said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any objection to state to the House the object and the result of a Conference held with him by a deputation of the Central Association of Master Builders on Tuesday last upon the subject of the Builders' Strike and Nine Hours' movement?

Sir, a deputation of Master Builders was introduced to me at the Home Office a few days ago; they stated that their object in applying for an interview was to explain the grounds upon which a difference had arisen between themselves and the working men of their trade. They made statements showing the reasons which had determined their conduct, and they also expressed to me an opinion—in which I could not concur—that it would be desirable that either this House or that Her Majesty's Government should take some part in arbitrating between themselves and the men, with the view of bringing about an accommodation. I stated that, although I thought the House of Commons was admirably fitted for the performance of its proper functions, I believed one of the means which had enabled it to maintain its authority and character, not only in this country, but throughout the world, was by abstaining from interference in affairs for which it was unfitted. I said it appeared to me that Parliament was singularly unfitted to arbitrate in a dispute between masters and men; and I also added that the Executive Government, although perhaps not so much disqualified for that office as a House of Parliament, did not possess the knowledge which would fit them for the duty, and that I could not therefore hold out any expectation that either the Executive Government or I myself could undertake such a function.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not it is his intention, on the part of the Government, to grant the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, or any of the other appointments commonly employed to vacate a Seat in the House of Commons, to any Member against whose Return a Petition was now pending, previous to or during the period of the Recess, and before the reassembling of Parliament next Session?

Sir, I understand the question of the hon. Member for Devizes to imply an opinion that, at all events, in a case when a Petition is pending, and the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds is applied for, upon the simple ground that such Petition is pending it should be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to grant the application. Now, Sir, I am bound to say that I do not take that view of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think he would be bound to refuse, or that even he would be justified in refusing the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds upon the simple ground that a Petition was pending against the return of the person who applied for the Stewardship; and perhaps, as this matter had been referred to on several occasions, I may say that I think the hon. Gentleman's question proceeds upon a misapprehension of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to this grant. The House of Commons has always shown the utmost jealousy, and in my opinion a most proper jealousy, in reserving to itself exclusive jurisdiction in every matter with respect to the election of its Members, and my belief is that this House would resent most strongly any interference from any quarter, but especially on the part of a Member of the Executive Government who might assume to himself any new or unusual discretion with regard to the resignation of Members. The true doctrine on this subject was, I think, laid down recently by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster, who said that it was for the House itself to determine these matters, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not entitled to consider in any case whether there were patent facts that gave him a locus standi. I have no means of inquiry. Hon. Members who apply for the Chiltern Hundreds are not accustomed to state to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons which induce them to make the application, and I believe that if that official called upon them for a statement of those reasons they would resent such a demand as an unauthorized interference. The reason of this is plain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has neither the machinery for making the necessary inquiries, nor is he in a position so impartial with regard to Members sitting on different sides of the House, as to make it at all certain that there would be confidence in his exercise of the power were it entrusted to him. It appears to me that the subject is one for the consideration of this House; and that the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is limited to action when the House by some formal proceeding, or when an hon. Member by some substantive proposition, which the House may entertain, restricts the Chancellor of the Exchequer from exercising the power which is formally, and I may say Ministerially, lodged in his hands, of granting certain offices under the Crown to persons who wish to be enabled to resign their seats in Parliament.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it is still his intention to proceed with the Works as proposed by Mr. Hawksley for partially cleansing the water in the Serpentine.

replied, that it was his intention to proceed with the works proposed by Mr. Hawksley, not as stated by his hon. Friend for the purpose of partially cleansing, but of totally and effectually cleansing, the water in the Serpentine. He thought that great misapprehension prevailed upon this subject. Two questions, which were quite independent of one another, had been mixed up in this discus- sion: the first relating to the mud at the bottom of the river, and the second with respect to the water itself. It appeared from the remarks which had been made in that House, and from statements in the public press, that the two questions had been regarded as identical, but he maintained that they were entirely independent. He believed that if the plan he proposed were successful perfect purity and limpidity would be secured in the water of the Serpentine, and that the mud, having lost its organic power, would no longer evolve any noxious gases, but would cease to be a source of ill-health or annoyance to the inhabitants and frequenters of the neighbourhood. It was therefore with the water of the Serpentine, not with the mud, that he proposed to deal. After a careful inquiry on the subject that morning he felt confident that the estimate he proposed was sufficient effectually to carry out the object he had in view—namely, to insure the purity of the water in the Serpentine. He believed that an effectual remedy for any nuisance that existed—if there was a nuisance—would be provided by an expenditure of £17,000; while the other plan suggested, of drawing off the water in the Serpentine and forming a concrete bottom, would involve a certain expenditure of at least £70,000. It was said that a nuisance would be occasioned by the erection of a steam engine, and it had been complained that the erection of a large steam engine near Albert Gate would create an eyesore, but the nature of his scheme in that respect had been entirely misapprehended. His proposal was to erect a small ornamental building, which would certainly not be an eyesore, at the Bayswater end of the river. It had been said that the filtering-beds would prove a nuisance to the neighbourhood, and that they would require a large amount of ground, but he was informed that the total area required for filtering 2,000,000 gallons of water per day would be less than three-fourths of an acre, and that the cleansing process would occasion no nuisance whatever. That process, which had been described as cumbrous, difficult, and expensive, would, he was informed, be effected in three or four hours, and would not occasion any bad smell, the refuse being allowed to run into the Bays-water sewer. It had been said that he had taken an estimate of £17,000 to effect an object which would require £170,000, and that the cost of the engines would be very considerable, a comparison being made be- tween the works he proposed and those of the New River Company, which had engines of 200 horse-power at work during the day, and engines of 450 horse-power during the night. Now, there was a great misapprehension on this subject, for the cost of the engines he proposed to erect would he very small indeed. The engine power employed would be quite insignificant, for to lift 1,400 gallons of water per minute 10 feet high, engines of only 5 horse-power were required; and he proposed to erect two engines of 10 horse-power each, the whole cost of which would not exceed £1 a day. It must be remembered, however, that the engines of the New River Company were not employed for filtering, but for providing a supply at high service pressure, after filtration. The water of the Serpentine, about which such strong complaints had been made, contained only 2¾ grains of organic matter in a gallon, which was not much more than was contained in the water ordinarily supplied without filtering to the inhabitants of the metropolis for drinking purposes. The more consideration he gave to the plan he had proposed the more convinced he was of its feasibility. He had obtained the best professional advice on the subject; the highest engineering skill would be employed in carrying the plan into effect; and he had no doubt that it would be found possible, by that plan, to render the water of the Serpentine perfectly pure.

said, that as the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson) was present, and as his opinion on this subject had been referred to, he should be glad to ask that hon. Gentleman whether he thought the scheme proposed by Mr. Hawksley was likely to be successful?

said, he wished as a question of order to ask the Speaker, whether it was competent to one hon. Member to ask the opinion of another hon. Gentleman, who was a private Member of that House, on such a subject?

said, the hon. Member had transgressed the limits imposed by the rules of the House with reference to questions, which ought only to be addressed to Ministers of the Crown with regard to matters affecting public business, or to hon. Members who had charge of measures before the House.

said, that in order to afford the hon. Member for Whitby an opportunity of expressing his opinion, be would move the adjournment of the House.

inquired whether it would be competent to the hon. Member for Whitby, in conformity with the Orders of the House, to speak upon any other question than that of adjournment?

