said, he would move an Amendment to the effect that the word "heritors" should mean persons qualified under the Act of 1803.

said, that by the Bill they were changing the payment of schoolmasters from so many merks Scots to pounds sterling, and he thought some change should also take place in the designation of heritors, whose qualification was an absolute one of £100 Scots, a kind of money that no longer existed.

said, he thought they should adhere to the definition laid down in the Bill of 1803.

said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. There was not the least doubt as to the meaning of the word, and he would take care that the Bill should be made perfectly clear.

said, he was willing to accept that promise, and he would withdraw the Amendment.

said, he wished to move to insert words which would make the minimum salary £35, instead of £30. The Bill provided only how much the heritors should have to pay, but did not intend to limit the salary to so low a sum. The maximum he should propose would be £60, but he would prefer to make it £70, and as that maximum was at the option of the heritors the sum would not be extravagant.

complained that no grant was given to the parish schoolmasters out of the general educational fund.

said, he thought the salaries of the schoolmasters should be in proportion to the number of pupils they had.

was very much of that opinion. He knew a case in which a school was endowed with salary to the amount of £600 a year, and the master, in order to get quit of the scholars, used to flog all new-comers severely, so that in time the school was deserted.

proposed, as an Amendment, that the maximum salary should be £70.

said, he would suggest that it should be £80.

proposed that £50 should be substituted for £40, and £80 for £60, in cases where there might be more school-masters than one.

proposed to add to the end of the clause words that would enable proprietors and occupants, as well as heritors, to discharge all duties performed by heritors.

proposed to insert a series of Amendments making the salaries of the schoolmasters payable by the parties liable according to the real annual value of their lands as appearing in the yearly valuation roll made up under the recent Valuation Act, instead of, as at present, according to the old "valued rent." That was a valuation made in the reign of Charles II., and not at all applicable to the present state of things. The payment should be based on the rental as at the time of payment, and not on the rental which the lands yielded two centuries ago, since when the proportionate value of properties had totally altered. The first of these Amendments would merely be to provide for the payment of the salaries half-yearly "by equal portions," but he would take the sense of the Committee on the whole plan by moving the insertion of these words.

said, he did not wish to counteract the view taken by the hon. Member for Greenock, but as his hon. Friend had not said how his proposal was to be carried into effect, he suggested that he should withdraw his proposal in the meantime, and bring up a clause in the Report by which the mode of carrying out the new valuation in the case of schools might be determined.

said, he would propose to add words giving power to heritors holding one-third of the valuation of a parish to call a meeting to fix the salary of the schoolmaster when a vacancy took place, in the event of the minister delaying or refusing to do so.

proposed to add words to the effect that on a schoolmaster being reported by an inspector of schools and by the Presbytery as infirm or unequal to the discharge of his duties, the heritors and minister might call on him to resign or dismiss him, and should have power to grant to him a retiring allowance of not less than two-thirds of his salary.

thought that a Board of Examiners, consisting exclusively of University professors was deficient in one essential element, that of parties conversant with the practical business of teaching in schools, and he proposed an alteration which would have the effect of substituting for two of the professors two members of the Educational Institute of Scotland on the Board of Examiners.

said, he regretted that he could not consent to the Amendment, not because he had any objection to give the power proposed to the Educational Institute, but because it would interfere with the principle that the examining body should be connected with the Universities. He wished to see the schools of Scotland affiliated to the Universities of Scotland, and though he had the very highest opinion of the Educational Institute he did not see that their services could be made available in this case.

said, his Amendment would leave the selection of the examiners in the hands of the Universities, and he, therefore, could not see that there was any force in the objection taken by the learned Lord. He would, however, add to his Amendment the words "being graduates of the University."

said, he objected to the examination of schoolmasters being placed in the hands of a voluntary body like the Educational Institute.

said, he thought it would be of importance to introduce into the Examining Board persons practically acquainted with teaching.

said, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock allowed the matter to stand over, he would endeavour to introduce a clause on the Report which would give effect to what might be called the practical teaching element in the examination.

said, he proposed to leave out the words "licentiates of the Church of Scotland," and insert "Presbyterian Churches in Scotland." In appointing the examiners they should avoid sectarianism as far as possible.

said, he must oppose the Amendment.

said, he would rather leave out the latter part of the clause specifying what class of persons should be appointed.

proposed words to the effect that a Professor in the Faculty of Divinity, or the deputy nominated by him, should always be one of the examiners.

objected to this which would practically give a veto on the passing of any candidate to the Professors of Divinity.

said, that he had the strogest objection to that part of the Bill, by which a test was imposed upon schoolmasters. He was no party to the compromise by which the Bill had been introduced; but this he thought was the sting of the whole. No man had a right to impose a test upon another, and in that case not only was the principle a bad one, but other safeguards of religion were provided. Not only was a test wrong in principle, but it was dangerous and mischievous in practice. He moved the rejection of the words by which the test was imposed.

said, he also opposed the imposition of a test. It had been proved that they could get good religious teaching without tests, and he believed that the feeling of Scotland was gradually rising against them. At the same time he hoped his hon. Friend would not endanger the Bill by pressing his Amendment to a division.

said, he also opposed tests, but he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, he must appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to divide the Committee. He agreed in every word which had fallen from him as to the uselessness of tests; but he well knew what was the fate of Bills that had been sent up from the House without the test, and he begged him, therefore, to allow the compromise to be effected.

said, he would likewise urge the hon. Member for Edinburgh not to press his Amendment.

said, he found plenty of hon. Members to agree with him, but as they would not vote with him he would very unwillingly withdraw his Amendment.

said, he proposed that the following additional declaration should be taken by schoolmasters previous to entering office—

"And that I will not exercise the functions of the said office to the prejudice or subversion of the Church of Scotland as by law established, or the doctrines and privileges thereof."

said, he objected to the introduction of the words.

said, he would not have withdrawn his Amendment had he thought that the evil of the test was to be aggravated in the way now proposed by the Lord Advocate. He would divide the Committee on the proposal.

said, he could not consent to the withdrawal of the words. He had only to say that the withdrawal of these words would be tantamount to the withdrawal of the Bill altogether, as he could not see the possibility of carrying the Bill without them.

suggested that the hon. Member for Edinburgh should divide upon the next Amendment, which was far more important, as it referred to the tribunal by which schoolmasters were to be judged.

said, he would then propose to insert the following words—

"And the wilful contravention by any schoolmaster of the said declaration shall be considered and dealt with as neglect of duty under the provisions of the said recited Act; provided always, that it shall not be competent to insist in any proceedings against any schoolmaster for such contravention without the consent of Her Majesty's Advocate being first obtained, on a representation to him by the heritors of the parish, and after such inquiry as he may think necessary."

said, that he trusted the learned Lord did not consider that the rejection of this Amendment would be tantamount to the rejection of the Bill, as he, and he believed many other Members would rather lose the Bill than consent to the Amendment as it stood, for its effect taken in connection with another clause which left the trial of schoolmasters for "neglect of duty" in hands of Presbyteries, would be to make the Presbyteries of the establishment the exclusive judges of contravention of the declaration, for which they might depose schoolmasters from their office.

said, he would bag to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Has the hon. Member for Clonmel offered to resign his position as one of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, upon the ground that Irish interests had been disregarded by the present Administration, and has such offer been finally accepted; and if so has the vacancy so created been filled up; or is it intended to fill it, and when?

Sir, I am very sorry to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel has resigned the office which he held as a Lord of the Treasury, and with great regret I have recommended that his resignation should be accepted. With regard to the reasons which have induced my hon. Friend to send in his resignation, my hon. and learned Friend knows full well that there is nothing so unparliamentary as to impute motives to any person. If he wishes to have a correct statement of the grounds on which the resignation was tendered, he had better apply to the hon. Member himself. The office will be filled up, and it is still open.

said, he would beg to ask the Frst Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to proceed with the Bankrupty and Insolvency Bill this Session, and on what day he will proceed, if such is his intention?

Sir, the Bill being one involving deep considerations, I cannot name any date for bringing it on until we have out Law Officer in the House, which I hope will be the case shortly. I have to state that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any intention of rewarding those gentlemen whose names have been specially brought to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief for the great proficiency they have exhibited at the examinations for direct Commissions, by bestowing on them Commissions without purchase?

said, there was no intention of bestowing upon those gentlemen Commissions without purchase. There were at present twenty gentlemen entitled to Commissions without purchase who were unable to obtain them.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the promise made by him (before the second division on Saturday last on the question that the Debate on the Wakefield Writ Motion be adjourned), to the effect that if the House reaffirmed its former decision, the Government would not oppose the issue of the Writ?

Sir, the offer which I made to the House on the occasion to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was not accepted, and, as he knows, it was not in my power to control the action of the House. When the Motion of which the hon. Member has given notice comes on for discussion the Government will state the course which they intend to take.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Upon what grounds he has declined to recommend to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury the payment of Rates assessed on Government property in the parish of St. Nicholas, Harwich, similar payment having been granted to other parishes in which Government property is situated?

stated, that the grounds upon which he recommended that the payment should not be made in the parish in question were that the proportion of the Government property, compared to the rest of the rateable property of the parish, did not appear to him to bring them within the rule which the Treasury applied to those cases.

said, he rose to move an Address for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the effect of the several burial and cemetery Acts upon the position of incumbents of parishes and districts. He spoke not merely in the interests of the metropolitan clergy, but also of clergymen in different parts of England, who had been seriously affected by those Acts. Until the year 1850 the fees upon interments constituted a large proportion of the income of parochial clergymen; but, as burials within the City were prevented by the Metropolitan Interments Act, the Legislature, sensible of the great hardships which such an enactment would inflict upon the clergy, gave power to the Board of Health, under the 32nd to the 36th Clauses, to inquire into the effect which its operation would have upon their revenues. The General Board of Health caused an inquiry "to ascertain the facts bearing upon those claims" to be opened, and the clergy were invited to be examined and to state the amount which they had received in fees during the five years previous to the passing of the Act; secondly, their average annual receipts; and lastly, the amount which they claimed as compensation. A very voluminous paper was presented to the House of Lords, in which these claims, affecting 149 parishes, were set forth. In some cases £300, £400, and that of St. Giles in the Fields as much as £750, were claimed by the clergy. But in 1852, the Metropolitan Interments Act was superseded by the Metropolitan Burials Act, and the jurisdiction previously enjoyed by the Board of Health was transferred to the Home Office, and it accordingly rested with them to consider what compensation should be granted, and out of what funds the money could be obtained. Anxiety was then expressed that before the subject of compensation was taken up all city burial-grounds should be finally closed, and accordingly churchyards to the number of 200, or counting the country districts, to the number of about 700, were shut; but from that day to the present not a shilling compensation had been received by the clergy. It might be urged, in reply to the Motion, that there were no funds for the purpose; but, surely, when the Board of Health in 1850 ordered an inquiry into the subject, they must have had some funds in view as applicable to the purpose, or they would never have given clergymen the trouble of attending and proving their claims. In the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords, which met in 1858 to consider the question of the spiritual destitution of the Metropolis, especial reference was made to the subject of the Motion. The Report stated—

"Burial fees to a great amount, constituting a very large part of the endowment of many incumbents, have been abstracted by the operation of successive Burial Acts. The consequence has been most lamentable; not only has it tended to impoverish many most laborious and deserving clergymen, but also as it has deprived them of the means of procuring help in the discharge of their pastoral functions in their crowded parishes. Reference to the Acts themselves, 13th and 14th of Vict., cap. 52, and 15th and 16th of Vict., cap. 85, shows that both of them alike recognize the incumbent's right, though both of them fail in providing the necessary means of compensation, and in giving due powers to enforce it. Still, the unhappy result of the defective provisions of the statute remains, and a very large part of the incomes of many of the poorest and most laborious of the London clergy has been, contrary to the intention of the Legislature, practically taken from them. It has been the just and honourable course of Parliament to secure compensation to all who have any reasonable claims to it for losses caused by any statute for the public good, and we cannot but express our great regret that no adequate means have as yet been devised of providing a remedy for this very crying evil, by securing that compensation."

The question of compensation was always a difficult one, but instances had occurred in which it had been granted on the abolition of the Six Clerks' offices, as well as to proctors, surveyors, and others whose pecuniary interests had been interfered with by the Legislature; he, therefore, thought enough had been done in that direction to justify his application, which was merely for inquiry into the case of these clergymen. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary last year admitted that—

"Great hardship had been caused by the loss of fees in the way referred to, and if any means could be devised, without making a charge on the funds of the Church, to make up incomes that had been so affected, he would be glad to give it his best consideration."—[3Hansard clx., p. 208.]

