said, it was the duty of every man to assist in alleviating any general distress, and of course he did not rise to oppose the Resolution; but he ventured to think, that on one or two points of great importance the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board in introducing this subject to the House was deficient. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should have stated somewhat more fully and distinctly what was his opinion with respect to the causes of the present wide-spread distress. It was said by many that a short supply of cotton had been the chief, if not the sole, cause of the distress in Lancashire. He was not prepared to argue that a short supply of cotton had not mainly contributed to the distress; but it had been stated also, with great truth, that much of the distress had arisen from the over-trading and over-speculation which had been indulged in by the millowners in the manufacturing districts. If the distress was partly to be attributed to overtrading, it tended to alter the position of the case, because it was the bounden duty of Parliament, in legislating on a matter of this nature, not to give encouragement to a recurrence of that over-speculation which it was asserted had contributed very much to the state of things which they all so much deplored. He should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman his opinion upon this point. Now, as to the actual condition of the districts where the distress existed, the right hon. Gentleman made no allusion to the comparative state of the poor rates in the distressed districts, and other parts of England. If it could be shown that at this moment the poor rates were much lower in the distressed districts than they were in many other parts of England, it appeared to him that would form a most important element in the case, and one with which the right hon. Gentleman was bound to deal. It was quite obvious, that if the country was to be called upon to avert the existing distress, this point ought to have their most serious consideration. They had been told that during this very distress there had been immense fortunes realized by some of the mill-owners. He thought that was an important element in the question. They were also told that at this moment large sums were being spent in the erection of the same description of mills the stoppage of which had been the cause of this distress. Now, if great distress existed in an agricultural district, and a complaint was made to Parliament on the subject, and if it could be shown that owners and occupiers of the land were in a prosperous condition, and were laying out their capital in the anticipation of revived prosperity, the country would be of opinion that justice was not being done. The right hon. Gentleman had made the startling assertion that no distress or loss had occurred to the agricultural interest in this country from the effects of the recent legislation. He would not enter into the wide field opened up by that sweeping assertion; but he would point out, that when the question of free trade was under discussion, one of the main arguments adopted by the supporters of that policy was that it would benefit the artisans in the manufacturing districts. The spouters and agitators employed by the Anti-Corn Law League promised these men large loaves and great puddings as the inevitable consequence of free trade. He was not going to enter into the question how far these promises had been real- ized; but he would remind the House that after seventeen years' trial of that financial policy they were now assembled to endeavour to adopt measures for the mitigation of a state of extreme starvation and distress amongst those very people for whose benefit especially this financial policy had been adopted. It was also admitted that a large amount of distress existed in other parts of the United Kingdom, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to show that this legislation was not of a selfish character. It would be only just to the other parts of the country to show that there were not other districts equally distressed, equally entitled to assistance. The right hon. Gentleman did not show them clearly that the security for the money proposed to be borrowed was of the satisfactory kind which it ought to be, or whether they might hope that the security was of a character which would lead to the expectation that the money lent would find its way back to the public purse. It was ascertained that there was amongst the great millowners of Lancashire an antagonistic feeling to emigration, because they thought that it would cause, in the event of the revival of the cotton trade, a want of hands. On the other hand, persons better acquainted with the subject told them that emigration was the only remedy, and that they were entitled to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what were his views and the views of the Government on the subject of emigration. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he thought they must ultimately resort to emigration.

said, he was not one of those who thought that the large manufacturers of Lancashire and Cheshire and the operatives in their employment were entirely free from blame. There might have been an excessive pushing forward of manufacturing operations—there had been too much pride of class—the manufacturers might have been too presuming, and fancied themselves of too much importance; and the operatives had manifested too much of the same feeling. There had been a great increase of mills, and trade had been pushed to a great extent; but that was not altogether an evil, nor was the hon. Gentleman opposite to attribute it entirely to free trade. Free trade had no doubt promoted vastly the increase of prosperity amongst the manufacturers of Lancashire and Cheshire, and had immensely contributed to the comforts of the operatives employed. Was that an evil? Employment had been extended enormously, and the operatives, who at one period in his recollection were in a most miserable state of privation, were of late years in a state of comparative wealth and prosperity; the operatives had themselves become capitalists, and had put their contributions together; and to the formation of co-operative societies and the investment of their earnings the increase of manufacturing operations was in a great degree to be attributed. Did the hon. Gentleman suppose that the great manufacturers of Lancashire and Cheshire were the only persons that erected those large mills or extended their operations unduly? The principal establishments had been erected of late years by the operatives themselves through means of co-operative societies, and he had no wish to say a word against anything of the kind. Most of the employers of labour in Lancashire had risen from the ranks, and in the same way the working men of Lancashire had been trying to raise themselves; and if an ample supply of cotton had been obtained, there was no doubt that there would have been ample occupation for them all. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that large fortunes had been made by millowners. No doubt, in consequence of the dearth of cotton, there had been large speculations in that article, but there were many other speculators besides the millowners. Ladies, clergymen, and other persons, impressed with the idea that they were going to make their fortunes, gave orders, both at home and abroad, for the purchase of cotton. That, no doubt, was a very wise and legitimate operation. Whoever contributed to the supply of a commodity required, not only might make some profit, but assisted to provide the means of giving employment. He did not think the hon. Gentleman was entitled to make it a subject of taunt that the principles of free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws had failed to produce the advantages which its main supporters promised would arise from that measure. He had himself been blamed frequently in his own district for not having been one of the great promoters of free trade. He certainly thought the idea was carried too far at that time, but he had lived long enough to see that he was wrong. He believed that free trade had been the means of promoting the interests of the country and the comforts of the working classes to an enormous extent; and were they now to be told—because an exceptional state of things had arisen, and a state of misfortune had come upon them, which could not have been foreseen—that the principles of free trade had not accomplished all that its advocates promised? He thought the measure of the right hon. Gentleman was a wise one; he most cordially supported it, and he did not see that the hon Gentleman opposite had said a word which should, in any degree, affect its passing that House.

said, that no doubt the manufacturers of Lancashire had made very large fortunes, and the operatives themselves had enjoyed very high wages for a considerable length of time; but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. A. Turner) must also remember that the present distressed state of things in Lancashire had also resulted from free trade. He did not intend, on this occasion, to discuss the question of free trade; but he was ready to enter the lists on any day with the hon. Member for Rochdale, and to maintain the proposition, that if free trade had done great good, it had also produced many evils, of which the present distress was one. The President of the Poor Law Board, on the 27th of April last, gave the House to understand that the present measure would employ 70,000 male adult operatives in the manufacturing districts, representing the whole of that body. The House had a right to know what employment was to be found for the 400,000 souls who it was said would be in the receipt of relief next winter—because they had since been told that only 27,000 adults would find employment under this Bill, and Mr. Farnall stated that 400,000 persons would probably, during the next winter, be dependent on the poor rates of Lancashire and on the Treasury. He wanted to know why the Bill had not been introduced earlier in the Session—or even last year—and why it had been delayed now. It was rumoured—he knew not with what truth—that the gentlemen of Lancashire had interfered with the Government, and that it was owing to them that the House was so late as the last week of June going into Committee on the Bill. If the Government had done their duty, the measure would have been in force last winter. For thirty years Manchester had, in fact, governed this country, and now the House saw the result as far as Lancashire was concerned. It was only the other day that Mr. George Wilson in a public speech remarked, that with Cobden as traveller, with Bright attending to the outdoor department, and with Gladstone and Milner Gibson doing the work inside, the present Government were doing a roaring business. He bad no doubt, that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would speak the candid truth, he would admit that it was entirely owing to Manchester that the measure had been so long delayed. He had been requested by the factory operatives to make a statement with regard to the quality of Surat cotton. Mr. Hutchinson, of Blackburn, reported to the Central Relief Committee at Manchester that the loss in the spinners' wages by using Surat cotton, was not more than 2s. per week. The spinners at Mr. Hutchinson's mill, however, had written to state, that for the last four weeks previous to the date of their letter, their earnings had been less by 7s. or 8s. per week. They added—

"If we go so far back as twelve months our earnings would be from 10s. to 12s. per full week's work less than would have been earned in ordinary times with working American cotton."

