said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Af- fairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Government of Portugal with regard to the Claims of various British Subjects who invested their money, by request of the Minister of Public Works of that Country, in an undertaking called the Union Mercantile Company, the stock of which is guaranteed by Royal Decree, and by Acts of the Legislature; if so, what has been the result of those representations, and whether there would be any objection to lay any Papers upon the table connected with those Claims?

said, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had made representations to the Government of Portugal with regard to those claims. It appeared that certain British subjects had invested a considerable sum of money in the Union Mercantile Marine Company, on the understanding that the money and the interest upon it were guaranteed by the Portuguese Government. It appeared that neither the money nor the interest had been paid, and Her Majesty's Government had urged on the Portuguese Government to bring those claims to a settlement. He sincerely trusted, for the credit of the Government of Portugal, that some arrangement might be come to whereby those British subjects would get paid whatever they might be entitled to. He had no objection to produce the Papers.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Government has received a Report of an outrage committed on the Mill of Mr. John Crawford, at Newtongore; and whether he has any objection to state the reasons assigned by the Stipendiary Magistrate for not granting to the Miller a licence to keep arms for the protection of himself and his property?

in reply, said, he had received a report of the outrage referred to, but the Stipendiary Magistrate of the district had expressed an opinion that it was not desirable to give the person in question a licence to carry arms.

said, he wished to know whether any reason has been assigned for refusing Mr. Crawford a licence to carry arms?

stated that no reason had been given for the recommendation of the Magistrate.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What friendly Power he means to propose as Arbitrator to decide on the compensation Captain Melville White is entitled to for the treatment he received from Government Officials in Peru?

said, he though this hon. and gallant Friend must have beer, misled by Captain Melville White's statement. He (Mr. Layard) could satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman, by the production of letters, that what he had stated was true. As regarded the matter of arbitration, a correspondence was still going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Peru. Nothing, however, had as yet been decided upon.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can inform the House for what sum the building of the International Exhibition of 1862 could be purchased, with a view to convert a portion of it into a Museum, or a Gallery for Works of Art, or some institution for the encouragement of those objects to which the late Prince Consort devoted his efforts, and to bear his name r

Sir. I am not able to give my hon. Friend a positive and final answer to his Question. In point of fact, those who are properly interested in the building of 1862 are the Commissioners of 1851; and those Commissioners have not yet had an opportunity of arriving at a definite conclusion on the subject. At the same time, their Finance Committee, who advise them in these matters, have had that opportunity; and on Thursday the Commissioners will themselves meet to decide the question. There have been communications with certain parties on behalf of the contractors; and I hope that on the day the House re-assembles I shall be able to make a statement, or lay on the table some document that will convey to the House in a distinct manner the views of Her Majesty's Government in reference to this matter. Of course, I need hardly say, that should the building be acquired, it will be applied to purposes such as those stated generally in the Question of my hon. Friend.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he is aware that fresh cases of small-pox are brought into the workhouse of St. George's, Hanover Square Parish, and other workhouses in London; and whether some arrangement could not be made to prevent fresh cases of small-pox being brought into the populous part of London?

said, that he had not heard of any fresh, cases of small-pox being admitted into St. George's Workhouse, or, indeed, into any of the other metropolitan workhouses; but, on the contrary, he had heard generally that the disease was on the decline throughout the workhouses in London. Some weeks since the Privy Council issued a Circular to all the Metropolitan Unions, urging them to adopt precautionary measures with the view to the extension of accommodation. Since then they had received twenty-five answers from the Unions, stating that the accommodation provided for small-pox patients was fully adequate to the occasion, and more than was required for the purposes of the patients already admitted. It might be satisfactory to his hon. and gallant Friend, as well as the House generally, to hear that a report would be made in a few days from the Union of St. George's, Hanover Square, stating that the Governors and Directors of the poor there, with the assistance of the medical officers, had appropriated a wing of the Workhouse to the reception of small-pox patients. The said wing was capable of accommodating forty persons. The greatest number that had been at any time admitted was thirty. The total number of patients admitted since the outbreak was fifty-eight. There were now only fifteen patients in the house, and the larger number of them were convalescent. Disinfectants, great cleanliness, and other means were being rigidly adopted, with the view to the prevention of the spread of the disease.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether an Archdeaconry in Jamaica, lately falling vacant, with a salary of £800 a year, has been filled up, the charge remaining as before on the British Treasury?

in reply, said, the question of the right hon. Gentleman was probably suggested by observing in a Return lately laid on the table a blank opposite the name of the Archdeacon of Middlesex, which seemed to indicate that the office was vacant. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a note at the bottom of the page, he would see an explanation of this blank. There had been no vacancy, the acting Bishop of Jamaica was likewise Archdeacon of Middlesex, in Jamaica. That functionary received only one portion of the salary attached to such office, the other portion being applied to certain ecclesiastical purposes. The ecclesiastical salaries in the West Indies were not dependent, as the right hon. Gentleman was doubtless aware, upon a Vote of that House, but on an Act of Parliament which made them a charge upon the Consolidated Fund.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to surrender into the Exchequer the balance of £526,104 remaining unissued from the Vote of Credit for the China War?

said in reply, that the time had not yet come when it would be desirable to make a surrender of that balance. It was not a cash balance, but a balance of credit, and it could not be surrendered at present because of certain claims which had not then been closed. He thought it better that no surrender should be made until they were able to announce the conclusion of all the questions in reference to the expenditure connected with the China War.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many Licences have been issued under the Royal Sign Manual granting permission to British Officers to enter the service of the Emperor of China, and to fit out and equip Vessels for the Chinese Government, in consequence of the request made by the Under Secretary of State to Mr. Clive, in his letter dated the 30th July 1862?

replied, that there had been two applications, and that licences were prepared; but no licences had been issued after the date of the letter referred to. Those for whom the licences were made out did not avail themselves of them, and an Order in Council was afterwards issued declaring the licences to be unnecessary.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in a Report of the removal of Mr. Magee, late British Vice Consul at Mobile; whether any conduct inconsistent with neutrality has been alleged against him; and whether his removal has been demanded or suggested by the American Government?

said, the facts of the case were these. The House was probably aware, that when the blockade of certain ports was established by the Government of the United States, full liberty was given to English vessels of war to pass through the blockade and to communicate with those ports, but it was on the distinct understanding that they should only be employed on official Government business, and that they should not engage in any private or commercial transactions. Mr. Magee was not the British Vice Consul at Mobile; but from the year 1861 he had been acting as Consul, in the absence of the Consul from his post. On the 12th of November Mr. Magee, it appears, communicated to Mr. Coppel his intention to send away a large amount of specie, but he made no mention of the fact to Lord Lyons. After more than a month Lord Lyons, when he came to hear of it, telegraphed to Mr. Magee to stop the transaction, but, as Mr. Magee alleged, the telegram was received on the same day that he had shipped the specie, but after he had done it. However, for twelve days afterwards, during which Mr. Magee was in communication with Lord Lyons, writing despatches to him, he made no mention of the fact of the English vessel of war the Vesuvius having come in, and of his having shipped a large sum of money on board of her. As soon as the transaction was brought to the no- tice of Her Majesty's Government, they at once dismissed Mr. Magee from his post. They felt that his conduct was not becoming the agent of a neutral State, and was in violation of the pledge given to the Government of the United States; and that the fact of his not having made any mention of the subject to Lord Lyons, and not having waited till he received some communication from Lord Lyons, rendered him so open to grave censure that there was no course open to them but to remove him from his post. At that time no demand and no representations had been made by the American Government on the subject, but he hoped the House would feel that Her Majesty's Government had done no more than their duty in at once marking their sense of Mr. Magee's conduct.

said, he wished to know whether money which had been placed on board one of Her Majesty's ships was not the interest due to British subjects on the Alabama State bonds, and whether it was not placed on board Her Majesty's ship because it was the only means of conveyance. He wished also to know, whether other Consular Agents had not taken the same course without being visited with a similar censure?

said, he was unaware to what uses the money was destined. Some said it was to pay the interest on those bonds, others that it was intended to purchase privateers in Europe. It was quite evident that the United States Government having admitted our vessels into their blockaded ports on the strict understanding that they should engage in none but official business, it was a point of honour that that understanding should be adhered to. He did not know what other Consuls might have done, but he felt certain that in this case the Government had taken the right course.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Lord Hobart's Report would be speedily presented to Parliament?

said, in reply, that there had been such an amount of printing in the Foreign Office that it had been found impossible to get this document out sooner. It was now printed, however, and would be laid on the table immediately.

said, he rose to ask a question of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which he had given him private notice, with reference to the conduct of the Prussian Government in Poland. It appeared to him not only was the Prussian Government carrying out the convention against Poland, but was even pressing its terms with undue and illegal severity. The simplest manner in which he could put the case to the noble Lord would be to read an extract from the letter of two French officers who had been eyewitnesses of the manner in which the Prussian Government were acting—

"As to the manner in which Prussia is acting in concert with Russia, one tact that we relate as eye-witnesses shall be sufficient. During the battle of Nowawies, a Russian detachment, pursued by the Poles, and having no ammunition left, was obliged to retreat on Prussian territory. The Prussian authorities not only quartered them upon the inhabitants, but, having given a banquet in their honour, conducted them back to the frontier after two days, with all their arms and baggage; and, what is more incredible still, this same detachment, having fled for want of ammunition, was found to be, after its visit to Prussia, well provided with powder and balls. The Prussian frontier bristling with cannon, their military stations at about 500 metres distance one from another, and the military occupation of all the villages in the vicinity of Poland give sufficient evidence of the convention being executed."

He should like to know from the noble Lord, Whether the supply of arms and ammunition by the Polish authorities to the Russian troops was not a breach of international law, and whether the permission given to these troops to return with their arms and ammunition was not a breach of the convention? The point, however, to which he wished to direct the noble Lord's particular attention was the supply of arms and ammunition, He would also ask the noble Lord's attention to a letter from the Prussian General Lewald, stationed on the frontier, to the Russian General Masclow, commanding the troops at some short distance —

"I have the honour of informing your Excellency that a Russian detachment, commanded by Major Nelidow, having no exact news about the enemy's strength, was obliged to cross the Prussian frontier; the Russian detachment mustered two companies of infantry and 100 horsemen. These troops went over near to a village called Voycina. Major Nelidow has been forced to take this step after an engagement with a superior force of insurgents, in which the latter lost 200 men. After the Russian troops had passed the frontier the insurgents went on towards Konin, where they were again attacked by Russian troops, formerly commanded by Prince Wittgenstein. I beg your Excellency to inform me betimes of every military expedition on the Prussian frontier, that I may give the necessary orders according to circumstances. I inform you, besides, that in all beneath-mentioned places there are garrisons of special Prussian detachments, infantry and cavalry. [Here follows a list of the localities.] The officers (Prussian) commanding those detachments are obliged to receive your Excellency's orders, that they may afterwards forward them to me."

The meaning of that was that the Prussians were really acting in concert with the Russians, supplying them with ammunition, receiving orders from them, and giving them information. In fact, Prussia was just as much at war with Poland as Russia was. That, he asserted, was a breach of international law, and he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had recently addressed any communication to the Government of Prussia on the subject. He was anxious at that time to forbear from raising anything like a discussion on Poland; indeed, it was with reluctance that he spoke about Poland at all, for he believed the time was come for something more practical to be done for Poland than mere speeches. He felt that if Prince Gortschakoff's despatch was to receive only the answer which the Secretary of State was said to have given it in another place, this country would get out of the unfortunate and disgraceful condition in which it now was with regard to the question in a manner which was neither consonant with the feelings of the people nor the honour of England. The noble Lord had recently had an opportunity of discovering for himself that the people were ahead of the Government in this matter, and it would be better for his Government if he would look to see what their feelings were and act upon it.

Sir, the hon. Gentleman has asked me a Question involving a point of international law. As far as I am informed, it is the duty of a neutral conterminous to a belligerent territory not to allow the armed forces of one of the belligerents to make use of the neutral territory for the purpose of more advantageously attacking its opponents. I am sorry to say that in 1832 the Prussian Government did not act up to that duty; and the result of the war in 1832 was very much brought about by Prussia allowing a Russian corps to traverse Prussian territory, and get in the rear of the Polish army with which it was contending. Another duty is this:—When a belligerent force is driven by its opponents to take refuge in neutral territory, that force should be disarmed as soon as it crosses the frontier. But I am not at all aware that the neutral has any right to confiscate the arms and baggage of the belligerent force. On the contrary, I believe, that having re-conducted that belligerent detachment disarmed to its own frontier, it should restore to them their arms and baggage when they re-enter the territory of their own Sovereign. Therefore, I apprehend that Prussia has committed no violation of international right or neutral duty if she restored to the Russian detachment their arms and baggage when they crossed back to Russian territory. With regard to furnishing ammunition, we must always recollect the doctrine laid down by the United States of America during the war with Russia, that neutrals have the right to furnish warlike stores to either or both belligerents. Therefore, I apprehend there has been no violation of neutral obligations by Prussia with respect to furnishing ammunition. With respect to lining the Prussian frontier with artillery and troops, it is not unnatural, that when an insurrection prevails in a neighbouring country, any Government should take precautions to prevent that insurrection spreading into its own dominions; and as Prussia possesses by treaty the Duchy of Posen, and there is an insurrection in Poland, I do not apprehend that any Government has a right to complain that the Prussian Government have taken precautions, by strengthening its military position on the frontier, to prevent the spreading of that insurrection in Prussian territory.

said, the declaration which the noble Lord had just made was an exceedingly important one. The House came by degrees to the noble Lord's declarations, and the enlightenment which they from time to time afforded on points of international law, prerogatives of the Crown, and subjects of that kind. These things came to the House bit by bit. The noble Lord had made the stereotyped declaration, that when troops of a conterminous country came into neutral territory they were bound to be disarmed; but he added that which divested the doctrine of all practical value, because he said, that having gone through the form of being disarmed when their arms were no longer useful against their enemy, they were to be allowed to return at the time they selected, and to be put in possession of all the means of offence which they had brought with them; and were, in addition, to be supplied with ammunition by the neutral Government. If this was the slate of the law of nations, the whole convention between Prussia and Russia was in practical operation. Prussia was particeps criminis with Russia, and was ready to support Russia in anything which she might do with regard to Poland. The subject was full of difficulties; but it appeared to him that the noble Lord was strong in his declarations to deputations from working men, and not so strong when called upon to act.

I may be allowed to explain my former answer, which was rather short. I stated that it was the duty of a neutral Government to disarm a belligerent detachment driven into its territory. I ought to have added that it is a duty with regard to its own subjects to prevent a foreign force marching in arms through the country, and not a duty with regard to the belligerents.

There is another part of the answer of the noble Viscount which appears to me to be so extraordinary as to require some explanation. The noble Lord has either misunderstood the question asked by the hon. Member for the King's County, or he has laid down a principle of international law for which I undertake to say there is no foundation, or precedent, or authority whatever. The hon. Member for the King's County adverted to the fact that the Prussian Government had supplied ammunition to the Russian force that had taken refuge in Prussian territory. The noble Lord replies, that it was the doctrine of the United States Government, which has since been adopted and enforced by ourselves, that it is not a breach of the position of neutrality for the subjects of a neutral Government to provide the belligerents with ammunition. Now, I wish to understand from the noble Lord whether he lays down as a principle of international law that it is not a breach of neutrality on the part of a neutral Government to supply ammunition to a belligerent force.

My doc- trine is confined to the subjects of a neutral Power. I am not prepared to say offhand whether the same privilege would apply to a neutral Government. But I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to be positive as to the information which he gave, and I myself do not know anything about the matter.