Under all the circumstances, he hoped the House would not refuse to entertain the appeal which he had made on behalf of that useful, hard-working, and, in too many cases, but scantily remunerated body, the clergy, both of the Metropolis and of the country.

stated that from his personal knowledge he was aware that in several cases considerable hardship had been suffered by the clergy by the withdrawal of the fees they had been in the habit of receiving. Only that day he received a statement from a clergyman respecting a church which he had erected himself, in which it was stated that the burial-ground attached to the church formed for a length of time the principal means by which he was enabled to live and perform his duties as a minister. That was in a district of 10,000 inhabitants, and he had spent £8,000 of his own property in the purchase of the land and the erection of the church. The church cost far more than was anticipated, and the consequence was that there were legal encumbrances upon the church that required the payment of £300 per annum. Only the week before last the clergyman had applied to the Home Secretary for permission to continue burials in the churchyard for two years more, and a petition had been presented from the inhabitants of the district to the same effect. The permission had been accorded, but all the income which the clergyman derived was about £450 per annum; so that if he was deprived of the power of burying in his churchyard his income would be reduced to little more than £150 per annum. Yet if the land were capable of being brought into the market its value would be fully £20,000. Under these circumstances he could not but think that if these Burial Acts were to be enforced it was very desirable that some means should be provided for compensating the clergy for the loss they sustained by giving up the burial fees for the benefit of the public. He had complaints from other clergymen, stating that they had vaults which were not allowed to be used as places of interment, although they were fitted for that purpose. Land not consecrated, or such portions as were not occupied, might be sold. Clergymen complained that vaults under their churches, although not full, and covered over with solid arches, were not allowed to be used as places of interment, the consequence of which was a serious deduction from their income. Future incumbents would, of course, take their livings as they found them; but the present possessors were entitled to compensation for that which they gave up for the public good. At all events, they were entitled to an inquiry into their claims. He did not believe that the number of individuals entitled to compensation was large, and there was church property which might be made available for the purpose.

said, he believed that the case to which the hon. Member (Mr. Brown-Westhead) had referred was that of a Wesleyan minister who had joined the Establishment, and had—if he might use the term without implying any disparagement—speculated in church property. He did not think that a gentleman who found himself in the position of a loser under such circumstances should be permitted to charge his loss upon the funds of the country. The proposition of the noble Lord to extend the inquiry to England and Wales was full of objection, and he wished to know from Mr. Speaker whether it was competent to the noble Lord to alter his Motion without notice. If the words "within the bills of mortality" were reinserted, instead of the words now proposed by the noble Lord, he would make no objection to an inquiry; but he must protest against the funds of the country being fixed with any such compensation as that suggested. He knew cases in which the Dissenters could set up stronger claims to such compensation, but they would not think of doing so. The claim put forward by the noble Lord on behalf of clergymen of the Established Church was an unseemly, an unsightly, and an unworthy one. They asked for compensation for the loss they sustained in the burial of the dead. Their office was to cure souls while living, but the Constitution never invested them with an interest in the burial of the dead. It was really most objectionable to hear the disciples of—he would not use a sacred name—coming forward to claim compensation, not for the cure of souls living, but for the burial of those dead.

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken took every opportunity of reflecting on those who, with himself and other members of the Church of England, held the opinion that the clergy ought to be maintained by legal provision, which was scarcely either fair, or charitable, since they did not attack the voluntary system of the Dissenters, which the hon. Gentleman represented. He had truly observed that the clergy were not clergy of the dead but of the living; but he had omitted to explain what was the real nature of burial fees paid on the occasion of the death of such member of a family, but applied to providing for the religious instruction of the survivors. They were a provision secured by law for the maintenance of the clergy. They were so regarded throughout the debates on the subject in 1850, and the justice of securing them or an equivalent by law was fully recognised. He remembered the exertions made by the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was at that time Secretary of State for the Home Department, to induce the House so to consider these fees, and not to consent to their alienation to enable companies to provide burial grounds beyond the limits of the Metropolis. No doubt it was necessary that those burial grounds should be provided; but, at the same time, that right hon. Gentleman would bear him out in saying that it was not the intention of the Legislature to deprive the clergy of so necessary a source of income. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered being in repeated divisions in support of the right hon. Gentleman; and in all those divisions they were successful, maintaining the law by which burial fees or an equivalent were to be paid to the clergy, and determining that they ought not to be deprived of their maintenance because the burial grounds of parishes might have become over-crowded, and it was necessary that funerals should take place elsewhere. But, unfortunately, there was at that time a sanitary fever in the House; and a small minority of the House availed themselves of it, they imputed to the clergy a desire to keep their crowded churchyards as centres of disease within the Metropolis, and misrepresented the clergy as though thus really culpable; nay, so culpable as to be willing, needlessly, to perpetuate disease within the Metropolis, merely for the sake of maintaining their own incomes. These misrepresentations led to the infection of a gross injustice, for the effect was that, notwithstanding the exertions of the right hon. Gentleman and the determination of the majority of the House, the minority forced a compromise, the effect of which had been to deprive many of the clergy of the means necessary to enable them to employ curates for the spiritual teaching of the parishioners committed to their charge. It was a painful circumstance that though the Legislature had tried to remedy this evil, and although his right hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridge, had in 1852 introduced a Bill to remedy this evil, the remedy had entirely failed. By the Act of 1850, cemeteries were established round London in the hands of companies, in great measure on the credit of the fees, abstracted from the clergy. Of course, these were strictly commercial speculations, and it was the interest of those companies that no other burial grounds should be established. The Act of 1852 did this: it enabled parishes, if they thought fit, to establish at their own expense burial grounds for themselves, the fees for the burials in which should accrue to the clergymen of the parishes. But it must be obvious to the House that it was the interest of cemetery companies to prevent anything of the sort taking place; and the companies, accordingly, by appealing to the economical feelings of vestries, had prevented the Act being brought into operation, so as to enable the clergy to receive the emoluments which the Legislature thought essential to their maintenance and the spiritual instruction of the population. The whole matter had gone completely by default, and he (Mr. Newdegate) hoped, that the Government would do the justice of issuing the Commission, which would suggest means by which the House could repair an injustice it never willingly committed. He knew clergymen of parishes containing 130,000 and 150,000 inhabitants, where there were three churches and three burial grounds closed and where the clergy had been totally deprived of the fees which by Acts of Parliament had been declared legal and rightful sources of income for themselves and their curates. No cause of the increase of spiritual destitution in the Metropolis had been stronger or more lamentable than that caused by rendering it impossible for incumbents to multiply curates according to the increase of population. Those fees were not merely the income on which the clergy fattened in idleness, they were the means by which the services of the Church were brought into operation. The effect of the abstraction of that income from the clergy, from the Church, from the parishioners, was that in the great Metropolis parishes were left almost wholly destitute of that religious instruction, which was as necessary to make a good citizen as to fit him for hereafter. In Birmingham he knew cases of hardship quite as great as in the Metropolis, cases of injustice which the Legislature never intended to permit; and he trusted that, knowing these circumstances—knowing that the clergy were by law shut out from many sources of income which were open and available to ministers of other denominations; considering the enormous competition in those literary pursuits for which the education of the clergy so eminently fitted them; knowing their poverty, seeing the existing spiritual destitution and the impossibility of meeting it, either by the establishment of district churches or by the division of parishes, he hoped the House would excuse him for having strongly urged on the Government that they really would only be acting in furtherance of the intentions of the House of 1850, of the House of 1852, and he trusted of the present House also, if they issued a Commission to ascertain by what means those evils might be remedied.

said, he could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) that he had entirely mistaken the desire of his noble Friend (Viscount Enfield) if he supposed he wished to take this compensation out of the pockets of the people. In Finsbury, for example, estates would fall into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1866 worth £40,000 per annum. The effect of the deprivation of income from the loss of funeral fees had been greatly to diminish the income of the rector of St. Luke's, Old Street, and many other estimable clergymen; and if a portion of this £40,000 were righteously taken from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make up the loss of income of these London incumbents, it would be employed not to enrich themselves, but to increase the spiritual provision for their flocks. He had no doubt other funds might be found available for the same purpose in other districts, and he should cheerfully support the Motion of his noble Friend.

said, that the policy of the Burial Acts must be considered as having been deliberately adopted. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had stated that these Acts were passed in a sanitary fever, and had implied that the decision of the House was surreptitiously obtained; but he must remind the hon. Member that that Legislation was preceded by inquiry and discussion, and that the Burial Acts were not one but a series of Acts, one altering and amending the other. The Legislation on the subject must, therefore, be taken to represent the deliberate opinion of both Houses of Parliament. The effect of those Acts, was, that the Queen, by Order in Council, might close burial grounds, might prohibit interments in churches, and might authorise parishes to appoint Burial Boards. These Boards might, out of the parochial funds, provide burial grounds in lieu of the churchyards thus closed; and with respect to these burial grounds the incumbent was placed in regard to fees and emoluments in precisely the same position in which he stood with respect to the churchyard. These burial grounds consisted in general of a consecrated and unconsecrated portion; and the incumbent certainly had no right to fees for interments in the unconsecrated portion. Owing to that circumstance, no doubt, there had been a very considerable diminution in the emoluments of the incumbents flowing from the source of burial fees. It was probable that many incumbents in London and other large towns had suffered a material diminution in their income. He deplored the circumstance, but it had been inevitable in consequence of the change in the law which the Legislature deliberately made. Several hon. Gentlemen had treated burial fees as part of the endowment of the Church, and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had spoken of them as a fund for the maintenance of the clergy. If that were established some ground might be laid for the Motion under consideration, but he was by no means prepared to admit, but, on the contrary, disputed the doctrine that burial fees could be considered as part of the endowment of the Church, or part of the fund intended for the maintenance of the clergy. He considered burial fees as a re- muneration for a special service. If that service was performed in a parish burial ground the clergyman still received precisely the same fees as before the change of law; but if, owing to altered circumstances, the parish clergyman did not perform the service he did not then receive the fees. If, therefore, the fees were considered as a remuneration for a service, then no claim arose for compensation, nor could the House be called on to agree to a Motion for the issue of a Commission, which proceeded on the assumption that there was a ground for compensation. If the House agreed to the proposition, it would affirm the principle that all incumbents, all ministers of every persuasion (for all congregations would be included possession burial grounds and vaults in churches or chapels), were entitled to compensation, and it would leave the Commission to discover some fund from which compensation could be obtained. His noble Friend had referred to the cases of the Six Clerks and of the proctors compensated under the Probate Act, and seemed to point not indistinctly to the Consolidated Fund as the source from which compensation should come. Now, he was entirely adverse to the principle of making the Consolidated Fund responsible for any supposed claim for compensation arising from that cause; and he trusted that the House would not be disposed to agree to any Motion in which that principle was involved. Well, if that fund was not looked to as a means of furnishing compensation for this class of claims, he supposed that the fund which would be next applied to was that referred to by the hon. Member who last spoke— the fund of the Ecclesiastical Commission. That raised a very difficult question, because it was a suggestion to appropriate to a very limited class of the clergy a fund which the policy of Parliament had appropriated generally to the augmentation of the smallest class of livings; and though there might have been some cases of hardship from the change of law, there were many cases in which there had been no real hardship, and yet compensation would be claimed, if given at all, for both classes of cases. He presumed, too, if such a principle were admitted, that all persons, even Dissenting ministers and congregations, having suffered any loss from this source would be entitled to compensation from the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and that would certainly be an unexampled mode of appro- priating those funds. He could not believe that the House would sanction the principle of charging either the Consolidated Fund or the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission for this alleged claim for compensation. If both these funds were set aside the only remaining source from which compensation could be given would consist in a charge on the parish rates. If a claim of the kind for the incumbent could be established it seemed to him that the parish rates would constitute the proper source to look to as the means of compensation; but in that case they would encounter the church rate question under another from. Inasmuch as he did not think it right for any Government or for that House to play fast and loose with a question of the sort, and to appoint a Commission to speculate on some possible fund from which compensation might be drawn, while it was known beforehand that there was no fund chargeable for the purpose without serious objections, he felt it his duty, though reluctantly—for he admitted that some cases of hardship existed—to oppose the Motion. If any hon. Gentleman supposed he could devise any means of providing compensation, the proper mode of proceeding would be to submit some distinct proposition to that effect.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had neither denied nor refuted the arguments by which the Motion was supported. The Legislature had interfered summarily with certain vested rights of the clergy, and the noble Lord proposed that the injustice committed should be repaired. That House had always given compensation in cases where by its legislation vested rights had suffered. He should give his cordial support to the Motion.

said, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside) had said that there was no instance in which wrong had been done by the Legislature without compensation having been given. He would give him one:—The introduction of railroads had materially diminished the funds belonging to the turnpike trusts, and yet no compensation was given in that case. He placed the clergy in the same category as persons who had lent money to turnpike roads, and whose incomes had in consequence been diminished. Therefore, unless a special case was made out on the part of the clergy, he said the House was not called upon to remunerate them for their loss.

said, there were many parishes in England so slenderly provided that the incumbents were necessarily dependent on surplus fees, and, without wishing to give the slightest opinion as to what particular measure ought to be adopted under the circumstances of the case, he could not held thinking that Parliament ought not to refuse the proposal made by the noble Lord opposite, seeing that in the Act of 1850 the principle of compensation had been affirmed, and that that principle had not been carried into effect.

observed that in the borough which he had the honour to represent serveral burial-places belong to Dissenting communities had been closed in the same way as those connected with the Eastablished Church, and with the additional hardship that in the case of the former the grounds had been purchased at the cost, in some instances, of hundreds, and in some of thousands pounds, by persons living at the time when the closing took place. Dissenting communities must, therefore, in all fairness, be held to have a claim for compensation, if the claims of the much richer communities of the Church of England were allowed. He was, however, of opinion that the Motion of the noble Lord was too extensive; that it rested on a wrong principle; and, that being his opinion, he should vote against it.

said, the Act of 1850, no doubt, recognized the principle of compensation, for it provided that when any new burial grounds were purchased by the Board of Health, a fee of 6s. 6d., in addition to the ordinary fees, should be paid upon the burial of every person in the consecrated part of the ground, and should be set apart for the compensation not only of the incumbents, but also of the clerks and sextons, and other persons injuriously affected; but the provision had been rendered nugatory, because, as the place of burial was optional, most persons had preferred the cheaper from of burial in unconsecrated ground, and no compensation fund had been raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), repealed the Act of 1850, and re-enacted provisions of different character in the Act of 1852. That Act provided that where parishioners were buried in consecrated ground the clergyman should be entitled to receive the same fees as he would have received if the burial ground of the parish had not been interfered with. There had, he might add, been no failure on the part of he Government or of Parliament to carry out the provisions of the Bill, which he was, nevertheless, ready to admit might have operated hardly, under the circumstances of the case, on many incumbents. Burials were fewer in the substituted than they were in the original grounds, and from that cause certain incumbents might have sustained some loss. He believed, however, that in many cases arrangements had been made by which clergymen had become entitled to fixed annual incomes in lieu of the fees which they formerly received. At the same time, he had no doubt that there were some cases of hardship; but he hoped the House would not adopt the he hoped the House would not adopt the Motion of the noble Lord. That Motion was vague and uncertain in its character, and was calculated to excite indefinite expectations of compensation from a non-existing fund.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

, addressing Mr. Speaker, said he had to report that, though the hon. Member for Dungarvan was in the lobby with the "Ayes," he had not been counted, not having passed through before the tellers left their places.

Was the hon. Member in the lobby intending to vote?

I was, Sir.

Did the hon. Member hear the question put?

I did, Sir, and I intended to vote for the "Ayes."

The name of the hon. Member must be added to the names of those who voted for the Motion.

* Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt, Sir, that many Members of this House have read with interest two remarkable documents which appeared this morning in the principal organs of the daily press. I allude to an address from certain noblemen and gentlemen of this country to Prince Czartoryski, and to the reply of that venerable representative of the Polish nation. In this reply the Prince says—

"It has given me pleasure to perceive that you have so thoroughly grasped the character of the movement which at this moment agitates Poland. You have appreciated fully the spirit of order and moderation which marks it. Clam and strong in its justice, it had remained clear of all violence; destructive notions and revolutionary passions cannot be discovered in it, nor external influences. The contest is entirely on the field of right, and entirely pacific and moral. What Poland demands, what she expects, is support of the same character. The morality of Europe is now the point in question.

"The dignity, the honour, and the interest of England are bound up in this question of support; the right that she will vindicate is not only the right of Poland, but that of civilized Europe. In the midst of the grave modifications which international interests are undergoing, before the incessant complications of the Eastern question, there is an interest of vital importance to the civilized world, above all to England, of aiding in the reconstitution of a people whose ruin, a flagrant outrage of all laws, divine and human, has produced a profound perturbation in the moral and material condition of Europe."

Sir, these words of Prince Czartoryski explain and vindicate the course I now presume to take. I have endeavoured to comprehend the Continental policy of Her Majesty's Government; I have endeavoured to trace the origin of "these grave modifications which international interests are undergoing;" and I have sought for some clue to "the incessant complications of the Eastern question;" but I find it impossible to touch upon any branch of foreign affairs, more particularly upon anything relating to the Eastern question, without feeling that our ignorance of English policy in relation to Poland is a barrier in the way of our arriving at the truth. These reasons, therefore, in addition to the immediate interests of that heroic people whose patriotism burns so brightly and steadily to-day, furnish, I venture to hope, a fair excuse for calling the attention of the House of Commons to the affairs of Poland. In dealing with this subject there are two principal points to be considered—the partition and the incorporation of Poland—and it is to the incorporation chiefly that I wish to direct attention. The people of England seem to be under the impression that in showing sympathy for the Poles we have to encounter the combined hostility of the three great Powers—Russia, Austria, and Prussia—among whom Poland was originally divided; but that is not the case. Indeed, so far is this from being the fact, that, at various times, one or more of these great Powers expressed genuine sympathy and tendered active support to Poland, whilst England was either silent, or, if active, active as an agent of oppression. When Poland was partitioned, England was silent. Two European Powers only protested against that crime: the Sovereign Pontiff protested against it, and the Head of the Ottoman Empire protested against it. These were public protests of Sovereigns representing two powerful and opposite interests. Second only in importance to these, and, in some respects, even more significant, was the private protest of the Empress of Austria. She was forced to bend under the influence of the Russian Court and the authority of her own servants. Monarchs have often yielded to the dictation of their Ministers; but there is no more painful instance of Ministerial power in the history of Europe than that which compelled Maria Theresa to sanction the partition of Poland. On the instrument announcing the complicity of Austria she wrote with her own hand these words—

"Placeat, because so many great and learned men will have it so; but long after I am dead and gone, people will see what will happen for breaking through everything holy and just.

(Singed) "MARIA THERESA."

In a letter to her Minister, Kaunitz, she asked what they would gain by receiving a piece of Poland or Wallachia in return for their lost honour? On another occasion she said that she had brought a great stain upon herself; but that she would be pardoned if her extreme repugnance to the measure had been generally known. As far as the Poles themselves were concerned, the Protocols of partition were but pieces of waste paper. What the pen of the diplomatist failed to do, the sword of the Cossack failed to do. Treaties had been signed, and blood had been shed, but the spirit of Poland was still living; and, when the termination of the great wars of Bonaparte involved a settlement of Europe, the Polish question rose at once to the surface. In 1814 one of the first subjects discussed by the Allies was Poland. Russia was then desirous of making a Russian provice of Poland; but Lord Castlereagh not only recognized the justice of the claims of the Poles, but was also fully alive to the importance of making Poland a strong barrier to Russia. This Conservative statesman, writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Vansittart, from Vienna, on the 11th of November, 1814, said—

"If His Imperial Majesty (of Russia) shall change his tone, and make a reasonable arrangement of frontier on the site of Poland; if he shall allow the other European arrangements to be equitably settled, including those of Holland, and alter his tariff besides, then I must come upon you for my pound of flesh (meaning the Russo-Dutch loan, that is, England taking on herself part of a debt due by Russia to certain Dutch merchants represented by Messrs. Hope and Co., of Amsterdam). The engagement with Holland shall be no obstacle to this, as I had rather give the Prince of Orange something more to defend and fortify the Low Countries than assist the credit of a Calmuck Prince to overturn Europe."

Again, in Lord Castlereagh's circular note inserted in the Protocol of the Vienna Congress, dated 21st of February, 1815, we find the same policy announced—

"In the course of these discussions the undersigned has many times been obliged, in the name of his Court, to oppose with energy the re-establishment of a Polish Kingdom in union with Russia, and as making a part of that Empire. The wish constantly manifested by his Government was to see in Poland an Independent State, more or less considerable in extent, over which should reign a distinct dynasty, and which should form an intermediary Power between the three great Monarchies."

Talleyrand energetically supported Lord Castlereagh's policy. But of all the friends of Poland at the Congress Austria was the foremost. Austria insisted on the re-establishment of the Independent Kingdom of Poland. For the very reason that Austria desired the political and national existence of Poland Russia desired its destruction. One of the most sagacious of Russian diplomatists, Pozzo di Borgo, in a despatch to the Emperor Alexander, dated October 20th, 1814, thus expounds the Muscovite scheme—

"The destruction of the political existence of Poland forms the entire modern history of Russia. The system of aggrandizement on the side of Turkey has been merely territorial—I might say secondary—compared with that which has been carried out on the western frontier. The conquest of Poland has been made principally for the sake of multiplying the relations of Russia with the other nations of Europe, and to open to her a vaster field and a more noble stage for the exercise of her power and her talents, and for the satisfaction of her pride, her passions, and her interests. From this design, crowned as it has been by the most complete success, habits have resulted which it is impossible to efface by a mere proclamation, without injuring the empire in its most essential and most delicate element, that of unity of Government.

"If there existed between Russia and the rest of Europe a civilized mass of nine millions, constituting one nation, the reciprocal influence and communication of Russia and Europe would insensibly diminish. The Russians, restrained within their ancient frontier, or merely passing it as travellers, would become almost unknown to the other nations. To withdraw Poland from under the Imperial sceptre would be to compel the Russians to receive everything at second hand.

The hindrance which this separation would be to the development of their moral faculties, to their education, to their participation in enlightenment, arts, and liberal ideas, is incalculable. It was for the purpose of plunging Russia for ever in barbarism, and of rendering it an exclusively Asiatic power, that Napoleon imagined the restoration of Poland, as it was for the purpose of gaining for Russia a distinguished place amongst the most civilized nations of Europe that your Majesty's predecessors desired conquests which must necessarily lead to contact with them."

The escape of Napoleon from Elba led to a new disposition of the Great Powers in respect of Poland. The Due de Richelieu, on the part of France, did not maintain the same ground as that taken by Talleyrand. England also yielded. Austria alone still held firmly to the cause of Poland; and, when she was forced to give way, she did so under a grave protest, which is, to this day, a record of the wisdom of her statesmen, as well as a solemn assertion of Polish nationality. Sir, it was under such circumstances that the Treaties of Vienna and the subsequent charters were signed. These instruments imposed conditions upon the great Powers, and reciprocal conditions of allegiance upon the Poles. Be it remembered, however, that the latter were not willing parties to these engagements. But, putting that aside, whether the Poles were parties to the conditions of 1815, or whether they were not, I am bound distinctly to declare that, in my opinion, it was not the Poles who violated the conditions. What were the conditions under which Russia obtained her share of Poland? The Treaty of Vienna stipulated that the civil rights of Poland should be maintained, that the nationality of Poland should be preserved, that the commercial system of Poland should be continued, that the Diet should be summoned every two years, and a Budget laid before them every four years, that no Russian official should hold office in the administration of Poland, and that the rights of the Catholic and the United Greek Church should be preserved. It was alleged by Russia that these conditions were broken by the Poles when they rose in insurrection in 1831. This is totally false. The Treaty of Vienna was the title-deed by which Russia held Poland, and I defy any friend of Russia to maintain that the trusts of that deed had been broken by the Poles. No, they were broken by Russia. The Poles rose in insurrection to defend their rights from the flagrant breaches of the treaty committed by Russia. The statement of the Poles to that effect has never been openly denied by any Minister in this House. We are, however, in almost total ignorance of what the conduct of England has been in regard to the events of 1831 and 1832. Many hon. Members have asked over and over again for copies of the despatches which passed between the Courts of St. James's and St. Petersburg, but no one has succeeded in getting them. I hope the Foreign Secretary will not now refuse to produce them. Russia then incorporated Poland, and the Emperor addressed the Poles in a speech at Warsaw, telling them that he did so as King of Poland no longer, but as Czar of Russia. Austria at that time was friendly to the Poles, and even during the insurrection assured them of her support if the other great Powers would join her. In 1831, the Envoy of the Polish National Government, whilst engaged in conferences with Prince Metternich, received from the Emperor Francis, through his Minister of Interior, Count Kolovratz, the following confidential message:—

"The Emperor feels that the time is drawing near when he shall have to appear before the great Judge; the possession of Gallicia weighs on his consciences as crime; and he would be ready to restore that province to Poland, provided it were not annexed to Russia."

