correcting. If the Motion was withdrawn he would be glad to communicate with the noble Lord on the subject.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Many most useless Returns and Reports were printed at a great expense, and he would suggest that a check might be put upon such waste by endorsing on each printed Return the cost of the printing.

No doubt such information would be extremely desirable, and he, as a member of the Printing Committee and of that House, would be very glad if the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman could be adopted; but he was afraid that until it was known how many copies of a Return were to be printed the printer would not be able to state what the cost would be.

said, that if the Motion stood "corrected Return," no blame could attach to the printer.

said, he would withdraw the Motion for the present, and communicate with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject.

nominated the Members to servo on the Select Committee on this Bill. The hon. Gentleman said he had endeavoured to select such names as would be agreeable to both sides of the House.

said, although the Bill extended to Ireland not a single Irish Member was put on the list first suggested by the hon. Gentleman; and in his amended list there were only two Irish Members. This objection applied not only to this Committee but to all Committees, the Irish Members not being fairly represented. On the Committee relating to Government contracts with Steam-packet Companies Ireland was not fairly represented, much as she was interested in that question.

severally put the names of Mr. DILLWYN, the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lord STANLEY, and Sir JAMBS GRAHAM, which were agreed to. The name of Mr. LOWE having been put,

proposed to substitute the name of Lord NAAS.

said, he had no wish to make the Committee exclusive. As he was informed by a report of what took place elsewhere last evening that a Committee was now considering the question of endowed schools in Ireland, he should meet the objection of the hon. and gallant Member by confining the operation of this Bill to Great Britain.

begged to assure the House that in its present shape the Bill did not extend to Ireland, and did not affect any school in that country in the slightest degree.

contended that Irish interests were distinctly embraced in this measure—first, because that portion of the kingdom was not distinctly exempted; secondly, because the question of endowed schools was one in which she was vitally interested; and thirdly, because, though the operation of the present Act might not immediately extend to Ireland, it would be impossible that its principle could long be confined to this country.

inclined to the opinion that the Bill, as at present worded, would apply only to England, because the Church of England was mentioned. Although the phrase was not a legal one, it was clear that the Church of England was not the Church of Ireland.

thought the Bill as it stood would be general in its operation; and if it were to extend to Ireland he should certainly ask for the same extension in favour of Trinity College, Dublin, as had been already extended to Oxford and Cambridge Universities,

said, the House would easily get out of the difficulty by inserting a clause at the end of the Bill, as was very frequently done in other cases, declaring that it should not extend to Ireland.

thought that if the Bill was good for England it must be good for Ireland. He protested against this exceptional legislation, and regretted that the hon. Member should have consented to curtail the operation of the Bill to get off the difficulty of altering a few names.

concurred in thinking it inconvenient and anomalous to exclude Ireland. The principle of the Bill was to alter the law which assumed that "honest and godly men" meant members of the Established Church. It would be impossible to sustain a privilege in favour of the Established Church in Ireland if it were given up in England. He suggested that the Committee, as now proposed, should be nominated, and two or three Irish Members added on a future occasion.

was quite ready to withdraw his Motion if four Irish Members were added.

said, that on a future day he would move the addition of two Irish Members.

Four.

said, that as the Irish Members were only one sixth of the House, four in a Committee of sixteen would be more than a due proportion.

said, that in the present inadequate state of Irish representation he would assent to three Members being added.

I beg to move that the Committee on Packet and Telegraphic Contracts do consist of nineteen members; and, in justification of so large a number, I can only say that it was found it would be very difficult to compress this Committee into the number of fifteen. Where various Governments have for a series of years been connected with the formation of these contracts, it appeared impracticable entirely to exclude those who have been connected with office; and if they were to be included, it seemed desirable on the one hand to give them a representation which would be adequate for a full elucidation of the facts, and on the other hand this involved the necessity of a strong representation of the independent Members of the House. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will agree to the number which I have proposed.

said, this was a very important inquiry, and he feared it was going to degenerate into a party contest. Nevertheless, he would beg of the House, and especially of the members of whom the Committee was about to be composed, to take into its serious consideration the very important principle which was involved in the proposed inquiry. Parliamentary Government was by some looked upon as ope-rose, and it certainly would be so if the House of Commons were to diverge from its proper functions into the performance of the duties of an Executive Committee. There were, he believed, some hon. Members who desired that this should be the case, and that the Committee in question should not merely inquire into the conduct of the late Administration, but should call in question the validity of its acts. If the latter course were taken, then would the House of Commons be constituting itself an Executive Committee, and for the purposes of such a body no assembly could be so entirely unfit. There had been of late in that House, as well as elsewhere, a vast outbreak of what he might term "virtue," and there was a bench opposite to him (the Treasury Bench) which had become peculiarly distinguished for the production of that article. Its occupants had all of a sudden discovered that in the interests of public morality the proposed inquiry was absolutely necessary. Now, he had no objection to that inquiry; but he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with whom the Motion had originated, what was really proposed by it? He put it to him as a statesman of great importance and weight, and as one whose opinions about constitutional government would hereafter as well as now have great influence, whether he was not doing great damage to the cause of constitutional government by lending the sanction of his high authority to the course which was being taken. It had, indeed, been said distinctly that the object of the Motion was to fix upon the late Government the responsibility of their own acts. So far he could very well understand its scope; but there were those who went beyond that, and who contended that the end sought to be attained was to call in question and to jeopardize the existence of a contract to which the late Government had lent its sanction. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Card-well) appeared to have seen the difficulty which was involved in the subject, for in answer to a question which was put to him he slated very clearly, and, as he thought, very satisfactorily, that the validity of the determination of no Government with respect to any contract should be made a matter of discussion. That, however, did not seem to be the understanding on the part of the whole of those who sat on that remarkable bench whose members were so distinguished for their public virtue. They appeared to call in question not merely the conduct of the previous Government, but their very acts in that capacity. He would make himself understood by a reference to that on which the vials of wrath of these virtuous gentlemen had been poured—the Galway contract. He wanted to know whether the occupants of the virtuous bench opposite did not desire, and intend to call in question that very contract itself? If the right hon. Gentleman were to adopt such a course he should tell him that he was about to enter on a discussion which would tend to bring disgrace on that House, and which would render constitutional government impossible. He could understand a policy which would make a Ministry responsible for its acts; but if the House were to proceed to the extent of saying that such acts were not binding until they had received the sanction of the Legislature, the action of the Executive would be paralyzed, and to paralyze that action would, he should remind hon. Members, be, at a time like the present, to pursue a line of conduct hazardous to the country. We were entering on a period of no ordinary gravity. Was it the wish of hon. Members that the Government should wait to enter into contracts to provide for the national defence until they had first received the approval of the House of Commons? If not, where, he would ask, was the line to be drawn? To make provision for the defence of the country required money, and it would appear that it was the opinion of those who sat on the Treasury benches that that money should not be expended until the opinion of Parliament as to the propriety of that expenditure had been first taken. If that was the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to proceed he should tell him that it was of extreme danger to the State. He should therefore call upon the right hon. Gentleman to say whether it was his intention, in moving for the proposed Committee, to call in question the acts of the late Government, or to throw on their shoulders the responsibility of a proceeding for which they might be liable to the censure of that House. If the latter were the right hon. Gentleman's object, then he was not disposed to doubt the propriety of the course which he had pursued; but if the former were the end which he sought to attain, then he should warn him against taking a stop which, with all the ability which distinguished him, he might not be able to retrieve. To possess the splendid qualities of a rhetorician was one thing, but to be a great statesman was another. For his own part, it was by the wisdom of the statesman, and not by the trumpery arts of the rhetorician that he desired to see the proceedings of that House directed.

said, there were only two Irish Members on the list of the Committee, while there were three Scotch. The subject was one of the greatest importance to Ireland, and she ought to be fairly represented. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to omit at least two of the names in the list and to substitute for them the names of two other Irish Members.

having put the Question that Mr. Cobden be one member of the Committee,

said, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had asked whether, in proposing the Committee, Government meant to question the acts of the late Government as contradistinguished from the acts of former Governments. In reply he must inform the hon. and learned Member that he was not prepared to place any limitation whatever on the functions of the Committee, either as to the past or future, except, of course, that which ought to be taken for granted, that they would act with the strictest regard to the obligations of public faith. With respect to the difficult question of the proportion of Scotch and Irish Members who should sit on the Committee, he could only say that he thought both countries were adequately represented. There were three Scotch and two Irish Members upon it. [An hon. MEMBER: "Only one Irish Member."] His arithmetical faculty seemed to be already at fault, but he believed he was right, and he could assure the House that when the Committee was chosen he had laboured under the impression that there were three Irish Members nominated. It might not perhaps be thought unnatural that such was the case when he said that one of the names which figured on the list of the Committee was that of the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), of whom he had a strong recollection in connection with discussions in reference to the distillation of spirits in bond and other questions relating to Ireland, and though the noble Lord might not strictly be an Irish he might reasonably be taken for one. And, although he should not for a moment presume to doubt the affection which that noble Lord entertained for Cockermouth, yet he was disposed to believe that it was one which his regard for Ireland completely transcended. He might, therefore, be regarded as effectually representing on the Committee the interest of that portion of the kingdom. It was, he could assure the House, a matter of no ordinary difficulty so to frame the Committee as that, while the opinions of the different Governments which were interested should have full expression, adequate provision should, on the other hand, be made for the defence of the public interests. For his own part, he did not think there was any disproportion in the number of Members on the Committee, representing England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, of which complaint could justly be made; and he trusted that the views and opinions of all parties would obtain a fair hearing, while there would be enough of independent force and weight in the Committee to preclude it from being regarded as useless, or its appointment looked upon as an insult to the public feeling.

said, that everybody knew that this question had been brought forward in consequence of the Galway contract, which many persons believed to be a purely party transaction. Therefore, to exclude Irish Members, who were chiefly interested, would be unjust. He was competent to give a fair opinion, because he represented an antagonistic port to Galway, and he claimed justice for the whole country when he protested against the systematic exclusion of Irish Members from the Committee. He thought there ought to be fewer Scotch and more Irish Members upon it.

said, that when an Irish subject was to be inquired into Irish Members were excluded because they were interested, and when the subject-matter to be inquired into related to England, they were excluded because they were not interested. He agreed with the hon. Member that this Committee never would have been called for if the Galway guarantee had not been granted. There was a small and contracted feeling in this House re- lative to Ireland, for he knew that there was an arrangement whereby Irish Members were excluded from Committees, which was highly discreditable to the House.

thought, the Government ought to deal fairly by the Irish Members and place an equal number on the Committee. They had a very deep interest in the question, and he hoped the Government would reconsider their decision, and introduce one additional Irish Member at least.

said, although there ought not to be any such number of Members interested in the contract so as to influence the decision of the Committee, yet it would be highly advantageous if they had Members on it who were fully acquainted with the circumstances of the case, and competent to call witnesses on the various points.