I am quite positive, having received a letter in which it is stated that ammunition was supplied to the Russian troops by the Prussian Government.

said, that the noble Lord had not told the House whether on the Polish forces passing the frontier of Prussia their arms were restored to them, as in the case of Russian troops passing that frontier. He wished the noble Lord had stated what would be the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in case the conduct of Prussia should involve that country war—whether they would or would not stand by Prussia in a contest provoked by her unpardonable conduct in that war. They had it from the highest authority that it had been the policy of the Russian Government to provoke insurrection in Poland in order to destroy the most intelligent, the most warlike, and the best portion of the Poles. Such conduct was unparalleled in the world's history; and he hoped the noble Lord would take every opportunity of expressing the horror, indignation, and perfect contempt with which Her Majesty's Government viewed it.

said, he desired to call attention to the manner in which the foreign relations of the country had been treated in that House; and as the Government were about to take a short holiday, he hoped they would take into consideration some mode of improving the mode in which the discussions on foreign affairs had been conducted in that House. During the greater part of the Session all the important discussions on foreign affairs had been transferred to the other branch of the Legislature. In the middle of the previous month the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord H. Lennox) asked a Question relative to the negotiations respecting the Crown of Greece; and the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) replied that he could give him no information on the subject. The noble Lord thereupon said he would repeat the Question, when the hon. Member said that would be useless, because he would not then be able to give a more satisfactory answer. Within forty eight hours afterwards the question was brought under discussion in another place, when the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office spoke for an hour on the subject, entering fully into a discussion of the question. It was true that the noble Viscount had stated that the noble Earl did not disclose much on the occasion, but he (Mr. Peacocke) believed that Earl Russell had not yet acquired the art of speaking for an hour and saying nothing. On a subsequent occasion, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) brought before the House the question of their relations with America—a question in which the entire country felt deep interest—and his observations were followed up by remarks from the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck). In reply, the noble Viscount said he could give no information on the subject; and the hon. Member for Southwark said "ditto" to the noble Lord. At that very time a discussion was going on in another place, where the noble Earl entered most fully into the subject, and gave assurances which, if made in the House of Commons, would have gone far to allay the irritation which had been felt by so many Members of that House. On Friday week, again, a most important question was to have been presented to the House by the hon. Member for Galway relative to the carriage of the mails to Matamoras; but it was not brought forward, in consequence of no House having been made. Very few persons could have arrived at any other conclusion than that it was the deliberate intention of the Government to withhold information and to avoid discussion. It was only last Friday, again, that the attention of the House was called to the question of China in an able speech from the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell). On that occasion did the hon. Member for Southwark enlighten the House on the subject? No; he deliberately sat still. The hon. Member for Southwark said he was labouring under a misapprehension on that occasion; but with his experience in the House he could hardly have been otherwise than aware that he could address the House more than once. He did not wish to make any charge against the hon. Member, because he would probably reply that he acted according to orders and instructions. But there was the fact that the Foreign Secretary sat in the other branch of the Legislature, while that Department was represented in the Commons by an Under Secretary. In fact, no less than four of the most important Departments of State were represented in that House by Under Secretaries. These were the great Department of War, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Foreign Relations, and the Department of the Colonial Empire. The Home Office and the Indian Empire were the only Departments represented in that House by their heads. He asked, were the Commons to be allowed to discuss only questions of the sewage of towns, the salaries of police, the affairs of India, and the navigation of the Godavery? It became every Member of the House to be jealous of the character and privileges of the House, and to prevent that Assembly, which had hitherto been considered the first representative Assembly in the world, from being degraded to the situation of a debating club, with no more power than a parish vestry.

said, he thought that so far from there being any danger of the House of Commons being deprived of the power of discussion on foreign questions, there seemed to be a disposition in some of its Members to assume the whole of the functions of the Foreign Office. Whether the House was thoroughly able to discharge the multifarious duties of that office he would not then stop to inquire; but it appeared to him, as it seemed to have appeared to the last speaker, that if the House were to assume those functions, they ought to come to the discussions after due notice. But he rose for the purpose of asking a question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the three Powers who held Poland under the Treaties of 1815 were bound to observe the conditions of those treaties?

said, that he was fully aware that he stood in need of great indulgence on the part of hon. Members, and that he did not discharge his duties with all the ability he would desire; but he trusted that hon. Members would do him the justice to say that he always endeavoured to do so to the utmost of his power. He thought that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the question very much—no doubt quite unintention- ally—misrepresented what had occurred. There were two direct charges made against him (Mr. Layard). First, that he refused to give information regarding the acceptance of the crown of Greece, though the information was, in forty-eight hours afterwards, given in another place. Next, that he refused to give information respecting the Matamoras mails, though such information was also given in the other House. On both those questions he could satisfy the House that the hon. Gentleman was wrong. To the question regarding the crown of Greece, he thought it was his duty to give no answer. The hon. Gentleman said that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department did give an answer in another place to that question; but the noble Lord did nothing of the kind. The noble Lord made a speech on the subject, but he positively declined to give the information asked from him (Mr. Layard) in that House. With respect to Matamoras, neither the noble Lord at the head of the Government nor himself had any information on the subject when he (Mr. Layard) spoke in reply to the question regarding the mails, because the mails arrived after he left the Foreign Office. The noble Lord was therefore in possession of the information an hour earlier than he was, and was consequently able to communicate it to the other House. He (Mr. Layard) might add, in reference to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway, that he was certainly no party to counting out the House. So far from being a party to counting out the House, he rather regretted that he had not an opportunity of replying to the charges which he believed the hon. Member for Galway was about to make against the Government. On a previous Friday the House had declined to let the Government proceed with the Government business; and it was not extraordinary when the business was to be confined to the proceedings of private Members that the members of the Government should not hurry down to make a House. He (Mr. Layard) admitted that he was in error, in the course he adopted, with regard to the questions respecting China on Friday evening. He acted under a wrong impression, because he thought he could not have spoken more than once. The hon. Member said that foreign affairs were not discussed in that House, but there were no less than four Foreign Office questions on the paper on Friday night. It was natural for him, after the speech of his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Liddell), to want to hear what other hon. Members had to say on the same subject, and respecting the other question on the paper; and so little did his hon. Friend know of the rule of the House, that when the Speaker put the Question, he cried "Aye," and thought he should get the papers, and was surprised when the Speaker left the chair. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman charged him (Mr. Layard) with ignorance of the rule of the House, he could plead that his hon. Friend was ignorant of it also. His hon. Friend himself took a course which was some what unprecedented. He had for some time had upon the paper a notice ending with a statement that he would move a Resolution. On the day before, he asked his hon. Friend to let him see what he was going to propose, and his hon. Friend sent a note, which he did not receive until the following morning, containing a list of the papers for which he intended to move. These were, with one exception, papers belonging to the Admiralty, and with respect to which, therefore, his noble Friend the Secretary of that Department should have answered; but his noble Friend was not aware that such papers were to be moved for, and had left the House. He himself did not know what the papers were until the list was read from the chair, He was under a misapprehension as to the rules of the House, and was waiting to hear other Members before he spoke. It might be said that he could have replied to his hon. Friend, and that the noble Lord at the head of the Government could have answered the other hon. Gentleman. There were, however, other questions upon the paper, including that of Poland, and he thought that it would be rattier hard that the noble Lord should be called upon to make four or five elaborate speeches, He spoke with great humility, but he must express his gratitude to the noble Lord for so kindly supporting him in that House. He was glad when he could relieve him from any part of the arduous duties which he had to discharge; and on the evening in question he thought that it was fair that there should be a division of labour, and that he should take the China question. It was from no want of respect to the House that he remained silent; and if the debate had continued, he should have spoken.

said, that whatever might be the arrangement of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the distribution of offices in that House and in another place, they were not likely to want an opportunity of discussing the affairs of other countries. It appeared to him, with all due deference to the distinguished Members who brought forward those various subjects so repeatedly, that those discussions were often of an unfortunate character, and not particularly conducive to the credit of that House. They heard a great deal of what was called non-intervention. Non-intervention was proclaimed right and left in that House as the becoming policy of the Government, and yet what was the practice of the House? Why, week after week hon. Gentlemen put forward their opinions with regard to other countries, urging the Government to a course of conduct which, if followed, would inevitably involve the country in war. Now, he would like to ask those hon. Members who were so enthusiastic about the affairs of Poland and other countries, whether they were in earnest in the language they held, and whether, if the Government acted upon their suggestions, they would be prepared to support the Government in the war which would be the inevitable result of the policy they recommended? His hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) said that the House ought to be extremely jealous of its rights and privileges. Now, it was not his (Mr. Bentinck's) province to defend the Government, but he would say that whatever their misconduct had been, with reference to the mode of dealing with that House, it arose entirely from the want of determination which that House, had shown for some time past to defend its own rights and privileges. The House two years ago surrendered what was considered by many of the oldest Members of the House one of the most important rights and privileges of independent Members, and the inevitable consequence was that the Government could easily take advantage of that circumstance to avoid a discussion on inconvenient questions. Before he sat down, he wished to ask what business would be taken on the day the House re-assembled, on Thursday the 28th?

said, he quite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend as to the danger of departing from a policy of non-intervention, but certainly the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland, which was intended to prevent the Government from taking the part of the Tartar dynasty in China and involving this country in boundless complications in that distant land, could have no such tendency. Nor with reference to the debate upon the case of the Peterhoff was his hon. Friend entitled to warn the House of danger to the principle of non-intervention, because it was his hon. Friend himself who brought that subject forward. The truth was that there was a good deal of fallacy in all the talk about intervention and non-intervention. Some interventions were right and some were wrong. He entirely approved the course which his hon. Friend took with reference to the Peterhoff, and believed his hon. Friend was right in the doctrines he then laid down. But his hon. Friend had no right to censure the hon. Member for the King's County for having taken a similar course with respect to transactions in another part of the world. With reference to the subject under discussion, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had quite mistaken his hon. Friend in supposing that any insinuation or sneer at his mode of discharging his duties was intended. They all respected the powers which the hon. Gentleman had displayed, and no one had any desire to cast any imputation upon him. It was not to the powers of the hon. Gentleman, it was to the situation which he occupied which they objected. They knew, that when he was defending a foreign policy in that House, he held a brief merely, and had to defend that in the framing of which he had no share. It was necessary, for the convenience of the two Houses of Parliament, that a certain number of Under Secretaries should sit in that House, and a certain number of heads of Departments in the other. The complaint was not of any want of ability on the part of the Under Secretaries who represented four of the most important Departments of the Government in that House; the complaint was that they had no share in framing the policy which they defended, and that therefore they were very inadequate representatives of the Departments which it was the duty of that House to supervise. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not quite accurate as to his facts. With respect to the Peterhoff debate, he thought the memory of the hon. Gentleman was altogether at fault. The noble Lord, on being questioned, did not say that he had no information to give, but that he absolutely declined to enter upon the subject. ["No, no!"] He was in the recollection of the House, and he confidently appealed to the reports to prove that that was the statement. The noble Lord stated, that the question was of so delicate and dangerous a nature that he must decline to give any information; but at that very time Earl Russell, in another place, was giving the amplest and fullest information. With respect to Turkey, he was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it was natural that the Government should not he anxious to keep a House, because there was no Government business on the paper. Was that the mode of conducting business, which they were to accept from the organ of Her Majesty's Government as the authorized system, that unless they had business coming before the House, they would think themselves at perfect liberty to take those measures which resulted in a count-out? A more damaging commentary upon the concessions which the House in a weak moment made to the Government, could not be imagined. With respect to the China debate, also, the Under Secretary had mistaken the facts. He gave the House to understand, that he was obliged to abstain from speaking at that time, in order that he might speak afterwards. [Mr. LAYARD said, that he had acknowledged that he was mistaken.] The hon. Gentleman said, that he was prepared to speak, and that he took notes. He was not wanted to take notes, but to speak, He sat still on the bench, looking exceedingly indignant at, all the charges which were made, but when the Speaker put the Question, he did not interfere, but allowed the debate to fall off. He was sure that the Government would reap no advantage from this, the most discourteous proceeding to a private Member that he could remember. The effect of such a mode of conducting business was only to multiply debates, by forcing hon. Members to have recourse to methods to drive the Government to an explanation of their policy, to which they would not have to resort if the Government would give the ordinary facilities for knowing what their policy was, and take care that the great Departments of the State were directly represented in the House, whose business it was to see that the Departments did their duty.

said, as he had resisted the innovation in the mode of conducting their business when it was proposed two years ago, he was not at all surprised at the disappointment now experienced at the working of the modified rules of the House. He was gratified to find that hon. Members were fully awake to the difficulties of the position, and he was quite prepared to co-operate with any of them in concerting measures to remedy existing inconveniences. At the same time, he felt bound to say that he did not think there had been any intentional discourtesy on the part of Her Majesty's Government last Friday evening, for be could not conceive what possible advantage was to be expected from such a course. It was of great importance to Her Majesty's Government that the Chinese question should be fully debated before the return to China of Captain Sherard Osborne and those acting with him, because a great deal of inconvenience might ensue if a necessity arose for leading the expedition into action before the opinion of Parliament had been clearly ascertained. He believed Her Majesty's Government must have been fully aware of the advantage to the House and the country of such a debate, and certainly his noble Friend at the head of the Government would have been the last person to be guilty of discourtesy towards an hon. Member after an exhibition of ability such as proceeded from his hon. Friend the Member for Northumberland, He trusted, however, that Her Majesty's Government would take care that there should be no repetition of any such unfortunate occurrence.

said, he I thought it was not asking too much of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to request an assurance, that during the remainder of the Session, Friday should be bonâ fide considered a night for Government business, and that Her Majesty's Government should take the same trouble to make and keep a House as they did when the most important Government business was coming on. The hon. Gentleman was in error when he said the House objected to go into Supply on Friday night when it was brought on by Her Majesty's Government; they only objected to do so at half past eleven o'clock at night—an hour when Supply would not naturally be brought on. He felt bound to point out to his hon. Friend, that next to receiving no information at all, receiving wrong information was the most unsatisfactory. The other night he put a question to the noble Lord respecting the acceptance by Prince William of Denmark of the throne of Greece, and the noble Lord made a very vague and indefinite reply. The morning but one afterwards there appeared in that public organ, which was believed to be under the peculiar patronage of the noble Lord—the Morning Post—a long article, stating that every- thing connected with the succession to the throne of Greece had been finally settled. So far from that being the case, however, it now appeared that the deputation from Athens was kept at Copenhagen, and that the Danish Government would not give them any reply before the 1st of June. There were, no doubt, occasions when questions addressed to Her Majesty's Government could not conveniently or advantageously be answered. But when information was freely conveyed to public journals, it was not unmeet that Government, in reply to the inquiries of hon. Members, should give them whatever accurate information they possessed.