The French Government, at the suggestion of Austria, not only took up the case of Poland, as Austria had done, but addressed a despatch on the subject to the British Government. I hope this despatch will now be published by the noble Lord. M. Louis Blanc, in his Ten Years, gave the reply of the then Foreign Secretary of England (Lord Palmerston) to Prince Talleyrand. In this despatch his Lordship stated that the object of the note presented to him by the French Ambassador was "to induce the British Government to interfere in concert with France in the affairs of Poland, for the purpose of stopping the effusion of blood, and of procuring for the country a political and national existence." This course, the noble Lord said, His Majesty refused to take on account of "the frank and amicable relations existing between the Courts of St. Petersburg and of St. James's," being also of opinion that the time had not arrived for adopting the proposals then made "against the will of a Sovereign whose rights are incontestable." I hope for the credit of this country that this despatch is not genuine. What! Talk of the rights of the Czar over Poland as being incontestable, those rights resting upon a treaty every important part of which had been violated in the face of Europe! I call on the Secretary of State to publish this despatch. If it be a forgery, let the noble Lord tell us that it is a forgery; he has the honour of the English Foreign Office in his keeping, and it is now in his power to dispose one way or another of this great scandal. The proposal of France must have been to establish Poland as an independent and a self-existing Power, but the noble Lord's despatch, if correctly set forth by M. Louis Blanc, appeared only to recognize and to advocate the Treaty of Vienna, for it declared "that His Majesty will insist upon the maintenance of the political existence of Poland as established in 1815, and of here national institutions." But even this wretched compromise was not carried out by England. So far with regard to the years 1831–2. The Poles were on the high road to independence. Austria and France were preparing to assist them. The Belgian Catholics, at the instigation of M. de Merode, voted eighteen articles in Congress in favour of the Poles. The distant governments of Turkey and of Sweden preferred aid to the Poles. The sympathy of Europe was on their side. Russia, for a moment, stood alone, and seemed about to give way; when suddenly the influence of England is manifested; the rights of the Czar are called incontestable, and a hypocritical appeal is made to the hollow and useless Protocol of 1815. Thus Poland, through English diplomatic treachery, is lost. Since that time the Polish question has undergone some phases. The religious persecution prevailing in Poland since then has not escaped the attention of Europe. The Count de Montalembert, with a voice that rang throughout the civilized world, denounced the tyranny and intolerance of Russia. The French press still re-echoes his eloquent appeal. Even the press of England seems now to be sensible of the truth. In a recent number of Fraser's Monthly Magazine I find the following passage, and I quote it the more readily because it appears in a magazine of strongly marked Protestant principles:—

"The feeling of antipathy against the Russian invader is fostered also by the difference in religion. The great mass of Poles are Roman Catholic; a great number of whom are of the sect known as 'United Greeks,' especially in the Lithuanian provinces; these, being in communion with Rome, and acknowledging the Pope as their spiritual chief, from a powerful sect, between which and the orthodox Greek Church—the Church of the State—there is an antipathy great in proportion to the slight difference of their creeds.

"The Roman Catholics have been aggrieved by suspension for years in the nomination of Bishops, but the United Greeks are positively oppressed by violent efforts to make them conform to the national Church.

"Scenes have occurred since the accession of the present Emperor, and with his personal approbation in which peasants have been flogged and imprisoned for refusing to communicate in the 'orthodox communion.'"

Within the last few weeks, the Chief Rabbi and the Jewish consistory at Warsaw, addressed a circular to their co-religionists, in which they thus refer to their oppression—

"Thirty years have elapsed since 1831, during which more than 100 enactments respecting the Jews have been published by the Government, not one of which contained any alleviations of our sufferings, but rather tended to increase our oppression. Of all who profess our religion throughout Europe, we are the only ones who groan under the barbarism of the Middle Ages. The number of Jewish taxes are innumerable, and our means of gaining a livelihood are more and more limited daily.

In 1841, the Russian Government issued ukases still further pressing on Poland. But the event of the greatest interest to the country since 1831 was the Crimean war. Now, I am informed by the highest authority, by an authority the value of whose testimony every European diplomatist would recognize, that the Austrian Government told us at that time that they were prepared, and were most anxious, to re-establish Poland, and actually asked the allies for a contingent of 100,000 men for the purpose. France approved of the Austrian proposals; but what did England do? Who can answer that question? It is said—and the numerous petitions I had the honour of laying on the table to-night furnish us with some evidence of the fact—that the people of this country are deeply interested in the fate of Poland. Now, it is well known that negotiations on this subject took place during the late war, but these negotiations have been studiously concealed from the people and from Parliament. As far as official papers, blue books, or despatches are concerned, we are totally destitute of information as to the language held by the English Government at the time of the Crimean war with regard to Poland. But some time ago Mr. Nassau, senior, made known a report of some remarkable conversations, one of which took place in May, 1854, with General Sharnofski, who said—

"I have reason to believe that Austria is thinking seriously of reconstructing Poland. Ever since she joined with Russia in the partition of Poland she has felt Russia pressing more and more heavily on her. I have lately seen a letter from Bourqueney to a friend of mine in Paris, in which he says that the Cabinet of Vienna proposed to join England and France, on condition of their lending themselves to restore Poland."

It is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will to-night give us some information with reference to this subject. The intimate alliance existing between England and Russia before the Crimean war might to some extent account for the treacherous conduct of England. In 1850 the Marquess of Lansdowne said—

"The most intimate communications with respect to everything that occurs affecting the Powers of the North, and more particularly affecting them at this moment, are constantly taking place between the Russian and the English Governments—we availing ourselves of the suggestions of Russia, and Russia expressing her confidence and reliance in our views, and advising other Powers to follow the course and adopt the sentiments suggested by us."—Hansard, 17th June, 1850.

The present Foreign Secretary made similar remarks. He said—

"There is no week passes that my noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) is not in communication with Russia with respect to points of policy on most important subjects, on which the two Powers are fully agreed."

And when he (Lord John Russell) held the seals of the Foreign Office in 1853, he availed himself of his brief tenure of power to insult the cause of Poland and violate historic truth by thus writing in a despatch to St. Petersburg, on the 9th February—

"Upon the whole, then, Her Majesty's Government is persuaded that no course of policy can be adopted more wise, more disinterested, more beneficent to Europe, than that which His Imperial Majesty has so long followed, and which will render his name more illustrious than that of the most famous sovereigns who have sought immortality by unprovoked conquest and ephemeral glory."

I say that the present Secretary of State, who professes to be such a champion of liberty, insulted the cause of Poland and ignored the most striking events in modern history when he addressed such language to the Court of St. Petersburg. Lost, indeed, and doubly degraded would be the cause of Poland, if the noble Lord was justified in describing the Imperial policy, which had been "so long followed," as "wise, disinterested, and beneficent to Europe." No, the old and consistently continued policy of Russia is the very reverse of all this. But, puffed up and lauded by the Secretary of State, and steadily supported by the noble Viscount, that policy has flourished. No, wonder, under such circumstances, when the Crimean war gave England such an opportunity that England neglected it. Thus, again, through the action of the same Minister the occasion is lost, and Poland once more sacrificed to Russia. But it has been said, by the school of "economists and calculators," is it an English question at all? Does it touch our pockets, does it affect British finance? Has it anything to do with our Estimates? Now, in one sense, all this is a very narrow ground to take; but I am not indifference to its importance, and would respectfully ask the attention of this economic school to the increase of the military expenditure of the Powers of Europe, and more particularly of England, consequent on the destruction of Poland. Even in the half and half condition in which Poland was left by Lord Castlereagh and the Treaty of Vienna she was intended to be a barrier to Russia. The truth of what the first Napoleon said was remembered, that if Russia destroyed Poland England would lose India. The action of Poland in the West would check Russian encroachments in the East. That was the opinion of Lord Castlereagh and all the statesmen of his day. Succeeding events justified that opinion, for, form the time Poland was destroyed an extraordinary increase took place in the military armaments of Europe and England. The Committees that from 1818 to 1828 inquired into the expenditure in their Reports laid down the principle that, as a rule, the expenses of the military armament of England should not exceed £5,000,000 a year; and up to the period when Poland was incorporated into Russia a reduction of the military Estimates took place year by year. After that incorporation, the Estimates, military and naval, began to increase, not merely in England, but on the continent of Europe also. An increase in one country led to an increase in others. The lesson that has been taught by this rivalry of the European Powers is one this House ought to take to heart; any they could trace it to the effect of the incorporation of Poland with Russia, and the removal of the great Western barrier to that Power. Again, how has that measure affected the commerce of England? A few years after the incorporation, in September, 1842, The Times thus wrote—

"One of the fundamental conditions on which the kingdom of Poland was constituted and handed over to Russia was the freedom of commercial intercourse by land and by water throughout all the provinces which had formed a part of that unfortunate State before the first partition. Cartel treaties, commercial prohibitions, frontiers hermetically sealed against the ingress of merchandise and the egress of men, and all the machinery by which jealous States protect what they call their interests, formed no part of the system of government which was promised to the several portions of Poland. But in defiance of stipulations Russia has now advanced the strict cordon of her prohibitive system to the furthest western limits of the Emperor's dominions."

English goods were once admitted into Poland with a duty of 5 per cent; now they are, in many cases, practically prohibited. What has been the loss to the commerce of England by the prohibitory laws of Russia in Poland? I have calculated it at £1,000,000 per annum. But this calculation does not take into account what what would have been the effect of the free trade policy England adopted fifteen years ago. Poland was one of the great corn growing countries of Europe; and our free trade policy would have enabled us to extend out Polish commerce; so that, taking all things into consideration, our annual loss at present is much more that £1,000,000. But this is not all. Russia prohibited the export of corn from Poland so strictly that the production has diminished. In many places it is no longer grown, because it is not allowed to be sent out of the country. Russia did this to develop the resources of other portions of her corn growing dominions. These facts, I hope, may interest the "economists and calculators." But this is, in truth, a far greater question than the preservation of British commerce. The interest of England goes beyond the preservation of commerce. She has had several opportunities of supporting Austria and France in procuring the independence of Poland; but England has purposely evaded those opportunities, and we now behold the state of Poland. I do not wish to encourage revolution. Nor do I regard this as a revolutionary question in the slightest degree; it is eminently Conservative. If the preservation of the faith of public treaties be Conservative so is the question of Poland; if the preservation of the ancient traditions of a kingdom, and, above all, if the preservation of right against despotic force and truth as opposed to fraudulent diplomacy, be Conservative, then I say the principles involved in this question are Conservative principles. Lord Castlereagh and Prince Metternich were not revolutionists: they laboured to restore the Polish kingdom. Austria is not a revolutionary power, and Austria, but for English intervention, would have gone to war to secure the nationality of Poland. One the other hand Russia is at the head of that revolutionary movement which, bewildering Europe, gives power to Russian intrigues; and, in oppressing Poland, Russia is mainly aided by the leaders of English liberalism. I have said that England has been to blame throughout the whole of this business. When Lord Clarendon touched the Polish question he did it damage. Lord Aberdeen and other British statesmen of his day injured it. The present Secretary of State has contributed his share to the armoury of Russian arguments. But the Minister who has from the beginning to this hour done the most against Poland is the present Premier. It may surprise some hon. Members to be told that when other great Powers were anxious to assist Poland, the noble Lord, on behalf of England, stepped in and prevented them. Had I myself heard such a statement some time ago, and had I heard it unsupported by the facts I have submitted to the House, I should probably have been surprised also. But this Session I have been many things which must lessen the confidence of the country in the noble Lord. I have observed him rise in his place and lose his temper when accused by one of his own supporters of falsifying Sir Alexander Burnes's despatches. I have watched influential Members of the Liberal party recording their votes against the noble Lord when that grave charge was denied but not disproved. I have heard another supporter of the Government, when he brought forward the case of the Baron de Bode, taunted by the noble Lord with bringing forward a case involving fraud, and I have then seen, on that issue, the Minister defeated by a majority of this House, and the charge of fraud flung back upon the noble Lord. And, not the least disgraceful, I have seen the House counted out by the Government when charges equally serious were made against the noble Viscount by the noble Lord near me (Lord Robert Montagu). Proofs of the Prime Minister's policy in regard to the Polish question are thickening; I ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to supply the links that are still required. I particularly ask him to give the correspondence between France and England in 1831 and 1832; and any between France, England, and Austria relating to Poland at the time of the Crimean war. I also wish to ask whether a circular letter addressed to the Cabinets of Europe, in April last, by Prince Gortschakoff, is authentic? I do not ask the noble Lord to produce the papers relating to that circular; I know the answer would be the stereotyped one, that they refer to still pending events in Warsaw, and that it would be inconvenient to give them. I only ask, therefore, whether the circular is authentic? Having said so much of the past history of the question, I now ask the House whether the recent events in Poland and the present attitude of the people, even if there were no other interest at stake, do not justify some consideration of the subject? But, above all, if England, as I have shown, was a party to the oppression of Poland—if England did not avail herself of the opportunities there had been for giving Poland its independence, do not these facts justify the House in showing that country some consideration now? Sir, in this story of English connivance at Polish oppression there is an instructing moral. I commend it to the consideration of what is called the Liberal party. Hon. Members who have comprehended the guilty action of England may fairly ask what pretension have British statesmen to style themselves the champions of freedom? If the noble Lords opposite (Lord Polmerston and Lord John Russell) have done so much to maintain Russia against Poland, and, in doing this have deluded Europe, and mystified their country with all the specious cant of Liberalism; surely their foreign policy to-day should not be exempt from scrutiny; and, when they call the loyal peasants of South Italy "brigands," and when they publicly approve of the barbarous conduct of Cialdini and Rivelli, we may be pardoned for remembering that the English statesmen who now support Piedmontese oppression in Italy, are the same English statesmen who supported Russian tyranny in Poland. Probably, on another occasion, some Member of greater influence and position than I have the honour to hold, will make a more important Motion on this subject. If, however, no one else will be prepared to do so, I shall certainly not shrink from taking that course. At present, with the double object of endeavouring to obtain information and of calling attention to a subject so disgraceful to British diplomacy in the past, and so full of European interests in the future, I content myself with moving that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to direct that certain Correspondence which took place in the years 1831 and 1832 with reference to Poland, be laid on the table of the House.