seconded the Motion.

said, that the Motion could only be for the omission of the name, and notice must be given of the substitution of any other. He hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter) would not withdraw his name. It was true he might have expressed an opinion with regard to the Galway contract, and if that were a reason for taking off his name they would have to strike off the names of several hon. Members who had already been nominated. If the House were to strike off gentlemen who had expressed such opinions what were they to say as to placing upon the Committee gentlemen who were officially responsible for having entered into the Galway contract? For his own part, he should regard the omission of the hon. Gentleman's name as taking away one of the titles of the Committee to public confidence.

said, he was not aware that in consequence of having entertained certain opinions connected with our ocean packet service he was thereby disqualified from serving on this Committee. He thought the time had now come when there was no necessity whatever for subsidizing the Galway or any other line. If, however, the House felt that having formed an opinion against the system of large subsidies ought to prevent a Member being on a Committee, he at once admitted his name had better be withdrawn.

said, he admired the candour with which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) had admitted that his mind was made up on the subject about to be investigated. He complained that though every man in the West of Ireland was in favour of Galway as a packet station, there was only one Member on the Committee from that part of the country.

said, he looked with great suspicion on this proposal for inquiry, for at the first blush it appeared to him as a party move of the most unmistakeable character. He thought the late Government was entitled to credit for having given a packet station to Galway, though, as an individual, he held that they might perhaps have selected a more desirsble port in a part of the country with which he was connected. He submitted that great injustice had been done to Ireland by not placing a fairer proportion of Irish Members on the Committee.

hoped that Mr. Baxter would assent to the withdrawal of his name from this Committee, seeing that the hon. Member would go into the Committee with his mind made up.

thought it very unfair that a Gentleman should be put upon this Committee who had told them that his mind was made up with regard to the question of subsidizing these companies.

said, that the hon. Member for Montrose advocated a distinct principle, and that was whether the postal service of the country could not be carried on without subsidies at all; and therefore he thought that he would be a very valuable member of the Committee to cross-examine the witnesses with a view to illustrate the principle he advocated. The Committee was not confined to the Galway packet contract, but extended to the general ocean packet service.

said, one charge brought against the late Government was that when in office they employed their power to sub- sidize a particular company—or rather it was very broadly insinuated that they corruptly exercised their power for that purpose. Now, the Galway contract was not the only mail-packet contract; and he would press on the Committee now being nominated that there were other contracts made by former Governments which could also be inquired into, and in which corruption had been imputed. If the Committee should be at a loss to find individual instances he would undertake to find some for them. He trusted that the Committee would go over the whole of the contracts, and that they would not confine themselves to the contracts either of the late or the present Government.

said, that when he saw the first list of names it occurred to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an unfortunate selection. One of the most unsatisfactory things in the business of that House was that so small a result followed from the appointment of a Committee. So strong had been his feeling on this subject that he had on every possible occasion abstained from serving on Committees as much as he could from the belief that his labour and time would be almost thrown away. When the Committee was first nominated he felt that it would not give satisfaction to the House, because it contained too many members who were now in office, or who had been in office under the late Government, and they would both go into the Committee Room with a disposition to justify everything that had been done. The officials of the present Government were equally well disposed to support everything which had been done by their predecessors, and the few Members on the Committee who might be called independent would find themselves overborne by the votes of those who were concerned in the very things the Committee had to inquire into. For these reasons he had intended to object to the nomination which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed. Indeed, he believed that right hon. Gentleman had found out that the Committee, as he had originally composed it, would not be agreed to, and he had therefore added four more names, making in all nineteen members; and by so doing he had made the Committee too large and cumbersome; there would be twice as many questions asked than necessary for the purposes of the inquiry, the whole thing would fall into confusion and would turn out as resultless as the labours of a Committee usually were. If he (Mr. Bright) might recommend a course to be pursued—and which he should pursue if he had the appointment of the Committee—it would he that the whole list should be rubbed out, and then that a Committee should be proposed which should have upon it no more official Members than were absolutely necessary for the complete elucidation of the general principles which had been laid down and acted upon by the Treasury in respect of contracts. He did not agree in thinking that it was necessary to have upon the Committee the hon. Member for Gal way, or one of the hon. Members for Liverpool; indeed, he thought those hon. Members ought not to be upon the Committee, because they knew well that they represented constituencies that had a great interest in a matter of this kind, and it was well known that constituencies expected their Member to take a very favourable view of what promised to be for their interest, and therefore hon. Members in such a position wore indisposed and incapacitated from acting honestly and intelligently on a question of this nature. He thought therefore that in forming a Committee two classes of Members should always be avoided—Members holding official appointments and Members representing local interests; and he felt sure that Gentlemen belonging to both sides of the House, and who were not in such positions, could be found who were capable and intelligent enough to serve upon this Committee; and the Report of such a Committee would have infinitely more influence, both in the House and throughout the country, than a Report prepared or passed by a Committee having local and official interests. With regard to the name of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) he could not object to it, and he would undertake to say that that hon. Gentleman was of the average ability of the House; and though he (Mr. Bright) was not in the habit of passing compliments, he would state that he was as fit to serve on the Committee as most other men. That hon. Gentleman had travelled through America, and he had written a useful book. He was in his opinion just the man to be appointed, and therefore he should not vote for his exclusion. The official and local Members might be supposed to take a partial view of the question, and therefore he should omit their names altogether. In 1853 the Chancellor of the Exchequer in proposing the budget, expressed very great doubt upon the wisdom of the enormous expenditure incurred in this subsidizing system, and he had no reason to doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to inquire whether it might not be reduced. It was well known that they could not go among commercial men without hearing something about these contracts; there was a universal suspicion that there was a great deal of unnecessary expenditure, if not jobbing, about them; and to prevent suspicion arising, the House ought to select a Committee which should be as independent and as intelligent as both sides of the House could make it.

said, he he should certainly urge the House to retain the name of the hon. Member for Montrose upon the Committee, and he did so for this reason—this Committee was to be appointed for the wise object of looking into the whole subject of the packet contracts, which was one that required the full attention of those hon. Members who might be selected; and in the interest of the late Government, whose conduct had been attacked, he should demand that the hon. Member for Montrose should be placed on the Committee. This inquiry ought not to be skin-deep, but fully and properly gone into, and he believed the more the subject was inquired into, the more it would redound to the credit and not discredit of the late Government. The subject was one which could not properly be discussed in that House, but should be referred to a Select Committee; and if it were discussed without the assistance of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, it might be said that the Committee had not been appointed fairly, nor the subject properly gone into. This Committee would have to go into the whole question as to what were the principles upon which the packet contracts were founded, and they would have to state whether the Galway, Dovor, and other contracts were right or wrong, He quite agreed that the Committee would be best if it were composed entirely of non-official Members; but if, on the other hand, the whole truth was to he got out, they must have a certain number of gentlemen who could bring out the points of the case; and, therefore, it would be desirable that they should have two or three Members on the Committee who were acquainted with official proceedings. He felt satisfied with the appearance of this Committee as it now stood, and thought that a fair inquiry would be instituted, which was all that the late Government required.

wished to point out that these contracts had been going on in various ports and towns of England. Up to the present moment not one shilling had been given to Ireland, and until it was proposed that Ireland should benefit by one of these contracts no inquiry had been demanded. As soon, however, as an attempt had been made to assist private energy in Ireland, the whole power and weight of English Members were brought to bear against them. It might be prudent that neither the Members for Galway, Limerick, nor Liverpool should serve, on the ground of private interest, but the same objection could not apply to the whole commercial community of Ireland. Why should not a Member for Belfast and Dublin serve on the Committee? It was a matter peculiarly interesting to Ireland, but the constitution of the Committee was not such as to give satisfaction to the people of Ireland.

seconded the Motion, declaring that the Committee was not at all fairly constituted. There were only two Irish Members, for the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), although an Irishman, was an English Member. As well might the present Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) be called an Irish Member, but he was nothing of the kind. Ireland was not fairly treated, either in this Committee or in the Cabinet, where there was not a single Irishman. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, although bearing an Irish title, was no more an Irishman than the Marquess of Douro was a Portuguese. He would reserve for another occasion remarks on the constitution of the Irish Government, but he would now observe that the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, the Under Secretary, the Chief Commissioner of Irish Police, the Chief Commissioner for the Irish Poor Laws, and even the Commander of the Forces, were none of them Irishmen. There was not an Irishman at the head of any department in the country. He did not blame the Government, that House, or Englishmen for this state of things; but he blamed Irishmen, who ought to assert their own position and be true to themselves. He was glad to think that there was a sounder feeling springing up among Irish Members, and if it grew stronger there would soon be two, three, or four Irishmen brought into the Cabinet. There were always at least three Scotchmen in the Cabinet, and Scotland was a much smaller and more insignificant country even than Ireland; but the Scotch Members made their position felt.

said, that he, like every Member in the House, felt great respect for the right hon. Gentleman whose name was now proposed, but, if the Report of the Committee was not to be a nullity, the House should endeavour to get a non-official and independent Committee. The Government were the assailants in this matter, and partly with a political object; and, however fair Mr. Wilson might be, there were fairer men, as that right hon. Gentleman had a strong political and party bias. Let some Independent Member be appointed who would not regard the interests of faction on either side, but only the interests of the empire.

thought it of the utmost importance that this Committee should be fairly and impartially constituted. It was thought desirable to have on the Committee one or two Members connected with the late and present Governments, who might be able to direct attention to what those Governments might bring before the Committee. Such Members, however, should be put, not on the Committee, but in the witness-box, and then they could bring before the Committee all the points they might think it desirable to direct attention to. He would suggest whether it would not be fair that the name of one of the Government Members should be withdrawn, and some Independent Member appointed instead.

said, he would not obtrude himself on the House; but in consequence of the observation made on his vote in the last division by the hon. and learned Member for Cork, it was only right to say in reference to that observation that there were no national prejudices in the borough he had the honour of representing, and it was an injustice to his constituents to say that he gave that vote in consequence of their national prejudices. The vote was on the question whether the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) should be one Member of the Committee. On that question he had voted "Aye," because the hon. Gentleman was known to represent in a very decided manner the views which many persons in the House and in the country entertained on this subject. He did not mean by that vote, however, to say that he approved of the constitution of the Committee. On the contrary, he agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that it was not a Committee constituted in a manner to be approved of. He gave his vote precisely the same as if he were Member for the county of Cork, but, at the same time, he would submit to the Government that it was very invidious that hon. Members should be called on to vote for or against a particular Member, and he thought the general question of the constitution of the Committee should be brought forward. He would, therefore, recommend that the Government should reconsider the question.