said, he thought that the question as to the failure of making a House on the only night during the present Session when this had occurred had already been fully disposed of. His noble Friend had expressed regret that no House was made on that occasion; and had promised that for the future Government would contribute to the formation of a House on Friday evenings. But it was only fair that the House itself should assist in the process, and on the occasion referred to there were not twenty Members present when the House was counted. Government had a right to expect that hon. Members having notices upon the paper would come down, and that their friends interested in the subject-matter of those notices, and prepared to take part in debate upon them, would also cooperate in making a House. With regard to what took place on Friday night, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had candidly explained that he laboured under a misapprehension at the time the Question was put. But because he did not happen to speak at the moment, there was no reason why the debate should not have been continued by other Members. The noble Lord opposite had spoken of the alteration in the practice of the House, as if it was a concession made to the Government. He would remind the House that the Government made no proposal to change the course of business in the House; but a sense of inconvenience existing under the former practice suggested a reference to a Select Committee, and some of the recommendations of that Committee were ultimately adopted, but they in no way proceeded from the Government. If it were found necessary to review the course of business, the proper way would be to refer the subject again to a Committee. Then, objec- tions were taken to the fact of the Foreign Office being represented only by an Under Secretary in the House of Commons. A just tribute had been paid to the ability of his hon. Friend and the manner in which he performed the duties of the office, and he would remind the House that the present position of the Foreign Department was no modern innovation. The Earl of Aberdeen was for many years Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the other House. The Earl of Clarendon also sat in the other House during the time he held the same office, and, under the Earl of Derby's Government, the Earl of Malmesbury was twice Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Under present circumstances, he thought there was no room for complaint as to the constitution of the Foreign Office. That Department was not represented only by his hon. Friend, but by the noble Lord the leader of the House, whose vast experience at the Foreign Office gave him an intimate acquaintance with all questions of foreign policy. It was said that such questions were never treated in the House of Commons with the respect they deserved. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget the debate which had taken place only a little while ago on the state of Italy. He asked whether that had not been a debate worthy of the House and of the subject. He maintained that on all foreign question the fullest information that was desirable was always given by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and that the subjects were treated with becoming gravity. In answer to the Question relating to the course of business on Thursday the 28th of May, he begged to say that the first Order of the Day would be the Report of the Vote taken the previous night with regard to the Dover Contract. Supply would not be taken, but the rest of the evening would be occupied with Bills of which due notice would be given.

said, he wished to say a few words in explanation, as remarks personal to himself had been uttered in the debate. He fully acquitted the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs of anything like discourtesy to him on the occasion referred to; any discourtesy there might have been was to the House and to the country. A discussion, involving points of vital interest, had been raised, and no answer whatever was given to the speech originating that discussion. If the inference were drawn that Government wished to veil in secrecy and silence the irregu- larity of acts committed in China, he should regret it; but the Government would have nobody to blame but themselves. His hon. Friend accused him of not giving notice of the papers he required; but the fact was, that the night previous the hon. Gentleman had asked him for a list, and he then went into the lobby and wrote down all the particulars; but he found, when he had done so, that the Under Secretary had left the House. He then lodged the document in the proper quarter; and if it had not been forwarded, to the hon. Gentleman he was not to blame.

said, he rose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, What are the regulations by which Naval Courts of Inquiry are constituted and their proceedings governed? The officers of the navy were subservient to one of the strictest naval codes in existence, but till very recently they felt that they could rely on the justice with which it was administered. A short time ago, however, much of that confidence was dispelled by a fact which occurred in the West Indies. A captain, having lost the vessel of which he was in command, was tried by court martial, and fully and entirely acquitted. The Admiralty, however, took it upon themselves to censure every officer composing that tribunal, as well as the captain who had been tried; although, according to the naval code of this country, the sentence of a court martial was final. Another case had since occurred which had again tended to shake the confidence of the naval officers. On the 22nd of October last a man-of-war steamer, ordered round from Leith to Sheerness in one of the most severe gales ever known on the coast, grounded upon the Gunfleet Sands. The vessel was at the time in charge of a pilot licensed by the Leith Trinity House. She was in pilot waters of a most dangerous character, in which the most eminent naval officer would not have ventured to take her out of the pilot's hands; and yet the captain was deprived of his command without knowing the why or wherefore; the master lost his command also, while not the slightest notice was taken of the misconduct of the pilot. According to the rules of the service an officer running a ship on shore was bound to report the fact to the admiral, and the Admiralty was re- quired to try him by court martial. But what was done in the case to which he referred? The Admiral instituted an inquiry, having previously ordered the officer out of the room; and when the inquiry was over, they informed him that his services were no longer required. When that officer applied for a court martial, which was his legal right, what was the reply of the Admiralty? Why, that if he could disprove the facts, he was welcome to a court martial. And what was the statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place? Why, that when a ship was going along a well known coast under the guidance of an inexperienced pilot, who could neither read nor write, it was the duty of a captain to see that his vessel did not get aground. Now, he (Captain Jervis) was on the coast at the time of the occurrence, and could testify that the wind was blowing a hurricane, and that nine vessels were lost within half a mile of the place where the Vigilant went ashore. The harbour of Harwich was full of vessels which hail suffered in the gale. It had been stated that the pilot could neither read nor write, but that was not the case, and he had written a letter to disprove the statement. He was, moreover, a Trinity pilot, and had the highest testimonials. The question really was, whether naval officers were to understand that the pilot was no longer responsible for navigating the vessel in shoal waters; and when they committed a fault, they were not to have a chance of a fair trial before their brother officers, but they were to be at the mercy of the Admiralty, who might or might not do them justice. He hoped that the noble Lord by his answer would re assure the naval service, which, as he must know, was anything but satisfied with the result of this case.

said, he had no wish to insist upon an individual grievance, except in illustration of a vicious system. In his opinion these courts of inquiry were contrary to every principle of justice as it was administered in this country. Naval officers had no means of defending themselves under such a system, nor did he believe that any system of the kind would be allowed to prevail in the army, or that a staff officer would be deprived of his command without being heard in his defence. In the merchant service it was illegal for a captain to take a vessel out of the pilot's hands.

The name of the officer concerned has not yet been mentioned, but I know of no reason why it should be concealed. The case is that of an officer with whom I have scarcely any personal acquaintance, but he is one of the most promising young officers in the service—Lord Elphinstone. Now, I wish to speak with the greatest reserve and caution, because I know we are touching delicate ground in interfering in this House with the decision of the Board of Admiralty, acting upon their responsibility in a case of alleged misconduct by an officer. I do not, for a moment, mean to imply that there can have been any intention on the part of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty to treat Lord Elphinstone with unfairness or any undue harshness. But this case raises two questions which seem to me to require serious consideration on the part of the Admiralty, and to demand some clear explanation as to the grounds on which those two points have been decided. The first point is, what is the real position of an officer commanding a man-of-war when, upon coming into shoal waters, he takes on board, as was the case here, a duly qualified pilot? The Vigilant was caught in very heavy weather; she was a difficult ship to steer; and that fact, perhaps, may not have been in the knowledge of the pilot. It appeared that Lord Elphinstone had a competent pilot on board when his ship was run ashore. Supposing that the captain of a ship, under such circumstances, disregards the advice of his pilot, and takes the conduct of the ship into his own hands, and that while under his charge she runs on shore, which is the converse of the case now under consideration, what would be the judgment of the Admiralty on the captain? Would he not be held to have acted with great rashness? The hon. Gentleman opposite has, I believe, stated correctly the rule of the merchant service, that when a ship is in charge of a pilot, the responsibility of the captain ceases. I do not know exactly what the rules of the Admiralty are in cases of ships sailing under such circumstances; but I submit to the House, as a matter of common sense and common justice, that if she runs ashore, the officer ought to be at once acquitted of all offence, or that his offence ought to be regarded as one of a venial character. Such an occurrence ought not to involve a young and promising officer in anything like severe or harsh censure. But whatever may be the responsibility of an officer when he has a pilot on board, before he was deprived of his command he ought not to have had such language addressed to him as that used by Admiral H. Johnstone, who said "I am in receipt of their Lordships' direction to signify to you, and to Mr. Phillips, the master of the Vigilant, that my Lords consider your respective conduct in this matter to have been highly reprehensible and deserving of their Lordships' severe censure." A young officer receiving such a censure must feel that he would labour under a stigma for the rest of his life. But no officer ought to be subjected to such censure unless he has been fairly tried by a properly constituted tribunal. During my short experience at the Admiralty I do not recollect any case coming under my notice which was referred to a court of inquiry. This is a point on which we ought to have some information from my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty. What are those courts of inquiry? How are their proceedings conducted? Are they at liberty to disregard every principle of justice? Have they power to examine witnesses on oath? At all events, have they power to try an officer for an offence of this kind in the absence of the party accused? It appears that this court of inquiry was ordered to assemble on board Her Majesty's ship Formidable, at Sheerness. It consisted of three post-captains—Captains Thomson, Fisher, and Luard. Lord Elphinstone made his statement, and, on the next witness being sent for, the noble and gallant Captain asked whether he was to remain in court. The reply was, "No, you are to retire;" and during the remaining five hours of the inquiry, and while eleven witnesses were successively under examination, he continued in ignorance of the proceedings, and, of course, had no opportunity of cross-examining those witnesses. He did not wish to dwell further on the subject, for it was a painful one; but he hoped his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would state to the House what was expected of the captain of a ship in pilot waters, with a pilot on board, and whether officers were to be subjected to loss of command and severe censure after trial by such a tribunal as this court of inquiry.

said, he thought that the service was much indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had brought the case under the notice of the House. The proceedings of the Admiralty, with reference to the Conqueror and the Vigilant, had given rise to very strong feelings in the naval profession. In the latter case an officer had been tried, condemned, and, he might say, executed by the Admiralty, on the report of a court of inquiry, before which he was not present, which had not examined witnesses on oath, and which had received the evidence of persons whom the accused could not cross-examine. Lord Elphinstone was allowed to read a statement of the proceedings of the court of inquiry. He did so, and made remarks upon them. He then sent to the Admiralty to ask for a court martial. The Admiralty replied that they saw nor cason to alter their censure; but that if, after such a statement of their opinion, he wished for a court martial, he was welcome to it. Would any officer have accepted a court martial after that? Why, such a court would have been trying the Admiralty, and not Lord Elphinstone. If it removed the censure from him, it would have placed one on the Admiralty. He believed it would have come out before a court martial, that when the ship went ashore, Lord Elphinstone showed much courage and ability in getting her off, and that the ship's company believed they owed their lives to him; but the inquiry could not have removed the censure, or given Lord Elphinstone back his ship. It was supposed by some that Lord Elphinstone had put his ship ashore on seeing a light when running before a gale of wind; but the contrary appeared to be the fact. He was creeping up in order to anchor in a place that would be out of the way of other ships. He anchored in a place where a considerable depth of water was marked in the Admiralty charts; but, so far from there being such a depth there, the fact was, that at low water the men walked round the ship. Again, it was said that the accident occurred from the captain attempting to "wear" the ship. No attempt was made to "wear" the ship at all. But the question at present was, not what Lord Elphinstone had done, or how he had got his ship on shore, but what the service was to look for in future. Was an officer to find himself censured and turned out of his command by a court that could not be considered a fairly-constituted tribunal? That was a question which deserved the attentive consideration of the House.

I was in hopes my hon. and gallant Friend would have confined himself to the Question which he had put on the paper, and that this unfortunate stranding of Lord Elphinstone's ship would not have been brought before the House, for I agree with the hon. Gentleman behind that it can do him no manner of good. The accident which happened to the Vigilant was undoubtedly a great misfortune, and I must add it was certainly accompanied with very grievous neglect on the part of Lord Elphinstone. She was coming from Scotland bound into the Thames. The wind was blowing hard from the south-west, and at the time of the accident the vessel was in the channel called the Swin. If there is a channel in the Thames better known than another, it is the Swin. It is admirably buoyed, with lighthouses and floating lights on every sides, and it is laid down in new and admirable Admiralty charts. It is true that the Vigilant was in the charge of a pilot, and undoubtedly the fact of a vessel being in charge of a pilot tends in a certain degree to exonerate her commander if she gets into trouble; but I can assure the House that the captain and the master cannot be absolved on that account from great blame for allowing the ship to ground on a well-known sand in a perfectly well-known channel, and in the middle of the day too. Whether or not Lord Elphinstone was in the act of wearing his ship is a matter of minor detail. There is a conflict of opinion about it; but if he was wearing in order to turn her off the sand, it shows he knew the danger he was in. There was evidence to show that he was steering a course, and that is a point of great importance which was dealt with by the court of inquiry. I am glad to give my testimony to the zeal and courage displayed by Lord Elphinstone afterwards in rescuing his ship from her perilous position. The gallantry of himself and his officers cannot be too highly commended, but the fact of his getting his ship aground was one which the Admiralty could not pass over without awarding great blame. The first step which the Admiralty took was to appoint a court of inquiry. These courts of inquiry are of old date, and no practical naval man will say that they do not afford great facilities for inquiry into important matters connected with the discipline of the navy, and that, on the whole, they are very advantageous to the service. My right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) shakes his head, but I would ask him by what other means could we conduct the inquiries which are occasionally necessary with respect to accidents or the conduct of officers upon distant stations, where it is difficult to get a sufficient number of officers together to form a court martial, or on matters which are not of sufficient gravity to be referred to a court martial. When a ship is lost, the survivors are tried for losing it; and when a ship grounds, there is generally a court of inquiry. After this disaster the Admiralty ordered a court of inquiry to be held at Sheerness, and three distinguished officers were appointed to it. I am bound to admit that they committed a great mistake in not permitting Lord Elphinstone to attend, or, I should say rather, in not recalling him, for there is a great distinction between refusing an officer permission to attend, and simply directing him to withdraw after his evidence has been given, and not recalling him. I admit that they ought to have allowed him to be present during the inqury. The Admiralty having expressed their censure of Lord Elphinstone, he wrote back requesting to be tried by a court martial, and they then immediately sent him a copy of the whole of the evidence, in order that he should have an opportunity of inspecting it, and said, that if he then wished for a court martial they would grant him one.

; Yes; but you punished him first.

The Admiralty censured him certainly on the evidence laid before them.

And you dismissed him from his ship.

Not so. The course the Admiralty pursued was this. The ship was greatly damaged and was no longer fit to go to sea. The consequence was, another ship was commissioned, the crew was turned over to her, and another captain was appointed.

And the Vigilant put out of commission.

Yes, the Vigilant was put hors de combat. Lord Elphinstone declined the court martial, because he said a court martial could not restore him to his ship, nor remove the census. But I appeal to the House whether a court martial, which is essentially a court of honour, would have been biassed in their judgment by the fact of a censure having been expressed by the Admiralty. I do not believe that any court martial in the army or the navy would take such a fact into its consideration. The Admiralty then had offered Lord Elphinstone a court martial, and he had wisely refused it. Then why is all this indignation expressed? Are we to be told that because a captain has a pilot on board, that therefore he has no longer charge of his ship? An hon. Gentleman says that this is the case in the mercantile navy while merchant ships are in pilot waters.; but why is that? It is because the insurance would be vitiated if the captain interfered with the pilot in pilot waters. But are captains of the navy to be put in charge of pilots? I think every naval officer will demur to that. I regret that the case of a very promising young officer should be bandied about in public. His character stands as high as ever. He has had the misfortune to suffer a disaster which has happened to many a good officer besides him. He has had a severe censure from the Admiralty, which he richly deserved; and I contend that but for his injudicious friends he might have risen to an eminent position in the navy, worthy of his historical name. I am asked two questions by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwitch:—First, whether a captain is justified in disregarding the advice of the pilot when the pilot has charge of his ship? My answer is, that we do not acknowledge in the navy (and it is so distinctly laid down in the Queen's instructions) that the presence of a pilot, whether unable to read and write or whether a man of; superior ability, relieves the captain and master of the responsibility of disregarding, if necessary, the wishes of the pilot. It has happened in many instances before this, that officers have been blamed for accidents to their ships, even though pilots have been on board. The second question which the right hon. Gentleman puts to me is-with regard to the absence of Lord Elphinstone from the Board. I confess, that so very important does that omission appear to the Admiralty, that the Duke of Somerset has under consideration the giving directions to prevent any such omission in any future case. But if it be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen in this House that courts of inquiry are unadvisable and work injustice, I believe that officers of the navy of all ranks are of opinion that they save many an officer from the more severe and more public ordeal of a court martial, and I am quite certain that I am expressing the feelings of the navy generally when I say that courts of inquiry are of very great advantage to the service. I should here finish my observations had it not been that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened this discussion alluded to the Navy Discipline Act of 1861. I believe he said that officers had the idea that there was no security that any sentence passed would be considered binding by the Admiralty, and that the proceedings with reference to the Conqueror had given very general dissatisfaction. [Captain JERVIS: I referred to the case of the Conqueror, and not to the Discipline Act.] I understood that the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the Act. I saw it stated that Captain Sotheby of the Conqueror, having been acquitted by a court martial, had been most unjustly censured by the Admiralty. The reason of that was, that it was absolutely necessary that an error which had crept into the navy, that the captain was not responsible for the conduct and safety of his ship, should be eradicated. In the case of the Conqueror the court martial fully acquitted the captain, and blamed the master. Seeing, however, that the captain had conducted the ship into a narrow and dangerous passage, and had let the fires out when passing a dangerous reef, the Admiralty would have greatly neglected their duty if they had not censured the conduct of Captain Sotheby. I am afraid that this discussion will not be to the advantage of a fine young officer, in as much as it will tend to make more public a disaster in which I admit there was a great deal of ill luck, but with regard to which I cannot for a moment deny that there was gross neglect on the part of Lord Elphinstone.