The House reserved to itself the power of allowing an hon. Member to move the adjournment, even in the case of asking a question; but he need scarcely inform hon. Members that it was not usual to do so, and that if the practice were persisted in, it would very soon put a stop to the business of the House. He did not mean to say that the hon. Member had not the power to move the adjournment, but he must inform him that it certainly was not a usual course.

said, that he would second the Motion for the adjournment of the House, as he thought they ought not to separate without arriving at some more satisfactory solution of the question than had been proposed by the Chief Commissioner of Works. He regarded the plan of that right hon. Gentleman as very unsatisfactory. At seven or eight o'clock in the evening the water of the Serpentine was downright pestiferous, and he did not see why the same plan of purification which had been adopted so successfully with regard to the Ornamental Water in St. James's Park should not be applied to that river. It was a disgrace to the Government that such a body of putrid water should be the only place to which thousands of the residents in the metropolis could resort for the purpose of bathing. If the present Chief Commissioner of Works did not understand matters of this kind, why did he not obtain the advice of people who did understand them, instead of persevering in a stupid and obstinate course? ["Order."] He was sorry if he had used words which were unparliamentary, because he wished to treat the right hon. Gentleman as a friend; but he really feared that he would lose all the credit he had obtained for energy in other offices, and bring discredit on the Government and himself, by pursuing a course which would bring detriment to the park and to London.

observed that it was desirable to have the opinion of the hon. Member for Whitby on the subject; he would have been able to give it, and this irregular discussion would have terminated long before, but for the interruption of the hon. Member for Sheffield.

said, that although he did not feel very sure that he was quite in order, he was willing to respond to the appeal which had been made to him to give his opinion on the Serpentine. He had been in the habit of visiting the place for many years, and had watched closely its want of purification. He had held the office of Commissioner of Sewers, and had devoted his attention a good deal to the means of excluding from the Serpentine the sewage of Bays water, which formerly fell into it to a large extent, and the exclusion of that sewage had undoubtedly, to a proportionate extent, led to the purification of the river. At that time he felt there was some smell arising from the river, but for the last few years, say four or five, there had been a very undue amount of excitement respecting the Serpentine. He was in the habit of driving past it twice a day, and rode there occasionally for some hours, but he had never found, for the last three or four years, anything so offensive to his olfactory nerves as to lead him to coincide in the outcry that was recently raised. He believed that outcry was entirely unfounded, because, whatever the state of the Serpentine might have been, it was not now, to the best of his judgment, in an offensive condition. Supposing, however, that the water was impure, the question was how the nuisance should be remedied. The Serpentine was a stagnant lake, and the other day, in riding along the banks, he observed that a quantity of lime was being poured into the water. The consequence of this proceeding was that he saw dead fish floating on the surface, and occasioning the most offensive species of decomposition. In every lake nature provided a sort of equilibrium; there were the algeaceous plants, which were fed on by the small animals, which in turn were fed on by the large; they did that, therefore, with the Serpentine which they ought not to have done; by putting in lime they killed the large animals, which fed on the small, and thus rendered it more polluted than before. The case was very different with the Thames. He did not deny there might be an advantage in pouring lime into a tidal river, where the mass of filth was swept out every six or eight hours; but he was now arguing with regard to a lake which had no supply of water except the small drainage from the sides, and which was just sufficient to meet the evaporation, and no more. He maintained, then, that to throw poisonous matter into a lake like the Serpentine was entirely contrary to nature's process by which an equilibrium was established between animal and vegetable life. With regard to Mr. Hawksley's plan, it was an engineering subject, on which he trusted he might venture to give an opinion. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the state of the Serpentine was as impure as had been represented—though he distinctly said he did not believe that it was; but supposing it was, the question was, what was the best mode of getting rid of the nuisance. He believed Mr. Hawks-ley's plan was that of creating an artificial stream, instead of a natural one. If they had a natural stream, flowing in at one end and out at the other, the lake would be perfectly healthy; but as they had not they should consider what means were at their command for creating something like a natural stream. They must create an artificial one, and for that purpose he believed that there was only one efficient plan, and that was the one suggested by Mr. Hawksley; namely, that of pumping up a large quantity of water at one end, and so drawing it away from the other. [Sir J. PAXTON: He does not do that.] He does do it; and he could not pump water into one end of the lake without drawing it away from the other. It was impossible. He had great respect for his hon. Friend's opinion upon matters of taste, but upon engineering matters he really must demur to give him the same confidence. His hon. Friend said there was no use in pumping out water at the Bayswater end and pouring it in there again. [Sir JOSEPH PAXTON: Hear, hear.] There was every use in it. The water could not be pumped out and then sent in again without creating a difference in the level of the water, and that would create a current from end to end, and he believed the calculation was that the whole body of water would be changed about every two months. Four and a half horse power would raise 2,000,000 gallons a day ten feet high. By doing that they must alter the level while they pumped it out or in, and if the level of the water was raised at the Bayswater end it must flow down to the Albert-gate end. With regard to the objection on the score of the offensive nature of the filtering process, he entertained no apprehensions whatever on that ground. He believed this was the least expensive and the most effectual plan that could be adopted, supposing the water of the Serpentine to be offensive, which he did not admit. He frequently passed the Serpentine four times a day, and almost always twice daily, and within the last four or five years he had not experienced anything in the least offensive. He must say, however, that in his opinion Mr. Havvksley's plan afforded the most simple and economical means of purifying the water.

said, he was the last man to put his opinion on any subject of engineering in competition with that of his hon. Friend who had last spoken, and who was undoubtedly at the head of his profession; but he did not think this was altogether an engineering question. He (Sir Joseph Paxton) was quite satisfied that Mr. Hawksley's plan would not answer. The proposed filter-bed would only hold a small quantity of water, and he believed that under the plan suggested there would not be a difference of one-eighth of an inch in the level of the surface of the lake. He would venture to say that if the plans were carried out there would not be the slightest change in the water beyond the bridge. His hon. Friend had condemned the system of pouring lime into the Serpentine, and in that opinion he concurred, because, however advantageous it might be to put lime into the Thames, in a lake like the Serpentine it destroyed the fish, which acted as the best filterers of the water. He might observe, however, that according to Mr. Havvksley's plan it was proposed still to pour lime into the Serpentine along the banks.

said, that when two such authorities as the hon. Member for Coventry (Sir Joseph Paxton) and the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson) disagreed, some allowance ought to be made for the Commissioner of Works; and he certainly did not deserve the language applied to him by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock). Every one agreed that the Serpentine required purifying—the only question was as to the mode of carrying it out. The right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works seemed to have taken advantage of the best engineering skill, and the matter might safely be left in his hands.

said, this was a matter on which any man with the use of his five senses could form an opinion as well as the best engineer. He also took a personal interest in the matter as he lived close to the Serpentine. He had observed its condition narrowly for the last two years, and he could not subscribe to the opinion that it was not in an offensive state. On the contrary it was far worse than the Thames itself. The putting of lime into the lake had destroyed large quantities of fish, and if the present First Commissioner of Works continued that operation he ought to be indicted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. What was required was that the sewage should be intercepted before it reached the lake, and as large a supply of fresh water as possible obtained.

said, that the First Commissioner of Works having consulted him on the proposed plan, he had satisfied himself of its perfect practicability, and that everything to be desired would be accomplished by it. It had been suggested that the water from the lake in St. James's Park should be pumped into the Serpentine; but the fact was that the water there filtered through the concrete bed into the well, and was pumped back again into the lake. The practical effect of that recommendation would therefore be to empty the lake. Complaint had been made of the dangers of the Serpentine to bathers. But at an expense of a few hundred pounds a sufficient portion of the shore of the Serpentine could be levelled for the safety of bathers who could not swim. All good swimmers preferred deep water, and they would go where they could get it. As to the sewer at the Bays water end, the scheme of the Metropolitan Board of Works would cut off all the sewage which polluted the Serpentine. The plan under discussion, therefore, practically secured all that was required, and there never was a mechanical and engineering problem of more easy solution.

said, that the Chief Commissioner admitted that the filtering beds would require nearly three-quarters of an acre, and he should like to know how they were to be constructed without being extremely nasty, offensive, and injurious to the health of the neighbourhood. The only course that ought to be taken was to take out all the foul water, and to supply fresh water in its stead. The plan of Mr. Hawksley did neither the one thing nor the other, and he contended therefore, that it had all the elements of a faulty arrangement, and was not likely to be successful.

said, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the business on the paper. At twenty minutes to six yesterday he asked the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Massey) when the Charitable Trusts Continuance Bill would come on, and he replied, the first thing to-morrow. He (Mr. Newdegate) then asked, what time the House would meet, and the answer was, 2 o'clock. Now, to day he found no less than three Orders of the Day were placed before the one he had mentioned, and he thought the Government ought to abide by the underetanding come to yesterday, and take the Charitable Trusts Continuance Bill, as promised yesterday.

said, the hon. Gentleman bad raised an unnecessary difficulty, for although the Bill was fourth on the paper, it was virtually first, the others having only formal Amendments to be made to them.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland the nature of the official Reports made by the Civil and Military Authorities who investigated the recent rioting at Kinsale, and of the Complaints made to the late Government as to the conduct of the Antrim Regiment of Militia, when stationed at Carrickfergus, on or about July, 1858; and also what steps will be taken with regard to the Antrim Militia in consequence of their recent or of their former conduct.