I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend opposite. I need hardly say that there was much in his speech with which I by no means agree; but in the substantial part of it—namely, as to the importance of from time to time directing the attention of this House to the condition of Poland, I entirely concur. No one feels more than I do the impolicy of interfering captiously with the administration of foreign countries, even if it be wrong; but if treaty rights are to be respected we have certain responsibilities with reference to the condition of Poland which we cannot altogether set aside, and certain duties to perform which we cannot altogether neglect. That the independence of Poland formed a substantial part of the Treaties of Vienna, and that if those treaties are to be appealed to at all that independence must be respected, are facts upon which it is not necessary to expatiate; but at this moment I think it would be well if the great Powers of Europe who rest so much upon the Treaties of Vienna would remember that if this question of the independence of Poland is to remain unsolved, and if such an outrage as the destruction of the Republic of Cracow is to continue unremedied, it is impossible for those Powers with an unfaltering voice to ask France or any other Power to respect those treaties. If we are, as it is said, upon the eve of great changes; if French ambition, not, perhaps, so much that of the Emperor as of the nation, is likely to lead that country to endeavour to recover its natural frontiers, I cannot see how England could be called upon to assist those Powers in protecting what they consider their legitimate rights, unless they each do what they can to remedy the infractions of the treaties which have taken place. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that the conduct of England towards Poland has been such as he has described. The question of the nationality of Poland has always excited deep and permanent interest in the minds of the people of this country—a singularly permanent interest, considering how little intercourse there has been between the two countries, and how little material interest we have in the fortunes of Poland. There was, however, about the disruption of Poland in the last century a cold-blooded immorality which shocked the conscience of Europe, and the feeling of which, despite the great events which have since occurred, the shock of the French Revolution, the wars of the Empire, and other important and stirring movements, remains now as strong, and, perhaps, stronger, than it was when that act of spoliation was committed. The interest which is taken in the affairs of Poland is entirely disproportioned either to the political importance of that country or to the political contingencies which might occur upon its disruption, because it rests upon a deeper basis than anything connected with political circumstances. The events which have lately occurred at Warsaw have greatly shocked the people of England, because we thought we had reason to believe that the Government of Russia under the new Sovereign would do nothing to shock the opinions of the nations of Europe. We saw the Emperor of Russia engaged in one of the most noble, and at the same time, one of the most difficult operations that have ever been undertaken by a Sovereign—determining, almost in the face of a hostile aristocracy, to liberate his people from serfdom. I only wish that that Sovereign could be made sensible of the feeling of deep disappointment which spread over this country when we saw that while with one hand he was labouring in this great and glorious work, with the other he was striking cruel blows of physical force upon the unarmed and defenceless population of Poland. All that we can do is to implore the Sovereign and rulers of Russia to remember that the great social questions which they are agitating do in a certain degree require for their settlement the moral confidence and the moral assent of the people of Europe. Russia is no longer separated as she used to be from the rest of Europe. Every day by railways and other means she is brought into closer physical contact with other European nations, and it will be impossible for her to maintain much longer the sort of almost Chinese exclusion which at one time se- parated her from the rest of the world. The Russian Government, enlightened and well informed as it is, cannot fail to perceive that the one question which is now agitating the public mind of Europe is that of the orderly direction of the national spirit of peoples. They must see what an effect the feeling of nationality produced in Italy, and what results it is slowly working out in Germany. In the face of that feeling of nationality, rising even in places where it was supposed to be extinguished or overlaid by other intellectual processes or moral feelings, can the Russian Government suppose that any good is to be done with Poland, which has maintained that feeling unbroken and unshatered through such a series of years, except by in some degree recognizing and regulating it? If there is one country which owes more than another to national feeling it is Russia. When the events of our time become the history of the world, the defence of Sebastopol by the Russian nation and the Russian army against the combined forces of three great Powers will be recorded as one of the most glorious instances of national feeling and national sacrifice which have ever been witnessed. Let not, therefore, the Russian Government, which owes so much to that feeling, believe that it can, with the approbation and assent of Europe, continue to keep down and utterly destroy the national feeling of Poland. There is no reason why these nationalities should be antagonistic or repulsive, or why one should lead to the destruction of the other. On the contrary, if they are to be properly recognized, and duly regulated, they may be advantageously united and prove a source of strength where now there is only weakness.

I cannot say that I am at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have brought forward the question of Poland. It is a country which, after all its vicissitudes, has preserved its national spirit, which must cause every one to respect it. At the same time, by some unhappy fate, it seems impossible—almost impossible—that she should be able to unite her scattered provinces under one Government, and with a national Government, of their own. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to various points in the history of Poland. It seems, as I have said, that there has been always something which has prevented the recognition of an established Government—of the independence of Poland. One might have thought that the first Napoleon who disturbed so many countries, who gave away provinces and crowns, that be might have thought it an object of ambition worthy of his great power and extended fame to restore the national existence of Poland. We know well that his opinion was that although he might raise a legion of Poles yet that as Russia, Austria, and Prussia were all possessors of Polish provinces, it was beyond even his power to hope to establish permanently an independent Government of Poland. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the period of the Congress of Vienna. I must say I think that everything that could be effected by British diplomacy was done by Lord Castlereagh at the time. It is evident that Lord Castlereagh wished, when Europe was to be reconstructed, that Poland should rise from her ashes, and should again posses an independent Government. We may observe in the correspondence of the time, that when the Emperor Alexander I. expressed a wish that there should be a kingdom of Poland, and that he should be the possessor of it, Lord Castlereagh always said he desired the independence of Poland, but that he could not conceive that that independence was consistent with Poland being placed under the dominion of so powerful a Sovereign as the Emperor of Russia. Whatever Lord Castlereagh, with the assistance of France and Austria might have done, was completely thwarted and set aside by the event of the landing of Napoleon from Elba. From that time all the Powers of the Continent began again that work which they thought they had carried to a completion the year before. Their whole attention and their most mighty efforts were devoted to checking the ambition of Napoleon, and to confining within due limits the power of France. At that time, therefore, the independence of Poland was not thought of, and I must say that although there was a wish, as was shown by the Articles of the Treaty of Vienna, that the Polish people should have certain liberties, and certain privileges, that wish has been very imperfectly accomplished by the terms of the treaty which was agreed to. It was agreed that Poland should be united to Russia by a constitution—that she should have national institutions and national representation, but it was said in a subsequent part of the article that those national institutions and that national representation should be given by Russia, by Austria, and by Prussia in the manner which those Governments should think most suitable to their own institutions. That, of course, left a very wide scope for interpretation, but beyond that there was a feeling which acted from that time, and which is acting at the present time, namely, that while the Emperor Alexander I. wished to retain his power over Poland, at the same time he wished to grant to Poland large privileges and to make it, at all events, a flourishing province under the name of the Kingdom of Poland, but the general feeling at St. Petersburg, the seat of power, was that Poland ought not to be indulged with privileges more large and more liberal than were granted to Russia. The consequence of those opposite feelings was that to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. The hon. Gentleman has said that the Treaty of Vienna was violated. I do not wish to enter upon that question. We are certain of this, that dissensions between the Government of Russia and the people of Poland broke out into insurrection and civil war, and a conflict was for some time carried on. At the termination of that contest the Emperor of Russia set about, not to utterly incorporate Poland with Russia so as to abolish the name of Poland, but he did deprive the Poles of the privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed. He deprived them of a national representation —of anything like representative institutions, and of a national army, which had hitherto been their greatest pride. Russian institutions were imposed upon them, and many grievous wrongs were suffered by them. During the administration of Earl Grey my noble Friend, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, addressed several despatches to the Russian Government. The hon. Gentleman asks for those despatches. The time is distant—they were written thirty years ago—and I do not think there can be any public injury arise from giving those despatches. The House will then see that my noble Friend contended that the Treaty of Vienna was still to be carried out in its true spirit; that by its spirit Poland ought to have a separate constitution, and the House will see how it has arrived that the Government of Russia has put forward a species of right of conquest, and assumed the right of abolishing all the privileges of Poland under the treaty. The hon. Gentleman, alluding to a subsequent period, has said—and I think he gave more than one reason for his allegation—that England had de- clined the task of reconstructing Poland, and that, therefore, she was guilty of contributing to the evils which Poland has suffered. I do not think that charge is justified by anything that has occurred. The hon. Gentleman will see that to the partition of Poland Great Britain was a stranger, and my belief is that if, at the time of the Crimean war, it had been proposed to restore Poland with all her former provinces, both Austria and Prussia would, in all probability, have joined Russia to prevent the accomplishment of such a plan. Now, as to this question, I must say I hope the House will consider what is becoming the dignity of this nation, and what is the duty of the British Minister who is to represent it. There are Powers with whom you may hold most friendly communication, even with respect to their own internal arrangements, but with regard to Russia, as I have said on former occasions, I cannot believe that any representation we could make upon the subject of the Russian government in Poland would be met in any other way than by a declaration that the government was conducted in the best manner, and that the advice of England respecting it was quite out of place. If that be the case would it become us to make useless representations? Is there any one who will say that we ought to interfere further—that we ought either by ourselves, or by endeavouring to form alliances with other Powers to break with Russia—to make war, in fact, with Russia with the view and hope of establishing the independence of Poland? I will not go into general principles, nor will I enter upon a consideration of the evils that would be caused to the world at large by a principle of constant interference; but I will only say that I think, with regard to Russia, that it would lead to a disastrous war, and, in the present situation of Poland, I do not believe that her independence can be achieved by such means. And, therefore, whatever may be our sympathies for Poland, I believe her interest points to tranquillity, and to petitions and requests for a more liberal form of Government, and for institutions similar to those which were granted at Vienna, and not to any hardened insurrection against the power of Russia. I believe, moreover, that the confidence of Poland would be entirely misplaced if she expected that any of the Powers of Europe would join her in such an attempt. Still, looking to a distant period, one cannot but think that for a people endowed with so much courage and with so much intellect, and which has so long kept alive the holy flame of national existence, a time is reserved when she may recover her ancient glory, and take her place again among the nations of Europe. I do not, however, say that this is that time, or that anything the British Government can do would hasten its arrival. A matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) has alluded gives us encouragement with regard to this subject. Within a very few years we have seen great changes in several of the nations of Europe in the direction of representative Constitutions, of greater freedom of person, greater freedom of the press, and greater encouragement of those powers which bad Governments take away, and which good Governments take away, and which good Governments are delighted to see their subjects enjoy. Russia has made a step in that direction. The Emperor of Russia, with great boldness, as well as with great liberality, has declared that within a period of two years the institution of serfdom shall be completely abolished. One cannot but think that modifications will be consequent on this great organic change; and that if, as seems to be case, constitutional and representative Governments are to prevail in France, in Italy, and in Germany, in Russia also the germs of representative Government will at length take root, and finally grow up into a healthy plant. One cannot but think that in Russia also these advantages of free communication of thought, and of guarantees for personal liberty will be acquired by the improved and enlightened condition of her nobles, and by the popular spirit which will grow up when nobles and by the popular spirit which will grow up when noble and serfs will no longer be placed in antagonism. Whenever a change of that kind takes place in Russia the feeling will no longer prevail which is now entertained by nearly every Russian—a feeling of jealously towards Poland, and a desire that she should not have privileges and liberties which are totally denied to the empire to which he belongs. But while I look forward hopefully to the future history of Poland, I am convinced that any hasty, premature intervention on the part of this country would be neither justifiable nor wise. I cannot say that I wish to maintain any relations with Russia but those of a friendly nature, and, from the extended relations of commerce between the two countries, I believe it is for the interest of both that they should remain on amicable terms. It is not, as I conceive, either for our own interests, or for the interests of Poland, that we should continually be making representations to Russia with regard to her mode of government. I offer no opinion with regard to the institutions that have been lately given to Poland; but they are institutions which seem to me to derive all their authority, and to depend for the spirit in which they are to be administered upon the will of the Emperor, as they are all to depend for their existence upon his pleasure. Still, it is impossible that district and provincial councils and municipal bodies can continue to act and be elected without effecting improvements in the condition of the people; and, indeed, the most patriotic Poles have of late years turned their attention to national objects under the guise—I will not say under the disguise, because I believe their efforts in that direction are genuine—but under the guise of agricultural improvement. The amendments which must thus be accomplished in the condition of the people by the promotion of knowledge and of education will all tend to the progress of the nation, and, therefore, while I do not think any active co-operation on our part would be wise, I believe Poland, so far from being destined to political extinction, will, by a gradual and peaceful course of enlightenment, at length resume her place among the nations of Europe.