Whether this discussion will be of advantage to Lord Elphinstone I do not presume to offer an opinion; but I have a confident expectation that it will be of advantage to the Admiralty. The noble Lord asks what is the meaning of all this indignation. I have not the honour of knowing Lord Elphinstone, but I frankly tell the noble Lord I feel the indignation which I trust and believe every hon. Member feels when he hears that a gross and palpable injustice has been committed; and I say that, upon the confession of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty himself, a more palpable injustice has never been committed than in the present case. I must ask the House to consider the details which they have heard from the noble Lord. My hon. Friend asked what was the reason for appointing a court of inquiry at all, and what were the cases in which such courts were usually appointed. The noble Lord says courts of inquiry are very useful in two cases:—First, on a naval station where there are not officers enough to con- stitute a court martial; and secondly, for the investigation of minor offences which are unworthy the attention of a court martial. Was this either of those cases? Are there not a sufficient number of naval officers in and near London to constitute a court martial; and does the noble Lord mean to say that a charge against an officer of stranding a valuable ship through carelessness is a minor offence not worthy the attention of a court martial? I say there is no reason given why the legitimate mode of investigation into a grave offence by court martial was departed from, and a court of inquiry adopted. But that is a trifle to what follows. The noble Lord says that with regard to the proceedings by the court of inquiry the Admiralty are very sorry to say a grave error was committed; that Lord Elphinstone was called upon to give his testimony, and when that was done he was desired to retire. [An hon. MEMBER: Was not re-called.] He was desired to retire, and I should suppose that was a tolerably broad hint that he was not to come back. But the noble Lord says the evidence taken behind Lord Elphinstone's back was quite clear and convincing. I remember a story in a book, which we have probably all read, of a celebrated rural magistrate, who said he always liked to stop at the end of the evidence of one side, for when the evidence on the other side was given it was very confusing. And in this case I cannot help thinking that the course which the court of inquiry took was eminently calculated to produce clear, unvarying, straight forward evidence. There was no cross-examination. No witnesses were called except on one side, and there was no examination on oath, I believe, at all. The noble Lord calls this a court. I hope, in future, the name will be abandoned. It was somewhat a mockery to call it a court. Call it by any other name you think fit, but pray do not call it a court. It is a contradiction in terms, and the name had better be given up. So much for the justification by the Admiralty of the course which was pursued. What happened? An inquiry takes place, in which the Admiralty admit a grave error was committed, the accused party not being allowed to be present to conduct his case. Under those circumstances, what did the Admiralty do? The noble Lord says they administered a severe censure, founded, be it observed, upon the report of the court of inquiry which committed so grave an error. But the grave censure is only half what they did. Was there no dismissal? I will tell the House what took place. The Vigilant was put out of commission. The very next day another ship was commissioned. Every officer, every man, and every boy in the Vigilant were transferred to the newly-commissioned ship with the exception of Lord Elphinstone. I am in the judgment of the House. Was that, or was it not, a dismissal of Lord Elphinstone?—and that, be it observed, upon the footing of the report of a court of inquiry which, in the judgment of the Admiralty, had committed a grave error, and I say an error going to the whole root of the conclusion at which they arrived. What happens next? The Admiralty are appealed to by Lord Elphinstone. Lord Elphinstone, having had no means of being present and conducting his own case, or of calling the witnesses whom he wanted, asked to be tried by court martial. If the Admiralty had admitted the error, recalled the censure, held it in suspense until a full and perfect trial had taken place, and ordered a court martial to assemble immediately, they would have substantially retrieved the error, and no great harm would have been done. The Admiralty send the evidence to Lord Elphinstone, and desire him to make any observations he pleases in the margin, and to send it back. Lord Elphinstone makes observations on the evidence, and the Admiralty pass a new sentence, unhesitatingly declaring that the court of inquiry had come to a proper conclusion; but that if Lord Elphinstone liked to have a court martial, he might have it then. It certainly is something new for a man to be punished first and then told that he may have a trial. And then, when the question is brought before the House of Commons, what is the atonement offered by the Admiralty at the last hour? The noble Lord says the Admiralty is extremely sorry, and that a great misfortune has occurred in the matter; but, at all events, things are now going to be set right, inasmuch as for the future care is to be taken that there should be full inquiry. How such a statement can be regarded as doing justice to Lord Elphinstone I am, however, at a loss to understand.

said, that after the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast it might seem to be superfluous that he should trouble the House with any observations; but having served with Lord Elphinstone, and knowing, as he did, his high professional character, he was unwilling not to bear testimony against what he considered to be the misconduct of the Admiralty in the particular instance under discussion. He was able to speak with some knowledge on the point, because he was, he believed, the very first person with whom, as an old captain of his, Lord Elphinstone had communicated on the subject of the misadventure. The Vigilant, he might add, left the coast of Scotland under orders from the Admiralty in October last. The very heaviest gale of the season was blowing as she passed Harwich. She was in charge of a pilot who had a certificate from the Trinity House, who had the very highest testimony from Admiral Smart and the captain of the Porcupine, and who was naturally received on board the Vigilant with the utmost confidence. The vessel was brought down to the entrance of the Swin, and was steaming up the Swin at eight o'clock in the morning. It was at the flood tide, the gale was blowing from the S.S.W., and with the wind on the starboard bow. The captain and master came up and asked the pilot, who had been up all night, to go down to breakfast. As the ebb tide would make directly and the vessel would be drifted out to sea again, the master suggested to Lord Elphinstone that he should anchor. Everything was got ready for anchoring, when the pilot was sent for to select the place. It was, no doubt, the bounden duty of the captain of a man-of-war to see that the pilot was a competent man; but if up to the moment that the vessel went aground, the pilot was found to be perfectly competent, the captain had a right to place confidence in him. The pilot came on deck, and with the master examined the chart, suggesting, that as the Vigilant was a vessel with low masts, she should, to avoid the danger of being run down while at anchor, be anchored nearer to the light vessel. Lord Elphinstone made every arrangement, by working round head to wind, to steam in towards the light vessel. There was no question as to the management of the ship, but the difficulty was, that in the heavy gale blowing the pilot could not see a buoy, which ought to have been visible. The master asked, whether he was not going in too far, and the men were in the chains with the lead, and the pilot declared that he knew the ground well, and that they must go farther in. Lord Elphinstone, however, gave the order to "slow" the engines; but, in less time than it took to describe what occurred, the ship was ashore. What time was there, then, to displace, the pilot, even if it had been right to do so? In half an hour the vessel was high and dry; and although, when the tide flowed again, the waves broke with great violence, the arrangements were so seamanlike and skilful, that the ship was taken into Sheerness in safety, though somewhat damaged. A court of inquiry was subsequently appointed to try Lord Elphinstone, and yet, after his evidence had been taken, he was excluded from the court, and was not allowed to know anything that was going on. Lord Elphinstone immediately took steps to call attention to the fact, and he (Sir John Hay) held in his hand a letter in which Sir W. Johnson, the Commander-in-Chief at Sheerness, the officer under whose authority the court sat, admitted the irregularity of the proceeding. The ship was then put out of commission, and Lord Elphinstone was placed upon half-pay—dismissed from his ship, as he (Sir John Hay) should call it. Lord Elphinstone then applied for a court martial, but that was refused him. Lord Elpinstone had assured him that he had applied personally at the Admiralty for that measure of justice before his letter was written, and that he was treated with disdain and contumely. He would not go further into the case, as the facts had been most accurately stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast; but what he wanted to point out was, that officers of the navy did not agree with his noble Friend as to the disadvantage of such cases as that of the Vigilant being brought under the notice of the House. He thought that Lord Elphinstone had gained extremely, and that the Admiralty had lost extremely, by the discussion. With reference to the question of the Conqueror, which bore considerably upon the case, the action of the Admiralty with reference to the court martial in that case, had shaken the confidence of the navy in the value of courts martial and their decisions. In Lord Elphinstone's case, whatever confidence they might have in courts martial, it might be expected that the decision of such a tribunal might be influenced by the fact of having to try the Board of Admiralty for an unjust censure, instead of an officer in the service for alleged misconduct.

said, he felt quite satisfied the House would agree, that if the Admiralty had allowed the case of a vessel of war being lost on a well-known sand to pass without inquiry, they would have rendered themselves liable to the severe censure of the House. It being the duty of the Admiralty to inquire, two courses were open to them. They might have made that inquiry by means cither of a court of inquiry or a court martial. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich asked what a court of inquiry was. Mr. M'Arthur, in his work on Courts of Inquiry, said that "From various precedents and long-established custom they have become an essential branch of naval and military jurisdiction." [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Does he say that they are not hound by the rules I of justice?] He said nothing of the kind; but he said that they were ancient courts, instituted by the prerogative of the Crown, for the purpose of informing the Grown as to the merits or demerits of its officers. Courts martial were criminal courts, having power to pass sentence; courts of inquiry were not criminal courts, they could not pass sentence, and had no power to examine witnesses upon oath. The court of inquiry having made its report, Lord Elphinstone, complaining, and with justice, that they had proceeded in his absence, asked for a court martial. There lay the whole gist of the case, because the Admiralty had offered him a court martial and he had refused it. [An hon. MEMBER: After the censure.] True, but after the court of inquiry, and after the censure, he asked for a court martial. The Admiralty wrote informing him that he might have a court martial if he pleased, but recommending him, before he accepted the offer, to read the report and minutes of the court of inquiry, which were transmitted, and upon which he was offered an opportunity of making any remarks he pleased. Lord Elphinstone returned the record of the proceedings with a statement in which he excused himself by throwing all the blame upon the pilot, asserting that he placed implicit confidence in him, and that he did not in any way assert his authority as commander. Now, it was expressly directed by the rules and circulars of the Admiralty that the commander of a vessel of war should not trust to a pilot, but should himself be responsible. It was on Lord Elphinstone's own statement, therefore, that the Admiralty replied that there was nothing in it to alter the opinion which they had formed, but that he might have a court martial if he desired it. Lord Elphinstone refused the court martial, and that was the whole case. The court mar- tial which he desired was offered, and he was allowed time for consideration. After considering and reflecting he refused the court martial, and thought it more desirable that his case should be brought before that House. In answer, it was suggested that a court martial would not have done its duty. ["No!"] He was glad to hear that contradiction; because it was a gross libel upon naval officers to say they had so little spirit, so small a sense of honour, or be slight a regard to their oaths that they would be influenced by the foregone conclusion of the Admiralty. The case amounted to this. There was a miscarriage on the part of the court of inquiry; but on the part of the Admiralty there had been no miscarriage. They were bound to act on the report of the court of inquiry. Lord Elphinstone desired a court martial; they had offered it, he had refused it, and under these circumstances had no grievance.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who no doubt spoke in his capacity as counsel to the Admiralty, had failed to show that there was any Act of Parliament warranting the Admiralty in trying a man by a court of inquiry. But if there was, surely such a court must proceed according to the ordinary rules of law, and not send the accused out of the presence of his judges, saying, "It makes no matter whether you are present or absent; we intend to dispose of you, and you will hear from the Admiralty when sentence is pronounced." Thus, like judge Rhadamanthus, sentencing first and inquiring afterwards. If the Admiralty was to act as it had done in that instance, it would be necessary for the House to look sharply after the Departments, and take care that important branches of the public service should not be so disposed of. The hon. and gallant admiral the Member for Wake-field (Sir John Hay) had stated that Lord Elphinstone had applied personally for a court martial, and that he was treated with disdain. No Department, he maintained, ought to venture to treat a man, who had a claim to justice, in such a manner as that. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty said, that when they had discovered that the court of inquiry had acted in an improper manner, they said to Lord Elphinstone, "Now that we have censured you, and proclaimed your in competency, we will send you to be tried by a court martial;" and that is called justice. I trust that my hon. and learned Friend, when he has an opportunity of advising the Admiralty in future, will help them from getting into such scrapes.

said, he thought some explanation was due of the circumstances connected with a meeting of Irish Members said to have been held in order to consider the provisions of the Government Bill relating to Irish Salmon Fisheries. If that meeting had been of a public character, all whose interests were concerned should have been invited to attend; if not, there must have been a violation somewhere of the rules of conduct usually acted upon in such cases. He begged to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether a statement which appears in several of the Irish Papers, to the effect that on last Thursday a meeting of Irish Members, convened by Sir Robert Peel, was held in one of the apartments of the House of Commons is correct; and, if so, to inquire why he omitted to invite the attendance of Members representing large interests in connection with the Irish Salmon Fisheries; and whether the report of what took place at such Meeting which appears in The Freeman's Journal of Saturday last, headed, "From our own Correspondent," is a correct one; and whether there was a reporter present during the proceedings?

said, he would beg to remind the right hon. Baronet that he had not answered the latter part of the Question addressed to him in the earlier part of the evening with reference to the grounds on which permission was refused by the Stipendiary Magistrate to Mr. John Crawford, of Newtowngore, to keep arms for the defence of himself and his property.