These working men added that their energies had been more than doubly taxed through working inferior cotton, and that this statement would apply to all other firms in the town and neighbourhood. It had been stated that public subscriptions for the relief of Lancashire distress were at an end. If so, how were the unemployed operatives to live? In idleness? The Corn Laws were repealed by the agency of tumults and violence, and the fear of tumults. Sir James Graham admitted the fact to be so. At that time the operatives were told to "go and play" for a month; they were now told to "go and play" for a whole winter. Under such circumstances, did the right hon. Gentleman think that the peace of Lancashire was safe. It might be too late for the Government to interfere at such a time, but it was not too late for the House of Commons to interpose at the present moment. The remedy proposed by the Government was this miserable Bill. The sum of £1,500,000 was to be raised by the Treasury, but only £460,000 of that was to be paid to the 400,000 unemployed operatives, the rest was to be paid to skilled labourers, such as masons &c. Had the right hon. Gentleman calculated how much would be paid to each of these 400,000 persons? The Bill was in very truth a manufacturers' Bill, drawn up and settled by the manufacturing interest of Lancashire without consulting the working population. He heard already that some of the Town Councils in the distressed districts were quarrelling as to the manner in which this money was to be laid out. He believed that not one-third of £1,500,000 would be spent in any kind of improvement, he had endeavoured to divide the expenditure recommended by Mr. Rawlinson into wet work and dry. Under the title wet work he included:—Main sewers, £400,000; house drains, £150,000; waterworks &c., £50,000; cleansing rivers, £20,000; land drainage, £60,000. Total, £680,000. Under the designation of dry work he in cluded streets, paved with square sets, £250,000; ditto, with boulders, £200,000; suburban roads, £150,000; parks and recreation grounds, £100,000; enclosing wasteland, £10,000; baring rock, £10,000. Total, £720,000. The wet and dry work made a total of £1,400,000, to which was added £100,000 for parks, making altogether £1,500,000. He considered that the operatives were, from their previous habits and want of skill, unfit to undertake the wet work, and in regard to a good deal of the dry work, such as paving the streets with square sets and boulders, skilled labour was imperatively required. It was said that the operatives might be employed in draining, and it was stated in that House that Mr. Tollemache, one of the Members for Cheshire, was employing a large number of cotton operatives on his land at Mottram and Tintwistle, for the purpose of draining it. A gentleman who lived in the neighbourhood, however, wrote to say, that although a great number of operatives were employed at first when Mr. Tollemache commenced draining, nearly all of them had been compelled to give up the work, because they could not stand it. Mr. Tollemache found it necessary to employ regular drainers from the south or west of England, for it was quite clear the factory operatives could not stand the work of draining the land. The fact was, that as soon as the sides of the drain touched their clothes and wetted them, the operatives became liable to be seized by rheumatism. It was also the fact that these operatives threw out three times as much soil from a drain as a regular drainer. The operatives themselves earnestly requested to be assisted to emigrate. If the House were to send 100,000 of them (who if they remained here would be out of employment for two or three winters) to the Colonies, they would settle there and become our best customers. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) had attributed to him the advocacy of a wholesale system of emigration. Now, he would admit that he would be liable to this charge if he advocated the removal to the Colonies of the whole 400,000 unemployed operatives. He did not go so far, but he maintained that from 50,000 to 100,000 might be safely supplied with the means of emigration at the present time. They would have to do it eventually, and it was a mere question of time. It would therefore be wise to do it while the men had some stamina left. They should also send with them some agricultural labourers, in order to do some of the heavier agricultural work, which operatives would be unable to do. Such was the desire on the part of the operatives themselves to emigrate, that he believed that if sufficient emigrant vessels were now in the Mersey, the whole factory population would go in one exodus to the seashore, rejoiced thereby to escape the misery that now overwhelmed them. He believed that the operatives would not endure their privations for another winter. A letter had appeared in The Time's which he defied any one to read without tears. It was dated from Carlisle, and was headed "Emigration of Cotton Spinners." The writer stated that seventeen families of spinners, containing seventy-six individuals, persons of good character, and some of the best workmen in the mills, declared to him their earnest desire to emigrate. He added, "I wish those cotton lords, who doubt the desire of these people to emigrate, would come down here for a while, and witness what I have unhappily witnessed repeatedly, stout men, with tears in their eyes, imploring me to send them 'any where out of this.'" The writer of the letter was Dr. Close, the Dean of Carlisle, and no one would doubt that his statements were implicitly to be believed. There were fifty districts where the operatives were equally desirous to emigrate. They were weary of this hunger and poverty, and they only asked for migration purposes for one of the many millions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted the other day had been added to the wealth of the country during the last few years by their labour. [The hon. Member, having read extracts from letters and local papers describing the extreme misery that existed in various localities, proceeded:] Would any one deny the notorious fact that the factory operatives wished to emigrate? Who opposed their wish? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Villiers) and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden)—men who were formerly the leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League—the men who promised the operatives abundance, and who were now the representatives of the manufacturers, who were leagued together to prevent emigration. When the philanthropists of Essex recommended emigration, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) as good as told them to mind their own business. Since then the hon. Gentleman had appealed to the whole country to subscribe a million, and he got it. He might have to appeal again, but he would not get it. When the manufacturers in 1835 gave a dinner to Daniel O'Connell, they boasted that they were rich enough to buy up the whole House of Lords. Then why did they not raise the money among themselves? He believed that at least a quarter of the cotton manufacturers had not subscribed one sixpence for the distress in Lancashire, although some of them had made large fortunes by their mills. He trusted to God that before the end of the Session many noble-hearted men in that House would say, when the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) brought forward his Motion in favour of emigration, that he had made out his case, and that they would vote for a grant of £1,000,000, if the Government would propose the Resolution. If the Government refused to do this, they would have the curses of a million factory operatives on their heads instead of their blessings. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) told them that the operatives were not fit for outdoor labour; and yet he supported the present Bill. But he said he was for voluntary emigration. The conduct of the hon. Member reminded him of an ancient torture, where persons were put in iron cages with food placed just beyond their reach. When the sufferers asked for bread, they were told to take it. The hon. Member for Rochdale had recommended voluntary emigration, but he doubted if the funds could be raised for removing a thousand operatives by such means. If the operatives were kept at home during the ensuing winter they would eat up the poor rates of the district. The interest of the money lent under the present Bill would have to be added to the rates, and the result would be to bring the poor rates of some of the manufacturing districts up to 25s. in the pound. The Trea- sury, infact, would have to find £3,000,000 during the ensuing winter for the relief of distress in Lancashire. If the cotton trade of England could not be maintained, except by the sacrifice of 500,000 operatives, he for one would say, "Perish the cotton trade rather than sacrifice 500,000 of our countrymen, countrywomen, and children."

assured the House that he did not rise to answer the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport, but to entreat hon. Members not to do so. The hon. Gentleman claimed to be the representative of the factory operatives. He (Colonel W. Patten) was also one of their representatives, and he told the hon. Gentleman to his face, that if he were their bitterest enemy, he could not take a course more calculated to injure them. The Bill was one for authorizing the issue of £1,200,000 to be employed in works of local improvement, and a morning sitting had been granted to enable the House to consider it in detail. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) had availed himself of the opportunity of addressing the House on the principle of the Bill upon the second reading; and now, when the House assembled at a morning sitting, and had only four hours to discuss the clauses, the hon. Gentleman went into a discussion of free trade, the cotton trade, and emigration. The Bill would be lost altogether if this discussion were carried on. Let hon. Members go into Committee, and discuss the clauses in a business-like manner. Only two hours now remained for the discussion of a Bill of nineteen clauses; and if the present opportunity were lost, the fate of the Bill at this period of the Session would become very doubtful.

said, that he hoped they would take the advice of the hon. and gallant Colonel. The hon. Members for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) and Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) had left the House very little time for considering the clauses of the Bill. Both hon. Members, it seemed, highly approved of the Bill. [Mr. EERRAND: As far as it goes.] Well, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) did not go further than the Bill on the present occasion. This being the case, he hoped it would not be thought disrespectful to the House if he declined to go back to discuss questions that had been raised and decided any time for the last thirty years. The only novelty was to find two hon. Gentlemen who avowed themselves as firmly convinced as ever of the superior policy of protect- tion as opposed to free trade. The hon. Member for Devonport had not adduced a title of evidence to show that the operatives were opposed to this Bill. His hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had given notice of his intention to bring the subject of emigration before the House, and at the proper time he should be prepared to state the views of the Government on the subject. He might state, however, to those who were impatient upon that subject, that there never was so extensive an emigration as that which was now going on from this country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport had stated gratuitously, and without a tittle of foundation, that this Bill had been prepared in the winter, but had been suppressed to please the manufacturers. It was prepared after it appeared that the trade was not likely to revive sufficiently to reinstate the people in their employments, and that there appeared a general anxiety in the country that the operatives should not continue to depend entirely upon charity, and after inquiries had been instituted to ascertain whether it was possible to find remunerative employment upon works of permanent utility. It was upon the report of these inquiries that this Bill was framed, with a view to give it effect. In opposition to what the hon. Gentleman had said, he would venture to assert that the operatives were anxious to be set to work, and that they were not disaffected. They were not ungrateful; they had been treated with great consideration, and they were sensible of it. Whether by making such addresses as that to which the House has just listened the hon. Member might not change that feeling he did not know. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House agree to the Resolution.

moved to insert the sum of £1,200,000 in the clause.

said, there ought to be some provision, that when these monies were repaid, they should be kept separate and used for the discharge of the loan, instead of being mixed up in an "omnium gatherum" of other accounts.

said, that the Treasury would give every facility for the simplification of the accounts. The balances would be sufficient without calling upon Parliament to create any special loan.

moved an Amendment, to the effect that in case the existing blockade of the American ports should have ceased before the whole number of such instalments had been paid, then the residue of such loan should be repaid by so many equal annual instalments, not exceeding ten, as the Poor Law Board should approve, the first of such last-mentioned instalments to be payable on the first annual day of payment which shall occur after the expiration of twelve months from the termination of the blockade.

opposed the Amendment.

felt bound to protest against the principle of the clause—namely, that of giving power to guardians to tax parishes for the purpose of public works without the consent of the parishioners.

complained of the vagueness of the wording of the clause. It gave to Local Boards the power to "widen, deepen, cleanse, embank, straighten, or otherwise improve any river, stream, or brook." He doubted whether this clause would not give the local authorities the power of going out of the county. He thought that the consent of the owners of property ought to be first obtained to all proposals for arterial drainage.

said, he thought there was ample security against any misapplication of the Act. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman should, however, be considered, and an Amendment to protect the interest of the owners introduced, if necessary, on the Report.

said, that this was the proper time for raising the question of aiding emigration; he therefore called upon the Government to say, why the relief that might be afforded by emigration had been excluded from the provisions of this clause? He by no means wished to propose a system of wholesale emigration, or of special loans of public money for this purpose; but if there were persons fit and desirous to emigrate in the distressed districts, and if a proper body existed for judiciously applying these loans, why should they be precluded from doing so to some extent in this manner? The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) who was kept away by domestic affliction, had requested him to obtain some explanation from the Government on this point. He had understood the hon. Member for Rochdale to say, on a previous occasion, that there were no operatives in the manufacturing districts who were either fit or willing to emigrate. [Mr. COBDEN: I never said so.] He certainly said that everybody wished everybody else to emigrate, not himself; and that misfortune had followed emigration. The Dean of Carlisle, however, had published the fact that a great many were anxious to go, and that if they had the funds, numbers would be very glad to go to the Colonies. In some parts of Warwickshire distress existed as in Lancashire, and in that county there were many persons emigrating; and if there were funds, there would be many more. Several letters had been received from those who had gone out, and without exception they were all prospering and thankful they had gone. If emigration had been resorted to at the commencement of the distress, perhaps by that time many would have been in a state of prosperity and becoming customers of those at home, instead of swelling the numbers of permanent paupers. Of the large numbers who had emigrated from Warwickshire under the pressure of distress, there was not one single instance in which the emigrants had not succeeded in establishing themselves, and many had sent to get their friends to follow them. No doubt, there was great difficulty in finding sufficient funds, but why were not the funds in hand expressly for assisting emigration from the manufacturing districts used for that purpose, and why should they not be somewhat supplemented out of this loan? Several Colonies had voted large sums of money to enable the distressed operatives of Lancashire and Cheshire to emigrate. He went himself to the Emigration Commissioners, and asked them whether, if the Lancashire people would not employ these funds in emigration, there would be any difficulty in applying them to Warwickshire? The Commissioners replied, that the Votes of the Colonies were so expressly made for Lancashire that, in their opinion, they could not be used for other parts of England. They added, however, that if Lancashire positively refused to employ these funds in promoting emigration, then they might be transferred to other parts of the country similarly in distress. He was not sure that money lent in aiding emigration would not be more likely to be repaid to the Treasury than the sums lent for other modes of aid, especially those proposed to be laid out in mere pauper works, similar to the works which were set on foot in Ireland during the famine, and certainly the result would be better and more permanent. He could not resist the suspicion that the mill-owners were obstructing and discouraging emigration. If so, they were acting in a most shortsighted manner. It was doubtful whether the operatives would be found very effective if they resumed their employment in the mills, after being engaged in outdoor work; whereas, if they let them go to the Colonies, they would prosper and become good customers, and the millowners might depend upon it that the rapid increase of population at home would be quite sufficient to insure a supply of labour for the cotton manufacture whenever it revived. It was incurring a grave responsibility to hold people back from emigration, and to exclude this mode of effective aid in preference of protracted dependence.