agreed with the noble Lord that if there was a sentiment of dissatisfaction on the part of the Irish Members in respect to the constitution of the Committee it would be more convenient to raise that point by a separate Motion rather than upon the question being put on particular names. It had been suggested that Mr. Wilson's or Mr. Laing's name should be omitted; but he thought it necessary to point out that the House had now appointed fourteen members out of nineteen, and among the fourteen were four official gentlemen connected with the late Government. Under these circumstances, it was not an unfair or immoderate proposition that two gentlemen in office connected with the present Government should be put upon the Committee. It was his business to come into some sort of relation with the Committee, and this would be effected through the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Laing), who belonged to the same Department as himself, and with whom he was in constant communication with respect to all matters of the Department. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Wilson) was nominated for the Committee for the same reason as the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) had been nominated, because for many years he had been perfectly conversant with the affairs of the Treasury. The House did not seem to think that all official persons should be excluded from the Committee, and he did not think it would be wise to do so.

quite concurred that it was undesirable the Members for Liverpool or for Galway should be on the Committee, although if placed on it himself he should have endeavoured to do his duty; and he might observe that if he had any bias in the matter it was in favour of Ireland. He was anxious to bear his testimony to the great importance of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Wilson) being on the Committee, as that right hon. Gentleman was better acquainted with matters of this kind than any other Gentleman, and he hoped therefore his name would be retained.

also supported the retention of the right hon. Gentleman, and suggested that, if hon. Members were objected to in consequence of having belonged to one Government or the other, some hon. Member would move the omission of his name, which had been placed on the Committee without his knowledge.

hoped the further consideration of the subject would be adjourned till to-morrow. The reason why the last Motion was not opposed by a vote was that he and some of his friends hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer might reconsider the question, and be ready to agree to some improvement of the Committee to-morrow.

did not see, considering the progress they had made in appointing the Committee, in what way they could improve it in the sense understood by the hon. Gentleman. He thought they ought to proceed with the nomination. The next name was that of the Secretary to the Treasury, and after him came an Irish gentleman, to whom there could hardly be any objection.

did not see any such difficulty in the way of reconsidering the matter as the Chancellor of the Exchequer supposed. ["Divide, divide!"] He was determined not to be stopped by these interruptions, which all came from the neighbourhood of the bar. He would take all such interruptions as an indication of a desire to hoar him at considerable length. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see how it was possible to improve the Committee; but he might do so by adding Irish Members to it. ["Divide!"] There ought to be a preponderance of non-official men upon the Committee, and its constitution would then be satisfactory. He would suggest the addition of twelve members to the Committee, as it was one of great importance, and he remembered that Committees upon subjects of less importance had been composed of as many as thirty-one members.

said, the Committee included the representatives of two of the great commercial cities of England, but the commercial cities of Ireland had been entirely overlooked. There were only two Irish Members on the Committee, and neither of them was the representative of a great port, or of a largo manufacturing town. There were, however, upon the Committee representatives of London and Manchester. He did not object to the hon. Member for Manchester, but the interests of that city were so closely connected with those of Liverpool, that it was almost the same thing as placing one of the Members for Liverpool on the Committee. He believed that a Committee, constituted as this was proposed to be, would be very unsatisfactory to the people of Ireland, and that if their report condemned the Gal way contract it would be regarded with the utmost contempt.

said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to increase the Committee from nineteen to twenty-one members, he (Mr. Butt) would suggest that one of the Members for the city of Dublin and one of the Members for Tipperary be added to the Committee. If the proposed Committee agreed to a Report adverse to the Galway contract, the feeling in Ireland would be that the interests of that country had not been fairly represented.

observed that he would be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer assented to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Youghal.

said, the most convenient course would be that hon. Gentlemen who complain that there was an insufficient representation of Irish Members on the Committee should give notice of a Motion on the subject. He would then have time to reflect upon the general bearing of the proposition, and he could afterwards inform the House of the decision of the Government.

expressed his regret that Ireland was not more fairly represented upon this Committee. There could be no doubt that the Galway contract would be the first subject of its inquiry, and he was desirous that the subject should be fairly and impartially investigated. If the decision of the Committee should be unfavourable to the Galway contract it would undoubtedly be the opinion of the Irish people that the question had not been determined by a fair tribunal. Under these circumstances he thought the request of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was not unreasonable, and he moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he could not agree with those hon. Gentlemen who contended that the Committee did not contain a fair and impartial selection of Members to try the particular question of the Galway contract, if that were the only subject to be investigated; but while they pointed out that there were only two or three Irish Members upon the Committee, they seemed to overlook the fact that the Committee would include three or four Members of the late Government, by whom the contract was made, and who were therefore as much interested in maintaining the propriety of the arrangement they had concluded as any Irish Member could be. He saw no reason either for altering the constitution of the Committee or adjourning the debate; but even if any hon. Member wished on a subsequent day to propose an addition to the Committee, an adjournment of the debate was not necessary for that purpose. He hoped, therefore, that the House would now assent to the Committee nominated by his light hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he had supported the Government in the nomination of this Committee, and he need, therefore, scarcely Bay that he was not disposed to put them to any unnecessary trouble; but he thought the observations of the noble Lord were not altogether just. The noble Lord had said that the Committee comprised the names of some three or four Members of the late Administration who were entirely committed to the Galway contract and who would take care that that subject was properly dealt with. It must be remembered, however, that those Members of the late Government who were upon the Committee had a special duty to perform. They had to take care that the question was fairly placed before the Committee—that there was no want of information—and that the Committee should be acquainted not only with the facts, but with the opinions which had induced the late Government to sanction the arrangement. Now what was required was a Committee which would investigate this and similar transactions in such a manner as to satisfy the country that the inquiry had been conducted by impartial persons. The argument of the noble Lord therefore amounted to nothing, unless they were satisfied that there were on the Committee a certain number of individuals who could not be biased, or supposed to be biased, by any predilections whatever, cither with reference to the late Administration, or any foregone conclusion as to this particular scheme, but who had no other object than to arrive at an impartial and just conclusion upon the merits. He must say he thought it would have been more satisfactory if there had been a stronger representation of Irish Members upon the Committee. He altogether acquitted the Government of having been actuated by any but the most fair and impartial intentions in the constitution of the Committee; for he knew from experience how difficult it was to form a Committee, especially upon a subject of this kind, which could give entire satisfaction. After the discussion which had taken place, however, he thought it was impossible to deny that there was not a satisfactory representation of Irish interests upon the Committee. He was unwilling to see the names of any member of Committee superseded by others merely on the ground that they were Irish Members, and he had supported the names of the two hon. Gentlemen whoso names had been opposed. He thought the Committee was already too large; but if, for example, the Member for the City of Dublin and a Member for some important port in the west of Ireland were also placed upon it, it would, he believed, on the whole be more satisfactory to the House and the country. If a proposition of that kind were made on a proper occasion he should be disposed to support it.

said, that what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman nearly coincided with what he had himself suggested and been taken to task for mentioning. He had said it would be open to any Gentleman on a future occasion to propose an increase to the Committee; and the quarrel with him was not that he would not assent at the moment to such an addition to its numbers, but that he would not accede to the precise proposal and the particular names which had been put before him. In asking for time he had conveyed the impression that he was acting precipitately. To be candid with the House he would tell them fairly where the difficulty originated. It originated in the large official representation of the late Government on the Committee. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with his strong sense of the necessity of adding to the Irish clement, would reduce the number of Members of the late Government from four to two, then there would be two vacancies, which the Government would not have the slightest objection to fill an with Irish Members.

had not asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accede to any two particular names. He had given notice of his intention, in which he meant to persevere, to move on Thursday that the members of the Committee be increased to twenty-one.

hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not go on with the Bill at that hour, and suggested that it should be postponed for a week.

said, the Bill was introduced last year and read a second time, and was reintroduced this Session at the earliest possible period. He should take the sense of the House upon the Motion.

said, that it was perfectly true that the House had last Parliament agreed to the second reading of the Bill; but it was upon the understanding that Government would add clauses providing compensation, as had been done on the passing of the Probate and Divorce Act, for the proctors practising in the Court. [A laugh.] The House might laugh, but the principle had been adopted both by the Attorney General of the present and the Attorney General of the late Government, and was founded upon justice. If it was right that the proctor should be compensated for the loss of his business in one Court, he ought to be compensated for his loss of business in the other. A proctor might have had his business mainly in one Court which had been abolished, and he got compensation; another proctor had his business mainly in the Admiralty Court, and surely when he lost his privileges, he was also entitled to compensation. He moved that the Chairman report progress.

thought that the House and the country, which were paying £69,000 a year to the proctors, had had enough of compensation. He also thought that the gentlemen who were receiving that sum had enough of compensation. When the Divorce and Probate Bills were before the House, he yielded to the claims for compensation; but it was distinctly stated that the Admiralty Court should likewise be thrown open, and that there should be no further demands for compensation. The present Bill was only the complement of the Divorce and Probate Acts; it dealt with an old and familiar subject, and he trusted, therefore, that the House would not allow it to be further delayed, especially for the purpose of affording the proctors an opportunity of getting up petitions for compensation.

reminded the Committee that it was the Attorney General himself who stated last Session that the £69,000 a year, paid as compensation to the proctors, did not come out of the public purse; and the hon. and learned Gentleman then corroborated the statement which he (Mr. Malins) had made that the fund which he had provided by the Act of Parliament was abundantly sufficient to pay it without costing the country anything. That fund was provided simply by continuing some small fees upon probates which were paid before the Act, and which the hon. and learned Gentleman stated was only a measure of justice, and should be continued, in order to prevent that body of men being ruined by the passing of the Act. He denied that there was any bargain or compact such as the hon. and learned Gentleman had hinted at, precluding the proctors from asking for compensation for loss of business in the Admiralty Court.