said, the speech to which the House had just listened was the most hopeful sign for Poland which he remembered in the course of a long Parliamentary experience. The statement of the noble Lord would give hope to the Polish nation without exciting them to forcible attempts to obtain their rights. He was most anxious that nothing should be said in that House which would give rise to the expectation that England was likely to interfere by force of arms for the restoration to the Polish nation of their rights; but it was at the same time of great importance that they should state calmly and dispassionately their opinion that those rights had been violated, and that the events which had recently occurred were the consequence of that violation. He was confident, that although no active measures were pressed upon the Government, that there was in this country a feeling of the deepest sympathy with the Poles, and admiration for their conduct as shown in the late events at Warsaw, when, instead of flying to arms, the population tranquilly ex- posed themselves to be shot down, desiring no more glorious fate than to suffer for the independence of their country, and, by their martyrdom, to attract the sympathy of the nations of Europe. The Poles had, indeed, shown themselves worthy of institutions which they did not at present possess, but which in course of time they might possibly obtain. The noble Lord had given a sufficient reason why the Russian Government should be unwilling to confer liberal institutions upon Poland, when he said that it would produce jealousy on the part of Russian people, who did not possess the same advantages. But the Poles were not without friends in Western Europe, and whenever the time came when free institutions could be secured for them without involving us in war, he believed that the British nation would come forward most willingly and most anxiously to obtain for them such institutions. And if there was a strong manifestation of public opinion in this country on behalf of the Polish nation, he believed that the manifestation in France was no less strong, and that the Emperor Napoleon would be ready to go hand in hand in hand with our Government in any steps that might be taken to obtain for them more freedom and more liberal institutions.

said, he could not join the hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) in his exuberant eulogy of the noble Lord's speech, which he must say abounded in the feeblest platitudes that could be uttered on a great question. From that speech one moral was to be gathered—namely, that if a great Power were guilty of any enormity or atrocity its conduct would not provoke a protest from this country. Despatches were freely written respecting the late King of Naples, respecting Greece, Turkey, Brazil, Spain, and Portugal; but when a great Power was concerned a remarkable reticence was observed, which induced people out of doors to think that our Government was prepared to interfere in the wrong cause and at the wrong time, and very reluctant to do it for the right cause and at the right time. He thought it became the dignity of England, upon the occurrence of an event like that which had recently taken place in Poland, to put on record a deliberate protest against such acts as disgraced our common nature. He, therefore, hoped to hear a stronger expression of feeling from the Ministerial bench than had fallen from the lips of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary.

said, that while concurring in all the generous sentiments which that debate had elicited, he wished that those who gave utterance to them on behalf of a distant country would not refuse to practice them nearer home. He trusted the Poles would not be induced, in consequence of that discussion, to place themselves in collision with the great Powers which now ruled over them, because if they did so they would find that they would receive no support from England beyond a few spirited speeches. It was true, as the noble Lord said, that the Czar was acting nobly in liberating many millions of serfs, but that act of enfranchisement extended to Russians, not to Poles. In this country we had a most liberal Government, which did everything liberal for England, but which did not assist in removing the oppressions under which the sister island laboured. Ireland was an exact parallel to Poland, with this only difference, that it was a very much worse case. When he had been requested to advocate the cause of Poland in that House, he had asked those who made the request to come down there and see the reception he would meet with in attempting to bring forward the wrongs of Ireland, and they would find that the grievances of any country in the world would awaken a better response than those of Ireland. When 250 destitute human beings were turned out upon a bleak mountain side, and their characters blasted, an inquiry into their case was denied. If hon. Genmen were sincere in the generous sentiments they enunciated on behalf of foreign nations, they would surely place a country which was under their own rule upon an equality with the rest of the kingdom.

As the despatches now moved for are those which I myself wrote when at the Foreign Office, I wish merely to take the opportunity of saying that I entirely agree with my noble Friend in respect to their production. I then entertained the opinion which the British Government of that time entertained and expressed as to the course which the Government of Russia adopted towards Poland; and that opinion, couched in those friendly terms befitting the relations then subsisting between England and Russia, was that the course so taken was a complete and decided violation of the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna. I agree with my noble Friend that it is impossible for anybody who has any admiration for high national qualities, for patriotism, endurance, love of liberty, not to admire the Polish character. And it is equally impossible for anybody who has any sense of wrong not to lament those misfortunes which have befallen the Poles from the time of the first partition of Poland down to the present moment. That partition was a gross violation of national right. The stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna were broken almost as soon as concluded. The British Government, upon every occasion on which it was called on to pronounce an opinion, or on which it thought it could pronounce an opinion usefully, declared that to be its view. And when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. White) says that the English Government interferes in some cases by opinion and advice, and does not interfere in others, I must tell him that the English Government interferes in proportion as it thinks it can do so usefully; that when it thinks its opinion may prevail it expresses it in the form which it believes the most likely to prevail. But when the Government feels that its opinions will not be attended to, and that the result will be that it will either have to submit to a refusal or to ask the country to take up arms —an appeal which the Government knows full well the country would not answer—why, prudence, and even the interest of the parties concerned, would lead it not to exasperate where it is unable to convince. The hon. Member who made this Motion thinks the British Government has neglected several opportunities when it might, in conjunction with other Powers, have restored Poland to independence. Why, the occasions to which he alludes were occasions on which war must have been made; and I ask any hon. Gentleman I am now addressing whether, in the course of his memory, any period ever arose in which he believes this country would have been induced to enter into an European war for the emancipation of Poland, however much we may have sympathized with her wrongs and desired to see her independence re-established? Take the Crimean war. During that war we were engaged in operations which had the security of Turkey for their object, and all the military and naval resources which England and France could command were directed to the Crimea and the Black Sea. Had we sent any of the forces which were engaged in those operations to the Baltic to act on behalf of Poland we might have failed in accomplishing that for which we had undertaken the war, for a most important consideration in naval and military operations is the concentration of your forces to one point. Therefore, it is manifest that it would have been extreme folly to attempt warlike enterprises in two such distant quarters, even if we had the means of doing so. The hon. Gentleman thinks that Austria would have been a willing and powerful ally at that time for the emancipation of Poland. Does the hon. Gentleman remember that Austria, supported and encouraged by Russia, committed the greatest violation of the Treaty of Vienna perpetrated by any of those three countries? I will take the liberty of saying that perhaps the greatest violation of a treaty that has ever taken place in the history of the world was that which occurred in the case of Poland, because here were three Powers who undertook by treaty to support and defend the independence of the republic of Cracow, which had been established under their auspices, and yet those trustees and guardians of that republic combined to destroy that independence, and to incorporate the republic itself with the Empire of Austria. I do not think the case was a hopeful one for our getting the assistance of Austria to achieve the independence of Poland; but, be that as it may, we were engaged in another country, and we had not the means, even if this country had the will, to embark in such an operation. I concur with my noble Friend in thinking that a nation which, under such a long course of oppression, has resisted all attempts to destroy its national spirit must be destined, some day or other, for a better fate; but if the object of the hon. Gentleman was to induce the Government to take more active steps than are involved in the expression of opinion, I would say, in the first place, that I do not think we should be supported in such a proceeding by the people of this country; and, secondly, that the Government are prepared to ask the country to make those sacrifices and engage in those arduous operations by which alone active measures for such a purpose could be brought to a successful issue.

said, his object had merely been to obtain information. He would not presume to give the Government advice, but did he venture to do so, the last advice he should think of giving them was to interfere in the manner they had done in continental affairs.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to Report of the Select Committee on chains and cables of 1860, and moved that in the opinion of this House it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take measures to ensure that all sea-going vessels, especially those employed in the carriage of passengers, should be sufficiently supplied with anchors and chains, properly tested as to strength and workmanship. All the statements he had made in moving the appointment of that Committee had been borne out in evidence. It was proved, in the first place, that the cables supplied to ships belonging to Her Majesty's service were seldom or never found fault with. They were subjected to tests so very effectual that on very few occasions were they discovered to be defective. It was proved by the evidence of manufacturers that the state of matters was so bad that nothing but an authorized compulsory test would be of any use. It was proved that a large portion of the chain cables used in the merchant service were made of inferior material and workmanship. At Liverpool no less than 821/2 per cent of the anchors sent to be tested failed under a test of comparatively limited pressure. At Sunderland, where the insurances offices, or "northern clubs," were more exacting, and where a testing machine had been in operation for a considerable period, the cables were of a better quality. There all the chain cable makers who were examined concurred in the necessity of a test, wishing to protect themselves against the manufacture of inferior articles. So bad were some of the cables that they had been known to break on accidentally falling out of the cart in which they were being conveyed to the harbour. The Report further stated that the iron which in Staffordshire was fit for no other purpose was manufactured into chain-cables, chiefly used for small vessels. The wrecks on the coast of the British Islands, and which amounted to over 1,000 last year, were principally of small vessels. No inquiry took place as to the nature of the cables of those vessels; and, whereas the chain which brought up coals and the men who mined it was tested, and the owner was liable to the punishment of manslaughter if the chain broke; only put the same coals into a brig and wreck the vessel on the Yarmouth Sands, owing to the defect of her ground tackle, and nothing more was heard of the matter. The total loss of life on the coasts of the British Isles amounted to more than a line-of-battle ship's company; and a very considerable portion of the deaths might be attributed to defective cables. It might be said that it was not the duty of the Government to prescribe to merchants the way of rigging their ships. But that was an exceptional case. Government did interfere in various ways where human life was concerned; and he did not think it would be carrying that interference too far if they included the testing of chain-cables in the category of Government interference. The Committee came to the Resolution that good grounds had been laid by the evidence before them of the absolute necessity of public tests, and especially that all vessels employed in the conveyance of emigrants or Government stores should be obliged to furnish themselves with tested cables. There could be little difficulty in carrying out such a test. The Committee were unanimous in their recommendation; and that which the Committee saw in theory, the dock companies interested in the management of such a supervision of cables had investigated practically. One point had thus been brought out, that a ship could now procure a cable which would hold her under any ordinary circumstances of wind and weather of a cheaper description than those which ships were formerly supplied with, the weight of the one cable being much less than the other. His object on the present occasion was not to force on the Government any abstract Resolution, but simply to find out whether it was their intention, with such a mass of evidence before them, to take up and deal with this question. He knew the difficulties which attended the efforts of private Members in endeavouring to pass a Bill on such a subject, or he should have undertaken the task himself. When the matter was of so much importance to the country in every respect, he thought it was the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to take it up and make it a Government measure.