said, that his right hon. Friend was labouring under a misapprehension if he supposed that the Central Relief Committee had received funds from the Colonies for the purposes of emigration and had failed to apply them. Every sixpence received by the Central Relief Committee had been applied, as far as possible, in accordance with the wishes of the donors, even although they might be contrary to the opinion of the Committee. The Committee had received large sums from the Colonies, but not one farthing had been sent to them with the stipulation that it should be applied to emigration. The Bill provided for the repayment of a loan over a series of years, because it conferred substantial advantages on the next as well as the present genera- tion; but if this £1,200,000 were spent for the immediate relief of the manufacturing districts by means of emigration, the House would incur the just complaints of those who, many years hence, would be held responsible for the repayment of this money. As Lancashire men, too, they were too proud to ask for a loan for the relief of their own immediate distress, unless they had a prospect of giving public works of utility to posterity. He had never uttered a word against emigration and never intended to do so. But hon. Members seemed to forget that boards of guardians had at present, under an Act of Parliament, the power to give so much a head to those who wished to emigrate.

said, that he had no objection to emigration, but the question of emigration was not germane to the measure now before the House. It contained no machinery for the purpose. They were not a Board of Works about to receive a grant of public money; the proposition before the Committee was to enable local bodies to borrow money for their own purposes. The Bill provided the means of making advances to public bodies who applied for the money, and who could give security for its repayment. It might be proper for the Government to assist emigration, but he Could not consent to discuss the matter on the present clause further than to say that the Government would take upon itself a great responsibility in regard to the fate of those emigrants whom it might assist by free passages to the Colonies.

said, he was told that an impression prevailed that not more than one-third of the money raised could be expended on these works during the ensuing winter. If so, he did not see why a portion of this money should not be allotted to emigration. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel W. Patten) had said, that if he were the bitterest enemy of the operatives, he could not take a course more injurious to them. He was only sorry that such an antagonistic feeling existed between the manufacturers and their workmen. [Colonel WILSON PATTEN: It is not so.] He could only say that he had merely endeavoured to place before the House the case which the working people themselves had confided to his hands. If the country were again appealed to for a public subscription for the relief of Lancashire distress, and if money were subscribed for emigration purposes, he trusted that the Central Belief Committee would throw no obstacles in the way.

moved a New Clause (Power to abandon the Local Government Act).

said, that before the Bill went through Committee, he wished to express his regret that it had not been found possible to disentangle it from the Poor Law Board. It would have been much more acceptable if it could have been kept clear from that Board, and from the prejudices and objections which were felt to it on that account in many districts. At the same time, seeing the difficulties of the subject, he had thought it his duty to give the Bill his hearty support.

said, that the Bill, it was true, originated with the Poor Law Board; but those who were represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman never ceased to urge the Board to consider and take up the matter. He could only say for himself that he should have been under deep obligations to any other Board or Department of the Government that had relieved him from the trouble and anxiety he had incurred in regard to this Bill. The proper moment for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have objected to the action of the Poor Law Board was when he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) said he would direct inquiries to be made, if there were not means in his county for furnishing independent employment for the operatives who were deprived of their occupation, and were living upon alms; or else, when, holding the office he did, he had introduced a Bill founded on the report of that inquiry. Instead of which, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had waited till that Bill was matured, until all the trouble had been taken about it, till all danger as to its passing was over, and while morning, noon, and night his mind was made anxious on the subject, in order then, at the last moment, to complain of its being connected with the Poor Law Board, and thereby to excite mistrust of its operation. He must say that it was not a very gracious address to come from the hon. and gallant Gentleman just when the Bill had passed through Committee, and when it was too late to be of use.

would ask whether it was possible the right hon. Gentleman could so misinterpret him? Had he said one word of complaint against the right hon. Gentleman? In private, and long before the second reading, he had expressed to the right hon. Gentleman his opinion that it was desirable to keep the Bill clear of the Poor Law Board.

declared solemnly that he had not the slightest recollection of his hon. Friend ever having said one word of the sort to him. His hon. and gallant Friend did, he believed, say that he thought it would be better if the measure were kept distinct from the Union Relief Bill.

said, he had a right, as an independent Member of Parliament, to express his opinion on this Bill, to which, notwithstanding the objection he had expressed, he had given every support.

was glad that all the vials of the right hon. Gentleman's wrath had not been poured on his head, but that the right hon. Gentleman had reserved some for the hon. and gallant Member.

said, the operatives who were employed under this Bill ought not to be regarded in the light of paupers, but as persons who had suffered from misfortune, and who were willing to earn a livelihood by honest labour.

said, that the Report on the Bill would be the first order on Monday next.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Attorney General intends at this late period of the Session to proceed with the Civil Bills (Ireland) Bill; also, whether, in the event of such not being the case, the Government will introduce a Bill this Session to abolish the power to seize growing crops under any legal process in Ireland?

said, in reply that it was not the intention of the Attor ney General to proceed with the Civil Bills Bill during the present Session, but the question was under consideration whether a clause might not be introduced into a separate Bill for the purpose of abolishing the power of seizing growing crops under legal process in Ireland. He would take that opportunity of giving notice of his intention to withdraw the Bill, which had been read a second time, and he hoped he should be able to state on Monday, after conferring with the Attorney General, whether it would not be desirable to introduce a Bill bearing on that more limited question.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it, is intended by the Treasury to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Scientific Institutions in Dublin, with regard to the amalgamation of the Museum of Irish Industry with the Royal Dublin Society, notwithstanding that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has expressed his disapprobation of that proposal?

replied, that it was scarcely necessary to declare that the opinions expressed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had received that respectful consideration which was due to them. But, after consulting the Committee of Council on Education, the Treasury came to the conclusion that in the interests of public convenience, and also of those institutions themselves, it was desirable to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners. Those recommendations, he might add, would be treated as a whole.

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, By what authority an oath was administered to John Ritchie, one of the persons examined by the Procurator Fiscal before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, touching the truth of the statement made by Jessie MacLachlan after her conviction for murder, and for what reason that person alone was sworn to the truth of his answers?

replied, that the Sheriff was entitled to put on oath any one examined before him if it should appear desirable to do so. The reason the witness was examined on oath was simply this, that it was thought necessary he should be so examined.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question with reference to some proceedings at the Bow Street Police Court, which were reported in The Times of Wednesday, the 24th instant. On the previous day a boy named Nicholls, twelve years of age, was charged with stealing a horse and cart from Covent Garden Market. His father stated that till about a month ago he was very honest, but that then, owing, he believed, to getting into bad company, he fell into evil courses, and he desired to send him to a reformatory. Mr. Corrie asked him if he would pay 5s. a week for the lad's maintenance; and he replied, that although he only earned 15s. a week, and had a wife and three other children to support, rather than the boy should go on as he was doing he would pay that sum. The mother stated that she was a Roman Catholic, and that, although her husband was a Protestant, the boy had been brought up in that religion. Mr. Corrie said that his religion did not appear to have done him much good, and perhaps the best way would be to change it. However, that was for the parents to settle. Upon consultation, the parents desired to have him brought up as a Catholic; but, being told that it would be easier to get him into a Protestant reformatory than into a Catholic one, they agreed to leave it to the magistrate to settle. He wished to know, Whether the right hon. Baronet had made any inquiry into that extraordinary statement of the magistrate; and whether he was prepared to give the House any information on the subject?

said, that he knew nothing of the case until the hon. Baronet gave him private notice of the Question which he desired to put. He then looked at the report in the newspapers, and saw nothing in it which would justify him in calling upon the magistrate for an explanation. Mr. Corrie had however, forwarded to him a memorandum in which he said that a Roman Catholic gentleman, a member of the Bar, had called his attention to the report, which was understood to imply that he had endeavoured to induce the boy to change his religion, adding that, from his knowledge of Mr. Corrie, he was sure that he would not have done so. Mr. Corrie stated that the facts of the case were, that a boy twelve years of age was brought before him for a second time on a charge of felony. Mr. Corrie decided that it was a case which would justify him in sending the boy to a reformatory, and made inquiries as to the religion of his parents in order to determine where he should be be sent. The parents, of whom one was a Protestant and the other a Roman Catholic, were willing to leave the decision of that question to the magistrate; and he, having ascertained that all the instruction the boy had received was from a Roman Catholic priest or instructor, decided that the boy should be sent to a Roman Catholic reformatory at Walthamstow, if there were room for him there.

said, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Mr. Hunt, who has made the Estimate for the repairing, altering, and arranging the International Building at South Kensington, is the same Mr. Hunt who took out the quantities for Sir Charles Barry for the New Houses of Parliament, which quantities formed the basis of the first Estimate of £750,000 for the construction of the Houses of Parliament; and whether Mr. Hunt, who has been employed by Government to value the Exhibition Buildings belonging to Messrs. Kelk & Lucas, is or has been employed for Mr. Kelk as his surveyor and valuer?

said, the difficulty he felt in answering the Question was to determine its meaning; the information asked for being of so trifling a character and so unworthy to receive the attention of the House. He presumed the object was to discover what inferences affecting the character and reputation of a professional gentleman employed by the Government might be drawn from that information. It was quite true that Mr. Hunt took out the quantities of the new Houses of Parliament for Sir Charles Barry—a fact which showed that twenty-six years ago he occupied such a position in his profession as entitled him to execute so important a work. The hon. Member probably wished to ascertain whether the expenditure subsequently incurred had been caused, in some measure, by errors in the quantities taken out by Mr. Hunt; and if that were his object, he would answer the question satisfactorily, on the authority of a document laid on the table of the House in 1837. The calculations made by Mr. Hunt and the drawings of Sir Charles Barry were subjected to a very close examination at the Office of Works, by the surveyor and architect of the Board; and Mr. Hunt's quantities were minutely gone into by two surveyors named Richardson and Corduroy. The result of their investigations was conveyed in the Report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, who submitted a Report from Messrs. Seward and Chawner, architects, appointed by them to examine and report on Mr. Barry's estimate for the new Houses of Parliament. That Report said—

"In obedience to the commands of the Commissioners of Woods, &c., of the 27th of January and of the 3rd of February, 1857, directing us to report upon the estimate prepared by Mr. Barry, of the expense of erecting the proposed new Houses of Parliament, amounting to the sum of £707,104, we immediately commenced upon the subject of this reference, and after a most careful and minute examination of the numerous drawings of the details prepared by Mr. Barry for this building, comparing them with the several measurements of quantities, checking all the prices and calculations for the proposed works, we beg leave to Report that in our opinion the new Houses of Parliament can be satisfactorily erected according to the said drawings for the sum stated by Mr. Barry."