Although the Attorney General had observed that the House had had enough of compensation, he had understated the amount which the country had to pay. The amount was in reality not £69,000, but between £120,000 and £130,000 a year. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) appeared to think that an arrangement had been made by which the country was to recoup this sum; but so far from that having been the case £56,000 for stamps was all that had yet been received against the £120,000 a year. If compensation clauses were brought up he would suggest that they should be based upon the principle that compensation should be limited to the difference between the income upon which the proctors had received compensation, and the amount which they had returned to the income tax.

remarked that the compensation clauses in the Divorce and Probate Acts were forced upon the Government by the other side, and in a particular manner by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mowbray).

stated that the clauses in question were supported by Gentlemen on both sides of the House; indeed, the Member to whom the proctors intrusted their petition was the noble Lord the Member for the City of London.

said: Sir, I have ventured to give notice that I shall move as an Amendment that this Bill be read a second time on this day three months; and I hope the House will allow me to explain, in as few words as possible, my reasons for so doing. The House will recollect that when this Bill was last under consideration, and just before the right hon. Baronet the Member for Canterbury moved the second reading of his Bill, a question was put to the Attorney General for Ireland, as to whether the Government would introduce a measure for an alteration of the oath taken by the Roman Catholic Members of this House, and by various officers of State being Roman Catholics, which is prescribed by what is termed the Relief Act of 1829—that great settlement by which members of the Roman Catholic Church, or rather persons who profess the Roman Catholic religion, were admitted to seats in the Legislature. The Attorney General for Ireland then stated, on the part of the Government, that they would, during the recess, consider this question. Now, the terms of that oath comprehend all the principles of the Relief Act. They comprehend not only the terms upon which Roman Catholics should be admitted to the Legislature and to high offices of State, but provide that nothing shall be done by the Roman Catholics to the detriment of the Established Church, or to the detriment of the Protestant Government of the United Kingdom as established under the Act of Settlement. Now, it appears to me to be somewhat strange that, when the Government had decided that they would take the period of the recess to consider whether any modifications should be introduced into this most important part of this national compact, for it is a national compact, they should have permitted and even encouraged an independent Member of this House to persevere with a Bill which assails a vital element in that Settlement. I know that a belief has prevailed, that this is merely a small concession to the spirit of liberalism in which this country has been proceeding for some years; but I think I can show the House that it is a direct attack upon the Act of Settlement as re-enacted in the Relief Act of 1829—a direct attack upon the Protestant Government of this country—that form of Government under which it is our happiness to live, which has not been invalidated by the Act of 1829, but which it was the direct object of the framers of that Act to preserve, whilst they granted certain privileges to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. I have heard it said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, that it was only through a mistake made by the late Sir Robert Peel, that the office of Lord Chancellor in Ireland was not opened to Roman Catholics in 1829; and that the only reason for that prohibition was that the Lord Chancellor exercised the patronage of the Church of Ireland, but that the exclusion was founded on a misapprehension and a mistake, because the Lord Chancellor of Ireland exercised no ecclesiastical patronage whatever, while the exclusion prevented gentlemen of the Irish bar who professed the Roman Catholic religion from attaining the highest office in their profession. Now this is a very limited, though a specious argument. I have referred to the debates of 1829, and I think I can show the House, in a very few words, that the late Sir Robert Peel in the most distinct form announced this exclusion to the House specifically as one of the securities for our Protestant form of Government, for that purpose introduced in the Emancipation Act; that not only the Lord Chancellorship of England should be retained a Protestant office, but that the Chancellorship of Ireland should be retained a Protestant office also. In this portion of his speech I find that the word "respectively" is used in an emphatic manner to show that the provision referred to the Chancellor of Ireland as much as to the Chancellor of England. I remember hearing that eminent statesman deliver his almost last speech in this House before his lamented death, on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, for the abolition of the Lord-Lieutenancy of Ireland, which Bill involved this very subject; but in not one word that ever passed from his lips did he give the slightest encouragement to any one to expect that he would ever depart from the principles and the safeguards of the Bill of 1829; from those principles and safeguards which held it to be inconsistent with the Protestant character of the monarchy of this country, under the Act of Settlement, that the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, any more than that of Lord Chancellor of England, should be filled by a Roman Catholic. Let me, before I proceed further, call attention to what the Act of Settlement provided. In that Act it is specifically declared, that the allegiance of every subject of the Monarchy in this country is to be abrogated if any but a Protestant occupy the Throne; or if any occupant of the Throne become a Roman Catholic, or be reconciled to the Church of Rome. Now, this abrogation of the allegiance of the subjects to the Sovereign of this country was to take place in the event of the adhesion to the Church of Rome of that Regal power of which the Lord Chancellor of England and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland arc "respectively" the confidential and responsible advisers. Remember, the Lord Chancellor is the constitutional adviser of the Sovereign of this country, whether in England or in Ireland, in every point of constitutional doctrine, in every matter that relates to the interests of the Church, in every question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and is also directly invested with the care of all insane persons and their property, as well as with the care of the property, persons, and education of minors. From ancient times, the Lord Chancellor has been called the keeper of the conscience of the King. In Roman Catholic times, this officer was usually an ecclesiastic, and in Protestant times, when, thank God! Her Most Gracious Majesty has no confessor, the Lord Chancellor is still the confidential and responsible adviser, upon whom the Sovereign, whether in person, as in England, or by deputy as in Ireland, is bound to rely. I ask the House, then, is not the matter before us a grave one, when it is proposed that this constitutional adviser of the Sovereign shall be no longer necessarily of the religion which the Sovereign himself, or herself must profess, under the penalty of releasing every subject from his allegiance. As this point is one of great importance, and as great weight is attached to the opinions of the late Sir Robert Peel, I will now read the words made use of by him when introducing in this House the Relief Act of 1829:—

"But, Sir, with respect to all these offices, to corporate offices, to offices in the Courts of Justice, to military appointments, aye, to the highest civil offices, we have in my opinion decided the question the moment we have resolved on the admission of the Roman Catholic to Parliament, &c., &c. It will nevertheless be quite consistent with this principle to exclude the Roman Catholic from a certain limited number of offices which have special and peculiar duties attached to them connected with the patronage of the Church, or with education, or the administration of the ecclesiastical law. The Roman Catholic is jealous of our interference with the appointments and discipline of his Church, and we have at least as good a right to take security for the maintenance of the integrity of our own. The Bill will therefore exclude the Roman Catholic from the office of Regent, and from exercising, under any circumstances, the delegated authority of the Crown, from the office of Lord Chancellor in England and Ireland respectively, and from the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It will not qualify the Roman Catholic to hold any office, place, or dignity connected with the Church establishments of the United Kingdom, or with the Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature, with the Universities, or the great public schools, or schools of ecclesiastical foundation. All local statutes of the Universities, and the power of making such statutes, will be pro-served inviolate. The laws respecting the right of presentation to ecclesiastical benefices will remain unrepealed and unvaried, and provision will be made for entrusting exclusively to Protestant authorities the right of Church patronage belonging to the civil office that may hereafter be held by a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic will be disabled, under severe penalties, from advising the Crown, directly or indirectly, in respect to the grants of Church preferments, and generally from the exercise of any influence derived from civil office over ecclesiastical appointments. Such is the principle and outline of the measure, so far as it concerns the removal of political disabilities."

Now, Sir, I have read to the House the substance of the statement of Sir Robert Peel, and if the House will take the trouble to examine the Act of 1829, they will find how precisely and accurately it corresponds with the description given of its main provisions in the passage of the speech which I have just read. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland is the constitutional adviser of the Lord-Lieutenant, in the absence of the Sovereign, in respect of all matters touching preferments in the Church of Ireland. Indeed his functions in this regard go in some respect even beyond those of the Lord Chancellor of England; for remember you have not dealt with the Ecclesiastical Courts of Ireland as you have dealt with those of England. There remains in Ireland a distinct ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and if any ecclesiastical decision given by the Archbishop of Armagh, or any of the Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Courts be appealed from, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland can appoint a commission of delegates to try the question, and from the decision of the delegates none but the Lord Chan- cellor of Ireland himself can hear the appeal. Again, if any insane person or minor be possessed of patronage in Ireland, the exercise of that patronage falls to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Again, in the various functions delegated by the Sovereign to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, including the prerogative of mercy, the Lord Chancellor is the principal adviser. Sir, it appears to me that we might much more consistently, under this Act, propose that the Lord Chancellor of England might he a Roman Catholic, than that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland might be a person of that religion, because in the 16th and 17th Clauses of that Act, there is a specific provision that, in case any holder of office should be a Roman Catholic, and thereby disabled from exercising the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown, that then the Archbishop of Canterbury should exercise that patronage. But throughout there is no such provision with respect to Ireland; so that it is perfectly evident that it was never contemplated that the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland should be filled by a Roman Catholic, because if it were, so important a provision would not have been omitted in the case of that country. I mention this to show how little ground there can be for the supposition that the retention of this high office of Lord Chancellor and principal adviser to the representative of royalty in Ireland as one of those which must be filled by a Protestant was the result of accident. I really cannot tell what may be the ulterior object of the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced this Bill; but I cannot forget that he spoke earnestly and voted for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. Now, is it intended that this proposed alteration in the law should be the forerunner of that abolition? If so, I cannot imagine a measure that would be better adapted for the object; because, if a Roman Catholic were appointed to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with the exception of some patronage and jurisdiction in magisterial and judicial appointments, he would be totally incapacitated from the exercise of the functions which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland now performs, and would in fact sink to the position of a mere equity Judge, while the Lord Lieutenant himself would be left without a qualified adviser on all matters, from which a Roman Catholic would necessarily be excluded by the provisions of the Act of 1829. No Roman Catholic could be such an adviser as the constitution intended to provide, and with whoso assistance and advice the Viceroy of Ireland has hitherto performed his high duties. If that be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, why does he not come at once to the great question of the existence of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? But, Sir, I shall put another view of this case. Is there in this Bill a lurking intention that certain high functions now exercised by the Lord Lieutenant should be transferred to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, as was suggested in 1850? I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire then put it pointedly to the late Mr. Fagan—"do you intend that the chief authority and the functions of the Lord Lieutenant should be transferred to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland?" And now we find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury shrinks from an explanation of his own Bill, which proposes that the high office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be opened to Roman Catholics. In whatever light we view the case, I think the House will see that there has been an absence of explanation. There has been a disposition to ask the House to commit itself to the principle of this Bill uninformed, and under circumstances which ought to excite our suspicion. I trust, Sir, the House will never be led to adopt the same course which they did, I think unadvisedly, on a recent occasion, in the case of the endowed schools. I hope they will not be trapped into the adoption of a great principle, and then not know how to find their way to a safe settlement of that principle without the bungling resource of a Select Committee. These are the leading motives which have influenced me in my opposition to this Bill. I am an Independent Member of this House, and I trust the House knows the respect I entertain for it, looking upon it, as I do, as one of the justly valued institutions of the country. I say it with regret, I have of late observed the practice resorted to by some hon. Members of thrusting on the House pieces of paper with a great principle inscribed on them, without the means of carrying out those principles being described for the information of the House. We are expected by those hon. Members to vote for a particular object, and then to trust to a Select Committee for carrying that object into effect. You may depend upon it that such a system is by no means consistent with the dignity of this House. The House loses caste by it. We have none of us a right to ask this House to accept any such crude proposition, unless we explain all the means by which it is proposed to produce the desired results, and the consequences that are to accrue there from. Sir, I will not detain the House much longer, but I wish to say one or two words to hon. Members of this House, especially, who profess the Roman Catholic religion. It may be supposed that I am actuated by some petty, miserable, narrow-minded bigotry, against Roman Catholics. I am actuated by nothing of the kind; but when I come to examine the sentiments of Roman Catholics of distinction, I find them to be of opinion that the members of their religious persuasion enjoy in this country a freedom, a positive encouragement in the propagation of their faith, in their churches, chapels, schools, and other institutions which is unknown in continental nations. I would ask them then, why I should be considered narrow minded in seeking to uphold the Protestant constitution of this country, while in so doing I am defending the sources of the freedom which they as Roman Catholics enjoy, I will not say abuse; a freedom which they admittedly enjoy. Doctor Ennis, a Roman Catholic priest, was sent by the late Dr. Murray, one of the Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland, to the present Pope on the subject of Roman Catholic education in Ireland, and Dr. Enuis declared to his Holiness that in Ireland the Roman religion had free and ample course. What has the Count de Montalembert written on this subject of the freedom which Roman Catholics enjoy under the British Constitution? He uses these words at p. 196 of L'avenir de l'Angleterre:—

"But it is in England, above all, that the fact is most fully demonstrated that without political liberty they remain powerless. Political liberty has been obtained, and everything has become powerless against them. The Catholics owe everything to liberty; nothing to temporal authority. Neither Philip the II. nor James the II. could prevent their defeat."