(in the absence of Mr. Cardwell) said, that it appeared from inquiries that had been made, that prior to the 10th of July last the conduct of the regiment in question had been creditable and soldier-like, but on that day some unfortunate disputes occurred between either a soldier or some of the soldiers of the regiment and some civilians, in the town of Kinsale, and on the 12th of July a party of the artillery, in coming up the street of Kinsale, attacked a Roman Catholic clergyman, and the consequence of that attack was that a riot took place in the town of an apparently formidable character, and it lasted for the space of thirty-two hours. The result of that riot was that a large number of windows were broken and some injury done to property; but when all was over it was found that, whilst serious injuries had been inflicted on several men of the regiment, no serious injury had been sustained by any of the townsmen. It would, no doubt, have been better if the officer had confined his men to the barracks after the first disturbance, but the regiment had been only recently embodied, and the officers themselves had but very limited experience. Immediately after the occurrence the regiment was ordered from Kinsale to Cork, where it was kept during the inquiry; and with regard to the future he understood it was to be removed to England. With respect to the conduct of the constabulary on the occasion, they obeyed strictly the orders which they received from the local Justices of the Peace, and no fault was attributable to them. As to the conduct of the Antrim Militia while they were at Carrickfergus, it was true that a disturbance did occur at Carrickfergus on the 16th of August, 1858, but it was of no great importance, and it took place on the day on which the drill of the regiment terminated, when they were about to be disembodied, and no serious consequences resulted from the affair.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board if his attention has been directed to the Address of the Inspector of Metropolitan Workhouses to the Directors of the Poor of St. Marylebone, delivered on the 11th of July, 1857, to which no reply appears to have been given.

said, in reply, that his attention had been directed to the Address, and that no reply had been made to it. The facts of the statement, however, had not been denied by the Directors of the Poor of Marylebone, and he understood that great improvements had since taken place in the ventilation and area of the workhouse.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the Returns, ordered on the 29th day of July, 1858, "of the number and the names of the Taxing Masters of the Court of Chancery in England; of the several Clerks in their offices, and the dates of their several appointments; and Statement of the duties of each, the hours of their attendance, the salary paid to each, and the authority under which paid," has not been made? And why, as the Act 5 & 6 Vict., c. 183,S. 9, fixes the salary of the Clerks in the office of Taxing Masters at £250 a year, and the Act 15 & 16 Vict. c. 40, raises such salary to £350 per annum, some of such Clerks are paid £120 a year only, and on what authority has the provision of the last-mentioned Statute been departed from?

said, the order for the Return referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been made so near the end of the Session that there was not time to comply with it, and it never had been renewed, as it ought to have been, after the assembling of the new Parliament. If the hon. Member would repeat his Motion, the particulars asked for would be furnished. With regard to the second question, the Act alluded to fixed the salaries of the Chief Clerks in the Taxing Office at the sums the hon. Gentleman had mentioned; but there was also another class of clerks in the same office, whose salaries were not specified in the Act, but were fixed by the Lord Chancellor at £120 a year.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the House is prorogued, he will lay on the Table of the House all the correspondence that has passed between the noble Lord and Lord Cowley and Sir James Hudson since the Treaty of Villa-franca?

I think, Sir, it would be very unadvisable to lay these papers on the Table. They all relate to negotiations now going on, and their presentation had better be deferred till they can be produced before Parliament in a complete shape.