I am afraid I did not sufficiently explain myself in answering the Question put in the early part of the evening. There have been frequent attacks, as my hon. Friend states, on the property of this miller; but having made full inquiries through the stipendiary magistrate, we have reason to believe that there has been great exaggeration in reference to these attacks, and that they were not made with any malicious intent—in fact, that they were not strangers who committed the offence. More than that, the police station is in close proximity to this property; and if danger were appre- hended, assistance could easily have been obtained. It is well known that under the powers of the Act of Parliament certain parts in Ireland are proclaimed. The district in which the miller lives is one of them; and that is the reason why licence has not been given to carry arms. As regards the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the County of Waterford, I must admit that I was equally astonished with him to see a very full report of a speech supposed to have been made by me on a very interesting subject—a speech occupying half a column of the newspapers—a very good speech, but I must candidly admit that I did not make it. We all know that reporters are very inquisitive gentlemen, and that they endeavour, if possible, to obtain a knowledge of what is taking place even in the most secret conference; but I sat there during the whole time the meeting lasted—about two hours—and neither in the cupboard, under the table, nor elsewhere, did I see anybody who gave me the impression that he was taking notes of what was passing. I therefore utterly disclaim being any party to that speech. An hon. Friend of mine said, "I presume that is the speech you were going to make in introducing the Salmon Fisheries Bill, which you afterwards had not the opportunity of making, but which still appeared, as you had sent it off beforehand." And such a thing did once occur. It is perfectly well known that an hon. Member once prepared an elaborate speech, with "Hear, hear!" and "Cheers" introduced in it, which he could not deliver because the House was counted out, but which appeared in the papers nevertheless. I can assure hon. Members that was not the case with me. I never sent that speech—I should be very glad to have made it; but I sat there listening to the remarks of others, to be prepared for discussion when the question should come before the House. The meeting was not strictly private, although held in a private room. The object was to ascertain the views of hon. Gentlemen returned from Ireland with regard to the Bill the Government was on the point of introducing in relation to the Irish Salmon Fisheries. [Mr. WHITESIDE: Was it a meeting of Irish Members generally?] Not generally; the room was too small. I endeavoured to explain the other night that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. Monsell), my right hon. Friend the Member for the County of Kerry (Mr. Herbert), and my noble Friend the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), agreed with me that by meeting together we might so frame a Bill as to secure that general approval which was not accorded to the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wexford. I asked my noble Friend the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) and a number of other gentlemen to be present; the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) came into the room, and I asked him if he would be good enough to get together any Irish Members who might be interested in the subject, as we should be glad to receive any advice which they might offer. My hon. Friend, I believe, tried to do so, and perhaps the report which appeared in the newspapers is in some small degree to be traced to him. For I understand now, having just received a letter on the subject, that the report of our proceedings was made by an hon. Gentleman who admits that he was not present at the meeting, but gave to the reporter an account of what he presumed had taken place. [Cries of Read !] It is a private communication, and, of course, it would be improper for me to do so, but the Gentleman says he did it as "an impromptu movement." Once more I beg to say that I have nothing whatever to do with the report. I believe the Under Secretary for the Home Department did speak to several of the Irish Members on the subject, and probably a good deal of what is put into my mouth may have fallen from him.

said, as he had been rather pointedly alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, he wished to say a few words. In the face of the letter he himself had written to the right hon. Baronet, it was surprising that he should convey to the House the impression that the report appearing in The Freeman's Journal was traceable to him.

said, he had understood the hon. Member for Waterford himself to declare that the report which had appeared might be traceable to some remarks he had made in the Gallery. He assured the hon. Gentleman that he had no wish to misrepresent him.

said, the right hon. Baronet had entirely misunderstood his observations, and he was anxious for that very reason that the letter which the right hon. Baronet held in his hand should be read to the House. He had never intended to convey that the report was traceable to him in any shape or form; and the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) would no doubt, bear him out in his assertion that the report probably emanated from a gentleman who had not been present at the meeting at all. He did not look upon the meeting as in any way a confidential one, nor did he suppose that gentlemen present were precluded from mentioning what transpired. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman did not make the very capital speech attributed to him; but the substance of it was contained in a printed paper, which was furnished to those who attended the meeting, and which contained the head a of the proposed Bill. He believed that the speech emanated from an hon. Member who was not present, but who derived his information from an hon. Member who was. He could not see that any imputation rested upon any hon. Gentleman for what had taken place.

said, that what was attributed to the right hon. Baronet as a speech was in reality a printed circular, which was placed in the hands of the Members attending the meeting, and he thought the whole affair had been treated in too grave a manner.

said, that with reference to the case of the miller who had been refused an arms licence, he wished to say that he had voted for the introduction of the Arms Bill, and under the circumstances of the country thought that such a measure was necessary; but he did hope that the right hon. Gentlemen would take care to prevent the exercise of any undue authority by those who carried out the Act. Generally speaking, the stipendiary magistrates of Ireland acted with much discretion, but he protested against their taking upon themselves to refuse permission to carry arms to a man who could by no possibility make a bad use of them, and who had been actually recommended to carry arms by a local magistrate.

said, that a refusal to allow a person to have arms in his possession was entirely subversive of the liberty of the subject. He thought it must have originated in a mistake, and he hoped that it would not go forth to the public that this monstrous doctrine came from the Irish Executive—namely, that a respectable man was not to have arms for his defence because he lived in a proclaimed district.

said, that representing as he did a constituency which had a considerable interest in shipping, he was anxious that before the adjournment of the House the neutral trade of this country should not be left in its then unsatisfactory position. From Earl Russell's statement in another place, it almost appeared as though Federal cruisers had a right to seize, without limit, neutral vessels running to Matamoras and to Nassau. Yet the noble Earl had laid it down in a most able despatch to the Federal Government, that though that Government had undoubtedly the belligerent rights in respect to neutral vessels, the indiscriminate use of that right would become an intolerable evil. By the last mail from America it appeared that the Government of Washington had opened the question in respect of the cargo of the Peterhoff. Now, Judge Story held distinctly that the question of cargo was not to be considered with regard to neutral trade, but that it was a question of destination; and he further stated that there could be no question of contraband of war between two neutral countries. If that position was international law, he thought that Her Majesty's Government ought to adhere to it. The Federal Government would, he believed, be prepared to concede to their just demands if they held their own; but if they abandoned the ground which they were justified in taking on this question, that Government would make new encroachments. It would be necessary to take a stand at last, and he thought that the Government ought to take that stand, and ought to insist that the Washington Cabinet should adhere to the principles which Mr. Seward laid down in answer to Admiral Milne last year. As matters stood, they were surrendering the trade with Mexico and the West India Islands to the New York merchants and to those of France.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire how far the present distribution of endowments for religious purposes throughout Ireland may be so amended as most to conduce to the welfare of all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects; to search the Journals of this House for any Resolutions passed since the Acts of the 39 & 40 Geo. III., c. 67, having reference to the application of any surplus revenue arising from Ecclesiastical Endowments in Ireland; and to report how far such Resolution or Resolutions appear to have been subsequently carried into effect. He thought the time had come when a great change should be made in the arrangements with regard to the temporalities of the Irish Church, and further that the liberal party especially were pledged to the advancement of that question. He was perfectly aware that any measure which was likely to settle permanently, or even materially advance the great question involved in his Motion, must emanate from the Government. A matter of such magnitude and importance could not be taken up with any hope of success by a private Member; and in order to have a fair chance of success, it must be taken up and urged forward with all the power of the Government. As that was the case, and as the present Government was supposed to represent the Liberal party, it had long been a matter of surprise that the Government had so long neglected to take the question up. Year after year he had hoped that some mention of the subject would have been made in the Speech from the Throne, and year after year he had been disappointed. It had been allowed to sleep, like Reform and many other questions, which once formed the watchwords of the Liberal party. Under these circumstances, he thought it was the duty of Parliament to take up the matter as it was a question which in some respects stood in an exceptional position to others. The question of Reform was one which the Government had abandoned, as he thought unwisely, although he admitted that the country had shown great indifference on the subject. Peace, Reform, and Retrenchment were questions which had been in turn abandoned by the Government; but it must be remembered that it was in the power of the country at any time to interfere, and force the Government to carry out their pledges with regard to these questions. But that was not the case with the Irish Church; for there was no doubt whatever, that if the question was put to the Irish people, whether or not the temporalities of the Irish Church should be maintained on their present footing, the response would be that they were not content with their present state. The institutions in other parts of the United Kingdom were maintained in accordance with the will of the people; but the Established Church of Ireland was altogether in a very different position, and a very able writer, Mr. Goldwin Smith, had stated that "the hold of the Irish Church Establishment, on the affections of the Irish people, was a garrison of 20,000 men." That was perfectly true; and as the power of the country was wielded through the House of Commons, it behoved the House to see whether that power was wielded for the advantage of the whole nation, and in a manner justified by the national exigencies, and whether the Irish Church Establishment had answered the desired end. He liked to shelter himself behind the opinions of statesmen and eminent men, and therefore he would quote a short extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, whom he did not then see in his place. Speaking of the Irish people in 1844, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"That dense population, in extreme distress, inhabited an island where there was an Established Church which was not their Church; and a territorial aristocracy, the richest of whom lived in distant capitals. Thus they had a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church, and, in addition, the weakest Executive in the world. That was the Irish question. Well, then, what would hon. Gentlemen say if they were reading of a country in that position? They would say at once, 'The remedy is revolution.' But the Irish could not have a revolution; and why? Because Ireland was connected with another and a more powerful country. Then what was the consequence? The connection with England thus became the cause of the present state of Ireland. If the connection with England prevented a revolution, and a revolution were the only remedy, England logically was in the odious position of being the cause of all the misery in Ireland." [3 Hansard, lxxii. 1016.]

Consequently, the House of Commons was especially bound to protect the Irish from the injustice alleged to be committed against them. The force used in maintaining the Irish Church Establishment could only be justified by political necessity or success. Believing that the Irish Church, far from being a political necessity, was a cause of great weakness to this country, and that so far from being a successful institution it had proved a signal failure, he felt he should not be doing his duty as a Member of that House if he sat there and allowed the question to slumber any longer. But he had another and less important motive, which was that he was ashamed to call himself a Member of the Liberal party, to sit year after year upon those benches and see the question quietly shelved. During the nine years he had had the honour of having a seat in that House, the subject had only once been brought before their attention. He referred to the Motion brought forward with great ability by his hon. Friend Mr. Miall, in 1856. Why was that party named Liberal, if it allowed such things? It would deserve the reproach of being a party of promises rather than of performances if it continued to do so. He was resolved, that so far as he could, the stigma should not apply to him; and therefore he determined to call the attention of the House to the question, although he should have been glad to have seen it taken up by a Member of greater standing and ability than himself. He felt one difficulty in dealing with the subject—namely, that the facts and arguments were so well known, that if he were to go into them fully, he should be told he was only proving truisms; and if he did not do so, he might be told he had not proved his case. However, he only asked for inquiry. One thing, at all events, was plain, that the result of the rule of this country in Ireland had not been attended with satisfactory results. In 1823, Lord Brougham said—

"Matters in Ireland could not rest as they are for ever. One day or other the time must come that the House will have to give account of its stewardship of the country. England, possessing Ireland, is in the possession of that which ought to be her security in peace, and her sinew in war, and yet in war what has Ireland been but strength to her enemies—what in peace but an eternal source of revolt and rebellion?" [2 Hansard, lx. 1276.]

Lord John Russell, speaking on the Maynooth question, said—

"We cannot help being struck with the fact that there has been be time in the history of Ireland since this country obtained a footing and dominion there, in which there was not some dreadful contest—something amounting to a civil war—and a state of the law that encouraged the people to consider themselves rather as victims of tyranny than as the subjects of a just Government."

He (Mr. Dillwyn) appealed to recent facts, as illustrating these observations. Scarcely a year passed without witnessing disorder, turbulence, and disturbance of various kinds in Ireland. Hon. Members often ascribed the unsatisfactory state of things in Ireland to the turbulence of the Irish people; but if they were not the quietest people under the sun, they would not have put up so long with the gross injustice to which they had been subjected, inasmuch as they were treated in an entirely exceptional manner. There was no other part of the British dominions which was treated in the same way—no other part of the Empire in which the religion of the people, a point upon which most countries were so susceptible, was treated as it was in Ireland. They took the revenues arising from the soil of Ireland, and applied them to the teaching of a religion which the majority of the people believed to be a most dangerous heresy. In Canada, in India, they would not dream of doing anything of the kind. No part of the three kingdoms was more firmly united to the Crown than Scotland; but so long as England endeavoured to force upon the Scotch, not an alien religion, but a religion differing only in form from their own, they stubbornly resisted; and he believed, that if that endeavour had been persevered in, the union with Scotland could not have been maintained. The maintenance of the Church Establishment in Ireland prevented that union of the different classes of Irishmen which was necessary for social progress. In England the whole body of the people united in support of law and order; and he believed, that if an attack were made upon the liberties of the people, Tories would unite with Whigs in defence of those liberties. But it was impossible to expect a similar union amongst the various classes in Ireland so long as that source of discord, the Church Establishment, existed. He would lay before the House one instance of the operation of the system, In the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette of the 15th of February 1863, he found a letter, in which the writer stated that he did not object to any man on account of his religion, whether he was an infidel, a Socinian, or a Roman Catholic; but he thought a Protestant landlord ought to have Protestant tenants, and a Protestant employer ought to have Protestant servants. That was an illustration of the unhappy spirit which the antagonism of the two churches produced in Ireland. In England ministers of religion of all denominations were the best allies of the Government in the preservation of order, and they were prominent in every movement for the promotion of the education and prosperity of the people. But that was not the case in Ireland, because there the Catholic priest felt himself aggrieved by the maintenance of the Church Establishment, and could not be expected to be an ally of the Government in the preservation of order. In support of his assertion that the evils of Ireland were mainly due to the Established Church, he might refer to the opinions of some of the occupants of the Treasury Bench. The President of the Indian Board (Sir Charles Wood), in March 1835, asked where the House would find in any country a rich Church with a small congregation containing a minority of the population. The right hon. Baronet then asked why the Legislature did not strike at the root of the evil, and determine to make a different appropriation of the revenues of the Irish Church? In 1845 the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Milner Gibson) said that "Parliament might do what it would for Ireland, but so long as the Irish Church remained it would be a badge of conquest and degradation. There must be religious equality in that country." He did not however rest his case upon either his own opinion or the isolated opinions of statesmen, however prominent, but the course which the House of Commons pursued on the subject; and the Resolutions it had passed, showed it had been felt by statesmen in general that the Established Church had been at the root of the mischief in Ireland. At the beginning of the present century Mr. Pitt, being anxious for the Union, determined to carry Catholic emancipation. He failed, and resigned office. After thirty years the emancipation was carried by the Duke of Wellington, who saw the necessity of making the conciliation that Mr. Pitt had urged, although up to that time he had strenuously opposed it. The next step was that by which some of the Irish bishoprics were cut down and church rates were done away with in Ireland. Those were beneficial measures, but they did not meet the great question at issue, which he took to be the re-distribution of the funds set apart for ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland, for the benefit and use of the great masses of the people of that country. In 1835 the appropriation clauses were brought forward. Two Resolutions were adopted by the House. The one declared that the House should resolve itself into a Committee—

"For the purpose of considering the expediency of applying any surplus revenue of the Church of Ireland which may not be required for the spiritual wants of the members of that Church to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the community."

That Resolution was acted on in Committee, and the House subsequently passed a further Resolution, which declared—

"That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing Resolution."