It followed, therefore, as far as Mr. Hunt's work went, that it bad been carefully examined by competent persons and found to be accurate; and that the reason why the original estimate of £707,000 was exceeded was not because there had been any error in the original estimate, but because Sir Charles Barry disregarded the drawings which he had made.

said, he rose to order. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, in answering a question, had no right to make a speech.

It appeared to me that the question put by the hon. Gentleman was of a nature to require rather a lengthened reply.

said, he was endeavouring to confine himself to the information required by the question. If any blame attached to any person, it certainly was not to Mr. Hunt, who made accurate calculations, but rather to Sir Charles Barry, who altered the drawings, and the House, which sanctioned the alteration and enlargement of the original plans. With regard to the other Question asked by the hon. Member, he found, upon inquiry, that Mr. Hunt was employed three years ago by Mr. Kelk to make a valuation of the land occupied by the Victoria station of the Pimlico Railway, on the faith of which valuation Mr. Kelk made a purchase amounting to £500,000. The hon. Member, in framing his Question, took no notice of the fact that the object which the Government had in appointing Mr. Hunt was to get a man at the head of his profession, possessing that amount of ability and experience which had given him his large practice and general employment. A man of that sort must have been employed either for or in opposition to contractors; and the only alternative for the Government to adopt would be to take a man of so little ability or experience that no contractor would employ him. If the hon. Member meant to draw from the fact that Mr. Kelk in a particular transaction placed reliance on the Judgment of Mr. Hunt any inference derogatory to that gentleman, he would say that such an insinuation was utterly groundless. It was foreign to the habits of professional men to suppose that they would allow their judgment to be biassed by previous engagements. He would only add, as a matter of information to the hon. Member, that Mr. Hunt was one of the most truthful, straightforward, and honest of men; that he had an unblemished reputation.

Sir, it is with great reluctance that I again call the atttention of the House to the painful subject of which I have given notice. But having obtained these papers, and having given to them and the discussions out of which they arose my most serious attention, three main facts have so strongly impressed themselves upon my mind that I should be wanting in my public duty if I did not seek an occasion of submitting them to the attention of Parliament. Sir, to my mind these papers and that discussion prove three things:—First, that the law of Scotland, as regards an important part of criminal procedure, is either very defective or at least very uncertain; second, that the verdict of a jury, and the judgment of a Judge have been set aside by a private inquiry conducted in an objectionable manner, and proceeding on evidence of a very questionable character; third, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been wanting in due respect to those whose duty it is to administer justice to Scotland, and that he has also inflicted a serious wrong upon an innocent person concerned in this case. First, Sir, as to the state of the law of Scotland. So long ago as the 14th November, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State, in his letter to Messrs Smith and Wright, replying to their request that a judicial inquiry might be held on the conduct of old Mr. Fleming, stated as the law of Scotland, "that a person, having been examined as a witness in a criminal trial, cannot afterwards be subjected to a criminal prosecution in respect of the matter of such trial." This opinion was afterwards, on the 28th April, confirmed in this House by the Lord Advocate, upon whose authority it had, no doubt, originally been made. "My opinion," said my right hon. and learned Friend, "undoubtedly is, that, by the law of Scotland, a person who has given evidence on a trial cannot afterwards be tried on the same charge." This opinion of the Home Secretary and of the Lord Advocate appears to bear a meaning wider than I humbly venture to think it was intended to convey. I believe my right hon. and learned Friend intended us to understand—and I speak under his correction—not that no witness on a criminal trial could afterwards be tried for the crime on which he had given evidence, but that no witness for the prosecution could be so tried. Having taken every means in my power to ascertain the opinion on this matter of persons learned in the law of Scotland, I must say that I have found no lawyer equal in authority and eminence to my right hon. and learned Friend who shares his opinion. The opinion of those learned friends whom I have consulted generally agree with that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. Mure), as expressed in this House, that if a person who is known to be implicated in the crime is placed in the witness-box for the prosecution, he is, supposing him to tell the truth, protected from the consequences of his evidence; but that if a person unsuspected of the crime happens to give such evidence, he is not protected in Scotland any more than in England from the penalty of any guilt which may afterwards be proved against him. The case of Mr. Fleming therefore stands thus:—Advised by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Home Secretary has announced that he cannot, by the law of Scotland, try Mr. Fleming for the offence of which he has also told us he believes him to be guilty. Advised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute, another Home Secretary, supposing him to take the right hon. Baronet's view of Fleming's conduct, would have caused him to be tried for the crime of murder. When I find two learned Gentlemen, each standing in the foremost rank of his profession, one holding and the other having lately held, the post of chief law officer for Scotland, and chief authority in this House for Scottish affairs, and each speaking, after ample deliberation, and under the responsibility of his position—when, I say, I find these two persons propounding across that table diametrically contrary opinions as to the law of their country, in a matter touching the life and character of one of their fellow-citizens, I think I have a right to say that that law is either very defective or very uncertain. Believing with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Tiverton, that the law of Scotland, as stated by the Lord Advocate, is unworthy of a rational country, I most earnestly and respectfully press upon the legal Members of this House the necessity of obtaining some alteration of a law so defective, or a declaration of a law so uncertain. I come now, Sir, to the subject of the inquiry by which the right hon. Baronet professes to have been guided in setting aside the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the Judge. I wish to say at the outset, to avoid misapprehension, that if the right hon. Baronet had merely commuted the capital sentence passed on the convict, without himself passing sentence on an untried man, he would never have heard my voice raised in this matter. With regard to the remission of the capital sentence, I do not blame, and I never have blamed the course which he adopted. In dealing with so delicate and difficult a matter, the Secretary of State must be guided by his own feeling and conscience, and not by the feeling and conscience of any other man. He is not required by law or by equity to give any reasons for the view he takes, and it is obviously better that he should give none. Accepting the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the Judge without comment and without question, he is nevertheless free to institute further inquiry, and, if he sees cause, to remit the sentence wholly or in part. In this trial, however, the circumstances of the case itself were so peculiar, the semi-public mode of the inquiry so remarkable, and the language of the Home Office so unprecedented, that public opinion, as expressed in this House, has wrung from the right hon. Baronet a publication of the process by which his course was guided, and by which his language must be justified. Previous cases had been producing great doubt and dissatisfaction in the public mind with regard to the action of the Home Office in the matter of pardons, and now that we have its ways revealed to us in a blue book, I think there is good ground for saying that the doubt had not arisen too soon, and that the dissatisfaction was by no means without foundation. Even with these papers before me, I have the greatest difficulty in placing upon the right shoulders the primary responsibility for this inquiry. I say the primary responsibility, because of the ultimate responsibility of the Home Secretary there is no manner of question. [Sir GEORGE GRET: Hear, hear!] In the matter of pardon, the Crown and this House know no more of the Lord Advocate than they know of the Under Secretaries of State. One part of the inquiry—that before the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, which began on the 30th of September—was commenced for the information of the Lord Advocate, and on his instructions. But the Sheriff and the Provost of Glasgow had already memorialized the Home Secretary for a "general investigation," to which memorial no specific reply had been received at that date. It seems fair to infer, therefore, that the Lord Advocate ordered the inquiry before the Sheriff, and that the Home Secretary, acting through the Lord Advocate, ordered the further inquiry before Mr. Young. But our view of the relations between them is rather obscured than enlightened by their speeches in this House. The Home Secretary distinctly informed us that he requested the Lord Advocate to direct an inquiry, if he thought an inquiry expedient. The Lord Advocate, on his side, told us he was nothing more than the agent of his right hon. Friend—"the hand," as he expressed it, "of the Home Office in Scotland." It is the old story of the bandying of responsibility between the Lord Advocate and the public Departments, amounting to the repudiation of responsibility, and which is the perplexity and the bane of the public business of Scotland. It would be a great relief to the Scottish Members if they could ascertain what is the relative value of this head and this "hand"—whether the "hand" is really directed by the head, or whether that force which results in the final nod of the supreme head is really communicated by the humble and subordinate "hand." Taking all the information we have on this matter, I am led to the conclusion that the "hand" and not the head did the lion's share of this very unsatisfactory piece of work. Now, Sir, let us see what was actually done. After a trial of four days, the jury of fifteen bad unanimously found the prisoner guilty of murder and robbery. Her counsel then read a statement contradicting those previous declarations which purported to come from the prisoner, and asserting that the murder had been committed by Fleming, and that she, being present, had been bribed with plate and clothes to conceal the crime. The Judge heard this statement; he characterized it as a tissue of falsehoods, and he sentenced the convict to death. The jury heard the statement, and knowing that a strong effort would be made to get the convict pardoned, they agreed to hold a private meeting and decide as to whether they would join or stand aloof from this effort. Fourteen jurors attended this meeting. They considered that the statement could not be believed, and they determined to abide by their verdict. The case was referred to the Lord Justice Clerk. He also considered the statement, and he, too, adhered to the verdict and the sentence The right hon. Baronet was not satisfied He directed the Lord Advocate to commence an inquiry if he thought it expedient and an inquiry was accordingly set on foot. The convict was meanwhile told that she was reprieved, but no hope of pardon or commutation of sentence was held out unless the investigation confirmed the truth of her statement as to her share in the transaction. It is obvious that the first and main question which presented itself was, "Is this statement of the prisoner really and truly her statement. When, and how, and where, and by whom was it drawn up?" The only persons who could give any information to this question were the agents of the prisoner. They ought, therefore, to have been examined before any other witnesses, because upon their evidence the value of corroborative evidence wholly depended. The 30th of September, however, was spent in examining eleven other witnesses, whose evidence, if the statement turned out not to be authentic, was worthless. On the 1st of October the three agents of the prisoner, Messrs Wilson. Dixon, and Strachan, were examined. From their evidence it appears, setting aside points of some importance in which they contradicted each other, that the woman began to tell them her story as we have it in the statement on and after the 13th of August; that what she said was noted down by Mr. Dixon; that those original notes were the subject of long and anxious consultations between the agents and the counsel; that the prisoner desired that her statement might be used at the trial, but that her counsel thought it was too hazardous a course—that the notes, having been extended into the form of a statement, were destroyed—that this statement was from this time up to near the close of the trial considered and treated merely as a memorial for counsel, but that as the trial proceeded it was thought that it might be advisable to use it after the verdict, if the verdict were adverse, on behalf of the prisoner. On the third day of the trial, therefore, this statement, this memorial for counsel, or whatever else it might be called, was laid before the prisoner, and it was signed by her without having been read to her, because, says her agent, there was no time to do so. This, Sir, is the document which the Judge and jury were told was the statement of the convict, and upon the authority of which the Home Secretary saw fit to order an inquiry to be made. I shall not exhaust the patience of the House by examining in detail the extraordinary history of the creation of this document, but I will merely assert, without fear of contradiction, that the evidence of these agents, men in all the vigour of youth, displays far more remarkable lapses of memory than are to be found in the evidence given at the trial by old Mr. Fleming in his 87th year, Such as it was, whether the work of the woman or the work of her agents, the statement was accepted by the Home Secretary, and formed the basis of an inquiry; and this inquiry has, in the opinion of the right hon Baronet, confirmed the truth of that slate merit as to the convict's share in the trans action. Confirmation of any statement, I presume, means, not the corroboration of this or that trivial or non-essential portion of it, but the establishment, on clear evidence, of its central and principal part. Confirmation of this statement, I presume, means that reasonable proof has been given, not that the convict went out or came in at the time she said she did, not that she was in this street or that at the time she says she was, nor that this or that incidental circumstance of her story has received some fresh support, but that the principal and cardinal point of her story, the commission of the murder by Fleming, has been proved. If this has been proved, then the statement has been confirmed; if it has not been proved, the statement has not been confirmed. The right hon. Baronet will perhaps tell us how it has been proved, and how he defends his opinion that the statement has been confirmed. Observe, Sir, the right hon. Baronet had a perfect right to pardon the woman without any reason given, [Sir GEORGE GREY: It was not a pardon, but a commutation of sentence only.] The right hon. Baronet had a perfect right to commute the sentence passed upon the woman without any reason given, without a statement, and without an inquiry. But he has chosen to give a reason. He has chosen to say to the public, as clearly as words can express it, "I commute this sentence because this statement has been confirmed." He has also produced the evidence which he says contains the confirmation. I have now a right to ask him to point out to the House the passages which form that confirmation. Until I am further enlightened, I shall continue to believe, with the Judge, with the jury, with the Lord Justice Clerk, with the 2,300 memorialists who addressed the Prime Minister from Glasgow, and I believe the majority of the press, and of intelligent men, that the statement remains a tissue of wicked falsehoods—not the less false and not the less wicked because there are threads of fact running through the borders and fringes of its web of fiction. Now, a few words on the method of the inquiry. When I last addressed the House on this subject, I said it was rumoured—but I hope falsely rumoured—that the Lord Advocate, who had been responsible for the conviction, had undertaken the duty of inquiring whether it ought not to be set aside. The frank admission of my right hon. and learned Friend that he had undertaken, and had actually performed it, took me considerably by surprise. I am quite sure that he was doing no more than he believed to be right; but I am also sure he did a good deal more than some of the most eminent of his predecessors would have thought it right to have been. One vicious principle pervaded the whole proceeding, that of employing in the inquiry—avowedly a process by which the conviction was to be set aside wholly or in part—the very persons who were responsible for the conviction. The Procurator Fiscal of Lanarkshire, who, as part of his official duty, prepared and arranged the evidence against the prisoner, was employed to cross-examine her agents, with whom he had been contending through the whole case, as to their share in the production of her statement. I am far from saying a word against Mr. Gemmel's performance of this very painful duty, but it was a duty so delicate and so painful that it ought not to have been imposed upon any man except in the impossibility of getting any other competent person to perform it. That no such impossibility existed here is evident from the fact that the duty of conducting the inquiry was subsequently transferred to Mr. Young. Mr. Young, the Lord Advocate told us, was employed not entirely on account of his eminence at the bar, but because the Advocate Depute, who had conducted the prosecution, was out of the way. If the Lord Advocate could have found another person who had been previously connected with the case, and could have set him too to review his own proceedings, he would have preferred it. But I should like to hear, what I have not heard yet, why the inquiry at first intrusted to the Procurator Fiscal was taken out of his bands and transferred to another. The prisoner's agent, Mr. Wilson, commenced his evidence by making a deliberate attack on the impartiality of the Procurator Fiscal. He said—