rose and said, the hon. Member for Cork has questioned my right to appear here as the advocate of the Roman Catholic laity. I beg to tell the hon. Member that I appear here, not only in my character as an Independent Member, but as representing on this question the opinions of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt), who has presented to this House a petition from the Roman Catholics of the north of England, praying for access to the Courts of this country—in fact, for protection against the authority usurped by Cardinal Wiseman in interfering with their charitable endowments. The hon. Member for Cork, whilst pursuing the other night a course which was distasteful to the majority of this House, said, when they objected, that he thought that they had forgotten him. Sir, I beg to say that I have not forgotten the hon. Member for Cork. I have sat in a previous Parliament with him, and I remember him as one of the ringleaders of a small section of Roman Catholic members who abused the forms of this House for months in the year 1851, until the House had seriously to consider whether such conduct was compatible with its own free action. I have also to state, on the part of the hon. Member for Gateshead, that he endeavoured to negotiate with the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) on this subject, and that the hon. and learned Member promised to produce a Bill which should satisfy those petitioners, but he appears to have used the opportunity simply to delay all action on our part for their defence. Three days were thus lost, and the object of the hon. Member for Dundalk is probably accomplished by his having delayed this proceeding until the House has scarcely Members enough left to perform its functions, and until the hon. Member for Gateshead is unavoidably absent. The hon. Member for Gateshead concurred with me, that under existing circumstances there was no course to be pursued for obtaining the justice which these petitioners have a right to claim, but that which I now adopt, of resisting the further progress of this Bill, and thus affording effectual protection to these petitioners by leaving the Roman Catholic charities under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners and the Court of Chancery; being fully assured that if any attempt should be made to disturb those charities under the law against superstitious uses Her Majesty's Government and the Attorney General will extend to them the protection which is their due, until the House reassembles, when we shall be in a position to reconsider some such measure as the Government recently laid upon the table, but which they have since unfortunately withdrawn. I give the Government full credit for having been the first Government that have attempted to grapple with this question since 1853. They deserved the thanks alike of the Roman Catholic laity, of this House, and the country; but I do lament the weakness which induced them to withdraw their Bill, because I happen to know that, although obstructions might have been thrown in the way of the Bill by the Roman Catholic Members of this House, a great body of Members on this side of the House were prepared to give it full and fair consideration, with the earnest desire to extend to these petitioners the protection which they seek. The position of the petitioners is this: Ever since the year 1851 they have made complaints to this House, and they have given evidence before Committees of the House, that the fact of their being precluded from appealing to the Courts of this country has led to gross abuses in the administration and appropriation of their charitable trusts. There is evidence in existence of persons having been induced upon their death-beds to alienate the remainder of their property to the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church, to the serious injury of their families, having previously given to that Church the greater part of it, while their natural heirs remain without the power of appealing to the Courts of Equity. There is evidence in existence that priests who have built chapels out of their own funds, have, by the arbitrary measures of Cardinal Wiseman and his bishops, been suspended from their functions, and have by this means been rendered incapable of deriving from their investments that support, which they naturally expected to enjoy. And there is now before this House a petition from the most respectable Catholics in the north of England, in accordance with the evidence given by these same persons, to the effect that their endowments are so much under the authority of Cardinal Wiseman and his bishops that they fear those endowments will in the end be alienated altogether from the purposes for which they were intended. Knowing the exertion which is required on the part of Roman Catholics to appeal to this House, under the threats which are held out against them; and this, too, is in evidence.—[Mr. BOWYER: No, no!]—it is in evidence before the Mortmain Committee; knowing the courage which is required on their part to appear as petitioners in this House, I say that this House will abandon its functions if it any longer leaves them without redress. I grant that if this Bill only continued a suspension of the operation of the Superstitious Uses Act, it would have met the necessities of the case, and I would have supported it; but it not only does that, it also practically suspends the action of the law of this country in reference to this subject. It precludes all application to the Charity Commissioners or the Court of Chancery; and therefore, I say, that this latter portion of the Bill is absolutely mischievous. What I want the Government, then, to do, is to introduce a Bill merely to suspend the operation of the law against superstitious uses. Such a measure as that should have my cordial support, because it would leave the petitioners free to approach the courts of this country, and receive the protection they request. In 1851, the country was made to feel the effects of the Papal aggression, and this House passed a Bill which, although a protest against that aggression, and so far an advantage, totally failed to meet the necessities of the Roman Catholics or the temporal aggression which was then perpetrated upon the country. Look at the position of Cardinal Wiseman. He came here as the archbishop of a see, the title of which he is forbidden by law to assume. He came here as a cardinal—that is to say, as a Privy Councillor of the Papal Court, and he exercises functions which supersede all right on his part to consider himself a British subject. In fact, by accepting the office of Cardinal he has abdicated his title to be considered one of Her Majesty's subjects. I can adduce the highest evidence to prove that when a man accepts those functions he becomes the privy councillor and temporal agent of the Court of Rome. Now, if any Members like to deny that statement, I can refer to the proofs which were adduced by the hon. Member for Surrey and myself in 1851, and which stand recorded in Hansard, and, if necessary, further evidence can be adduced. Cardinal Wiseman is here also as legate a latere. [Mr. BOWYER: No, no.] Why it is so declared in the documents which Cardinal Wiseman has himself issued to the Roman Catholics of this country, and which have been published in all the newspapers. Especially in his Appeal he declared that he was instituted most formally, first in a private consistory, afterwards publicly; and that then, by a third ceremony, he was invested with the hat, which is the symbol of his dignity. A Cardinal Priest is virtute officii a legate, when absent on a mission from Rome. The hon. and learned Gentleman may attempt to laugh, but these facts have been before the public for the last six years on the authority of Cardinal Wiseman himself; and I say that it is contrary to international law, to the laws of this country, and to the usage of every country in Europe, that a Legate, who is an Ambassador from a foreign Court, should be resident here without being accredited to the Court of St. James, at which no Roman ecclesiastic can be received under the Diplomatic Relations Act—I say that it is contrary to law that this foreign temporal agent should be resident here and allowed to exercise a jurisdiction over a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects. I say more, that to permit this is contrary to the oath which every Member of this House has taken; and I do earnestly call upon the House to vindicate the national independence from this aggression. I call upon the House not to pass a Bill which we have it proved in evidence affords scope for the exercise of functions which are derogatory to the Crown, and an infringement of our national independence. I ask you not to ignore the prayer which these Roman Catholic petitioners have had the courage to present to you; for that when Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects approach you, you should at least abstain from excluding from the jurisdiction of their native countrymen who are suffering under a tyranny to which we may, as Protestants, regret that they submit, but which we know, that they, as Roman Catholics, cannot always resist. Let the House suppose a case such as this, and there are such cases. Some ancient family has long possessed an estate and a manor-house, to which a chapel and an endowment are attached. The priest of the chapel, nominated by them, is their confessor. Cardinal Wiseman, through the weakness of some member of the family, grasps the endowment, ousts the priest nominated by the family, and thrusts upon them a new and probably a Jesuit confessor. Is not this persecution? Or take the case to which I alluded, of the priest suspended from the chapel which he built. When we have evidence that families are injured by the influences which are brought to bear upon the heads of those families; that trusts are misappropriated, and that this ambitious Cardinal Legate claims the right to dis- pose of the whole of this property, and in recent documents has boasted of the application of that property in a manner contrary to law—1 say it is no trifling matter. Year after year the same tactics have been pursued. At the close of every Session since 1853, when the House was empty, behind the back of Parliament, these Exemption Bills have been slipped through. The case increases in gravity as time goes on. Cardinal Wiseman boasts of the great extension of Roman Catholic trust property subject to his command. He boasted of the increase in the establishments of the religious orders of the Church of Rome. He boasts of the increase of convents and of monasteries, of the increase of chapels, and of the number of priests; and let not the House forget that the reasons for the aggression which he stated in his "Appeal" were, first, that there were no means of convening a Roman Catholic synod in this country; and that there were not sufficient establishments of the regular orders to enable him to enforce the canon law according to the decrees of the synod, over which he has complete control; and thirdly, that there were no means of effecting a parochial division of this country for its more effectual government by the foreign power which he represents; and he explains that the aggression was committed to effect these objects, that is, to establish his usurped authority. In 1839, a petition was presented to the Pope at Rome by certain English Roman Catholics, praying that the free system of canon law, which has existed in this country for ages amongst the Roman Catholics, might not be broken up. Again, in 1847, communications were made to this country by Roman Catholic priests, that a movement was going on in Rome, under which, if accomplished in the form in which it has been carried out by the Papal aggression, the power of Cardinal Wiseman as legate would deprive the English Roman Catholic priests of the local endowments they held, and subject them to his arbitrary dictation and control. Sir, it is derogatory to this country in the eyes of Europe, that we should have our laws superseded by an intrusive authority, which comes here contrary to international law and our own laws. What must the Roman Catholics of the Continent think of us Englishmen, when they hear that the Roman Catholic laity and several priests petition this House for relief from this oppression, and this House suffers itself to be wearied into subjection by some thirty of its Members, who take every opportunity of abusing its forms, and who boast, through the Roman Catholic papers, that they hold this House in subjection. I ask the House, then, in deference to its own character, to show that it can and will act, not in a spirit of oppression, but in a spirit of protection towards those persons; that it will act upon the conviction of the House of Lords in 1853, that those charities ought not to be exempt; and that it will revert to its own decision of 1853, when it passed the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Act without the exemption which is now proposed to be continued. In this I am pursuing the course which was adopted by my noble Friend Lord Chelmsford in 1853; and I feel it my duty to tell the Government that, although I was perfectly ready to support the Bill of 1853, and to support them in suspending the operation of the law against superstitious uses, I am determined to oppose them, if they endeavour any longer to exempt this property from the jurisdiction of the laws of England, or longer to refuse the relief which these petitioners claim at our hands. Depend upon it that the power, which Cardinal Wiseman exercises in this country needs control. As Vicar Apostolic, he was the first Prelate of the Roman Catholic Church to establish the Jesuits in this town and diocese. We have to thank him for that. History contains abundant records of the ambition of that order, and of their interference with the temporal and political affairs of various States; they are not merely a religious order, they are a temporal organization also; and the proof of it is that such has been their interference and intrigue, and such the tyranny and confusion created by them, that they have been forty times expelled from different States of Europe. And depend upon it, when we see all that is moving on the Continent, if we are not blind to what is passing around us, we shall be wanting in our duty should we suffer this foreign intrusive authority to defy the laws of England, and inflict further injury upon Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. I therefore move as an Amendment, that the Bill he committed this day three months.

seconded the Motion.

said, the question before the House was a very simple one, and did not require the importation of the historical and theological elements which the hon. Gentleman had mixed up with it. According to the existing law certain Roman Catholic Charities and Charitable Trusts would be forfeited if they were brought under the cognizance of the Charity Commissioners. To prevent that forfeiture the Earl of Derby had recommended, a few nights ago, "in another place," that the Government should introduce a Bill of exemption for one year. Acting on that suggestion, the Government had introduced that Bill, the sole effect of which was to protect from confiscation under penal laws that were still unrepealed, and which all allowed to be bad, property which had been bequeathed by pious Roman Catholics for religious and charitable uses. He, therefore, declined to enter into the character or conduct of the distinguished Prelate whose name the hon. Member who preceded him had so unnecessarily introduced.