Count Montalembert went on to illustrate the fact that in no country did the Roman Catholics enjoy such personal freedom for the exercise of their religion as in this, and writes, that were the relations of the subject with reference to the religion of the State enforced in this Protestant country, as they are in Roman Catholic Naples, that Roman Catholics might sigh in vain for the freedom they enjoy. It is on these grounds, Sir, that I appeal to Roman Catholics to retain in Protestant hands the authority of that state under which, according to their own authorities, they have been granted a freedom which they could not find in any other country. I ask them not to attempt to infringe upon that which is as much the source of their own liberties as it is that of the liberties of Protestants. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to suffer an independent Member of this House to tamper with the great settlement of 1829, after the declaration which we have had from the Executive that they require the leisure of the recess to enable them to deal with much less important matters in a competent manner. On these grounds, I feel it to be my duty to move that this Bill be read a second time on this day three months; and I hope that, in deference to those great principles which have so long been at once the glory and the security of this country, the House will sustain me in my opposition to the measure.

, in seconding the Amendment, said he was astonished at the light and airy—he might almost say the flippant manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville) introduced this Bill, which was one of the most important Bills that could be brought before the House. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was by the mere inadvertence of some of the greatest men that England ever produced, that a provision whose express object was to except particular persons from particular offices under the operation of the Act of 1829 was inserted in that Act. The Secretary of State for the Home Department wished the House to suppose that that provision was inserted simply because Sir Robert Peel did not happen to know that the Chancellor of Ireland had no Church patronage. But the distribution of Church patronage was one of the most insignificant of the duties that devolved upon the Chancellor of Ireland. He it was who had to advise the delegated governor of that country in all important matters. It was impossible therefore to suppose that the introduction of these exceptions was an inadvertence. In seconding the Amendment he was actuated by no unworthy motives against his Roman Catholic fellow subjects. He honestly believed that the liberties of this country mainly depended upon Pro- testantism remaining its leading principle. On looking round the nations he found that liberty prevailed where Protestantism prevailed; but it was exceedingly rare to find liberty prevailing where Romanism prevailed. He besought those who valued their liberty to value their Protestantism as one of the most important parts of that liberty which conduced not only to prosperity and happiness in this world, but to happiness in the world to come.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) has appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to allow an independent Member of this House to tamper with those principles upon which, in his words, the Protestant Constitution of this country rests. I, on the other hand, am happy in being able to support a measure brought forward by an independent Member of this House, than whom none is more worthy to be the instrument in promoting what I believe to be a just and righteous measure. I listened with pleasure to the high terms in which my hon. Friend spoke of the author of the Catholic Relief Act, and in the argument, short only as it need be, that I shall venture to address to the House I shall defend the second reading of this Bill upon the principles announced by the author of the Relief Act; and I shall endeavour to show that consistently with the statements then made there is no reason why this present exception from the comprehensive provisions of that Act ought any longer to remain upon the pages of the statute-book. The principle of that Act, laid down by the author of it at the time and accepted by Parliament, was the principle of equality of civil and religious privilege; and the exceptions which were included in the Act were exceptions justified only, and believed to be justified, by the special circumstances existing at that time. What now remains for us to consider on the second reading of this Bill is whether it is possible to defend by sound argument, based on the special circumstances of the office, the exception with regard to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The principles of that exception were two. It was stated that the reason why the Lord Chancellor of England and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland were ex- cepted from the provisions of that Act was twofold—that they exercised church patronage and that they exercised ecclesiastical discipline. With permission, I will deal frankly with both those cases. I have communicated with my Colleague the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I have ascertained from him, and I will state to you in his own words what is the case with regard to ecclesiastical patronage:—"The Chancellor has not any church patronage, except in respect of the vicarages of St. Andrew and St. Mark, Dublin, as to which he is joined with the Archbishop of Dublin, the Master of the Rolls, and the three chief Judges by an Act of the Irish Parliament." Is it to be said that Protestantism is safe while the Master of the Rolls and the three Chief Judges—the majority of the patrons —may one and all be Roman Catholics, and is rendered unsafe when one of the other patrons, the Lord Chancellor, is permitted to be a Roman Catholic? Will any friend to Protestantism like to rest his case on a foundation so unsubstantial as this? But does the case rest there? Do those who so highly praise the Roman Catholic Relief Act for its exceptions, know what else it contains? Do they not know that the Lord Chancellor, being a Roman Catholic, is incapacitated from exercising ecclesiastical patronage directly, and that if he ventures to give advice on such a matter to the Lord Lieutenant he is subjected to the severest penalties? That is the state of the law at present. The hypothetical case is put that the Chancellor, having authority in lunacy, may have church patronage devolve on him by reason of the patron becoming lunatic. Hypothetical cases have been put with much ability; I do not believe that it is possible to frame an Act against which the ingenuity of some gentleman may not make objection. I will venture to frame an objection against the law as it now stands, and I will ask you to tell me which is the most weighty. The Home Secretary, for anything contained in the law, may be a Roman Catholic, and the Home Secretary has the church patronage of Scotland. Suppose I were to argue that the Protestantism of Scotland is not safe, because there is no provision to prevent the Home Secretary being a Catholic. What is the real and rational answer to the objection to the second reading of this Bill? Why, that there are careful provisions in the Roman Catholic Relief Act which, from the time that Act passed, have not been found inadequate or inoperative, and, if the ingenuity of my hon. Friend can suggest when this Bill is in Committee that when making new concessions it is necessary to make new safeguards, we shall be perfectly ready and willing to give the utmost attention to the case and the remedy by which he proposes to meet it; and I do not doubt that what the wisdom of Parliament did thirty years ago in a great case the wisdom of Parliament can do in a much minor case—make safeguards adequate for any corresponding danger. How stands the case with regard to the other branch—namely, the ease of ecclesiastical discipline? At the time the Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed there was in both countries an ultimate appeal in matters of discipline to the Queen in Chancery. That appeal was then of this kind—it was an appeal from the Archbishop to the Queen in Chancery, and the duty of the Chancellor was to appoint a commission of delegates. If an appeal against the decision of the delegates was raised, it was the duty of the Chancellor to sit in court, and, if he was satisfied that there existed sufficient grounds, to appoint a commission of review. That was then the case in both countries. In regard to this country there has been a most important change of the law. An appeal in England to the Chancellor no longer lies for the appointment of a Commission of Delegates. It lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But that change has not yet taken place in Ireland; and with regard to the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of Ireland, as I wish to state with perfect frankness, so far as my knowledge extends, all that can be stated with regard to the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, I will read the statement which has been forwarded to me by the present occupant of that distinguished office:—

"The Chancellor's ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as representing the Queen, consists in issuing Commissions of Delegates under the 28th Geo. III., c. 32, and advising as to the issue of Commissions of Review of the decisions of such delegates. As to the former he is merely ministerial, the sole duty being to choose the Commissioners, who must be Protestants. In deciding as to the issue of a Commission of Review, the Chancellor acts judicially on a full hearing of the case in open Court."

["Hear, hear."] Right hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer. I am not contending that you do not require provisions, which may be properly introduced in Committee. But I am stating frankly how the law now stands, and I contend that this is not a ground which will justify us in rejecting the Bill on the second reading.

"The only other office of the Chancellor in relation to Ecclesiastical Courts is to sign warrants for the issue of writs 'de contumace capiendo,' under the 54th Geo. III., c. 68, and this is purely ministerial."

This statement has been received by those who are not friendly to the passing of this Bill as I expected. But they are probably not aware that in the memory of the present Chancellor, who has held the office many years, there has never once been an appointment of a Commission of Delegates, and I believe I am right in stating that, in the memory of my right hon. Friend who sits behind me, during the whole time he has been at the bar, there has never been a Commission of Delegates. It is not, therefore, a reason which ought to deter us from going forward with the second reading of this Bill. But I will ask you this—supposing that we were now debating the question, not of the Chancellor, but of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench; and supposing it were set before us hypothetically to argue the great dangers to Protestantism from that great officer being permitted to be a Roman Catholic, how should I describe the effect of a mandamus giving positive directions as to the exercise or a prohibition as to the non-exercise of ecclesiastical authority. But as I have stated to you frankly there do exist cases worthy of consideration with respect to Ireland which do not exist with respect to England. I have stated the case plainly, and I contend there is no case which justifies the House of Commons in rejecting the second reading of this Bill. Having so spoken of the exceptions in the Catholic Relief Act, let us revert to the principle. What was the principle? It was equality of civil and religious privilege. It was the healing of great wounds which had lacerated the body politic of this country for years, which had created the most unhappy differences between the two islands which constitute the United Kingdom, it was the restoring to society and the Government of the country the means of peace and union among ourselves. That principle ought to be advanced upon every occasion, when, consistently with the safeguards which were then laid down, it can justly and properly be advanced. I believe that on this occasion if you pass the second reading of this Bill you will not take a step one single foot beyond the principle of the great Act of 1829, I believe, on the contrary, you will be acting in conformity with the spirit of that Bill, by removing one of its unnecessary exceptions. And confidently believing that this is in principle a just and righteous measure, I most cordially give my support to the proposal of my right hon. Friend that the Bill be now read a second time.