The Government of Sir Robert Peel resigned in consequence of those Resolutions, which had been adopted during the discussion on his Tithe Bill. Sir Robert Peel was turned out by noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who occupied seats in the Cabinet at present. The Government which succeeded Sir Robert Peel's brought in a Bill to give effect to those Resolutions. It was thrown out in the House of Lords; but they held on to office. Nevertheless, the subject had been mooted once or twice since; but those noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen seemed to have abandoned a principle on which they themselves turned out a Government. About the year 1845 Sir Robert Peel, having again come into office, directed his attention to the state of ecclesiastical affairs in Ireland. He did not attempt to deal with them as he had endeavoured to do before; but feeling that something should be done to conciliate the Roman Catholics, he brought forward the Maynooth Grant in its present form; but that measure did not, in his opinion, meet the case; and this was shown by the result, as he would appeal to the House whether it had not failed to give satisfaction to any party, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, and whether, looking at the debates and divisions upon it, any hon. Members believed it could be considered either a satisfactory or final settlement of the question. He (Mr. Dillwyn) would candidly avow to the House that in advocating inquiry he did so in the expectation it would lead to a great change—that it would lead to a re-distribution of the revenues of the Church in Ireland which would be more in accordance with what was required by the existing wants of the people. When the subject had been brought forward by others, it was said, by way of objection, that by the 5th article of the Act of Union they were bound to preserve the Church of Ireland as a portion of the United Church of England and Ireland. That article provided that the Church of England and Ireland should thenceforth be one United Church of England and Ireland, and that the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the United Church of England and Ireland should be in force for ever. But it said nothing about the temporalities. Moreover, Parliament had over and over again dealt with the temporalities of the Church both in England and Ireland, and there was a Bill at that very time before Parliament introduced by a Bishop, with regard to Wales, which would have that effect. He contended, therefore, that no breach of the 5th article of the Act of Union was involved in such a re-distribution of the temporalities of the Church of Ireland as he wished to see brought about. The Church of Ireland was not placed by the Act of Union in a different position from that of the Church of England. No one disputed that Parliament might, and had dealt how it pleased with the Church of England, and it certainly had an equal right to deal with the Establishment in Ireland. If he wanted an argument to show that they had the power for which he contended, he might quote a speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who, in answer to a Motion brought forward by Mr. Miall in 1856, said Parliament was competent to deal with the Church of England and Ireland, but they must deal with them not in order to destroy them, but to render them more perfect in their operation. But the object of the Church was for the benefit of the whole people, and it did not carry that object out. If the Irish question were again to be settled, he did not believe that Parliament would re-establish the Irish Church on its present basis. Many hon. Members on the other side of the House had admitted as much to him, though they pleaded that it worked well, on the whole, and had done some good. The whole Liberal party, including the Members of the Government and some Gentlemen on the other side, admitted that the Establishment was an injustice, an anomaly, and altogether an objectionable institution. The question was, could its maintenance be justified? The only ground of justification for it was that it was either a political necessity, a source of national strength, or that it promoted harmony and true religion. As to its being a political necessity, it was well known that the Government, since they had been slipping away from the principles which apparently they had put forward to gain the support of Irish Members, had been gradually losing their support, until there was not a single Irish representative on the Treasury Bench. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: The Attorney General for Ireland.—An hon. MEMBER: Where is he?] Instead of its being a source of national strength, it was a source of national weakness. They had to keep in Ireland, for the maintenance of that Church, an army of 21,000 men, exclusive of 12,450 constabulary. All foreign nations, when they had a quarrel with them, pointed to Ireland as their weak point. France did it, and America too, and every one had noticed the burning animosity displayed by Irish emigrants against this country. He lad little doubt, that if Ireland were invaded, a great portion of the people would ally round the invader, instead of, as they doubtless would in this country, rallying round the Government. Instead of producing harmony, the Irish Church prevented union, and destroyed all chance of peace and good will. It might be said that the Church in Ireland must be maintained to teach religion in that country. If it claimed to be an infallible Church, like the Catholic Church, he could understand that argument; but coming from the Protestant Church he could not understand it. The Established Church in Ireland could only be looked upon as a Missionary Church; it had tried its mission for some hundreds of years, and they knew with what success. They knew that it had succeeded in gaining over to the Church only a small proportion of the whole population of the country. It appeared from the religious census that there were in the province of Armagh, in 1834, 557,315 members of the Established Church, and in 1861 there were in that province 455,353 members of the Established Church. In the province of Dublin there were, in 1834, 295,845 members of the Established Church, and in 1861 there were in that province only 236,519 members of the Established Church, showing that so far from there being an increase there was a very great falling-off. The revenues of the Church in Ireland in 1834 amounted to 18s. 7d. per head; in 1861 the revenues amounted to 17s.7 d. per head, some reduction having taken place in consequence of the Tithe Act. They were told that the decrease in the population accounted for the decrease in the number of members of the Established Church, but that was not borne out by the facts; because the decrease being less where the Church was strongest, it might fairly be assumed that the greatest decrease was not among members of the Church, but among members of the Roman Catholic religion. Since 1841 the decrease of population in Munster had been 882,603, the Church numbering 80,860; in Leinster 516,319, the Church numbering 180,508; in Connaught 548,000, the Church numbering only 40,296; and in Ulster 472,118, the Church numbering 379,773. In speaking of the numbers of Church population, it must be remembered, that even the number, small as it was, was maintained not by the temporalities of the Church alone, but also by extraneous aid. Con- stant appeals were made to this country for money. He had received a pamphlet not long ago, the title of which was, Good News from Ireland; but the good news seemed to be, that if more money were sent, there would be more converts. They did not seem to rely on their own resources, or the resources of the Irish Church, but to depend upon subscriptions from this country. The religious census in 1834 showed that the proportionate percentages to population in Ireland were—of the Established Church 11, of Roman Catholics 81, of Presbyterians 8, and of other denominations about one-third. In 1861 the Established Church, had increased to 11½ the Roman Catholics had decreased to 78, owing to the falling-off in population; the Presbyterians, who had no other temporalities than the regium donum, had increased to 9, and other denominations to 1⅛ per cent, thus showing that the less assistance that was given the better, and that voluntary efforts were more successful than a system of endowment based upon injustice. It seemed to him that they could not maintain the Irish Church much longer in its present position, and they could not expect the Irish people to remain passive and quiet adinfinitum. All the leading statesmen of both the great parties in that House, one after another, with only some few exceptions, had expressed most strongly their opinion on the absolute necessity of some change, and he trusted that a sense of right and justice would induce the adoption of a remedy for a great and pressing evil. The Conservatives, unwilling as they were to concede anything, had conceded the necessity of some change in Ireland; and they had carried out what they thought they ought to do. They passed the Maynooth Grant, though it was opposed by some Gentlemen on that side of the House. On the Liberal side of the House the appropriation principle was admitted in 1835, and they seemed disposed not to deal in a narrow, petty spirit with the Irish question. But, unfortunately, they adopted those principles when out of office; and when in office, instead of carrying them, they contented themselves with carrying small measures, which merely touched the distribution of the funds of the Church among its own members, and not among the whole people of Ireland, for the benefit of whom he conceived it to be the duty of Government see them administered. The Maynooth Grant had had to struggle through an uncertain existence, and it could not be said to be a permanent settlement. Its prospects, indeed, were anything but flourishing. It was opposed on both sides of that House; it did not give general satisfaction to English constituencies; and he understood that even among many Roman Catholics it did not meet with approval. Under such circumstances, he did not think it could be long maintained; and when it fell, Parliament would have to meet the difficulties of the question face to face. If that Vote were disturbed, there would at once be an unsettlement of existing arrangements as regarded the ecclesiastical endowments in Ireland. It was better, therefore, to be prepared in good time for a change which might soon come; and the best way, in his opinion, in which to meet that change was by appointing the Committee which he proposed. The Government did not seem inclined to take any steps in the matter, but he hoped that the Liberal party would refuse to support the Government if the latter did not endeavour in some way to carry out the principles by which they professed to be guided. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) had given notice of an Amendment, which was very long if not very intelligible but it would seem, if carried, to pledge the House to more than would be justified by the present state of their information. He believed, however, that the authority of Archdeacon Stopford was appealed to in support of the views embodied in it. Archdeacon Stop-ford was no doubt a very well-informed man; but the House probably would not take the question merely on his ipse dixit. He (Mr. Dillwyn) could hardly imagine what could be the grounds of opposition to his proposition. He had been told that that was not the time to bring forward the subject—that the Roman Catholics were unpopular in this country. But although it was true that Roman Catholics were not much favoured in this country, yet justice and fair play were highly approved; and if justice and fair play were denied to the Roman Catholics, it could not be expected that they would be more well-disposed towards the Government of this country. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, in a speech which he made in 1845 respecting the grant to Maynooth, said that—

"It is impossible, in my opinion, that the present state at things in Ireland, in regard to the two establishments of the two different sects in Ireland, can be permanent …… A provision by the State for the Catholic priesthood is a measure to which the Government and this House will at no distant period be compelled by their sense of justice to proceed. The great mistake made by Governments, not only in this country but everywhere, is to be too late in the measures which they adopt …… Government comes down with its measure, but comes when the time of proposing it with effect is gone by; and that concession which may be—no doubt on the present occasion it is—the result of conviction, and the spontaneous offering of modified opinions and a sense of justice, wears to the public all the appearance of a surrender to fear,"—[3 Hansard, lxxix. 1304.]

He (Mr. Dillwyn) would urge the Liberal party not to delay upon that great question. He could not shut his eyes to what was passing—that the noble Lord, upon important questions, was indebted to the party opposite for support, and that judging from the results of recent elections, the time might soon come when parties might have to cross the House. The Liberal party could not consistently attack their opponents when in office, if they refused now to act upon their avowed principles. He asked for a Committee—a fair and impartial Committee—to inquire and report with a view to the introduction of a measure that might make the union of this country real, and Ireland itself contented and prosperous. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Committee.

seconded the Motion.

said, that he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. His hon. Friend had commenced by saying he was very nearly bringing in a Bill to alter all the religious endowments throughout Ireland; and it was only on second thoughts that he brought forward this Motion for a Committee. He mentioned also that his Resolution was founded on a proposition formerly made by Lord John Russell as to appropriation. Now, one of the chief arguments which he (Mr. H. Seymour) would have to address to the House would be, that a settlement of the Irish Church question was possible without entering into the question of appropriation. Both the friends and the opponents of the Irish Church were of opinion that the existing state of things must be modified to a considerable extent. The only question was in what way it should be done. He, as a member of the United Church of England and Ireland, was anxious that its resources should be so modified as to increase its strength; and he was happy to say that the question was dealt with in a similar spirit of moderation by many Roman Catholics. Serjeant Shee, on bringing forward the question ten years ago, said that he fully admitted that the endowments were first due to the members of the Church, and that until they were fully provided for its resources ought not to be diverted to any other object. At the same time, if any abuses could be shown to exist, all true friends of the Church must wish for their removal, as the very fact of their existence must prove a source of weakness and impair the efficiency and usefulness of the Establishment. The Irish clergy themselves were alive to the necessity for some inquiry, and indeed there was among them a considerable party which called loudly for reform. Archdeacon Stopford, who was well known from the part which he had taken in regard-to this question, had written a remarkable pamphlet, from which, as the hon. Gentleman had suggested, he had adopted the terms of his Amendment, and he did not think he could have borrowed them from a better source. He believed that his Motion would meet the necessities of the case, which was not the case with that either of the hon. Member for Swansea or the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne), who had likewise an Amendment to propose. The object of Archdeacon Stopford's pamphlet was to show that there ought to be a re-distribution of the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland; and it was a very good sign that the members of the Church should themselves come forward in that spirit. Such a movement was unprecedented, and ought to receive the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government. In his pamphlet the archdeacon pointed to many livings which ought to be diminished, while others ought to be augmented. Among other cases he mentioned a vicarage extending over an area two miles long and wide, net income £115, 17 Protestants; a rectory, net income, £115, 110 Protestants; a union, net income, £330, 24 Protestants; a vicarage, four miles by two in extent, net income, £165, 24 Protestants; a union, net income, £260, 27 Protestants; a union, net income, £280, 31 Protestants. All these benefices lay close together, and the archdeacon recommended, that instead of being held by separate incumbents, they should be united under stipendiary curates. The Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea assumed that the Committee would be able to ascertain the present position of endowments in Ireland, to show that there was a surplus, and to point out the manner in which it ought to be distributed. If the Committee ascertained all that he seemed to anticipate, it would have done no good, but only much mischief, because the real inquiry must comprehend a multiplicity of details, into which the Committee could not enter. It would only open up the questions which agitated the country thirty-one years ago, and which were abandoned by the very Government which raised them. Although the hon. Member for Swansea had proposed to deal with a surplus, he had obtained no Returns to prove that it existed, nor were there any such Returns. He granted that changes were required in the Irish Church; but even Roman Catholics admitted that the Protestant clergy should have a proper stipend to live upon. Reform was demanded upon good grounds, because there were some clergymen in Ireland who did no work at all, and others who did very little; while, on the other hand, there were clergymen in Ireland who did work, but without any pay. Such cases occurred in every diocese. By the 93rd section of the Church Temporalities Act, it was provided that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland should increase benefices up to £200 a year. How many had been so increased? Very few, indeed. In the diocese of Armagh, which was the best provided with clergy and where the clergy were best paid, he had a list of nineteen benefices with an income of only £1,717, or an average of £90 a year each. Yet some of these parishes had between 2,000 and 3,000 Protestant inhabitants. In one union in the west, which consisted of ten parishes, and was fifty miles long by thirty broad, there was an income of only £200. The number of Protestants had some years ago diminished to about 500, but a society had been formed to supply it with clergy, and the number of Protestants had increased again to about 5,000. There had formerly been only one church; but now there were ten, besides three licensed chapels. The Commissioners had only endowed two churches with £75 each, and endowed two others with £25. Very few benefices had received augmentations since 1836. An endowment society had been established in West Connaught, three years ago, to re- lieve the wants of the district. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government subscribed £20; the Member for North Warwickshire subscribed £20; and the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) subscribed £60. In justice to the Irish Church they ought not to speak of a surplus until they had first inquired into its requirements. A Royal Commission, not a Select Committee, was the proper instrument for real and effective inquiry. It would give precisely the sort of information required for practical action. A different distribution of ecclesiastical revenues was required, and that no Select Committee could make, not having the means of ascertaining the relative position of parishes. The object which a Commission, if appointed, should have in view was to use its discretion and judgment upon details already to a considerable extent found for it. It had been suggested that the inquiry might fitly be undertaken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland; but that body already had onerous duties to perform, and it would be impossible to throw upon them this additional labour. Others contended that the end in view might be obtained by procuring Returns from the bishops; but some central body would still be required to amalgamate those Returns and to adjust their contents upon a general principle. A Royal Commission, on the contrary, armed with full powers of eliciting information would obtain much more satisfactory results; and if appointed at once, would be able to report before the opening of next Session, so that the entire question of the Irish Church could be settled before that time next year. Another reason for a Royal Commission was that to the Queen belonged jurisdiction in ecclesiastical territorial matters. The second head of inquiry in the Motion of the hon. Member referred to searching the Journals of the House, the most important entry in which would be the Resolution moved by Lord Russell in 1835; but he should think that no Whig Government would wish to have that brought forward too prominently. A question was put to Lord John Russell in 1858, by Sir Robert Peel, and the noble Lord stated that the Government had done their best, and had introduced a Bill for the settlement of tithes on the appropriation principle. Since then, however, the appropriation principle had been altogether abandoned, and he should altogether deprecate a renewal of discussions leading to much animosity and bitterness. He had only been induced to take up the question from a belief that the original Motion would have a very bad effect, and because no one else had put an Amendment similar to his own upon the paper. He believed that the question of the Irish Church, treated on its own merits by both sides of the House in a political lull such as that which then existed, would not prove as difficult as it appeared at the outset. He was in hope that it might be dragged from the arena of party politics, and prevented from becoming, like the church rate controversy, an annually recurring source of ill-feeling at both sides of the House. If it were taken up by the Government, at the wish of a portion of the Irish Church, the disputed points might be settled in a period shorter than most persons imagined, and without that strife and animosity which were certain to ensue if a Royal Commission were not appointed. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

seconded the Amendment.