said, that in his opinion the House could not, without committing a gross injustice, refuse to assent to the Bill. He might not, perhaps, be able to convince the hon. Member for Warwickshire of that, because that hon. Gentleman lost no opportunity of showing the most perverse bitterness and hatred against the Roman Catholic Church and its professors. The hon. Gentleman had that evening appeared in a new character. He declared he was acting for the protection of certain Roman Catholics, but he (Mr. Bowyer) believed that there was not one Roman Catholic in England, Ireland, or Scotland who would not at once repudiate his protection. The hon. Member spoke as if he were the advocate of the Roman Catholics, and yet his speech teemed with all the misrepresentations, calumnies, and rubbish which had been spoken, as well as Written, for years and years against the Roman Catholic Church. He had most unnecessarily introduced the name of Cardinal Wiseman, who had nothing whatever to do with the matter before the House. The disrespectful introduction of the name of that illustrious Prelate into the discussion was offensive, not only to all Roman Catholic Members but also to sensible and gentlemanlike Protestants. The hon. Member had calumniated that illustrious person, and spoken of him with a bitterness which only reflected discredit upon himself. The simple question before the House was whether they should prolong the suspension of a statute, which, if it were not suspended further, would have the effect of confiscating the property of Roman Catholics which had been devoted to charitable and religious purposes. The hon. Gentleman said the Attorney General could interpose to protect Roman Catholics from such confiscation, but that hon. and learned Gentleman had no power to interfere with the operation of the Trusts Act, which gave very extraordinary powers to the Commissioners. He (Mr. Bowyer) wished to explain that the apparent delay which had arisen in his presenting a draught of the Bill, which he had promised to show to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hutt) was owing to the care with which it had to be drawn up. In proof of that he might mention that he had thought it necessary to entrust the preparation of the Bill to Mr. Henry Stonor, the eminent Roman Catholic conveyancer, and he had settled it with Mr. F. Riddell. He (Mr. Bowyer) had done more than keep his promise to bring in a Bill next Session; a notice was standing in his name for leave to bring in a Bill that day, which he hoped would be printed in a few days for consideration during the recess. He denied emphatically the imputation thrown out by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Newdegate), that he (Mr. Bowyer) had acted for delay. Under these circumstances, he asked the House to pass this continuance Bill, the only object of which was to prevent a great confiscation of property and a gross injury to the Roman Catholic Church. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was one of the bitterest and most calumnious that he (Mr. Bowyer) had ever heard in a public assembly. It would be very easy for him to point out the errors and absurdities into which the hon. Member had fallen, and to show that the statements of the hon. Member had no foundation in fact.

said, he thought these religious discussions in the House of Commons were exceedingly disagreeable. He did not accuse the hon. Member for North Warwickshire of bitter-ness and hatred towards the Roman Catholics, but rather of too warm an affection, which induced him perpetually to meddle with their affairs. He thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman would do well to confine his attention more strictly to matters connected with his own Church, where he would find abundant room for improvement, rather than attempt to interfere with members of a community with whom he could have no weight whatever. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of a Roman Catholic prelate as a pseudo-bishop. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: I spoke merely of the pseudo-bishop of South Wales.] He did not wish to take offence at the epithet, but he questioned whether its use was consistent with courtesy, or calculated to advance the influence of the hon. Member's opinions.

stated that a Petition on the subject had been presented by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt), signed by a large number of Roman Catholics in the north of England, who were as much opposed to this Bill as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He most earnestly protested against such perpetual trifling with so important a question. He was very far from blaming the Roman Catholics for seeking to delay in that House the settlement of the question, but he deprecated a sacrifice of principle on the part of the Government for party purposes. So far from strengthening themselves by so doing, he believed it would have an opposite effect. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs when, in 1853 the Roman Catholics were exempted for two years only from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act, distinctly stated that the provisions of that Act ought to apply to Roman Catholic as well as Protestant charities, and that he only wished to postpone its operation in the case of the former, in order that a Bill might be introduced which would provide against the confiscation of such charities. This was in 1853; and now six years after they have again asked to postpone the consideration of any such Bill, though four successive Governments had distinctly pledged themselves to bring in a Bill to settle the question. And at the close of the last Session, when a continuance Bill similar to the present was introduced the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary distinctly stated that it was for the last time. He would ask why the right hon. Baronet the present Home Secretary had given up his own Bill? That Bill had been suddenly dropped and a Bill introduced into the House of Lords which they were asked to pass at this late period of the Session. He entirely concurred in the opinion that those who were interested in Roman Catholic charities had committed a mistake in claiming exemption for them from the laws which ought to affect all classes of the community equally.

said, he must decline to follow hon. Members into the controversial part of the question. He had only one remark to make as to the expression which had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, upon what he was pleased, by a singular metathesis, to term the "speudo" bishop of South Wales.

I did not speak of a pseudo bishop; I only said that the Bishop of New South Wales was a pseudo title.

At any rate, the hon. Member was speaking of orders in the Church of Rome; and, of course, it was well known that orders of the Church of Rome were recognized by the Church of England. He would merely notice that point, and abstaining altogether from crimination or recrimination on this subject, confine himself to a few words, in which he would endeavour to explain and vindicate the course taken by the Government; and further venture to make a few remarks as to the future prospects of this question. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) had complained of the conduct of the Government, and had intimated his intention of using all the forms of the House for the purpose of defeating the Bill. He begged, however, to draw the hon. Member's attention to what had been the course pursued by the Government, and what had been laid before the House. He would also remind him that although many Governments had made promises, he (Sir George Lewis) was the first person who had attempted to deal practically with the question. He had introduced a Bill, but owing to circumstances to which it was unnecessary to advert, it was not submitted to the House until a late period of the Session; and as he found that those whose interests were principally affected by it entertained strong objections to its provisions, and as at this time it was impossible that it could receive due consideration in the other House, he had come to the conclusion that the best course would be to withdraw the measure, and to renew the continuance Bill; but at the same time he gave a distinct pledge that he would, early in the next Session, lay upon the table a Bill similar in effect to that which he had proposed this year, with the view of obviating for the future this exceptional legislation. He trusted the House would consider this explanation satisfactory. And he would merely add a few words as to our procpect of legislation in future. The Bill which he had introduced was founded on a petition presented by several Roman Catholics of great weight and respectability in the north of England. The hon, and learned Member for Dundalk said that that Bill did not represent the prayer of the petition, but he (Sir George Lewis) was under the impression that it did fairly represent it. However, he would not go into that question now. It certainly had furnished a groundwork for discussion; and having the advantage of that Bill to proceed upon, and the subsequent suggestions of hon. Gentlemen, he thought the House would be in condition next Session to approach the question with a much better chance of its settlement than had yet been afforded.

said, he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) that the Roman Catholics need fear no attack on their property by the Protestants; but the Protestants were determined to have no more Continuance Bills, and to bring the Roman Catholic charities under the beneficial operation of the general law. Why was every other class of Her Majesty's subjects to be under the control of the Charity Commissioners and the Roman Catholics alone exempted? He believed that it would be beneficial to the Roman Catholics themselves if all their trusts were brought under the operation of the general Act. His hon. Friend and Colleague had been blamed for his language and his bitterness against the Roman Catholics. He felt no such bitterness; but he felt, and he (Mr. Spooner) also felt persuaded at this time there was a foreign interference with the Roman Catholics of this country which it behoved the House of Commons to put a stop to. Dr. Wiseman was not acting as an Englishman, but under foreign dictation; and when his Friend alluded to Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church it was not to Bishops in their own Churches but to Bishops illegally assuming dioceses in this country; and, in his (Mr. Spooner's) opinion, both the present and the late Attorneys General had neglected their duties, and ought to be impeached for not taking steps to prevent the breach of the law, which was of constant occurrence, by the description of Roman Catholic Bishops in handbills and placards as Bishops of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and other places, and the Bishops appearing in the places and at the times so notified in those placards. The Roman Catholics were not included in the Charity Trust Act at their own request, and the exemption was granted for two years under the plea that there existed some difficulties in the application of that Act to Roman Catholic Charities; but a Bill was promised to remedy those difficulties. Year after year the same plea was urged and the exemption continued for one year; this year a Bill has been brought in by the Government, and the Roman Catholics opposed the Bill, and at the present state of the Session it was impossible to give full consideration to the measure. They again ask for a Continuance Bill which, if granted, will only lead to the same results at the end of the next Session. Every year during the last six years the House had been told that next year the subject of the Bill before the House should be settled; and not seeing a reason why a large portion of our fellow-subjects should be excluded from the beneficial operation of the Charitable Trusts Act, he would oppose the passing of the Continuance Bill to his utmost. As long as they renewed these Continuance Bills the Roman Catholic Charitable Trusts would never be brought under the control—and a beneficial control it was—of the Charity Commissioners.