"Courting a full investigation, be protested against that investigation being conducted by the Procurator Fiscals, or either of those by whom the case against Mrs. MacLachlan had been got up, and of whose conduct in the whole matter he disapproved."

The Sheriff interposed and the evidence at last was given, but still under protest against the employment of Mr. Gemmel. I want to know why this insult to Mr. Gemmel is thus flung on the table of Parliament without remark or explanation. Are we to gather therefrom that the protest was subsequently sustained, and that the inquiry was therefore taken out of Mr. Gemmel's hands and put into the hands of Mr. Young? I want also to know why—the inquiry having been previously conducted before the Sheriff and Procurator Fiscal, who had the power to examine on oath—Mr. Young was not armed with similar powers? I want to know who was employed in the inquiry under the gentleman already named—what Sheriffs and what Procurator Fiscals examined the witnesses at Dunoon, and Hamilton, and Alloa, and Edinburgh? I want to know why, at an inquiry in which the character, if not the life of Fleming, was so clearly at stake, he was not represented by agents; and upon what principle of justice a man is to be tried, either in Scotland or in England, as Fleming has been tried, for murder, in the dark and behind his back? Lastly, why, in an affair of this importance, were no written instructions given to any of the persons employed? Without pushing these questions farther, I would submit it to the consideration of the other Members of Her Majesty's Government and to the House, whether, if the Home Office is to institute at pleasure these arbitrary courts of appeal, it ought not at least to frame some general code for their guidance, and issue some definite instructions to the functionaries so employed. I now come to the most painful part of my case—the personal charge which I have to make against the right hon. Baronet of failing in proper consideration and respect fur the administration of justice in Scotland, and of doing injustice to an untried and, I believe, an innocent man. The disrespect shown in the one case, and the injustice committed in the other, are so bound up together that there is some difficulty in separating them. Of the two, taken together and considered as a whole, I beg the right hon. Baronet to believe that I impute to him no offence beyond a mistake. I am confident that be has intended no slight to those who dispense justice in Scotland, and that he has and can hare no animosity against Mr. Fleming. He, on the other hand, I am sure, will admit, that the mistakes of a Secretary of State, involving as they may involve great inconveniences to the public service, and inflicting, as this mistake has inflicted, great suffering on individuals, are not unworthy of the attention of the House. First, with regard to the disrespect shown to those who are charged with the administration of justice in Scotland. I must remind the House that this case caused the greatest interest in Scotland. Long before the trial came on, or anything accurate was known, two parties had been formed—those who believed in the guilt of the woman and the innocence of the old man, and those who believed the man guilty and the woman innocent. From the very outset the newspapers which are the woman's supporters indulged in the most violent language and the most scandalous imputations against those whose duty it was to bring her or any one else who appeared guilty to justice. Sheriff Strathearn, before whom it happened that she was first taken, and the Procurator Fiscal Gemmel, were accused of everything that was base and unworthy. They were, it was said, the intimate friends of the Flemings; they were bribed by the Flemings and their powerful friends; they were determined to get Fleming off, and they did get him off, sending this innocent woman to be tried in his place. When the trial came on, the Judge himself was assailed with similar abuse. Caricatures of the black Sheriff, the cruel Procurator Fiscal, and the iron-hearted Judge were freely circulated, representing them as receiving bags of money from the Flemings, and vowing in return that the prisoner should be hanged. Each day brought forth a fresh scandal and a fresh lie. These maligned officials, nevertheless, did their work honestly, calmly, and fearlessly, as it ought to be done. The case was submitted to the jury, and their unanimous verdict and the sentence were what we know. The verdict and the sentence were reviewed by the Lord Justice Clerk, and approved by him. Nevertheless the right hon. Baronet, as was his undoubted right, ordered a further inquiry. Now, what was his language in doing so? He said, "Tell the woman that her life will be spared only on condition that the investigation confirms her statement as to her share in the transaction." "Her share in the transaction!"—by these words the right hon. Baronet plainly evinced his belief that more than she had had a share in the transaction, in which the Judge and the jury believed her to be alone concerned—that, before the investigation had been begun, he had made up his mind against the verdict and the sentence. He night not know it, he might not intend it, but by the use of these words he placed himself at the head of the ribald press and the reviling mob. When the matter was last discussed in this House, the right hon. Baronet spoke with his usual fluent eloquence about the state of public feeling in Glasgow, and the inexpediency, in the face of that feeling and that interest, of carrying out the sentence. Did he say a single word in defence of his honest, faithful subordinates, who had been for months exposed to the most virulent calumnies? Not a word! He was occupied in merely defending himself—in reiterating his assertion that this famous statement had been confirmed, and that the woman, who had been found guilty of murder, was in truth only what be calls a particeps criminis. Sir, I think I am justified in saying that the right hon. Baronet, in his treatment of this ease, has not treated the learned and honourable persons concerned with due respect and consideration, and that he has not given them the support which they deserved at his hands. Now, as regards the injustice done by the right hon. Baronet to Mr. Fleming. My position is, that the right hon. Baronet had no right to stigmatize as he has stigmatized this untried man. He told the convict and the public that she was respited until the investigation and inquiry, about to take place, had confirmed the truth of her statement as to her share in the transaction, and that confirmation was made the one condition on which her life would he spared The inquiry ended; the convict and the public were informed, without further remark, that her life was spared. Was it not unreasonable to infer from the language of the one letter and the curtness of the other, that the condition had been fulfilled—that the truth of her statement as to her share in the transaction had been confirmed? Would any other inference have been equally plausible, or, rather, was that inference not absolutely inevitable? The silence of the right hon. Baronet, in the second letter, as to any modification of the condition laid down in the first, pledged his word as a Minister to the confirmation of the convict's statement. The confirmation of that statement implied the guilt of Flem- ing. The right hon. Baronet, therefore informed the public that Fleming was guilty. I have heard one excuse for the right hon. Baronet, and but one, which I dare say I shall hear again to night. It is said that this was a case in which it was impossible to spare the woman's life without throwing some shadow upon the man's character. You could not relieve the woman of any portion of the guilt without transferring or appearing to transfer that postion to the man. I admit that there was this difficulty; but I do not consider it a difficulty which it was not within the literary resources of the Home Office to meet and to overcome. But because the case presented this difficulty, because it required some skill and care so to write on the subject as to avoid casting some shadow upon Fleming, is that to be made an excuse for making the shadow as broad and as dark as possible? Assuming for a moment that it was the desire of the right hon. Baronet—a desire with which, of course, I do not charge him—to hold up Fleming to public odium as a murderer, in what better and more skilful and effectual manner could this have been done than by using the precise form of words which the right hon. Baronet did actually employ? The section of the Scotch press which so outraged decency and discredited its country by its coarse calumnies and foul accusations, might well take lessons at the Home Office in the art of dexterous and decorous insinuation of crime. Sir, I have called Mr. Fleming an untried man. In one Sense, the literal sense, this is true. He had never been placed at the bar. But in another and equally practical sense, it is not true, because the suspicions of guilt which attached to him had been most closely investigated. He had been in custody for eight or nine days, and was released only by the direct order of the late Solicitor General of Scotland, now Lord Barcaple, than whom a more able and learned man does not sit on the bench. At the trial a question arising as to the propriety of putting a particular interrogation, Mr. Clark, the prisoner's counsel, said—