Sir, I heard the notice given of this measure by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Somerville) with surprise and regret. In the whole course of my life, since the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed, I have never heard an observation made upon the subject, and no Motion has ever been submitted to the House since 1829 to redress what is described as a momentous grievance. But now, when all irritating topics have been disposed of, when Reform has gone to sleep, when the landlord and tenant question is shelved, and a criminal code for Ireland extinguished, it was, I suppose, thought necessary by hon. Gentlemen opposite to do something, and therefore a Motion was made to repeal two lines of a fundamental clause of a fundamental measure. I object to a measure such as the great Act for the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics being dealt with in this fashion. I say it is inconvenient and mischievous, and that it is impossible to set a worse precedent than for a Government to allow a right hon. Gentleman, one of their supporters, so to deal with this question. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury bad made a proposal similar to that which is involved in his Bill with reference to a mere equity Judge, such as the Master of the Rolls, I could understand such a proceeding. Such, however, is not the case. Bat if the mode and time at which the Bill is proposed arc inconvenient, the arguments by which it was supported are eminently inconclusive, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department come to the rescue and assert, what I undertake to disprove, that that portion of the clause which is now in question was framed by Sir Robert Peel inadvertently, and under the false impression that there was some ecclesiastical patronage attached to the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland; that alone being, as is contended, the reason of the exception which is made in the Act of emancipation, which they say ought now to be obviated. Now, when such a subject as this is introduced to our notice, it is impossible to avoid adverting for a moment to those great men by whom it was discussed before Sir Robert Peel undertook its adjustment. That statesman had the advantage of the epigrammatic brilliancy of Grattan, the matchless logic of Plunket, and the persuasive eloquence of Canning before he became convinced of the expediency of the policy which he was about to adopt, and before the curiosity which the reasoning of those great men excited induced him to inquire how the question of Catholic emancipation ought to be settled. I revert to the views as origiginally propounded of those distinguished advocates of the Catholic claims to whom I have referred, because the Roman Catholics of Ireland placed entire confidence in them, and because I believe the advocacy of their cause could not be intrusted to abler hands. Let me ask, then, if Plunket was unacquainted with the question which he undertook to promote? He was a follower of that great party which was out of office for fourteen or fifteen years, because it was favourable to the Roman Catholic cause. Was Grattan a man likely to be deceived upon a subject to which for many years he had lent the splendour of his eloquence? Was Canning completely in the wrong in the views in respect to it which he entertained? I am desirous to receive an answer to these questions, inasmuch as in every one of the Bills which were framed on the subject previous to that of Sir Robert Peel, the exception which is now sought to be dispensed with is to be found. It is to be found in the measure of 1813, in that of 1821, and in that of 1825. I may perhaps be wrong in saying that it was included in that of 1821—it was omitted from the Bill originally, and was, I believe, introduced only on the occasion of the debate on the Report. Well, I have now the advantage of having heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department and that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken on the question, and I have read those of the eminent persons to whom I have alluded. I contrast those speeches, and what is the result? I find that in every one of the Bills which preceded that of Sir Robert Peel words were introduced to the following effect:—"Be it enacted that nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to enabling any person being a Roman Catholic to hold the office of Lord Chancellor, of Lord Keeper or Commissioner of the Privy Seal in Ireland, or of Lord-Lieutenant or Lord-Deputy or other Governor of chief Governor in that country." There the clause stops. And now let me ask why it is that we are reopening this question in the month of July? Any hon. Gentleman who is not a believer in the sincerity of abstract Irish politics may very naturally imagine why it is so, and may ask who wants a place? The subject, let me remind the House, is introduced at a moment when national questions of the utmost importance await discussion; when Europe is in flames, or was so; when there is a peace which, so far as I can understand the matter, is almost as awful as war. But I shall not dwell upon the time which the right hon. Baronet opposite has chosen to introduce this topic. I revert to the question, what was done by Sir Robert Peel when he came to a decision on the adjustment of the Catholic claims? Nobody ought to understand the policy of that great statesman, better than the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House, for he has been so good as to publish the records of his political career. As to the policy itself, I can only say that Sir Robert Peel understood this question thoroughly, and that he acted with respect to it conscientiously. What was the point, let me ask, which he had to consider? Plunket and Grattan held the opinion that there ought to be a control exercised over the communications between the Papacy and the Roman Catholic people of this Protestant country. They said it might come to pass that a bull or missive might be sent into these kingdoms, which, while it did not touch the ceremonies or religious observances, might inflame animosities which ought to he guarded against. They framed a clause for the purpose of meeting cases of this description. They likewise held the opinion that no person ought to he appointed as Prelate in this country who had been five years out of the kingdom, or who had not been born of British parents. All these matters came before Sir Robert Peel; he however rejected those limitations on the free intercourse between the Roman Catholics of this country and the head of their Church; he dispensed with all those clauses which had been prepared by the great leaders of the Catholic cause. He nevertheless said, "I must have regard to the authority of the Crown,"—a sub- ject on which, permit me to observe, the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has not condescended to utter one word. I shall not, however, show that I am as forgetful as the right hon. Gentleman appears to be of the Act of Settlement, in accordance with which the delegated authority of the Crown ought to be vested in no other hands than those of a member of the Protestant religion. I am not, indeed, quite sure that if a clause were introduced into the Bill under our notice for the repeal of the Act of Settlement the noble Viscount at the head of the Government and his supporters would not agree to such a proposal after a discussion of a quarter of an hour. But let me remind them that that Act is said to be the great work of the Whig party, and it was carried so far as to provide that if a king came over here from Germany to rule this country he must be a Protestant, not of the German school, but of the Church of England. The same rule applies to those to whom the authority of the Crown is delegated. And now let us consider for a moment whether there is any evidence to show that Sir Robert Peel introduced the words which are sought to be expunged into the Bill by mistake. There is a phrase in general use, "Oh, that mine enemy would but write a book," which I do not mean to apply to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, who has written a very useful book containing the memoirs of that great statesman. In that book I find that Sir Robert Peel, in one of his papers, which is dated the 17th of January, 1829, after alluding to the offices which were excepted from the list of those which ought to be open to Roman Catholics, in accordance with the views laid down in the Bills of Grattan, Plunket, and Burdett, proceeds to say that all the offices which belong to the Established Church, the ecclesiastical courts of judicature, as well as the offices of Lord Chancellor, both of England and Ireland, as well as that of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, ought to be excluded from the number. He then goes on to say that a Roman Catholic ought not to have the right of presentation to a benefice, and that if he assumed such a right the King had power to appoint a Protestant who might exercise pro tempore the right of presentation. Then upon the question whether the declaration of being a believer in the doctrine of transubstantiation ought to enforced to the prejudice of anybody, he observes that it is more de- sirable that Roman Catholics should be held to be incapable of holding certain specified offices than that their exclusion from them should be effected through the instrumentality of such a declaration. Then follows another passage which relates to the duty of the Crown to protect the Protestant constitution of the realm. Let us now turn for a moment to the clause in the Act of Roman Catholic emancipation which was framed in accordance with those opinions. It is a remarkable clause notwithstanding that we are this evening called upon to deal with it in a moment as the result of a rash and inadvertent policy. That clause enables none but Protestants to become Lord Chancellor and to hold other high offices. Why was this exclusion kept up as regards the Chancellor? Because the regal authority is constantly reposed in him. At this moment the Lord Chancellor in Ireland is exercising this authority. The Chancellor is always a Lord Justice in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant ["No!"]—yes, invariably; and he has exercised regal power twice within the course of twelve months. Since the Roman Catholic Relief Bill passed, no Roman Catholic gentleman has ever proposed to this House to repeal that section, nor has any Roman Catholic petition been presented against it; and I believe it was because the distinguished men who were here, O'Connell and Sheil, were satisfied with the Bill as it stood, and thought it was an unreasonable thing to ask that a person upon whom, by virtue of his office, such functions devolved, and who was called upon to exercise the delegated authority of the Crown, should be a Roman Catholic. They felt that for these reasons it was reasonable to exclude a Roman Catholic from that post; and you must continue to exclude him upon the like ground at present. Here is a Bill, without an exception in it, without a saving clause, which calls on the House to allow a Roman Catholic to fill the office of Chancellor, when my belief is that there is not a Roman Catholic gentleman at the bar who would not instantly decline to exercise the duties incident to that office. I believe that Justice Ball refused to sit upon a commission of delegates even where no questions of religious discipline were concerned, simply because the appointment arose through the Chancellor's ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Home Secretary said there was no ecclesiastical patronage attached to the office; but there is such a patronage with respect to certain livings in the City of Dublin, the election to which is vested in him along with other persons; and then when we show this, it is said that because these other persons have a vote it makes no manner of difference should the Chancellor be a Roman Catholic.

I believe that I proceeded to show that by the terms of the Roman Catholic Relief Act the Lord Chancellor, being a Roman Catholic, would be disqualified from voting.

But the Home Secretary said the Bill, in his opinion, was to be defended upon the distinct ground that there was no ecclesiastical patronage vested in the office of the Chancellor, and when it is proved that there is, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland falls back upon the 17th Section, and says if the Chancellor ventures to appoint to these livings he may be indicted. So that you propose to appoint a man to a certain office to which certain duties are incident, and if he performs those duties he is to be indicted! As to cases of presentations in the hands of lunatics, the law is quite plain. Neither the lunatic nor his committee can present; but the Lord Chancellor, by virtue of the general authority delegated to him by the Crown, presents to the living, whatever its value. Altogether, I think the right hon. Member for the University (Mr. Gladstone) will startle his constituents if he votes for this Bill. Sir Robert Peel understood this question thoroughly, and when he excluded Roman Catholics from holding the Chancellorship it was not done invidiously. In his paper, published by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Card-well) he says he wishes to make his measure as comprehensive as possible. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), too is a Churchman. Can he advocate a Bill by which the most sacred interests of the Church may either be sacrificed or betrayed? ["No!"] Hear the argument first and then answer it if you can. When subjects of this delicate nature and dealing with such important interests are brought forward in this rash way, the arguments must be heard fully. Besides having a delegated authority over lunatics and minors, besides having this patronage in the City of Dublin, the Lord Chancellor exercises certain powers when questions of doctrine arise. It is said that he only acts ministerially in selecting the Judges who are to decide upon the doctrines of our Church; and we are called intolerant unless we permit a Roman Catholic gentleman to appoint the Judges who are to decide as to the doctrines of that Church, of which some of us are sincere defenders! Why, it is one of the most indecent propositions ever submitted to Parliament. Not only does the Chancellor select the Judges who arc to try these questions, but when they come back from the Court thus constituted they go to the Chancellor himself. He hears the whole matter judicially, and decides upon it; and the Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) is a Member is of opinion, as I understand, that questions affecting the doctrine of the Church of England may be tried and decided by a Roman Catholic Chancellor sitting alone in the Court of Chancery. Surely no man can set up as a judge of the doctrines of the Church a gentleman who honestly disbelieves them. The 17th Section of the Act referred to is in reality the strongest argument against the Bill, fur the very fact that Sir Robert Peel, by a distinct clause, met the case of a Roman Catholic gentleman promoted to an office to which ecclesiastical preferment was attached, and provided that such preferment should then be exercised by other persons, shows clearly that a Roman Catholic was excluded from the Chancellorship by reason of the distinct relationship of that office to the Government of the country. Then, the Lord Chancellor is a member, ex officio, of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and thus shares in the control of the whole property of the Church. Any Roman Catholic gentleman who should be called upon to perform such duties would at once feel that he had no right to undertake them. With the exception of the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor all the other Crown officers in Ireland may be Roman Catholics, and most of the appointments had been filled by members of that communion; but from the duties incident to these two officers it had always been held Accessary to retain the excepting clause concerning them. But what I want to ask of the Government is, that if all these offices may be filled by Roman Catholic gentlemen, in a matter of Church patronage to whom is the Lord Lieutenant to apply for advice, and whom is he to consult? I do believe that when these facts are submitted to Roman Catholic gentle-men they will hardly say that Mr. O'Connell and their clergy were in the wrong when they pronounced the Bill of 1829 as being one that left nothing further for them to ask and nothing further to desire. It is a mistake to describe the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as a mere Judge in the Court of Chancery. You must sever from the office all his political functions, and he must not advise the Viceroy on matters of faith or religion. On these grounds I think this is a Bill that cannot pass in the condition in which it now stands. I find by an Act of the Legislature that any person professing the Jewish religion is expressly precluded from holding, among other offices, that of a Judge of the United Kingdom, or of Regent of the United Kingdom, of Lord Chancellor, of Lord Keeper, or of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Jew therefore is excluded; and yet he has no prejudice on the subject, he is neither Protestant nor Catholic, and must in that sense be assumed to be perfectly impartial; but what could be more indecent than to appoint a person who repudiates all believe in the Christian religion to hold an office the duties of which involve the maintenance of the lights and property and the doctrine and purity of the Christian Church? I think the people of this country will never allow this Bill to pass. I believe it to be impolitic and unnecessary, that it is not called for by any overwhelming necessity —that it cannot pass in the state in which it stands, and, therefore, I shall support the Motion of my hon. Friend.

Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made such distinct and repeated appeals to me, in the character of representative of the University of Oxford, that I hope the House will indulge me while I endeavour to afford him the information he asks at my hands. The right hon. Gentleman desires to know whether I intend to vote for the second reading of this Bill. I have to state that I do intend to vote for it and, further, that I shall do so with as clear a conscience as I have ever before given a vote in Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, to whom I always listen with the utmost pleasure, has appeared before us to-night in a somewhat novel character—in the character of the defender, and almost as the disciple, of Sir Robert Peel, and seems to be alarmed lest some Members of this House should now be such traitors to his memory as to support a measure so destructive of the constitution as that before the House. I always thought, according to some persons, that Sir Robert Peel had himself betrayed the Church and destroyed the constitution in the year '29—and it is with satisfaction that I learn somewhat late in 1859 that, on the contrary, Sir Robert Feel was a great man, who discerned with a sagacious eye the precise limits to which you might proceed and beyond which you might not go; and the right hon. Gentleman is now the faithful representative of the principles of which Sir Robert Peel was the advocate. The right hon. Gentleman produces one case and another case of quasi ecclesiastical functions which, he says, may be exercised by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he thinks he has thereby established a case for saying to the Roman Catholic barrister "however learned and distinguished you may he in your profession—however unimpeachable you may be in character and conduct — nevertheless you, being Roman Catholic, shall not he allowed to attain the highest prize in your profession." Now, such sentiments on the part of the right hon. Gentleman are not exactly in accordance with the more mitigated opinions he held when sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. Perhaps the House may bear in mind — I know many Members will recollect—a prophetic portion of a speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War, sitting then on the Opposition side, in which he congratulated the then Attorney General for Ireland on the liberality of his sentiments towards his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and expressed a hope that he might retain those sentiments when he passed from the right hand of the chair to the left. I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-night indicates a very considerable retrogression. Let it be tried on its argumentative grounds. I consider them trivial, paltry, secondary. What says the right hon. Gentleman? He says the Lord Chancellor of Ireland exercises ecclesiastical patronage. I grant that he has a vote, along with five or six other persons, in the appointment to two livings in the City of Dublin. Surely that circumstance does not constitute a ground of disqualification to a Roman Catholic as proving the possession of ecclesiastical patronage; and whether that be an exercise of ecclesiastical patronage or not, it is a function that may easily be provided for by a clause introduced into the present Bill. He says the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is an ex officio member of the Ecclesiastical Com- mission. I believe he is not quite accurate in that statement, for the Act, if I am not mistaken, provides that he shall be a member of that Commission if he be a member of the United Church of England and Ireland; consequently if he be not a member of that Church, he cannot be a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission; that objection, therefore, entirely falls to the ground. Well, then, says the right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Chancellor may be one of the Lords Justices of Ireland. If I read aright the Act of 10 Geo. IV., it is distinctly provided in the 12th Section that nothing therein contained shall be construed to enable any person professing the Roman Catholic religion to exercise the office of Regent of the United Kingdom. Nor would this Act enable any Roman Catholic to enjoy the office of the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, or the office of Lord Lieutenant, or other chief Governor or chief Governors of Ireland. Now, that prohibition against filling the office of chief Governor or chief Governors of Ireland this Bill does not propose to alter. The right hon. Gentleman further says, that there is an appeal in ecclesiastical matters to the Court of Chancery to determine questions of religious doctrine and discipline. I do not believe that the meaning or practical interpretation of the prerogative of the Crown to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded is that the Lord Chancellor, either in England or Ireland, is the sole judge in matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Upon matters of law I am not competent to speak, hut I do not believe that the functions of the Lord Chancellor imply any personal participation or adjudication upon questions of religious doctrine or discipline. We know that a distinguished member of the late Government, in encountering objections to this or that scheme, exclaimed, "it is a question for Committee." Well, if these points be well raised, they are still questions for Committee. Let us look at the main issues of this Bill, and not at any paltry trivial and secondary matters. In 1829 you passed an Act, the principle of which was that Roman Catholics, notwithstanding their religious opinions, were admitted to the exercise of the functions of every civil office. There were certain limited exceptions introduced into that Act; but this principle was adopted, that whenever the purpose and scope of these offices were civil, those offices might be filled by our Roman Ca- tholic fellow subjects. Will any man contend that the office of Lord Chancellor, in its main scope and purpose, is anything but a civil office? If he has other functions, which take up one-sixth of his time, is it for those functions that the office exists? It is not, in substance, a legal and judicial, but strictly secular duty that he is called upon to discharge. Therefore it is but in accordance with the spirit of that Act to remove the disability which exists against Roman Catholics attaining that high office. Day after day, year after year, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland sits in the Court of Chancery, as a lawyer, discharging merely legal and civil functions, and does any one dream of those phantoms of on appeal upon questions of ecclesiastical discipline which disturb the mind of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred in terms of eulogy to the speech of Sir Robert Peel and the Act of 1829. But if I experience sentiments of satisfaction that the day has come when I may support this Bill, these feelings are mingled with sentiments of regret that it could not be recommended with a good prospect of success to the British House of Commons until thirty years after the other Act had been passed?

Sir, after a speech of so much importance as that which we have just heard—which does not, I think, do justice to the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend—the House would be unwilling to break up without hearing some answer to a speech more remarkable for eloquence than for strong argument against the objections to the Bill. My right hon. Friend states that certain ecclesiastical patronage belongs to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. If I understood the purport of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument—and a more able one I never heard—that argument has been entirely passed over by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It was that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was an office, not of merely a civil character, which every professional man might justly look to possess if he had sufficient knowledge, ability, and learning, but that Sir Robert Peel had excluded certain offices as exceptions to the rights conferred upon the Roman Catholics as offices connected with the Crown, and offices belonging to the delegates of the Crown. My right hon. and learned Friend quoted a Cabinet paper and an Act of Parliament. My right hon. Friend might have quoted Sir Robert Peel's speech in which he puts the exceptions distinctly on this ground, that the Lord Chancellor was the representative of the Crown in matters of Government, and that the privilege of holding this office could not be extended to Roman Catholics on this account. And then the right hon. Gentleman talks of the trivial, paltry, and secondary reasons of the objections to this measure. Well, Mr. Speaker, are we to have settlements of these questions or not? And, when these settlements are made deliberately by great authorities and agreed to with great circumspection and care, are they to be disturbed without sufficient reason being shown? or is it not incumbent upon you, the advocates of this Bill, to show reasons for the justice and necessity of so doing, instead of calling upon us to show why the settlement should not be disturbed? It is said that Roman Catholic barristers are not excluded from holding civil offices under the Crown. My right hon. Friend has met that argument, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer twits him with being less liberal than he was. I think that reflection might have been spared. I have had much intercourse with my right hon. and learned Friend, both in and out of office. I never heard a word in contradiction to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has commended, and both the House and the country will remember that he has not uttered a word in contradiction to those liberal sentiments. The right hon. Gentleman says that the office of Lord Chancellor is a civil office. Sir, that is the whole question. If it be not an office connected with the Government, and one making the holder pro tanto a representative of the Crown, I will give up the whole case. Do you at this moment exclude a Roman Catholic from any purely civil office not connected with the government of the country? Not one. The highest honours are open to him. He may fill the office of Lord Justice of Appeal, who is as high a civil judicial officer as the Lord Chancellor, and every Roman Catholic professional man may justly look forward to the possession of that office. I think it is hardly fair to say that my right hon. Friend puts the exemption upon slight or trivial grounds, when you allow every office of a civil character to be possessed by our Roman Catholic fellow subjects. You permit them to hold every office which may be filled by Protestants, with this proviso, that they may not hold any office which can in any way impair the Protestant Government of the country, that Government being secured by the Act of Settlement to those who are Protestants, and the Lord Chancellor being the person representing that Protestant Government in Ireland as well as in England. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to perhaps the most eloquent speech delivered in this House during the present year, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Bulwer Lytton), now unfortunately absent from the House, in which my hon. Friend said, "Well, but these are questions for Committee." I took exception at the time to my hon. Friend's speech in that particular, I intend to take exception to the same argument still. Not many days ago a Bill was brought into this House on one pretence and argued upon another. You were forced to send that Bill to a Select Committee, and if ever it comes from that Committee there will be hardly one word in the first clause of that Bill which will remain. You have now brought in a Bill upon what you may have thought to be a trival and a light matter until the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend, and then, when you have heard that argument, you suggest that the provisions may be settled in Committee. I think this course can only be taken where all the material provisions of the Bill are of such a nature that you can assent to them. Otherwise I think that the only legitimate way of dealing with a Bill like the present is to reject it on a second reading, and require its authors to be more circumspect in future. There is one other argument to which I wish to allude. I have urged that argument on other occasions, and even urged it against the wishes of many of my friends near me; but I am convinced of the importance of maintaining what is justly called the principal object of Sir Robert Peel—namely, the establishment of peace and union in reference to these subjects. My deep conviction is that you never will have peace and union until you agree to abide by the deliberate Act of Parliament which has passed into law. Any attempt to disturb that law without great and cogent reasons will only tend to destroy that peace and union which we all desire. We have arrived at a period when these subjects are by general consent sought to be removed from the field of controversy here, and any attempt to reopen such a question is not likely to promote peace or union. I hope I may be understood as speaking without the least intention to offer disrespect to my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and I trust I have not said a word that can tend to impair the peace and union which we all desire; but I believe that can best be preserved by abstaining from any interference with the deliberate settlement of Parliament, unless very strong reasons can be shown.