said, he trusted that no hon. Member would oppose the universal opinion of the Roman Catholics who were to be dealt with under this particular Bill.

said, he wished to inquire whether the Government would substitute for the first enactment of the Bill a clause suspending the operation of the Superstitious Uses Act, which would bring the whole of the Roman Catholic Charities under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners? If the Government meant to deal effectually with this question and avoid embarrassments in another Session they must have the general law on their side, not the exceptional, otherwise Cardinal Wiseman, who regulated the conduct of a large number of Members of the House, would continue his rule. If the Government would suspend the operation of Superstitious Uses Act, and leave to Roman Catholics after the 1st of September the opportunity of having their causes fairly tried before the tribunals of the country, the question would be settled.

said, if the Government acceded to the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman, they would have to begin de novo, for the title of the Bill would have to be altered. It seemed to him better that they should follow the precedent of former years and merely suspend the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act for a limited time longer.

said, he wished to state that hon. Members had an impression that the effect of this Continuance Bill would be to prevent the Court of Chancery from exercising any jurisdiction over Roman Catholic charities. That was not so. At the present moment all Roman Catholics might proceed in the Court of Chancery in reference to Roman Catholic charities, but in that Court the Attorney General must be a party, and that fact protected the property from forfeiture under the law of superstitious uses and under the Enrolment Act. The Charity Commissioners, however, had powers much stronger and more summary, and amongst others that of investigating the whole matter relating to any charity without the assistance of the Attorney General or the Court of Chancery. The effect of this Bill not being passed would, therefore, be that these Commissioners, in performing their duties, would be obliged to declare these charities forfeited.

said, that he desired to state that it was his intention to propose to alter the month mentioned in the Bill from September to July, as being the limit of the operation of this measure. It was originally July, but was altered in the Lords.

said, if the proposition which he had made were adopted, there would be no reason why all Roman Catholic charities should not be brought within the operation of the general law. The object of this opposition on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk was to prevent malversations in regard to Roman Catholic charities being discovered. It was desired to keep these things in the dark, but he would impress upon the Government and the House that they should all be inquired into.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had now adopted the suggestion which he (Mr. Kinnaird) made, but which the right hon. Gentleman at first refused. He was glad the division had taken place, however, because it would draw the attention of the country to this subject.

said, he hoped that next year all the powers of the Charity Commisssioners, which were very large, would be taken into consideration, and that they would not be permitted longer to make schemes behind the backs of persons, and in a clandestine manner.

said, he would not further oppose the Continuance Bill if it were limited to the 1st July next.

observed, that as it was necessary to send the Bill back to the Lords, perhaps the House would allow it to be read a third time and passed.

said, he would move to insert after the words "Judge Ordinary alone," the following:—

"Providing always, that such Court does and shall hold a sitting for the disposal of the business of the said Court for not less than two consecutive days, at the least, once in every fortnight from the 2nd of November to the 10th of August in every year, except during the periods allotted for the attendance of the Judges upon their circuits, or for the ordinary vacations."

said, he concurred in the object of the hon. Mover of the proviso, but he doubted whether fixing a minimum would not be to impair rather than increase the stringency of the clause. By such a course they might ensure the attendance of the Judges would not go beyond the minimum fixed.

said, the clause had been inserted by the Lords, and he moved that it be expunged.

said, he objected to legislation which did not apply to the whole empire.

said, that if this clause of the Bill was agreed to, extending as it did the operation of the Act to Ireland, it would be most objectionable, not only to the Roman Catholic but also to the Protestant portion of the population of that country. Another objection to the clause was, that it would be introducing into Ireland the operation of a foreign tribunal, as it would enable parties contracting a marriage in Ireland—where the marriage contract was indissoluble, by transferring their suit to London, to obtain a divorce. The clause, moreover, would be an interference with the regularly constituted tribunals in Ireland.

said, he trusted the Government would throw aside all thoughts of extending the Divorce Court to Ireland, as such legislation would be entirely contrary to the feelings of the people of that country.

said, that the feelings of the women ought to be consulted in this matter as well as those of the men. He did not believe the Divorce Court was in conformity with the wishes of the women of England, and he thought the House ought to retrace their steps and abolish the system altogether.

said, that clause would establish a dangerous precedent. The Judges in these days were incorrupt and incorruptible; but still it would be unwise to remove them from that salutary influence of public opinion and public responsibility to the operation of which publicity was indispensable. In the trial of Horne Tooke, Lord Ellenborough ordered that no evidence should be published de die in diem, and Mr. Perry, of the Morning Chronicle published notwithstanding, and was committed by the Judge. But even that was a different state of things from a Court sitting in private. Such a principle, however, was wholly alien to the spirit of our law, the only approach to it being the practice adopted by the Court of Chancery in certain exceptional cases of holding sittings in camerâ. That departure from the ordinary rule by no means worked so satis- factory that they were called upon to give it any greater extension. On the trial of Palmer, Lord Campbell expressed a hope that no remark in the shape of editorial comment should be made till the trial was over, and the press acquiesced, and there were no remarks made that could prejudice the case or influence the jury. There were titled defendants and men of property who would give thousands to have their cases heard with closed doors and to the exclusion of the press. To close the Divorce Court would only be to create a prurient curiosity on the part of the public to know the details of the trials; and there would exist this anomaly—that while that Court was closed the police Courts would still publish their disgusting details. He remembered a Committee up-stairs sitting with closed doors; and what was the result? A garbled account of the proceedings appeared in every newspaper in England. If the Divorce Court were closed, the representatives of the press might be excluded, but the attorneys, the attorneys' clerks, and other persons more or less connected with the proceedings, must he present; and it would be impossible that disgusting details should be shrouded in secrecy. The consequence would be that reports would be published in newspapers without the responsibility secured by the presence of the recognized reporter. Besides, it was better to trust to the good sense of the community, and the good taste of the conductors of the public journals, than to arm our Judges with an arbitrary power like that recently exercised in France in the trial of M. de Montalembert. And, at the very worst, it would be wiser to run the risk of some indecent details creeping out than to shake that general confidence in the administration of justice which was engendered by surrounding our Judges with an atmosphere of publicity.