"My Lord, one of my defences is that Mr. Fleming committed this murder, and I have therefore a right to lay before the jury the same evidence which would have been laid before them had Mr. Fleming stood at the bar."

The Judge made no objection, and upon this understanding the trial proceeded. By this counsel, one of the ablest men at the Scotch Bar, in the full vigour of manhood, and all the force of a practised legal intellect, was this old man subjected to a severe cross-examination. I think, I may therefore say, that although Mr. Fleming is in one sense untried, he really stood a very severe trial, differing in little from the trial of the convict except in the fact that he had no counsel to defend him. Out of that trial he came, in the opinion of the jury and the Judge, unstained with guilt, the stigma of which was nevertheless cast upon him by the Secretary of State. Sir, I can quite believe that the right hon. Baronet has no idea of the extent of the harm he did, or of the suffering he inflicted. Men who had been disgusted by the calumnious violence of the newspapers, and who had read with pain how the old man had been hooted and hunted by the mob in the streets of Glasgow and Greenock, who believed with the jury and the Judge that he was innocent, even they, when these letters from the Home Office came out, were staggered in that opinion. They said to each other—"After all, there must be some grave evidence against Fleming. Sir George Grey is too good a man, too fair a man, to calumniate with the press or fling dirt with the mob. We thought Fleming was innocent—we now fear he is guilty." Sir, I reasoned in this very way myself; and I am sure the same thought passed through the minds of other men. I wavered in my faith in this old man's innocence, relying on the good faith, the sound judgment, the kindliness of the right hon. Baronet; and I believe others did the same. It was not until I saw that this cruel imputation was not followed by the action by which it ought to have been followed that I began to re-consider the matter, and to revert to my original opinion. I came to this House and stated this case of grievous wrong in such imperfect fashion as is in my power, and I said to the right hon. Baronet, "You are Secretary of State, and you had a right to accuse this man, and to bring him to trial, if you saw fit; but you had no right merely to accuse him, and to blast his character and that of his family, by writing such words as compelled the public to infer that you possessed proof that he was guilty of murder. Why, I said, have you not tried him? You say the law—or your interpretation of the law—prevents you from trying him for murder. Why have you not taken the course which is open to you, and placed him at the bar for perjury? If your stigma is well founded—if he has committed a murder from the penalty of which he is protected by a bad law—he has also committed perjury, from the penalties of which the law gives him no such protection. Why has be not been tried for perjury?" To this question the right hon. Baronet did not condescend, or did not find it expedient, to give any reply. I do not now repeat the question. These papers enable me to answer it for myself. I now tell the right hon. Baronet—with the knowledge that he will immediately reply to me—that one at least of the reasons why he did not try Fleming for perjury was, that he dared not. On evidence such as this no jury could have convicted, and the discredit of the trial would have fallen, not on the prisoner, but on those who placed him at the bar. Sir, the right hon. Baronet has had several opportunities on which he might have withdrawn this most unfounded, and I believe, at first, unintentional imputation. Messrs. Smith and Wright, in their courteous and sensible letters, twice appealed to him on the subject. I made a third appeal in this House. All these appeals were in vain. The right hon. Baronet prefers to adhere to his original blunder. He prefers to face the difficult task of proving the Home Office infallible, rather than to perform the easy, simple duty of recalling or explaining a few hasty words in a letter. So much for the wrong which, it appears to me, that the head of the Home Office has inflicted on Mr. Fleming and his family. One word more with respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, the "hand" of the Home Office in Scotland. It is due to my right hon. and learned Friend, whose reputation in this House and elsewhere is a matter of pride, and therefore of solicitude to his countrymen, to say, that he has distinctly refused, in all this unhappy business, to be the "hand" to strike this miserable blow at an unfortunate and persecuted old man. The right hon. Baronet tells us the convict's statement has been confirmed by the inquiry, or, in other words, that Fleming is guilty of murder. Speaking after him in this House, my right hon. and learned Friend had the courage and manliness to assert the directly contrary opinion. "The result of the inquiry," said my right hon. and learned Friend—and I marked the words well—"was not to criminate Fleming." In other words, the inquiry left Fleming precisely where he was left by the trial, and the woman's statement, as regards its cardinal and primary facts, was not confirmed. It only remains for me to say, in conclusion, that I did not move in this painful matter until I had ascertained that those who were better entitled and better qualified than I am to deal with it were not disposed to take it up. I have been prompted solely by a sense of public duty, and in no respect by private feeling; I have absolutely no acquaintance with any person concerned in the case, except the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose proceedings I have been obliged to criticise; and that I am well aware how much my performance of what I believe to be a duty has needed, as it has certainly received, the kind indulgence of the House.

said, he believed that the Home Secretary could not, under the circumstances of the case, have done anything but respite the woman MacLachlan. There was a feeling prevalent at the time, not on the part of the rabble merely, but on the part of those who had well thought over and considered the whole proceedings of the trial, and also among the mass of the people of Scotland, that if this woman had been executed while Mr. Fleming, against whom so much suspicion bad existed, was not even tried, a gross act of unfairness would have been done. To warrant the carrying-out of the capital sentence it was not enough that the verdict itself should have been justified, but it was necessary that the sympathies of men of right feeling should go along with it. The exception he took to the course which had been pursued in the case was, that he thought the man ought also to have been tried. There had been great mismanagement, and to show that he begged to be allowed briefly to advert to some of the particulars of the case. The House would remember that Fleming was living alone in the House with the murdered woman, and his account was—that be had gone home to dinner; that he afterwards went out to take a walk; that on his return be went down to the kitchen, where the woman, afterwards murdered, made tea for him; that he went upstairs to bed at half past nine o'clock, and was awoke by a loud scream, when he looked at his watch and found it was exactly four o'clock. Another person was awoke by a loud scream—Mr. Stewart, who lived next door to Fleming, He had gone to bed at eleven o'clock, and immediately fell asleep, and the scream which awoke him might, he said, have occurred at a quarter past eleven o'clock, but could not have been later than one o'clock. A sempstress going home about a quarter past eleven o'clock had occasion to pass Fleming's house, in front of which two separate parties were standing, listening, and one of whom she heard saying, "It came from that house where the light is,"—that is, Fleming's house They passed on, and her attention was then arrested by a moaning or wailing noise, tallying exactly with the scream heard by Mr. Stewart. Now, he ventured to think, if the frightful wounds found on the body were commenced at eleven o'clock, the murdered woman could hardly have emitted so loud a scream as to awake Fleming at four o'clock. A party coming home from a wedding, having to pass the scene of the murder at four o'clock in the morning, stopped opposite Fleming's house to hear the birds singing, and they heard no noise whatever in the house. From the beginning, therefore, there was reason to suspect that Fleming's statement had been a mere invention. Fleming went on to state, that going to sleep again, be awoke at six, and lay in bed till nine o'clock, wearying for his porridge, which was usually brought to him about eight o'clock; but it was clearly proved that he was up at half past seven, and had opened the street door to the milkman at twenty minutes to eight o'clock, He lay in bed, he said, till nine, when the murdered woman not coming with his porridge, he went down stairs, and found her door locked. He rapped, but received no answer, when he returned upstairs and opened the door for the first time to a woman who came for a spade. In his examination he concealed altogether two ringings at the bell—one by the milkman, with respect to which, in his cross-examination, he broke down; but he finally admitted that be bad got up before the milkman came, and opened the door to him. The other he did not let out at all; but it was a very peculiar fact that a girl had called who had been engaged by the murdered woman to "char," and Fleming risked her to come in and scrub part of the lobby, where marks had been in the floor, for which purpose he brought her water and a piece of flannel, Then with regard to the various modes of egress by which the murderer could have made his escape. The back door was locked inside. The front area, 6 feet 3 inches high, was covered by an iron grating. The window of the room where the woman was found had iron stanchions. Another window had also iron stanchions, and a wicket, which was kept bolted. By the area no person could escape without leaving marks. The Superintendent of Police was asked as to the state of the area, and there were no footmarks, or other indications of any attempt to escape. The door upstairs old Fleming took great care often enough to mention was not locked, but merely on the latch or sneck, as they termed it in Scotland. Even before he was asked the question, he volunteered a statement to that effect. Fleming appeared to be very anxious about that fact, because it was quite clear, that if that door had been fastened inside, either the murderer was still within the House or had been let out by him.