I rise to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea, and all the other Motions that stand upon the paper with reference to the Irish Church. It has been said that language sometimes is used to conceal men's thoughts; in the present instance I am quite satisfied that the language of the hon. Gentleman has been used to convey his thoughts. But it is justifiable for us who oppose his Motion to inquire what has been the policy of that school of politicians to which he belongs. The hon. Gentleman, having endeavoured to make a political reputation by nibbling at the Church of England, now aspires to establish a character by attacking in a bolder manner that branch of the same United Church which exists in Ireland. He has told us to-night when the subject of that Church was last discussed here. I remember it well. In the month of May 1856, a Gentleman, who once adorned the same benches, rose and gravely made a Motion which had the support of the hon. Member. Its mover said, in the usual way, that the circumstances of Ireland afforded a favourable opportunity for the settlement of the question, and he proposed, that as an Incumbered Estate Court existed in that country, it would be a wise thing to put the Church into that court and sell it by auction. That Motion might have been made by a revolutionary trooper in the time of Oliver Cromwell. That hon. Gentleman failed in his object, and he has since transferred his talents to a more congenial sphere; but though he soon vanished from our view, the mantle of his inspiration has descended upon the shoulders of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea. There are two classes of politicians in the world—the one with a constructive, and the other with a destructive genius. When Mr. Miall had shown his destructive talents in selling off the Church in Ireland, it became necessary for him to construct a theory as to what was to become of the proceeds of her property. And what was his luminous idea on that subject? He thought those proceeds might safely be employed in the erection of lighthouses and lunatic asylums. The noble Viscount, with infinite good humour—and I never admired him more than on that occasion—thought his hon. Friend had gone a little too far; he could not give his assent to the Motion; he had some lingering respect for the 5th Article of the Union; and in a very happy way he put an end to the debate on the Irish Church, which has not been disturbed from that hour until it has now been taken under the protection of the hon. Member opposite, who complains, and with perfect truth, that no other man in Parliament could be found to meddle with the subject, and therefore he felt it his imperative duty to undertake its settlement himself. Public opinion he has, Sir, at his back; for it is enough to fill the House with consternation to hear how excited the people of Ireland have lately been on this question. Why, after a diligent search made in the records of this House, I find that during the last year there was not a single Petition on the subject of this Church, its property, or position, and that for some considerable time past there has been but one Petition from Ireland at all bearing on that Church—a Petition of which I will make a present to the hon. Gentleman, for it was in favour of a convocation. But if the hon. Gentleman should chance to fail in his Motion, as fail he will, the hon. Member for Poole comes to the rescue. I thought that that hon. Member had devoted his talents chiefly to the consideration of questions connected with the East; that he had taken the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India under his surveillance, and meant to explain to the House what is doing by that right hon. Baronet and his incomprehensible Council. I had imagined that the affairs of China might satisfy that hon. Gentleman, but these do not appear to content his vaulting ambition, for he suddenly descends upon the Church in Ireland, and recommends that constant device of the Whigs, a Royal Commission. Well, a Royal Commission is an excellent thing, and to excite the House to yield to this proposal I may say that I have made another diligent search to discover what is the sum which has been expended of late years upon these Commissions which lead to nothing, and I found that it amounted to £823,171. That fact I set against the able speech of the hon. Gentleman. But there is another Member of this distinguished triumvirate in reserve. We have, Sir, an ex-Secretary of the Ad miralty—forgetful of all the delinquencies of that Board since he quitted it—forgetful, too, of the nice questions on which he has spoken so ably, touching iron-cased ships, fortifications, and the comparative merits of the Whitworth and Armstrong guns—suddenly rushing into the arena of controversy and taking the Church of Ireland under his protection. I am satisfied, from what we know of his abilities, that he will bring to bear on this subject all the force of his eloquence, raillery, and wit; but I think the result of his attempt will resemble that which followed the efforts recently made against iron-clad forts by those American ships which attacked in vain, were smiled upon by their opponents, and then battered into submission. Well, the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion indulged us with some general reflections before entering into particulars. And first be gave utterance to a deep and no doubt sincere lamentation on the condition of the great Liberal party. In regard to that, I can give him no consolation. His arguments did affect me considerably; and while I entirely concur with him in his remark, that he was very little acquainted either with his subject itself or with the condition of Ireland, I admit that he appeared to be very well acquainted with the condition of the Liberal party. For he said, Sir, that they had forgotten their principles and abandoned their measures, and never did man more conclusively prove than he did the rashness of the vote he gave in order to bring that party into political power. But if they will only listen to him on the present occasion—although I do. not know whether they will hearken to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely—if they will but take up the old exploded appropriation clause, not with standing the warnings of the late Sir; Robert Peel—if they will only revive the old Whig dodge of attacking the Church, then his affections may be recovered; and he promises to the Ministry which might be so misguided and so forgetful of their duty, that the great Liberal party, whose disorganization he so painfully depicted, and what he inadvertently called ''the Irish Members"—an expression to which I shall presently recur—will return to their allegiance. Speaking of the state of Ireland, the hon. Member declared very truly that there had been in that country political rebellions, disorders, conspiracies, and assassinations. And his panacea for all these evils is to abolish the Christian Church ["No, no !"]—to abolish, I say, a branch of the Christian Church in that country. That was his remedy. I am sure I do not misrepresent his arguments or his facts, which I intend to follow fairly; although I own that in doing so I feel like a heavy laden soldier marching across an arid wilderness, in which fatigue, hunger, and intolerable thirst are far more to be dreaded than the arms of the enemy. He told the House, and truly, that there is a profound tranquillity on this subject in Ireland, and that a statesman of no mean order, at least in the party of which he is a shining ornament, thinks that when the country is tranquil on a question and no complaints are made of the law as it exists, then is the time for interfering to disturb and confuse the minds of the contented subjects of the Queen. The hon. Member also quoted a passage from a book which I read once, unfortunately, but which I never mean to read again, written by Mr. Goldwin Smith, a gentleman who resides in Oxford and lectures on history. In reference to that I will only say that great men, who have thought and read much more deeply than Mr. Goldwin Smith on such subjects, have held that that Church of which he has spoken so lightly and so rashly was intimately connected with the monarchy and with the maintenance of British power in, Ireland, and that as soon as you destroy that Church, you will weaken that monarchy and uproot that power. Now, it is a remarkable fact that this Motion is not brought forward or suggested, as far as lam aware, by the Roman Catholic Members of this House. I did, however, observe that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) had a Motion on the paper for to-night relating to Maynooth. That Motion, Sir, he has most suspiciously withdrawn; and having given his Vote against church rates and the Church in England he now clears the way for an attack on the Church in Ireland. I can assure that hon. Gentleman, that if he imagines that this kind of Radicals policy will give him the position of a leader of the Protestant gentlemen of Ireland, he is under a great delusion But lot me ask why we are to dear with this question. Is it because we have very few important. Bills before us that we are to employ ourselves in attacking the Church? I regret that we have not measures of more practical interest to engage us; but I wish to know whether we are about to re-consider the foundation of all the great institutions of the realm—the Church, the peerage, or whatever else has hitherto been regarded as fundamental, with a view of determining whether they should not be altered or subverted. That is a very serious question, because if this matter of the Church in Ireland touches the monarchy, the constitution, and the Union, is it a subject that ought to be undertaken by a private Member of Parliament, or does it fall within his province to unsettle that great fundamental institution? I have no intention, in considering this question, of speaking in language that would be unsuitable to those who differ from me; on the contrary, I would apply to it the words of Canon Wordsworth, delivered in the Abbey close by. That distinguished divine said—

"The condition of the Church, wherever it may be, is a sacred and solemn thing. Hence every Church has a claim to the reverence of all Christian men. In the present case it is strengthened by ties, both civil and religious, as are the Churches of England and Ireland. These Churches stand side by side. If one of the candlesticks is removed, the other, it is probable, will not long remain, If the light of the one is pure and streams forth in pure lustre, the other will burn brightly,"

On the ground then of our common religion and our common nationality, we must all feel a deep interest in the condition of the Irish Church, and must approach the discussion of it with something like feelings of reverence. The very fact that the Church, in Ireland has existed for centuries, and that it is incorporated in the constitution of the country, is a powerful argument in favour of its preservation, and those who impugn it are bound to give better reason than the rash, conjectures—for they were nothing else—of the hon. Member for Swansea, If I were asked to say why I maintain that branch of the Church which exists in Ireland, my answer would be, plainly and directly, that I maintain it because I believe as firmly as my own existence that it upholds the ancient, pure, Catholic faith which was professed in Ireland centuries before the English set foot in that country. The ablest scholars, the best divines, the soundest antiquaries are agreed upon that point, and no man has proved it more logically or more conclusively than Canon Wordsworth in the series of discourses which he delivered in Westminster Abbey for the purpose of establishing our claim to be the true descendants of the ancient Catholic Church in Ireland. That man is profoundly ignorant who attacks the ancient Church in Ireland. The question between us and the Roman Catholics is which of us most nearly conforms to that Church; but, I repeat, that man is profoundly ignorant who assails the purity or doubts the existence of the ancient institution. Few will venture to deny that the argument of the divine who compared the ancient creed with that which we repeat every Sabbath day—who showed that the Nicene creed agrees in substance with that established by St. Patrick—was conclusive; and therefore I maintain that the Church in Ireland preserves the did, ancient, true Catholic faith. But if I am asked for another reason, I would refer to that which occurred in the reign of Elizabeth. The hon. Member for Swansea has wondered to-night how it happens that the Church has not made greater progress in Ireland. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth all the bishops save one—men who were confessedly the direct descendants of the ancient bishops of the ancient Church—men of great learning and piety—assented to the change which was then made, adopted the Reformation, signed the roll, took the oaths, and sat in Parliament. According to Dr. Todd, of Trinity College, who is at present writing a history of the Archbishops of Armagh, there was only one bishop who dissented, and he left the country and never did another episcopal act. The present bishops are the direct descendants of those men, and are therefore the representatives of the ancient Church. On this point I have only to add, that while there are a good many people in Rome who are ready to find fault with the orders of the English Church, not one questions the direct and unbroken descent of our bishops from the earliest times. Nor must the hon. Member for Swansea imagine that he can carry everything before him by simply asking how many go to church here and how many there. I agree with Burke that it will be a bad day for mankind when great principles come to be decided by numerical majorities. Henry VIII., who was not much of a Protestant, quarrelled with the Pope because he wanted to be King in England and Ireland. It was a struggle for power and supremacy, and had little to do with matters of religious faith. The battle continued during the reigns of Elizabeth and Charles, and it never ceased while one descendant of the House of Stuart remained to maintain it. Let me assume that the hon. Member for Swansea lived 300 years before he was born; that he flourished in the days of Elizabeth; that he was summoned to the Council with Burleigh, Bacon, and Davis, and that he was asked to decide the question with what branch of the Church should the State link its fortunes in Ireland. How would he have acted in those circumstances? Would he not have stood by the judgment of the biggest intellects that ever existed in this country, men whose names are written in the history and literature of England, great scholars, brilliant writers, wise and sagacious statesmen? Such were the men who deliberately connected the State with the Church of England in Ireland, and not with the Church of Rome, which was the Church of the majority. Why did they come to that decision? We often hear broached now arguments that are destitute of principle. Has the State, I ask, not a right to say with what form of Christianity, what ritual, what creed, what discipline, it should connect itself as most consistent with the Monarchy, the Constitution, and the law of this great country? Cecil and the others settled that question in the reign of Elizabeth, and why? The Pope at that time naturally thought, that if things went on as they promised to do in England and Ireland, he should be deposed from the power he possessed in those countries, and therefore he exerted himself to prevent so undesirable a result. He excommunicated the Queen; and although the man who affixed his bull upon her palace was tried and executed, he was punished for his political misconduct, and not for his opinions. What I want to know is, if the Ministers and Councillors of Elizabeth were obliged to decide with what form of Christianity they should connect the State—were they to connect the State with those who would destroy it, or with those who would strengthen and uphold is? They decided, like men of sense, that they should connect the State with that Church which at all times had been true to the Monarchy, faithful to the principles of the Constitution, and friendly to the well-regulated liberty of the country. But I shall go further, and meet the hon. Member for Swansea, as men of his peculiar school must always be met, with an argument derived from the evidence of his senses. If I am asked what faith has the Church of Ireland professed, I must refer to another reign. King Harry was not the sweet-tempered gentleman which he is represented to have been by some modern historians; he was, at all events, rather unpleasant to his wives; but he was an able man, a man of great courage and high intellect, and let us not forget that his antagonists were the chivalrous Francis, a powerful Emperor, and a brilliant Pope. It was no easy task to maintain the liberties of England against such formidable opponents. He broke off from the Pope because the Pope wanted to share his sovereignty; and I think he did quite right. The hon. Member for Swansea has asked what has the Church done for Ireland. "What is truth?" asked jesting Pilate, and did not wait for a reply. Let us see what was the policy of James I. The character of James I., as drawn by the late Mr. Disraeli, is a most interesting study. That Sovereign was, I believe, a learned, able, and wise man. Large grants were made in Ireland during his reign for the maintenance of the Protestant religion. What right have you to meddle with those grants? Have those who got them failed to perform their duty? Have they abandoned the Reformed faith? No; in the darkest hours of your history they have upheld that faith without wavering or flinching; and therefore I say, you have no right to lay a finger on their property. It has been asked, what has the Church ever done in Ireland? In order to answer that question I ask any candid man, what was the state of the country at the time when the large grants I have referred to were made? Why, Sir, there is not in the history of the world a more interesting chapter than the settlement of Ulster in the reign of James I. Ulster was then the most sterile part of Ireland; but the sagacious Monarch, was of opinion, that if he could plant in those barren wastes the laws, language, and religion of England, then, perchance, men might grow up there who might change the wilderness into a garden, bring commerce, trade, population, cultivation, and create a great, rich, and flourishing kingdom. You ask how many people are there in Ulster now? I ask how many were there then? I ask you to look at what the country was, and what it is. I appeal to the history and writings of the great statesmen and authors of that time to vindicate the magnanimous policy of the English nation in establishing the noblest colony they ever planted. Sir John Davis has left us a vivid description of the transformation of Ulster. In the quaint but graphic language of his day he tells us how Ulster, from being one of the most rude, barren, unpromising parts of Ireland, the scene of turmoil and rebellion, became the best managed, the most orderly, and the most productive. Sir John Davis says that King James, in designing the settlement, did not utterly exclude the Irish, but admitted a mixed population of British and Irish, who might grow up into one nation. That was the principle on which the colony was founded; and I defy the hon. Member opposite, or any one else, to point out any grievance under which Irish gentlemen laboured at that time. The Parliament of which Sir John Davis was Speaker comprised both Protestants and Catholics. In his speech from the chair Sir John gave one of the most admirable statements of the duties and conditions of a Parliament. He laid down the principle that the English and Irish were to possess equal rights, and that all cause of quarrel being removed, Protestants and Catholics were both to be admitted to a share in the Government of the country. In a letter to Lord Salisbury Sir John Davis gives an account of a circuit through the province. Wherever his party encamped they took care to inquire whether there was in the neighbourhood a church in which the truths of the Scriptures could be taught. Differing from the hon. Member opposite, they held that no State could exist unless it had a connection with some branch of the Christian Church. Therefore, while these men redeemed the waste and transformed it into a garden, they did not fail in every district to establish a church and to provide for a minister; and the Church which they thus established was the Church of England and not the Church of Rome. Well, what followed these proceedings? I believe that those who guided the policy of the foreign power—I mean the Papacy—came to the conclusion, that unless they could root out the plantation, overthrow the Church, and thereby extirpate the English name, race, and power from the land, it would spread over the kingdom and would make Ireland a source of strength to England; whereas if they could but destroy it, they would have in that country a platform for their operations in England. That was the real cause of the movement of 1641. That movement was not provoked by oppression, but its object was to annihilate the reformed faith, and with it the British power in Ireland, and to restore the country to the domination of a foreign Power. Hence Spain at one time, France at another, and the Papacy repeatedly interfered in the domestic affairs of Ireland. Therefore, when I am asked why the great statesmen of Ireland did not connect the State with the Church of the majority, I reply that it was because they wanted to preserve the independence of the State from foreign control, to maintain freedom, and to uphold truth. I cannot admit the argument, that because there happens to be in Wales or in any other province a number of persons who do not believe in the Church of England, the Church is therefore to go down. On the contrary, there is the more need to keep it up, in order to bring the Dissenters to their senses. But have there been any Petitions from Dissenters to support the present agitation? No; the Dissenters of Ireland are too wise for that. They feel that they must take their stand with the Church. If the Church goes down, the Church of Scotland will soon go down too, the Wesleyans will disappear, and, as for the Quakers, they will be swallowed up in a moment. The hon. Member has also admitted that he is not supported on this occasion by the Catholics. As far ns the large grants in Ulster are concerned, the hon. Gentleman who mates the Motion has no case at all. The hon. Gentleman asked what have the ministers of the Irish Church to say for themselves if that Church, after being once powerful, has now become weak? But on what grounds does the assertion implied in that question rest. In the first place, the statement with respect to the property of individual members of the Church is incorrect. By the Irish Directory for 1863 it will be seen what is the net income of the parochial clergy, and I hold in my hand a letter from a parochial clergyman, in which a complaint is made of the manner in which the gross income is spoken of instead of the net. The clergyman states that he has a living of £700 a year, but that after deducting necessary and unavoidable payments, his net income only averages about £292. The difference between the gross and the net income is expended for taxes imposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The fact and the truth are that a great number of livings are under £100 a year; and a most amusing circumstance, connected with the Irish Church, occurred on the publication of Serjeant Shee's pamphlet. The learned Serjeant stated that he should not wish any clergymen to have a less income than £300; and he was then told that £70,000 a year more must be given to the Irish Establishment in order to raise the incomes of the clergy to the point at which the learned gentleman admitted they ought to stand. But has the hon. Gentleman opposite, when he speaks of the property of the Church, turned his Attention to any one of the documents at his command? In the Reports of the Commissioners may be seen what they state with respect to the question of the property of the Church. They admit that the contributions from individuals for building churches were very large; but with respect to the repairs of churches, the Commissioners state that their funds only enable them to provide for repairs absolutely necessary to preserve the buildings. The House has been told that the Irish Church is a failing Church, and that no progress has been made in its improvement. Now, I will show, on good authority, what has been done since the Union. There have been 944 churches built in Ireland since the Union in 1800, and 224 enlarged. Of these 638 were built, and 53 enlarged, before the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1834, and since 1834, 239 churches have been built or rebuilt, and 171 enlarged, chiefly by the funds of the Board, assisted by private subscriptions; and 67 additional churches have been built exclusively by private funds. The Commissioners state—