, in seconding the Motion said, that as a Member of the Com- mittee, he cordially concurred with his hon Friend as to the necessity, propriety, and imperative duty of the Government in taking measures to satisfy themselves that all vessels leaving the ports of this country, especially those carrying passengers, were properly supplied with anchors and chains duly tested by proper authorities. It would afford him the highest gratification if the Government would give a satisfactory reply to the Motion.

said, the hon. Baronet had succeeded in eliciting a great deal of valuable information on the subject of the chains and anchors supplied to merchant vessels through means of the Committee for which he had moved last Session, and in calling the attention of the shipowners of this country to the great importance of having cables and chains in use which had been adequately tested, he had done a very good service. He (Mr. Gibson) had read over some of the evidence, and he agreed in the main with the opinion to which the Committee appeared to have come. He would read the main recommendation of the Committee. They stated—

"That although they cannot overrate the advantage of having the chains of every vessel subjected to a test, they are unwilling to recommend that the test should be made compulsory."

Now, in that lay the whole question. If he were a shipowner, he should certainly desire that every chain cable he used should be properly tested, to see what strain it would bear; but if the plan of the hon. Baronet were carried out—if the test were made compulsory—contrary to the recommendation of his own Committee, a very great deal of inconvenience and expense would be occasioned to shipowners, and it would be necessary to have at the various ports throughout the country Government officials to see that the cables and anchors of every ship were properly marked. Then, where was such a supervision to end? There must be some limit. If the Government were to test the anchors and chains, why not also the masts and spars? Where one vessel went to sea with a defective anchor or chain many were provided with defective spars and masts. It would be necessary, therefore, first to inquire what proportion of wrecks were caused by defective anchors and chains, and what by bad masts and spars? He believed that very few wrecks in proportion were caused by imperfect chains and anchors. It was said that the anchors and chains of men-of-war rarely failed. But they were made much heavier than those in the merchant service, and it could not be intended that merchant vessels, with their small crews, should carry these heavy anchors and chains. He should say, however, that, as a rule, merchant vessels were supplied with anchors and chains that were too light. All the service that could be rendered in a matter of the kind the hon. Gentleman (Sir James Elphinstone) had performed by calling public attention to the subject. He doubted the policy of any legislative measure, and thought that the Committee had come to a wise decision when they recommended Parliament not to subject the chains and cables of merchant vessels to any compulsory test. He thought it would be very impolitic to place any such Resolution on their Journals as that it was the duty of the Government—

"To insure that all sea-going vessels, especially those employed in the carriage of passengers, shall be sufficiently supplied with anchors and chains properly tested as to strength and workmanship."

He must, therefore, ask the House not to agree to the Motion.

said, that he wished to bear testimony to the ability and energy with which his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) had brought the matter before the House. When his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) first brought the question before the House, he (Mr. Bentinck) was much impressed with its importance; but the views he then had of its importance fell very far short of those which he was compelled to entertain at the termination of the labours of the Committee of which he was a Member. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had endeavoured to give a trivial aspect to the matter, and he had not grappled with the question in a manner which its importance demanded. He had thrown a sort of suggested slur upon the statement of his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) as to the large proportion of wrecks upon the coast which were caused by the badness of anchors and chains; but he had not endeavoured to show that the statement was not strictly accurate. Under these circumstances they were bound to believe the evidence taken before the Committee, and, if it could be shown that a large loss of life could be averted the Government were bound to take the duty on themselves. As to the extensive system of fraud practised in the manufacture of chains and anchors, the President of the Board of Trade would himself have been startled if he had heard it, and he would not then have treated the subject as one of trifling importance. Eighty-two and a half per cent of the chains which were tested at one of the principal sea ports failed under a very much smaller amount of pressure than it was considered they ought to bear; and, in addition, most of the chains made were not tested at all; because those who made them knew that they would not stand the test. On the coast with which the right hon. Gentleman was best acquainted, hundreds of light colliers had nothing but their anchors and chains to trust to in a gale, and went ashore like a snowdrift if their chains and anchors failed them. The professional evidence was all one way. It established that a great loss of life took place on the coast of England owing to the defects of anchors and chains, particularly the latter, and that there was but one way for the Government to take the matter up—namely, by making the test compulsory. The right hon. Gentleman altogether rested his case on the fact that the Committee did not recommend that the test should be compulsory. He (Mr. Bentinck) had in the Committee opposed this paragraph of the Report, believing that the Committee, in hesitating to recommend the compulsory test, were shrinking from a responsibility that they were bound to undertake. So long as the Government, with the evidence they had before them, refused to deal with the question, he considered that they would be responsible for the casualties and loss of life which occurred form the badness of chains and anchors. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposal would entail inconvenience to the shipowners. "Inconvenience" seemed to be an odd word to use under the circumstances. If it was inconvenient for the shipowners to submit to regulations by which anchors and chains might be tested, it was a much greater inconvenience for men to be drowned and ships to be lost in consequence of the want of good anchors and chains. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to leave the matter of the shipowners, but that was exactly the present state of affairs; and it was because the shipowners were too shortsighted and indifferent that the hon. Member for Portsmouth called on the Government to make up for their want of energy, foresight, and humanity. The House had just been told that merchant vessels, being shorthanded, could not carry the same anchors and chains a men-of-war; but the question was not the weight and proportion of the anchors—it was the defective character of the chains, and the systematic frauds practised by a great number of chainmakers in this country. The honest chainmakers, being damaged to a certain extent by those fraudulent proceedings, desired to have some regulation established by which the work of the honest man might be distinguished from that of the fraudulent dealer. A large amount of life and property was annually sacrificed in consequence of this fraudulent system, and all the evidence went to show that the evil might be averted by the adoption of some plan of compulsory testing; and he had heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman to justify the Government in saying that they considered themselves exonerated from any responsibility in not attempting to deal with the fraudulent practices which led annually to great loss of property and life.

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Norfolk had not dealt quite fairly with the observations of his right hon Friend the President of the Board of Trade; for, instead of saying that the matter was of trivial consequence, his right hon. Friend acknowledged the importance of the subject, and stated that he was glad that the Member for Portsmouth had brought it under the consideration of the House. What his right hon. Friend objected to was that the Government should take on themselves the entire responsibility of testing anchors and cables for the merchant service. If they did so they must test those articles, not only when they were new, but after they had been used for a certain number of years, so that it might be ascertained that they were in good working order. He agreed with his ritght hon. Friend in thinking that if the Government interfered in this sort of way with the trade of the country, they would have the shipowners in a body complaining that their liberty of action was trammelled and controlled by the Government of the day. No one was a better judge of what the shipowners thought of interference of the part of the Government than his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The House would remember that a Merchant Shipping Act was passed some time ago, in which various measures were taken as prope precautions for the preservation of life and goods on board passenger ships. Since then they had never ceased to hear from the shipowners that they had been unduly ineterfering with their private trade, and that the measure was productive of great inconvenience to shipowners and the public. Well, then, if they undertook to test anchors and chains they must do other things. They must see that ships had proper pumps, masts, and sails, for instance. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had said that many ships were lost for want of proper anchors and chains, but he might have gone further and said that many of them were lost through bad pumps, and from the want of good masts and sails. If the Government was to make itself responsible for the ground tackle of ships it must do it for other matters. He was extremely glad the subject had been brought before the House, because he hoped it would induce the insurance offices at Lloyd's not to insure ships which were not properly found. They were the people who were most deeply interested in the matter, and if their attention were called to it by the discussions there much good might ensue.

said, that as a Member of the Committee which had been alluded to, he fully concurred in most of what fell from the hon. Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) in reference to this question. With respect, however, to the testing of chain cables, he was at a loss to understand how the system proposed by his hon. Friend could possibly be applied. From experience in Government yards he was able to say that the test was not merely applied to new cables. Old ones, which had had years of service, had to undergo a series of examinations before they were served out again to other ships. He was at a loss to understand how to secure to merchant ships what the Admiralty did for the Royal Navy. He could not, there fore, support the Motion.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely forgotten the latter part of the recommendations of the Committee, which was, that from 1861 all ships which came under the Passengers' Act should be required to produced certificates that their cables had been properly tested. No one asked the Government to test the cables themselves, but merely to provide that a proper sanction should be placed upon the marks of testing, and that the forging of the marks should be made penal, so that the parties examining the cables might have some sort of guarantee that the cables had been properly tested when they saw those marks upon them. Lloyds at that moment required tests, but the complaint was that the test was fallacious, and the way the Report proposed to deal with the matter was, by making it necessary that the chain should have passed through a certain test yard.

said, that when ships were first built they were supposed to start with good gear of every description, and when they came to Lloyds for their second registration they were put into dock, and it would be no hardship to require a second test on that occasion when they took a different class from what they took at first. With regard to restrictions he was opposed to restrictions of all kinds except in cases that affected life. A book was lately issued which showed tha iesehe last eleven years a total of 6,883 annmat had lost their lives by shipwreek, and what would the country give now to have those men? [Mr. MILNER GIBSON: How much of that loss was owing to bad chains?] Out of a long list of casualties to vessels a vast proportion were set down as "stranded," and if those vessels did not lose their anchors first the commanders must be mad. The argument derived from pumps did not apply, because every ship had got a good pump; and the reason why pumps went wrong was, either because the sand got into them, or they were chocked by the shifting of the ship's cargo.

moved for a return of the number of licences granted by the Board of Inland Revenue in each parish within every city and town, and within the country beyond the limits thereof in England and Wales, for the year ending the 30th of March, 1861, distinguishing the licences under certain heads.

said, he must object to the Return in its present form, as it could not be given without great labour. He called for a Return of the number of each 14 different kings of licence in each parish. There were 15,000 parishes and more than 100,000 licences of one description only. He had another objection—namely, the difficulty of obtaining the required information, for Inland Revenue Office in London did not possess it, but would have to apply to the several local offices throughout the kingdom. He would agree to the Return, if instead of "each parish" it was for each "borough and country only."

said, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice on the subject. He wished to assure the House that he would not have ventured to receive the question if he had not the con. scientious feeling that it was necessary to the peace and tranquility of Ireland that there should be an inquiry into the whole case. It might take place either by a Committee of that House or by a Royal Commission. Upon that point all he could say was that he would willingly allow it to be made in any way which the Government might propose, but he contended that there never was a clearer had evicted the whole of the population on that estate; 47 families, or 350 individuals, had been turned out simultaneously, and their houses levelled to the ground, and that had been done not in the ordinary exercise of the rights of property, but as a punishment for the murder of a steward. In this first communication with the Government on the state of society in Donegal was such that he had been driven to defend his life and property by his own armed retainers. The Lord Lieutenant, in his reply, called Mr. Adair's attention to the serious responsibility that would devolve on him if he took the step he contemplated. In this next letter to the Government, of the 16th February. Mr. Adair distinctly said that the eviction was not intended to benefit his property, but as an act of public vengeance. There was a distinct allegation on the part of Mr. Adair that it was his bounden duty to remove these people as the only means of ensuring safety to himself and family and servants. He drove these people from his estate. That did not rest upon his own assertion, but had been endorsed in that House by one of the respresentatives of the county, while the other hon. Member remained silent. They ought not to rest satisfied without further inquiry, and, indeed, they would not do their duty if they did not grant a Commission to inquire into that state of things in the county of Donegal. He could not conceal from himself that these evictions among the higher classes of society and the owners of land in Ireland, and the House ought to express some sympathy for these poor people who had been so cruelly evicted and driven from their homes. Mr. Adair admitted that his was an act of vengeance in superseding the law of the land; and after what had passed in the House there ought to be further inquiry, and, therefore, he begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

seconded the Motion.