said, the whole principle of this enactment was publicity; and the question simply was, whether a greater amount of public justice would not he attained by the introduction of the exception to that general rule contained in this clause than without it. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the object was to prevent the publication of details. He the (Attorney General) was willing to admit at once that the clause had been framed for the sake of public decency; but when he had explained the reasons for its introduction, he was sure the Committee would per- ceive that it had been brought forward for the purpose of preventing that denial and refusal of justice which arose in many cases in consequence of the present constitution of the Court. He regretted to say that the court was a place of resort—according to the accounts that were given to him—of characters of the worst description. Crowds congregated there for the purpose of hearing details which could only give gratification to depraved and diseased minds. That very court, so attended, was the place to which women suffering under the most cruel wrongs were compelled to have recourse for redress. One might well imagine a lady of sensitive feelings, and under the distressing necessity of seeking the redress of her grievous wrongs, shrinking from having recourse to a tribunal where she would have to relate the story of her husband's cruelty in the presence of a jeering, laughing, and prurient mob, eager to catch at every indecent particular. It was such a painful accompaniment to her appeal to the open Court as that which he had but too feebly described which deterred many injured and deserving persons from applying for its aid, and which therefore operated in certain cases as a practical denial of justice. He had himself heard of cases in which persons, for the purpose of compelling a compromise, or accomplishing some particular end, had refused to assent to a private hearing; and if the counsel had not manifested a better spirit, in many instances the greatest injury would have been inflicted upon innocent individuals in consequence of the necessity for this publicity. Moreover, in some instances, the greatest profligacy—nay, crime—might have to be brought forward in the Court, for the purpose of enabling the parties to a marriage to obtain a divorce, and the publication of those details might involve the most cruel and lifelong injury not only to the parties to the suit, but their innocent and unhappy children. Surely, then, the Committee would hardly say there could by any possibility be the slightest harm in such cases as that of arming the Judge with an authority to determine whether the case should be heard in public or not. It was not that the case was heard in private. There were present in court, the bar, solicitors, and a jury—a sufficient number of persons to prevent the occurrence of those evils the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to dread. He freely admitted the necessity of publicity of the proceedings of the courts of justice, and he did not mean to ask for any authority that would in the slightest degree detract from that rule, except it were necessary for the attainment of public justice. But in a great number of the cases that came before this Court, it was impossible to hope the sufferers could ask or obtain justice if they were compelled to seek it in the manner in which only they could now do so. This clause had been suggested by the learned Judge who presided in the court as the result of his experience of its working. The Committee were aware that for a length of time the public had been complaining of the evil influence of the publication of the evidence taken in the Court. He did not mean to put the necessity of the clause entirely on that ground. He himself was much more affected by the fact that in consequence of the present system there was, in many cases, a perfect denial or refusal of justice; and that persons would not seek it if they had to go through the ordeal they had at present to pass. This power was to be entrusted to the discretion of the Judge, whose duty was merely to preside when a jury was present to give their verdict upon the evidence sworn to before them. He thought, therefore, the interests of humanity, the interests of justice, the interests of public decency, all required that in a tribunal of this kind there should be an exception to the general rule, such as that embodied in this clause. He might mention one case in which, on an accusation against the husband, the interests of the children were involved to such an extent that, had the charge been made in public, all their prospects in life would have been for ever blasted. In that case the Judge, with consent, exercised the power of hearing the case in private. All this clause asked was to give that discretionary power to the Judge wherever he thought the interests of justice demanded. He had not the slightest doubt it would be well and wisely exercised, and that it would tend greatly to enhance the usefulness of the Court; and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would accept the clause.

said, the learned Attorney General had made out a very ingenious case of special hardship arising out of the existing practice; but there was no principle of law from the inflexible operation of which the wit or the imagination of man could not conjure up some small modicum of inconvenience to individuals. They were asked to enter upon a course of legislation, which, if it were sound, could not be confined to this particular tribunal, but must be extended to the whole administration of justice in the country. For if the principle of trial with closed doors was right in the case of the Divorce Court, it would be also right in the rest of the civil and even in the Criminal Courts, whenever evidence of an objectionable nature was to be adduced. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that persons attended the Divorce Court to hear the disclosures merely for amusement, but at present the Judges of our different tribunals could order all females and young persons out of court when cases unfit for them to hear came on, so that only male adults remained; and could it be supposed that many of these were of the depraved frame of mind which had been suggested? Would the Committee then modify a great principle of law to meet a small modicum of inconvenience. The clause was really to enable the Judge to exercise a censorship over the public press, in so far as they chose to report the proceedings of the court. A century and a half ago Parliament and the nation repudiated the idea of a censorship over the public press; and were they prepared on nearly the last day of the Session to reverse that policy, and to take the first step in the opposite direction? He thought that the correction of any abuse in connection with the press might safely be left to the general sense of the community, and of those who conducted the public journals. As far as his own observation extended he saw nothing in the conduct of the public press with regard to the Divorce Court which led him to wish for an alteration of the law; but at any rate, before they took the step proposed, they ought to have a strong body of evidence to show that the press had forgotten its duty to society, and systematically abused the opportunities it possessed for publishing reports. But he saw no trace of misconduct on the part of the public journals; on the contrary, he thought that with regard to all trials of this sort they conducted their publications with great judgment, with great tact, and with great advantage to the community. And what was the result of that publicity? No doubt in particular cases it operated very inconveniently to suitors; but he arrived at a totally different conclusion from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to its general effect. The Court undertook to investigate chiefly the conduct of hus-bauds towards their wives, and he could conceive no more salutary influence than this very publicity must exert when held in terrorem over a tyrannical husband. The conviction that his cruelty, though perpetrated in domestic privacy, might be dragged to light, and made to bring upon him the scorn and reprobation of all rightminded men must have a beneficial effect in promoting the very object for which that Court was instituted, which was not to encourage applications for divorce, but to repress the marital misconduct out of which those applications arose. On the other hand, he thought that secrecy would tend to encourage domestic vice and domestic immorality, and would be of no advantage to the court, because persons would know they could go there without incurring the penalty of having their misconduct exposed to the society in which they lived. Such a clause as the present one might naturally be inserted in the Bill of the House of Lords, because there were certain classes of people who did not like this publicity. He thought that it was a clause which the House of Commons, being the guardian of the morality of the people at large, and caring nothing about the distinction between particular classes, would insist upon striking out of the Bill, and he trusted that the Attorney General would give way to the sense of the country on the subject, and withdraw it from the Bill.

said, he could not but express his regret that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets should have thought fit to conclude his otherwise excellent speech by an unbecoming attack on "another place." The hon. Gentleman had characterized the upper classes as less moral than those below them.

said, it was impossible that justice could be satisfactorily administered in this country with closed doors, as the strength of our laws was in public opinion, which supported the law. The effect of the proposed clause would be to screen the powerful and rich while it exposed the failings of the poor. There were persons in this country whose names could influence the bench in granting secrecy which a poor man could not obtain. ["Oh, oh!"] He would remind the hon. Gentleman who said oh, that when a man went into a Court of Law in this country, he was on an equality with any man of any class. He hoped the House of Commons would prevent such an enactment as this.

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not convinced him that it was necessary to pass the clause. He wished to ask him where the line of demarcation was to be drawn between the persons who should and who should not have extended to them the privilege of secrecy. If they sanctioned the proposed violation of the law they would give rise to great discontent in the country, and at the same time lay the foundation of a system which must ultimately be extended to other Courts, and would have the effect of lowering the standard of justice.

said, he had often heard a word misapplied in that House and elsewhere—namely, the word un-English. That word, he thought, was peculiarly applicable to this clause, which was opposed to all the principles of English law. He wished to ask the Attorney General how the Judge was to be informed when a case was of such a nature as that it ought to be heard with closed doors or not, unless he were privately informed of the fact, or deferred to the station of the parties. That objection alone was fatal to the clause.

said, he was one of those who strongly opposed the Divorce Bill, on the ground that it would be most injurious to the morality of the country. Now, after it had been in operation a short time, the Attorney General was obliged to come forward, in the name of the Government, and propose the introduction of an entirely new principle in the English law, namely, enabling a Judge to shut up his court and proceed secretly. The fact was that the proceedings in the Divorce Court had become so scandalous, and were so injurious to the public morality, that the hon. and learned Gentleman felt bound to introduce this clause.

said, it must not be supposed that this clause was pointed against the public press. No such thing. It only pointed to the prevention of that denial of justice which the present state of things caused, which he had endeavoured to point out. The hon. Member for Bristol was mistaken in supposing that the Judge could receive information privately. [Mr. BERKELEY: I did not say so.] The only communication made to him would be by counsel of the nature of the evidence, and on that statement the Judge could exercise his discretion on his own responsibility. The clause was the result of the experience of the Judge Ordinary, and at his suggestion it had been inserted in the Bill. If it were passed into law, cases would not be tried with closed doors in reality, but before the bar, and in the presence of the jury, solicitors, and parties. He was glad the introduction of this clause had been discussed, but he was sorry that some topics had been introduced, and he should have been pleased if the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had not disfigured his speech by some of the allusions which he had made. He should also have been glad if the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had not said that a distinction would be drawn between rich and poor in such a case. Let the House of Commons decide the question, but not on such grounds. He must give the Committee the trouble of dividing, as he could not withdraw a clause recommended by the Judge for the benefit of the suitors of his court.