said, he rose to order. He submitted that it was a piece of monstrous injustice in the hon. Gentleman conducting prosecution against Mr. Fleming.

ruled that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dunlop) was in order.

said, he was rather conducting a prosecution against his right hon. Friend below him, because he said there were sufficient grounds, not only to warrant, but to require that old Fleming should be put at the bar with the woman. He would not, however, enter further into the details of the case, beyond observing that he thought his hon. Friend had taken a somewhat erroneous view of the nature of the effect to be given to the statement made by the woman. That statement was not, of course, to be looked upon as got up in the perfect form which would demand that implicit reliance should be placed upon it as a matter of testimony. He must, at the same time, observe that the carelessness with which its minute details were strung together, tended rather to add to than detract from the weight to be attached to it, inasmuch as he doubted whether the right hon. Baronet the Member for Herts (Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton), with all his ingenuity and skill, could narrate so minute a story without having a full opportunity of devising it, and seeing that the various particulars fitted accurately one with the other, unless he were giving a narrative of facts. But, be that as it might, he thought it utterly impossible that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department could have acted otherwise than he had done—to advise that the capital sentence should not be carried into execution.

said, that however inconvenient it might be to discuss questions such as that under consideration in the House of Commons, he was not sorry that an opportunity had been afforded of explaining how the facts connected with the proceedings in the case really stood, and therefore he would not complain that his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire had deemed it to be his duty to ask for information on the subject. In doing so he had made certain charges against those who took an active part in the proceedings to which it was desirable an answer should be given. Those charges, so far as he could gather them, were comprised under three heads—the first being that the law of Scotland was in a very imperfect and unsatisfactory state—as evidenced by the difference of opinion between himself and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute—in regard to the power of trying persons who had been witnesses in a criminal case in a charge arising out of the same prosecution; the second, that while not disputing the right of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department to institute the inquiry which had taken place, the inquiry was conducted in a very objectionable manner; the third, that the right hon. Gentleman had treated the learned Judge in the case with disrespect, and had inflicted a cruel injury on Mr. Fleming. The hon. Gentleman, however, although he made accusations under those three heads, did not complain of the commutation of the sentence in the case, or of the institution of the inquiry which led to it. What, then, became of the charge against his right hon. Friend of having reviewed the sentence of the Judge—a charge to which the hon. Gentleman opposite gave countenance and support—if it were admitted, as it had been that evening, that his right hon. Friend was right in not allowing the woman to be executed. He was glad to have such a confession at last, for it showed that in the main point involved the course pursued by the Government was beyond question. The mode in which the Royal prerogative of mercy was exercised was different from that in which justice was administered. The jury did their duty in the case, and the learned Judge his duty, and then the prisoner was in the hands of the Executive, and there was no power in either jury or Judge to tie up the hands of the Home Secretary as to the course which it was his duty to recommend should be pursued. A Petition was presented for mercy, and it was the duty of the Home Secretary to review the sentence before he recommended the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown. And was not, he would ask his hon. Friend, the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy in the case as constitutional a proceeding as the verdict of the jury or the sentence pronounced by the Judge? It was not the reviewing of a sentence, but the exercise of an important and independent function vested in the Crown. It was not, however, after the admission which had been made, necessary that be should enter further into that part of the question, and he should therefore proceed to deal with the first charge made by his hon. Friend. He said that the law of Scotland was extremely defective and not worthy of a civilized country, because a witness examined in a prosecution in a criminal case could not be afterwards tried on the same accusation. Indeed, he was informed that that was a point on which the greatest authorities differed from him, but, while he declined to reply to unseen antagonists, he should state the reasons for the opinion which he held on the matter, and the House would then he able to judge what foundation there was for that which had been made a ground of charge against the Government, but which was in reality aimed against the Law Officers of the Crown It was not such a technical matter as not to be open to those who would take the trouble to look into it. It had often been considered in the courts of Scotland and in the courts of England. In England an accomplice who was examined for the prosecution had only the hope of receiving a pardon, and might be tried afterwards in the ordinary way. In Scotland the law took this turn, that when a public prosecutor put an ac complice into the box, that person received a perfect immunity in reference to the charge as to which he gave evidence. That arose in this way. There was a disinclination to allow a witness to be examined who had an interest in the subject-matter of inquiry. The objection was constantly taken that an accomplice had an interest, because he could be tried, and at first that was got over by procuring a pardon. But gradually the law came into a better and far more liberal and philosophical state. The courts held, that if the public prosecutor chose to put a person in the witness-box, whether in point of fact any bargain was made or not, whether the witness turned out to be an accomplice or not, whether be was supposed to be an accomplice or not, the fact of putting him in the box and examining him gave him immunity from prosecution upon any charge arising out of the same transaction. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) to say that was an uncivilized state of the law; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman had paid a little more attention to the matter, he would have seen that there were two sides to the question. The law of England tended to prevent the escape of the guilty. The law of Scotland tended to prevent the conviction of the innocent upon tainted testimony; and, in his opinion, that was the truest and best view. It was far better that a person who had had a hand in a crime should escape, from being taken as a witness, than that in every case an accomplice should give his testimony with the certainty of being exposed to the chance of prosecution for the same crime, and therefore interested in securing by any means the conviction of the accused. It was better to procure pure testimony, even at the risk now and then of the guilty escaping punishment. Burnett was an authority in favour of that view. "It is a wise and humane indulgence," he said, "which, while it secures impunity for those who aid in the discovery of crime, insures pure and unconstrained testimony." "Our usage is better calculated than the usage of England to secure free and unbiassed testimony." flume wrote to the same effect. In 1794, in the trial of Watt and Downie for high treason, which, although it took place in Scotland, was conducted according to English forms under a commission of oyer and terminer, it was distinctly laid down that the accomplice could not he brought to trial for the same crime alter the prosecution bad made use of him as a witness. In 1807, on a trial for murder committed in the course of a military riot, a witness was objected to by counsel for the prisoner, on the ground that he was interested in convicting the prisoner, because he might he tried for the riot, and it was held, that if he gave evidence upon the subject-matter of inquiry, he could not be tried even by the military authorities. The decision in the case of Burke and Hare, by Lord Meadow-bank and Lord M'Kenzie, and the writings of Sir Archibald Alison upon the Criminal Law of Scotland, also laid down the same doctrine, in words which it was impossible to mistake. He held it to be clearly a better state of the law than that of England, and he had never known or read of a single instance in which justice had been defeated by its operation. He would remind his hon. Friend that the law to which he referred had been built up by the greatest lawyers whom Scotland ever saw, men who had given a character to that law anterior to the time of Romilly, when the English Criminal Law would not allow the services of counsel for the wretched prisoner trembling and shivering in the dock for his life. He now came to the second point—that the inquiry had been conducted in a very objectionable manner. His hon. Friend said it might be right to inquire, but it was not right to inquire in this way. He had also been taken to task by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down because at the trial he had not put old Fleming in the dock. There was no doubt a great deal of mystery about the case, and it was all very well to criticise after the event, but it was necessary at the time to decide and take a line. Persons might write violently in the newspapers, but every one who has really to decide and to act in criminal prosecutions must feel a deep solicitude and sense of responsibility. The case was originally considered very maturely by a very competent authority, the late Solicitor General. He himself had nothing to do with getting up the materials, being at the time in London. The case stood thus. Whatever remarkable features there might be in the evidence of Fleming, it was perfectly clear that the women MacLachlan was cognizant of the events of that night; and as her statement was false, and she bad made no statement in criminating anybody else, it was impossible to come to any other conclusion than that she was guilty of the crime. The theory afterwards suggested had not then been suggested, and the sole case which the Law Officers had to consider was that MacLachlan was guilty of the murder; and that the statement she made was true There could be no doubt, however, that the statement she had made was utterly false Therefore, his learned Friend had declined to put Fleming at the bar. As far as he himself was concerned, he had done what any one else who had held his office would have done; he had done just what he felt it his duty to do, on views not suddenly taken up, but on views which had been matured by considerable experience of his office. He certainly had never known a wore unjust attack than that which had been made on his right hon. Friend, who was charged with a most anxious and responsible duty. He had read MacLachlan's statement, for the first time, in the Scotch newspapers. At that time his right hon. Friend had received a petition for mercy (along with numberless applications), which he forwarded in the usual course to the Lord Justice Clerk. He had read that statement, not without interest, and not without considerable perplexity; in fact, he was greatly moved by it. Not that it necessarily impressed on his mind a sense of the woman's innocence, but the theory which it suggested had never been before the jury nor the public prosecutor. It was a theory quite consistent with the whole course of the evidence, which, though it might be utterly false, had never before been considered, and which pointed out the means by which it might be corroborated by naming various persons to whom application might be made. Besides that, it contained a direct charge against old Fleming, stating that the woman was an eye witness of his guilt. His hon. Friend said, that the Lord Advocate, as public prosecutor, had nothing to do with petitions of mercy. That was true only in a sense. The public prosecutor's duty ended with a conviction. But would the hon. Gentleman say, that if the public prosecutor had reason to think that he had prosecuted an unhappy prisoner to the death on evidence which he began to suspect was not altogether satisfactory, it was his duty to sit still and let the law take its course? Was there a man of ordinary humanity, even if he were a private prosecutor, who could rest on his pillow if he had reason to think that the verdict which condemned a fellow-creature to the gallows was founded on a mistake? It was impossible to maintain that for a moment. The office of public prosecutor was of the nature of a Minister of Justice—at least, it was to see justice done—and he would have been liable to the gravest censure if, having reason to think that the verdict was not sufficiently supported by the evidence, he had kept that opinion to himself, and had allowed the law to take its course. He believed all his predecessors would have taken the same course which he took. The new evidence which was brought forward was not before the public prosecutor when the case was prepared, and he was entitled to ask how it was that it was not before him. There was a charge made, too, against another man, which might have been made the subject of a serious proceeding, and be was entitled to inquire into that. The hon. Gentleman was under a serious misapprehension when he said that he had intruded himself into the matter unasked, having no function to do so. Where petitions of mercy depended on facts which were before the Judge and jury, and where there was no question of law, it never had been the custom to take the opinion of the Lord Advocate officially, and still less for him to volunteer it. But, in the confidential relations which ought to prevail between the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate, the Home Secretary might ask the Lord Advocate for his opinion; and when there was to be a new inquiry, he maintained that not only was it the right and the duty of the Home Secretary to ask, and for the Lord Advocate to give his assistance, but there was no other constitutional and regular mode of proceeding. After reading the statement, although he was greatly troubled by the state of matters, he did nothing and he heard nothing; but a week after, and within less than a fortnight of the time when the law was to take its course—on the 27th of September—he received a letter from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, asking him what means of information there were, and what was his view of the course to be pursued. Would the hon. Gentleman opposite say that it was his duty to refuse to give the Home Secretary any advice or assistance? He did what he conceived to be his duty in the matter, and what he should do again, and what he believed no one in his position could refuse to do without injury to the public service. His opinion was, that if the statement turned out to have been made, as was said to be the case, early in the proceedings and long before the trial, if it turned out that it was corroborated by the witness named in it, his right hon. Friend could not avoid an inquiry into the facts. He thought, also, that if it turned out that the statement was ex post facto or if the witnesses contradicted each other, clearly and explicitly, it was a serious question whether any action should be taken upon it. The course he took was this, and it would explain, perhaps, all that his hon. Friend found so mysterious in the documents. He happened to be in Glasgow on the 29th of September, and he delayed answering his right hon. Friend until he had seen the Procurator Fiscal, to learn something from him as to the nature of this statement. He saw the Procurator Fiscal, who informed him the excitement was so great that a communication had been sent to the Home Secretary asking him to order an inquiry. Having arrived at the conclusion, that if an execution was to take place, it ought to take place on the day named, because a respite would be calculated to increase the excitement, he at once gave instructions to the Procurator Fiscal to inquire into the origin of the statement which had been forwarded from the prisoner, and to obtain possession of any information he could procure with reference to that statement. On his return home he found another letter from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which entirely warranted him in the step he had taken. The Procurator Fiscal made his examination as speedily as possible. His hon. Friend did not understand why the evidence of the persons examined by the Procurator Fiscal should have been taken at different places, but all that was in regular order. On the 3rd of October he communicated to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the details forwarded to him by the Procurator Fiscal; and on the 4th his right hon Friend announced that an inquiry was to be held, and respited the prisoner. His hon. Friend said, that because the Home Secretary had stated that unless the prisoner's statement was corroborated she was not to expect mercy, his right hon. Friend had entered into a compact to execute the woman if her statement was not proven. That was not the correct interpretation of his right hon Friend's words, which only meant that the prisoner was not to have her hopes falsely raised. On the same day as that on which the respite was sent to Scotland, his right hon. Friend requested him to exhaust the inquiry into the statement made by the prisoner. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the language used by some of the newspapers against the Procurator Fiscal, and the Sheriff Substitute, was highly discreditable to that portion of the press of Scotland which had indulged in it. The imputations of those newspapers were roost calumnious, and utterly devoid of the least foundation. His hon. Friend complained that on a former occasion he omitted to make this statement He regretted the omission quite as much as his hon. Friend. He had intended to state his opinion with reference to those attacks on two public officers; hut, perhaps because he was anxious to reply to an attack which his hon. Friend had just made on himself, be inadvertently omitted to do so. It was but due to the Procurator Fiscal that he should express his opinion that a more honest and faithful officer did not serve the Crown. His zeal and ability were not greater than his integrity. With regard to the Sheriff Substitute, it was not for him to speak of that officer in the same terms; but this he might say, that the Sheriff Substitute could well afford to allow those attacks to pass with the silent contempt which he had hitherto shown them. He believed they were totally destitute of foundation. His hon. Friend seemed to think it was an imputation on the Procurator Fiscal to send any one else to make the inquiry; but it was not so. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bute would bear him out that on such occasions inquiries were made by the officers of the Lord Advocate. The Advocate Depute was enjoying his holidays at the time; and wishing to have recourse to the ablest assistance he could procure in Scotland, he asked his hon. and learned Friend Mr. Young, who, beyond all doubt was at the head of his profession, to undertake the inquiry. His hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire was right in saying that he had given Mr. Young no instructions. He had simply placed the documents in his hands, and asked him to go to Glasgow and endeavour to come at the bottom of the business. He admitted that in the papers the inquiry did not seem to have been a very methodical one; but it was quite as much so as were inquiries of a similar character carried on in England, and never did any inquiry take place after a verdict which was more cautiously and anxiously made. It was said that old Fleming ought to have had permission to be present at the inquiry; but he must remind those who took that view of the matter that the question was one between the prisoner condemned to death and the Royal prerogative. That being so, could it for a moment have been permitted to a third party to come in and say he had an interest in the execution of the prisoner, and therefore ought to be allowed to step in between her and the Royal prerogative? It was quite true that there was an inquiry into the conduct of old Fleming; but still the question was one between the woman condemned to death and the Royal prerogative. It might have been a hardship on old Fleming that he was not allowed to be present at the inquiry, as it was a great hardship on him to have been placed in the witness-box without the assistance of counsel; but in both cases the hardship on the individual was necessary for the ends of justice. He had now dealt with the second part of his hon. Friend's accusation. There were those who objected that this investigation had not assumed the complexion of a judicial inquiry. Of course, it did not. It was not a judicial inquiry, but an executive inquiry to inform the mind of his right hon. Friend. In the third place his hon. Friend complained that a discourtesy had been offered to the Judges, and an injustice done to old Fleming. He was sorry that his hon. Friend should entertain the idea that any discourtesy had been offered to the Judges. Having said so much with regard to the Procurator Fiscal, he might say that the attacks upon the Judges were of the grossest and most improper description. Himself and the Solicitor General had considered whether they should not be made the subjects of legal proceedings, but they had thought that in this free country the public contempt which had attended these attacks was a better protection for the reputation of the Judge than any more formal proceeding. He hoped that that would satisfy his hon. Friend. There was not upon the bench in any part of the United Kingdom a man of greater ability or higher honour than Lord Deas. But the abuse was not all on one side. It was true that after the conviction of Mrs. MacLachlan a storm broke out and raged with a fury which was only to be accounted for by the fact that this became to a certain extent a class question, the working classes being in favour of Mrs. MacLachlan and the higher classes in favour of Fleming; but, from the moment that the sentence was commuted, the storm, which had blown with such fury in one direction, veered right round and blew just as furiously in another. The heroine of yesterday became the murderess of to-day, and the scapegoat the martyr. The gentlemen who had complained so much and so justly of the scandalous spectacle of a public meeting being called to impugn the verdict of a jury and the sentence of a Judge saw nothing unusual and nothing improper in signing a round-robin in the Glasgow Exchange to the Prime Minister, complaining of the equally independent conduct of the Secretary of State in advising the Crown as to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and to his astonishment had actually mentioned that circumstance with approbation. He would not enter into the grounds upon which the sentence was commuted. He need only say that his right hon. friend in one of his communications explained that that step was not taken because it had been found that old Fleming was guilty of the murder, but because all the evidence was not before the jury. His right hon. Friend did not say that the prisoner was innocent, or that old Fleming was guilty; he simply said that in the doubt and mystery which attended the case it was better not to break into the house of life, but to commute the sentence to the next highest punishment, and leave it to time to unravel a mystery which all his care and patience had not enabled him to unveil.