said, he was not aware that when the question was brought before the House on a former occasion the conduct of the Government was in any way impeached, nor did he think it necessary to defend it. The letter written from the Castle, and his own remarks on the subject, evinced, he thought, very plainly the feelings of the Government in regard to the eviction of so many families, a great part of whom could not have been concerned in the outrage which was said to have occasioned the measure. He also felt it his duty to state that the Government would not have been justified in removing Mr. Adair from the commission of the peace on account of their individual opinion on an act which was not think it would be right to seek in Mr. Adair's correspondence for an excuse for such a step. The former Motion was a Motion for inquiry; but, like the Motion then before them, was simply for inquiry, and not with an express view to any definite result. He would ask them if it were in the power of the Government to invite the House to concur in an inquiry when they did not know the result to which it was to lead? That result was not started in the Motion, and he had failed to collect it from the speech of his hon. Friend who had moved it. If its object were to discover the person who had committed the murder to which reference had been made in the discussion, he would reply that there were already persons responsible for the inquiry. There were resident magistrates and police on the spot whose bounden duty, earnest desire, and constant object it was to arrive at the discovery of the crime, and to bring the perpetrators of it to justice. But would they favour the discovery of the crime if they appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into it? Such a Commission was armed with no power to take evidence on oath, or to compel reluctant persons to answer the questions which might be put to them. It appeared to him that by such a Commission they might frustrate the object of justice, as they might give publicity to the tracks evidence by which it was hoped to detect the criminals; but they could not possibly promote the ends of justice. Returns showing the state of the district for the last ten years were ready to be laid on the table, and no Royal Commission could add to the information which would be furnished to the House. The appointment of a Royal Commission might interfere with the efforts of the constituted authorities to detect the perpetrators of the murder, but could not lead to any practical or useful results. He could not, therefore, advise the House to do otherwise then adhere to the opinion which upon the occasion of the former Motion they had expressed.

said, he regretted the determination of the right hon. Gentleman, particularly after he had condemned, in as strong language as an official could make use of, the conduct of Mr. Adair in regard to those evictions. It was a fact to be noticed in the case that the rent of the parties evicted had been paid up to the moment of their removal. It was a question, then, whether the laws for the protection of property had not been perverted to the purposes of vengeance; and he thought it would be a fitting subject of inquiry to see whether the law could not be so altered as to restrain individual landlords from these gross outrages, while preserving the protection which it afforded to the rights of property. He thought that in such cases a landlord should be made to intimate his intention beforehand to one of the superior courts in Dublin, and that such wholesale evictions should be carried out under the sanction and control of the law. Great sympathy had been evoked by the ejection of these poor people. They were the descendants of those who two hundred years ago were driven from the fertile plains of Ulster. They took shelter in these lone mountain recesses, and remained for land tempted speculators, and stories were raised about the crime of the country in order to justify their wholesale eviction. He did not know any case which had excited so much sympathy in Ireland as that referred to, and he thought it as that referred to, and he thought it a very proper one for a Government inquiry.

said, he thought the Government not entitled to remove a gentleman from the commission of the peace who had only exercised the rights of property which the law gave him in Ireland; but deemed it the worst part of the case that Mr. Adair had not transgressed the limits of the law. No doubt that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with a Parliamentary inquiry if any special objection existed to a Royal Commission. The picture drawn by the hon. Member for Donegal the other evening of the state of the county was greatly exaggerated. It had been said that a gentleman had been obliged to fly from Donegal because he was in danger of losing his life. The fact was, the gentleman alluded to became insolvent, and had to remove from the county on that account. There was a strong feeling against Mr. Adair among the gentry of Ireland, and resolutions had been unanimously passed at a full meeting of a board of guardians, at which eleven justices were present, proclaiming their indignation and horror at the conduct of that gentleman. An attempt had been made to justify that conduct on the ground of the outrageous state of the county; but, as that was denied by those who knew the county best, he thought it was incumbent upon the Government to step in and inquire into the truth.

said, he thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not taken into consideration the special circumstances of this case. He never remembered any case where the eviction of so large a number of persons had been justified by such motives. The indignation of Parliament ought to be brought to bear on every man who was guilty of such a barbarous outrage. An attempt had been made the other night to justify the act of Mr. Adair by reference to the proceedings of the late Lord Lorton removed no one from his property except by purchase, and every family received money enough to take it to America. The manner in which the case had been justified, and the atrocity of the case itself, did call for exceptional treatment at the hands of the legislature, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would not continue to oppose a Motion which was supported by nearly every Irish Member on that side of the House.

said, he regretted that his hon. Friend, the Member for Donegal, was not in the House to justify the statement he had made on a former occasion, which was that night called into question. He did not think that the language of his hon. Member for Dungarvan seemed to imagine.

said, he had hoped some English Liberal Member would have stepped forward and uttered a few words of sympathy with the Irish sufferers who were the objects of that discussion. The case had created more sympathy in Ireland than any other that he had ever known. His own wish in the Motion he had himself made was not for a personal inquiry, but an inquiry into the general subject of evictions. He had, however, given way to the advice of hon. Gentleman, and especially to that of the hon. Member (Mr. Butt) himself, who had told him that to take up an individual case was no more frittering the subject away than the impeachment of a single statesman was frittering away the cause of the people of India. He had taken more pains to get up the facts than he had ever done before in his life; and he maintained that the allegations made by Mr. Adair respecting the state of the country in the neighbourhood of Derryveagh were totally untrue, and that Mr. Adair had in his possession the means of ascertaining their utter groundlessness. A very able article had appeared in The Times, which, in his opinion, set forth the necessary of further information. On the other hand, the Conservative organ in this country had alluded to Mr. Adair's assertions as established. The writer of that article commenced by observing "Mr. Scully has had his meed of revenge, and we congratulate him upon it."

intimated that it was contrary to the rules of the House to read articles from newspapers in the course of their discussions.

said, he would express his regret at having infringed upon the rules of the House, and would conclude by saying that he thought, therefore, a clear case was made out for inquiry, and hoped hon. Members on both sides of the House would concur in granting it.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would not press the House to a division, but would agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Youghal had stated, and it was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that society in that part of our common country was in such a state of disorganization that two classes were at war with one another. The landlord stated that for the protection not merely of property but of life, he was obliged to use his rights of property for vengeance. He thought that the House should have information as to what brought society in any part of the United Kingdom into such a state, and he should, therefore, support the Motion.

I am not at all surprised that the transaction which has been the subject of discussion should have excited a great amount of feeling, both in Ireland and in this country. I do not find fault with those who have thought it expedient to discuss it in this House, in order to elicit the opinions and sentiments it entertains upon that transaction. But at the same time I must say, when the House of Commons is called on to address the Queen for Commission of Inquiry into the subject, the question assumes a different character. I think the House should pause and deliberate carefully before it takes any step of that kind. There is no doubt of the powers of the House of Commons; those powers, I may say, are almost unlimited. But great as those powers are, there ought to be a limit to their exercise. It ought to be very careful in the exercise of powers that are not denied, not to overstep that bound, and exercise its powers in a manner not justified by the principles of the constitution. It may very properly inquire into any public transaction, or into the conduct of the Government, or any matter affecting the interests of the nation at large. But it would be a most outrageous and dangerous abuse of the power of the House if it interfered with private transactions of any individuals within the limits of their legal rights. If they have done anything beyond the limits of the law, if, from any motives whatever, they may have exceeded their power, the law itself will correct the evil. But it is not necessary for this House to interfere unless the Government has had a duty to perform, and has neglected to perform it. That might have been urged, had it been shown that the Irish Government ought of have removed Mr. Adair from the commission of the peace. But I am prepared to show, and it has almost been admitted, that this is not the case; the Government, therefore, ought not to be taken to task for not having done it. We are now called on to make an inquiry into the subject. What is to be the consequence of that inquiry? The hon. Member who spoke last says the state of Irland is dreadful—that there is a war raging between different classes. I am not aware that that is the fact; certainly it is not in the county with which I am connected, which is not very remote from Donegal. I am not aware that such a calamity exists as a war of classes. But we are called on to institute an inquiry; it might be a fair reason for inquiry into the social state of Donegal, if it was alleged that the county is in a state of insurrection and lawless violence, that crimes are committed there every hour in the day, and that some effective measures are necessary to repress them. So far a knowledge of the state of Donegal might be the foundation of proceedings to be taken either by the Executive Government or by the House. Well, this material will be furnished to the House immediately by the Return moved by the hon. Member for Donegal of the amount of crime in that county committed during the last ten years. When that Return is made it will be for the House to consider whether it furnishes grounds on which other steps ought to be taken, or whether a Coercion Act ought to be applied to that county. If it should be thought, on the whole, that no inquiry into the state of Donegal is necessary, are we to address the Crown to ascertain who was the guilty party in the murder of Mr. Murray. ["No!"] My hon. Friend says "No," and certainly no sensible man can say "yes;" for, if this House is to address the Crown for a special inquiry into the circumstances of every such murder, that would be assuming the functions of the Executive Government, and imposing on the House duties quite foreign to its attributes. We might much sooner address the Crown to investigate the Road murder, that excited so much interest in the public mind, or any of the strange murders that are from time to time committed. The object of inquiry, therefore, not being the state of Donegal or the murder of Mr. Murray, the only question that remains is the exercise by Mr. Adair of his unquestionable right to eject his tenants; but that is not a fit subject for an inquiry by this House. If any one alleges that he has exceeded his legal power over his tenants, they or their friends have a remedy by process of law. But it is admitted that this exercise of power on the part of Mr. Adair was within his legal attributes and functions. If the House is to inquire into the conduct of individuals in exercising the rights the law gives them merely because it considers and, perhaps, justly considers them in the wrong, and not justified by the circumstances of the case, then I say we may assume to be the case, then I say we may assume to be the censors of the private conduct of every private individual in the country, and our authority would be carried to the extent of abuse. The House of Commons, I trust, will never be induced to take the first steps in such a proceeding. I do not mean to justify Mr. Adair. I have a great abhorrence of the system of clearing estates, that has been practised extensively in parts of Ireland, though not so much of late years as formerly. But when hon. Gentlemen say that this act of Mr. Adair is more unjustifiable than any similar clearance that ever was enforced, I must dissent from that proposition. When a man, merely from interested motives, and for the purpose of filling his purse, ousts hundreds of unhappy beings who cannot find a refuge anywhere but on the roadside, in the suburbs of a town, or—since the establishment of the Poor Law—in the workhouse, the Act is far worse than that committed by mr. Adair. I am not going to justify him, but he might allege that the interest of society was his object; that the Ribbon conspiracy had spread among his tenants, and the only way to check it was to let its agents see that they could not execute their vengeance without punishing may persons in whom they took an interest. That may have been a wrong view, but it is one that could be urged in justification, and a person who acted with this object stands on fairer ground than the man who acts solely on the sordid motive of self-interest. I say again I am not defending Mr. Adair. A man's mind must, indeed, be very much distorted who can fancy it a real justification for sweeping away a whole population that he thought they ought to give evidence against a murderer, when probably they knew no more about the deed than he did himself. But the House of Commons cannot inquire into the motives from which an individual had exercises rights that none deny. With reference to Mr. Adair, therefore, there is no proper ground for inquiry. But the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. More O'Ferrall) says the House should inquire with a view to legislation. My hon. Friend said that we might inquire with a view to legislation, and recommended the introduction of a measure giving fixity of tenure in Ireland. I may remind him, however, that the facts as they would affect such a measure are all granted, and that, therefore, on that account no inquiry in needed. I hope that the House will not be led by feelings which are honourable in themselves into what would be an entire departure from the proper functions of Parliament, and might lead to abuses so intolerable that the whole country would rise in indignation against the proceedings of this House.

said, that he had been misrepresented unintentionally by the noble Lord. He had not said one word about fixity of tenure or permanent tenure. What he had said was that an inquiry might be instituted as to whether the law had not been misapplied for pur- poses of vengeance, and, if so, whether such an alteration could not be made as would prevent landlords from applying the law to such purpose?

in reply said, he must deny that the conduct of Mr. Adair was a private transaction. Upwards of 200 policemen, who were supported by the country, were brought to the aid of Mr. Adair for the purpose of ejecting his poor tenants. Was that not a public transaction? The people of Ireland would be justified in inferring from the tone of the Government speeches that there was no sympathy for them in that House, and he would warn the Government that that opposition to the wishes of every one of their Irish supporters, could not, in the nature of things, continue much longer, and that they would soon lose all Irish support.

said, he would move that the Select Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.

said, he should be glad to know to what the committee referred.

said, that hon. Members would be glad to have some explanation of the scope and objects of the inquiry pursued by the Cadastral Survey Committee, and why it should be anxious, in the terms of the notice, "to adjourn from place to place."

said, the Committe was appointed to consider whether a part of Great Britain which had been surveyed on the 1-inch scale should be re-surveyed on the 25-inch scale. Sir Henry James had invented a number of improvements for reducing the cost of maps on a large scale, and the Committee sought power to proceed to Southampton for the purpose of witnessing experiments in connection with those inventions.