said, there was a discrepancy between the argument of the Attorney General and the wording of the clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman urged it was to spare some females the pain of speaking in an open court, and thus prevent an inconvenience which often resulted in a denial of justice; but the clause gave the Judge the power to close the doors of the court whenever the interests of public decency appeared to him to require it. If the reason given with the clause were to prevail, it was obvious it could not stop at the Divorce Court; for there were many cases tried in other courts where decency appeared to forbid publication.

said, he hoped the Attorney General would not press the clause to a division. He had acted in perfect good faith with regard to the suggestion of the Judge of the Divorce Court. It would pain him to have to vote against the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, that he was in the position of being an advocate for the clause with no one to support him. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, that the clause did not contain words which would carry out the object he had spoken of. The mere words, "preservation of public decency," did not refer to the point to which he had alluded. Under all the circumstances he would bow to the decision of the Committee without putting them to the trouble of a division.

said, he would move that it be omitted. It had been described before by the Attorney General as harmless, and he believed it would prove entirely nugatory. Its object was to provide, that where the Judge suspected collusion or fabrication in a case brought before him, he should have power to refer the petition to the Attorney General, who might examine into the matter and report. Now, he objected to this, that it was merely encouraging indolence in the Judges by transferring to the Attorney General that which the Judge himself had power to do. Whenever the Judge suspected collusion he had power to call the parties before him, and to put them on their oaths. The Attorney General had neither time nor power to do any such thing; and all that he could do would be to hand the case over to some employé, who might call the agents before him, and without putting them on their oaths, ask them whether there was collusion or not. This proceeding would be totally nugatory, except that it would cause additional expense and delay.

said, that the clause should be looked at, not as it stood, but with the power it gave the Court to make rules and regulations for carrying out its provisions. Great difficulty had been felt in cases where a dissolution of marriage was claimed on the ground of adultery, owing to many of these being undefended cases. The petitioner produced only such evidence as he thought proper, and the Court could only know anything about the case from that. It was felt that there was a danger of divorces being obtained on fabricated cases by collusion, even when adultery had not actually occurred. Hence, the proposal that some officer should be appointed to assist the Judge in such cases. The clause was intended to work thus:—Supposing a petition praying for a dissolution of marriage, to which there was no defence or any person offering opposition to the petition, it would be imperative on the Judge to refer it to the Attorney General, and the petitioner would be required to give the Attorney General particulars of the acts relied on by him in support of the allegations of the petition, and the names and residences of all witnesses and persons connected with the case since the alleged adultery was committed. In a great number of such instances, the Attorney General at the first aspect of the case would be able to detect whether it was characterized by good faith or not. But in others, a species of out-of-doors inquiry would be made by his agents. The Judge could not be properly aided or protected except by the appointment of a person who out of doors should, before the hearing of the petition, make inquiry whether the circumstances alleged by the petitioner were or were not true. This want had been greatly felt in the Divorce Court, and as the suggestion proceeded from that Court it was the result of experience. Many of the practitioners there had owned that collusion was not uncommon, and it was impossible to detect collusion without intrinsic information. In the House of Lords it was found that the communications which were made to judicial persons during the progress of a case tended greatly to elucidate the facts. A similar protection, he believed, would be afforded by this clause, which would frequently prevent the Judge from being imposed upon.

said, that no provision was made in the clause for giving the Attorney General power to do that which it had been suggested he ought to do. It did not enable him to hear evidence on oath or to make any other inquiry than the parties chose voluntarily to submit to. Altogether the clause was so crudely framed and seemed so insufficient for the objects desired, that, unless it could be amended, he must vote against it.

said, that he was anxious to observe that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) seemed to imagine that he had expressed an opinion with regard to peers and other persons of distinction which he did not mean to express. What he meant to say was that peers and other persons of distinction were more sensitive to publicity than other persons. With regard to the clause before the Committee the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had described it as perfectly harmless but perfectly useless. From the description given by the Attorney General, however, he thought it was hurtful as well as useless; for, if it were adopted, it would be necessary for the future to have, in point of fact, two suits—one before the Attorney General to find out whether there was collusion, and another before the Judge to decide very much the same facts as had been already investigated by the Attorney General. Such a double inquiry, he need hardly say, would add very seriously to the cost of the proceedings. Now, the Attorney General could not institute this inquiry himself; he must ne- cessarily depute it to some officer, which could equally be done by the Judge. The duty which it was now sought to cast upon the Attorney General could be performed by the Judge, if he applied his mind to it. The Act of Parliament enabled him previous to the hearing of the suit to send for the petitioner and make a searching investigation into the case. When, therefore, the Judge, having exercised this power, found that he was still unable to protect the public, it would be time enough to come to Parliament for fresh powers.

said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause after Clause 6, empowering the Court to inquire into the existence of any ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement, in those cases in which a decree of nullity or dissolution of marriage was granted, and to make such order upon it for the benefit of the husband and children as they might think fit. It often happened that a wife had a handsome income settled upon her by her husband at the time of her marriage, and if she were divorced on account of her own adultery, she ought not to be enabled to live with the adulterer upon that income which she had received from the generosity of her husband.

said, he was willing to admit the object of the clause to be a good one, and he should not oppose its introduction into the Bill if the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) would consent not to press the clause of which he had given notice, to the effect that in every case of judicial separation, when the whole of the property which might be the subject of the marriage settlement of the parties might have been settled to the separate use of the wife, it should be lawful for the Court to order such provision by way of alimony to be made to the husband out of the property of the wife, as the Court would, under ordinary circumstances, have given to a wife in a similar case. The principle which the hon. Member had embodied in those words was no doubt a very laudable one, but then it was a novel principle, and ought not, he thought, to be introduced into a measure which merely sought to amend the procedure of the Court. He should also beg the hon. Member to bear in mind that in every case of judicial separation the possibility of the husband and wife becoming reunited was supposed, and that result might be interfered with if such arrangements as those proposed1 were carried into effect.

said, he had given notice of a clause somewhat different from the one before the Committee, inasmuch as it referred, not to cases of dissolution of marriage, but of judicial separation. It was to enable the Court to make provision for the husband, by way of alimony, out of the property which he had settled upon his wife at the marriage.

said, he would agree to the words "or a decree of judicial separation" being added to his own clause, with regard to the case of a decree of nullity of marriage.

said, he wished to move a clause to the effect that a right of appeal to the House of Lords should extend to all sentences and final judgments, or petitions under the Legitimacy Act, 1858.

said, he believed this Bill to be "a job." It had been introduced into the House of Lords at a late period of the Session, and hurried through its stages in that House at unseasonable hours. For instance, it passed through Committee at Two o'clock in the morning. It had not been printed as amended, and it was impossible to tell how it then stood. The professed object of the Bill was to provide for improved education of attorneys and solicitors. There was no fault to find with the first clause which professed to improve the education of solicitors by enabling persons who had taken a degree at a University to be admitted to practise as attorneys two years earlier than those who had not taken a degree. But under the profession of a desire to improve the education of solicitors there were concealed three or four most questionable propositions. For instance, the Bill proposed that the Law Society should hereafter issue to solicitors their certificates, which at present were issued by the Government authorities at Somerset House. Again, for the last century the Law List had been published by the authority of Somerset House, but the Bill would transfer the publication to a Committee of Solicitors. These were provisions of an important character, which demanded a full, fair, and free discussion. Had the Bill been confined to educational provision it could have met with no opposition, and might have been introduced at a much earlier period.