I hope the House will come to a decision upon the Bill this evening. The subject has been sufficiently discussed to enable every Member to make up his mind, and if we are to judge from what has passed in the debate, there are some Gentlemen whose minds have been made up long ago. I cannot see how Members can be pressed to come to an abrupt dissolution upon that which I may perhaps, without disrespect, call the Holy Alliance, which not long ago existed between them. Members on the other side of the House seem to have awoke as from a dream to their former sentiments; and notwithstanding the appearances which presented themselves when they sat on this side of the House of greater liberality on their part on subjects of the kind we have been discussing this evening than had previously distinguished their career, it seems now that their sentiments belonged only to the occasion. It now appears that they have reverted to the sentiments they previously expressed. Well, Sir, I cannot concur with them in the objections which they have made to the Bill. Though the Bill may repeal a part of the letter of the Emancipation Act, it is in strict conformity with the spirit in which that Act was founded. The spirit of that arrangement was, that the Catholic should be admitted to every civil and political function which was not connected with any ecclesiastical authority. I think it is proved that the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland is a purely civil, political, and judicial office. He may occasionally have the disposal of a few small livings in Dublin; but it is dealing lightly with this great subject to protend that he possesses ecclesiastical patronage, and that on that account an Irish barrister ought to be deprived of the right of fairly and legitimately arriving at that distinguished position. I hope the House will not be led away by those unsound attempts at argument on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman op- posite. The question is one of the simplest nature. Here is an office which is proved to be mainly judicial, and to which every Irish barrister is entitled to look up as the object of his professional ambition; and I see no reason whatever for connecting it with the security of the Protestant religion of the country, or of the Act of Settlement, or of any of the institutions which we all hold dear and sacred. I see no rational ground whatever for pretending that any of those laws and institutions would be placed in the slightest peril by allowing an Irish barrister to aspire to the honour of being the Lord Chancellor of his country. I therefore hope the House will come to a decision on the question this evening. If it be shown there are any contingent circumstances which it is necessary to guard against by special provisions, when the Bill goes into Committee, we shall be prepared to consider any proposition which may be made on the subject; but if there be no argument brought forward to induce the House to reject the second reading of the Bill, I do trust that, for the character of the House and the honour of the country, the Bill will not be rejected. The measure is so simple and plain, and so strictly in accordance with the spirit of the settlement made by Sir Robert Peel, that I do hope the House will this evening agree to the second reading.

Whatever may be our decision, the question before us is one of high importance; and I must say I am surprised at the tone of the noble Lord. It is difficult to imagine any subject more deserving of calm, grave, and deliberate discussion. The noble Lord rose to speak upon the question of adjournment, but he made a speech upon the Bill; yet I must say of the observations of the noble Lord that for the information he has given us, and the general knowledge he has evinced upon the subject, it would have been better if the noble Lord had confined his observations to the question of adjournment. I cannot say that the question is to me as clear as it appears to be to the noble Lord. On the contrary, it is one evidently of some difficulty and very great doubt as to the nature of the functions which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has to fulfil. No two Gentlemen who have addressed us have agreed upon that point. My right hon. and learned Friend laid down certain propositions, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer who replied to him, did not agree either in arguments or facts. This is a subject upon which the House ought to have perfect information. We are asked to disturb a great settlement. That disturbance might take place if really and justly required; but we have a right to demand that the question shall be completely laid before the House. It is possible that some of the conditions upon which Roman Catholic Emancipation was granted years ago, may have become obsolete and inapplicable to present circumstances; but it is certain that we ought to have complete evidence of the facts, and, if facts, that a fit remedy should be provided. Under ordinary circumstances when a settlement like this is brought under our notice, the proper persons to take the responsibility of it are the Government of the day. It ought to be brought forward by those who are in high position, and who arc responsible for that mature and businesslike performance which the country expects when such great interests are concerned. I do not mean to say that if the Government elected not to come forward on the subject, an independent Gentleman is precluded from exercising his privilege and soliciting the opinion of the House of Commons on the matter; but what I maintain is, that if an independent Member comes forward on such a subject, he ought to show in the Bill he introduces that he has completely and deeply considered the question, and that he is prepared to meet all the difficulties which dealing with it entails on the House. No one who has risen has pretended for a moment that the Bill introduced to our notice fulfils these conditions; and the noble Lord has no right to treat the question as he has treated it to-night—as if Gentlemen on this side of the House had evinced hostility to some measure so admirably contrived and perfectly finished, that the Government had a right to show some natural impatience at the opposition offered to the measure. On the contrary, those who support this measure confess (and in some sort offer excuses in its defence) that it is utterly inadequate to the occasion. They tell us that the Committee is the proper place where the deficiencies arc to be supplied and the remedies to be brought forward. Now, my experience of Committees of the Whole House is not of a nature so encouraging that I can easily believe that those who are anxious to introduce any clauses of the kind referred to would be fortunate in such an enterprise. A Committee of the Whole House is a very good occasion for criticism, for amending clauses, and for introducing new clauses as connected with preceding clauses; but such a Committee is not an occasion on which a Bill can be prefected which has deficiencies on every single head with respect to which clauses ought to be brought forward. My own opinion is that if ever there was a question which ought to be referred to a Select Committee, this is one, and I should like to see it so referred, and that the Committee should inquire what difference exists between the functions of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and those of the Lord Chancellor of England, and what there is to incapacitate Roman Catholic gentlemen from performing these functions. I believe that a Select Committee might obtain at this moment satisfactory evidence from witnesses of high character and complete information. You have in this country several ex-Lord Chancellors of Ireland. You might summon Lord Campbell, Lord St. Leonards, and other individuals equally eminent, who, I believe, are at hand. The business of the Committee would not be one of very great length, and you might in a very short time have the opportunity of meeting this question in a way adequate to the occasion. The Bill then would appear before us in a very different shape, and the matter would be dealt with in a manner that would give satisfaction to the country. So far as I am concerned, if the Government give their consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee with the distinct object I have laid before the House, I should support the second reading of the Bill; but if, on the other hand, the Government will not meet a proposition in my mind so temperate and proper for the occasion, and one which would give general satisfaction, I shall then feel it my duty to take another course. I hope, however, that the Government will feel on reflection that this is a proper mode of dealing with the question. Let the Committee he composed of eminent men from both sides, and let witnesses of the high character and station to which I have alluded ha examined, and let us clearly understand what difference exists between the functions of the Lord Chancellor of England and of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Let it be clearly understood what functions of the Lord Chancellor cannot properly be fulfilled and discharged by a gentleman professing the Roman Catholic faith; and let the result of the labours of the Committee be placed before the House. That course would be more satisfactory than a hurried and precipitate decision on a subject which, whether we consider the opinion of large classes of the people or the important character of the question itself, is doubtless a question of great weight, and one which ought to be treated by the House with gravity and calmness.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has made a direct appeal to the Members of Her Majesty's Government to state what opinion they would express on a certain course he has proposed, and I have risen simply to give an answer to that appeal. I will give that answer in the fewest number of words; but before I give the answer, I think it right to take notice of one or two points which were touched on by the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside). That right hon. Gentleman commented upon a remark of mine made in a previous debate. I ventured on a previous occasion to say, that in my opinion Sir Robert Peel, in disqualifying Roman Catholics from the office of Irish Chancellor, had acted inadvertently. That expression has been much criticised during to-night's debate, and I will now repeat, after consideration, and after hearing the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, what I believe to be the real fact with regard to the origin of the enactment we are now considering. It is clear that Sir Hubert Peel introduced into his measure the Irish Chancellor, because he found that office coupled with the English Chancellor in previous Bills brought in by the professed advocates of the Roman Catholic claims. My conviction is, looking to the expressions he used during the debates, that he was under the impression that the Irish Chancellor had ecclesiastical patronage. I draw that inference from words used by Sir Robert Peel in Committee, and my firm belief is that in introducing the measure, and recommending it to the House, both he and the House of Commons were under the impression that the Irish Chancellor did possess some consider-able ecclesiastical patronage. And now I repeat my assertion, that the Irish Chancellor cannot in strictness be said to have any ecclesiastical patronage, because he is merely one person in conjunction with several others in the disposal of the appointments. With respect to any ecclesiastical patronage the Irish Chancellor might hold, his exercise of it is completely guarded by the provisions in the Catholic Relief Act. Therefore, as regards the question of ecclesiastical patronage, the matter stands entirely plain, and the only subject which can be deemed open to consideration is the jurisdiction which he may have in certain cases affecting the Protestant Church of Ireland, and which it might be thought improper for a Roman Catholic to exercise. That is the entire extent of any reasonable doubt which can be said to exist with regard to the measure before the House. Some new points have undoubtedly been brought before the consideration of the House during to-night's debate which never previously, to my knowledge, were adverted to. I do not believe, however, that they have any practical importance, though I admit that they have a theoretical force in argument; and before any legislation can take place, it is necessary that they should receive a careful, deliberate, and respectful consideration. I am prepared to recommend my right hon. Friend who has the charge of this Bill to agree to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), to let the Bill be read a second time. ["No, no!"] That, I understand, is the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—to let the Bill be read a second time, and then to refer it to a Select Committee, in order to a consideration of those material and reasonable objections that have been raised during the debate.

opposed the Billon one great and distinct principle. This question had been settled in 1829, and he opposed any interference with that settlement. That was a principle which no Select Committee could affect, and therefore he would oppose the appointment of any Committee.

, in reply, complained of the imputations which had been cast upon his motives by the Mover of the Amendment and by the right hon. Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland. His only motive was to do an act of justice. The question had been asked, why the Government allowed him to bring forward such a Bill? His reply was that he was an independent member, and though he supported the Government he would not ask their consent to any measure that he brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) sneered at his motives, and spoke of this measure having been brought forward, after some other leading measures had been got out of the way, in order to give a place to some learned Gentleman or other. He repudiated any such motives.

said, he had not made any such imputation. He had stated that when certain great national measures were disposed of then this measure was introduced.

said, the right hon. Gentleman did not speak in the quiet way he now did, but in a very excited and sneering manner, and talked of the "indecent measure" which he had introduced. He thought that his general bearing in that House did not entitle the right hon. Gentleman to make use of such language towards him. He would accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), and when the Bill had been read a second time remit it to a Select Committee.

thought the question of adjournment had been lost sight of, and hoped the hon. Gentleman who moved it would insist on his Motion being put. He would be no party to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland being a Roman Catholic till he was convinced that they were not undoing what had been done in 1829.

was anxious to meet the wish of the House that the question should be calmly considered; but as the discussion of the general question had been resumed for some time he would withdraw the Motion of adjournment.

said, he would, in that case, move the adjournment again, if nobody else did.

was then about to put the Question "That the Debate be now adjourned;" when

rose and attempted to address the House: but was met with such continuous cries for a division, that the noble Lord sat down.

then moved "That the House do now adjourn."