"The sums expended during those ten yearn in building, rebuilding, and enlarging churches have amounted to £l96,652, 11s., from which deduct subscriptions £90,739 0s. 4d., expended by the Commissioners. There are now in this office applications for rebuilding and enlargements, amounting to £89,400, without including five new churches, urgently called for in Belfast alone, which will cost at the least £10,600, so that the actual applications could not be complied with under £100,000, in addition to which it would take £12,498 to paint and clean internally churches requiring it at present, if there were funds available. These applications, however, very inadequately represent the whole wants of the Church, even in this one particular—that is, decent places of worship. The inadequacy of the Commissioners' income to meet even these claims for years to come will be apparent from the following analysis of their income and expenditure:—Gross income, including addition from the Archbishoprick of Armagh lately vacant, calculating renewal fines at their annual amount, if renewed regularly every year, £110,000; Church requisites including salaries of clerks, &c., £36,934 9s. 10d; average repairs of churches, £25,000; ministers' money, forced on them by Mr. Fagan's Bill in 1857, £12,529 15s. 4d.; curates' stipends, £5,892; augmentations of poor livings, £4,234; insurance fund, £2,130; incidental expenses, £1,640 16s. 7d.; salaries, &c., £6,185 14s. 10d.; law expenses and solicitor, £800; superannuation allowance, £217 10d; total expenditure over which the Board has no control, and which may be called fixed charges, £95,694 6s. 7d.; leaving but £14,305 13s. 5d. a year in any way at the disposal of the Board to meet claims for building and enlargements. The foregoing not only excludes all applications for building chapels of ease, but omits all reference to other important trusts contemplated by the Temporalities Acts,"

Now, we have been asked for a picture of a diocese in Ireland, and I therefore applied to a friend connected with the Church in Dublin, for a little sketch of what has been done since that able scholar and excellent man Archbishop Whateley came to the diocese; and it appears that in the diocess of Dublin a number of churches have been built and are building, and it is in such a way that the country has become covered with churches and a Protestant population. I ask, then, is a Church of no use when it happens to be the Church of the minority. Let the House consider that the Church of Rome has a wonderful organization, which is sometimes, though erroneously, sneered at. The Church of Rome, in its organization, its missionaries, its priests, its friars, and its Jesuits, is one of the most wonderful institutions in the world, while the Protestant Church has nothing but the parochial system to set against it. If we beat down that parochial system, do we think that the efforts of a few wandering fanatics in the country will be able to resist the operations of that great organized system which has so much influence, not only in Ireland, but in the world? I must not forget the unceremonious manner in which the hon. Gentleman opposite treated the Act of Union. The hon. Gentleman read a clause in that Act, containing the most solemn and binding contract ever entered into by two rations, and then said, "There is the Act of Union." I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to escape in that way. Mr. Pitt was a gentleman, and spoke the truth; and had Mr. Pitt been alive, and had he witnessed the manner in which the clause in the Act of Union was treated, he, no doubt, would, with all the majestic eloquence of which he was a master, have rebuked the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting the views and opinions of the statesmen who framed that document. What did Mr. Pitt's representative in Ireland say. Lord Castlereagh sard—

"One State, one Legislature, one Church—these are the leading features of the system, and without identity with Great Britain in these three great points of connection we never can hope for any real or permanent security. The Church in particular, while we remain a separate country, will ever be liable to be impeached on local grounds. When once incorporated with the Church of England, it will be placed upon such a foundation as to be above every fear from adverse circumstances. As soon as the Church establishments of the two kingdoms shall be incorporated into one, the Irish Protestant will feel himself at once identified with the population and property of the Empire, and the establishment will be placed on its natural basis."

Well, the Parliament of Ireland may have been induced, by unworthy means, to vote away the independence of their country—that I will not deny; but I do not believe all the honours and peerages and titles that were given could have obtained from an exclusively Protestant Parliament the surrender of their independence, had not Mr. Pitt and his mouthpiece, Lord Castlereagh, pledged the faith of England to the maintenance of the Protestant Church. And this House will nut be an assembly of English gentlemen and statesmen if, having got what you wanted, the incorporation with the Imperial Legislature of a local Parliament difficult to manage, you should proceed to vote away the existence of the Irish Church not with standing the article of the Act of Union which guaranteed it. If that be done, I should like to know the value of the Act of Union itself. That Act states, that after the Union you should no more interfere with the existence of that form of the Protestant religion established in Ireland than by the Articles of the Union with Scotland you would be allowed to do with that form of the Protestant religion established in Scotland. If you will refer to the history of the Scotch Parliament written by Daniel Defoe, you will find that the Scotch were apprehensive, that if they yielded the independence of their Parliament, what they called the prelacy would get rid of the Presbyterian form of worship, and restore the Episcopalian form, which they disliked; but they were informed that the faith of England was pledged to the Union; that the honour of the country was pledged to maintain the Protestant religion in Scotland; that although they might be in a small minority in this House, they would be certain that the fundamental part of the Union would never be impaired; and I hold that I should be bound to vote with the Scotch Members if any attempt were made to alter the Presbyterian form of worship, as much bound as I am to maintain the Established Church in Ireland. If you adopt any other policy, you will adopt a dangerous policy, and one of which those who originally propounded it have not considered the consequences. The hon. Gentleman may say, "Don't talk to me of consequences. Tell me first about your numbers, and then see what opinions of able statesmen I have got to show how the Church can be done away with." Well, about numbers. Hon. Gentlemen must have observed that for some time past little Returns have been handed to them about the Church in Ireland. And what is the object of the hon. Gentleman? To represent, if he can, that Protestantism in Ireland has receded. Whether an Englishman ought prudently to do that is not for me to say. But what does the hon. Gentleman do to prove his point. He takes two periods—the year 1834 and 1861; 1834, because it is supposed that at that time Protestants were most numerous, and 1861 because in con- sequence of famine, emigration, and other causes the Protestants may appear less numerous. And then the hon. Gentleman said he would show a diminution of 200,000. But there was no Census in 1834, and therefore the House may reasonably ask how the numbers for 1834 are obtained. The numbers have been taken from the Report of the Commissioners on Public Instruction in Ireland; but how did they arrive at the numbers? A decennial Census had been taken in 1831, and they said, "We will take the rate of increase in the population from 1821 to 1831, and apply it to the time between 1831 and 1834." And in that way they got a Protestant diminution of 200,000. That reminds me of an anecdote about the late Dr. Cooke Taylor, who went over to Ireland with Lord Clarendon. A gentleman being asked who Dr. Cooke Taylor was said, "He is statistician to the Castle." A country gentleman asked, "What is a statistician?" "Oh," replied his friend, "it is a man who is hired to invent facts for the Whigs." The decennial period from 1831 to 1841 showed altogether an increase of only 231,184, but the wiseacre who made the calculation gave the increase of the three years, from 1831 to 1834, as 209,574, being about 140,000 on the wrong side. But how was the supposed diminution to be accounted for? The Census of 1831 was not accurate, because the enumerators were taken from the mass of the people, and, as an official gentleman informed me, a great mistake was committed, because they were paid according to the numbers returned. So that if an enumerator wanted to put a couple of pounds in his pocket, he had only to return a few thousand more than he ought. But before 1841 the mistake was discovered, and in that year the Government got rid of those enumerators, and took the constabulary, and certain assistants approved of by the constabulary authorities, to perform the duty; and at the last census even those assistants were got rid of, and none but those who were under the immediate control of the State were employed. Then the hon. Gentleman deducted the Wesleyans. What right has he to do that. When the Wesleyans take the sacrament, they take it in the Church. Under the last Census the Wesleyan Methodists, a most respectable body of men, than whom none are better affected to the Church, amounted to 47,000. Then there were 27,000 other Protestants, sturdy fellows perhaps, who refused to say to what body they belonged; they, too, are taken away, and the numbers of the Established Church diminished still more. The hon. Gentleman also deducts the Independents, the Baptists, and the Quakers. But what right has he to take away the half a million members of the Church of Scotland also? Do those Presbyterians ask him to do so? Do the Synod of Ulster ask to have it done? In the North of Ireland half the family may be Presbyterian and half Protestant. By what authority, then, are the Presbyterians separated from the members of the Established Church? The hon. Gentleman also forgot another part of the argument. He stated the diminution of population from emigration, and that diminution has no doubt been wonderful. It appears that from the year 1825 to 1844 no less than 1,250,000 emigrants left Ireland, 1,000,000 of whom went to America. Since that period to the present the numbers who have emigrated from Ireland are about 1,500,000. The curious question then arises, what is the religion of those people in the countries to which they emigrate. The heads of the Roman Catholic Church sent a respectable gentleman, a Mr. Mullen, to America to see what became of the Catholic emigrants when they got out there. He reported that the number of Catholic emigrants in America was 3,970,000, not less than 1,990,000 of whom were lost to the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics left a country in which the Scriptures were freely inculcated, and it is certainly most astonishing that so large a number when they reach America come over to the Protestant form of religion. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Hear, hear !] The hon. Member means, that if Ireland were Americanized, she would become Protestant. It is assumed that Irishmen are discontented and quarrelsome; but I am satisfied with Ireland as it is, and I believe that Irishmen are much less discontented and less quarrelsome than people generally in this country imagine. Crime is not by any means so common in Ireland as it is sometimes represented to be, and it is forty years since there has been an execution in Dublin. At all events, do not let hon. Members opposite impute that the Church is not perfectly successful whenever it has taken root and had the opportunity of perfecting its mission. Before the Emancipation Act was passed there was an inquiry before Committees of the Lords and Commons on the question whether it would be perfectly safe, in respect of the Established Church, to grant emancipation. The right hon. Richard A. Blake—himself a Roman Catholic—who went to Ireland as a friend of the Marquess of Wellesley, and received the appointment of Chief Remembrancer, was examined before a Committee in 1825. Mr. Blake told the Committee that he should not wish to see any settlement of the Catholic question effected, in which the rights of the Established Church were not preserved. Mr. Blake made the above statement before a Committee of the House of Commons. He said before the House of Lords' Committee—

"I should not be favourable to any settlement which went to disturb the Protestant Establishment; I considered it a main link in the connection between Great Britain and Ireland, and with that connection I was satisfied the interests of Ireland were essentially identified."

Mr. Blake added, that he did not think—

"the Protestant Church of Ireland could be disturbed without danger to the general securities we possess for liberty, property, and order— without danger to all the blessings we derive from being under a lawful Government and a free Constitution."

Of all the statesmen who have argued the question of the Irish Church, the late Sir James Graham was the most impartial. He traced the settlement of the Church to the settlement of property, and he uniformly contended that it would be impossible to overthrow the one without endangering the rights of the other. By what right or title can the descendants of a clever engineer, named Sir William Petty, claim their property, compared with the claims of the late Primate, who received £15,000 a year, but which has been reduced one-half? [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: No; £9,000.] The late Primate disposed of that sum so well, that I, for one, regret that it was not £20,000. But if the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn) meddles with the property of the Church, what chance will the absentee landlord have of getting his rents? There are great political reasons why the Church of Ireland should be connected with the State in England, and I will give the House a fact from history. When Wolfe Tone planned the subversion of the English Government in Ireland, he went to Paris, and persuaded Carnot and the great revolutionists there to give him the armament that was to be commanded by Hoche, and which, if it had landed, would have marched all over Ireland. Carnot asked Wolfe Tone if he was sure of the Roman Catholics. Tone replied that the priests would join when the expedition was seen to be successful. "But what about the heads of the Catholic Church?" he was asked. Tone replied that he did not like the then head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, because he had ordered the priests not to give the sacraments to persons whom the English thought traitors. Carnot then, in reply to Tone's questions, told him that General Bonaparte was in Rome, and had caught the Pope. Tone thereupon urged Carnot to write a despatch to Bonaparte, directing him to make the Pope send an edict to his legate in Ireland to join the French the very day they landed; and added that the expedition would then be successful at once. If these great revolutionists could calculate on a foreign Power being turned to the subversion of the British Empire, can the House wonder that the great wits and far-seeing statesmen of Elizabeth's reign discovered the importance of connecting the State in Ireland with a Church in whose loyalty they could place the most implicit reliance? Upon all these grounds—upon the history of the country, the history of the Church —upon the state of Ireland—upon the condition of the Church, never so satisfactory, I rest my defence of the Established Church of Ireland. But I will add, because I do not wish to conceal it, that it is mainly to be defended because it is connected with the Reformation. Let that event never be forgotten by Protestants. It burst the fetters that enchained the human mind. It taught people to think, and shook the powers of darkness and of evil; from that moment the Church of Ireland has held up the lamp of truth. It may have been obscured, but it has never been quenched. The light now shines with steady lustre, and will grow brighter and brighter every day, until, I trust, it will at last illuminate our island.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he wished to ask the Government for an assurance that they would give a night after the recess for the discussion of that important question.

said, the hon. Gentleman would find no difficulty in fixing a day.

said, that after that intimation from the noble Lord the only course would be for his hon. Friend to introduce the question upon the first day of Committee of Supply.

said, he should have no objection to that course at all, and gave notice that upon going into Committee of Supply he should move a Resolution on the Irish Church.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman would name any day.

named the 28th instant.