Before this discussion closes, I wish to say a few words. I have already stated the general grounds on which I have acted in the case when the hon. Member for Perth moved for papers a short time since; and my learned Friend has so fully gone into the details, that I will not travel over the ground again. I do not complain of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth having brought this subject forward. On the contrary, I am glad that he has done so, and I think he exercised a wise discretion in abstaining from inviting the attention of the House to minute details of evidence. My hon. Friend having said that he had some difficulty in finding out with whom the primary responsibility rested, I wish to state that in all these cases both the primary and the ultimate responsibility rests with the Secretary of State. My right hon. and learned Friend did not act in the matter until I had expressed to him my desire that he should do so; and I think that his statement must have convinced the House that he conducted the inquiry in the manner which was most calculated to effect the object we had in view. The hon. Gentleman complained that when I addressed the House on a former occasion I defended myself, but said nothing in defence of the learned Judge who conducted the trial; that, in fact, I had exposed the Judge and jury to the imputation that they had misconducted the trial The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that I then stated that upon the evidence which was before the jury I did not think that any other verdict could have been come to; and this is the first time that I have ever heard it even insinuated that the course which I took was held by the Lord Justice Clerk to imply the slightest disrespect to men for whom I entertain the highest respect. Of Lord Deas I have no personal knowledge, but I have the greatest respect for his learning and character, and I should be deeply grieved that any step which I might take should be thought to imply any disrespect to him. With regard to the Lord Justice Clerk, with whom I have a slight acquaintance, I may state that when I had formed my decision, anxious that he should understand the grounds upon which I had acted, I wrote to him a letter, marked "private," in which I stated those grounds, and expressly disclaimed any disrespect either to him or Lord Deas. I was gratified by receiving from him a most courteous acknowledgment of my letter, with a request to be allowed to show it to Lord Deas, to which I immediately gave my consent, having from the first intended that it should be shown to that learned Lord. I will not detain the House by entering into an explanation of the principles upon which the Secretary of State acts in these matters, except to say that he has in all cases the valuable assistance of the permanent Under Secretary, whose legal knowledge and intimate acquaintance with the criminal law is well known, and, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, of the opinion of the Judge. I trust that the explanation which has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend will remove any misapprehension which has existed with regard to the course taken in this instance, and I am very glad that he has had the opportunity of making that statement.

said, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the explanation of the learned Lord Advocate; but the question as to the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in regard to the commutation of sentences was one of great importance Nothing could be more anomalous and unsatisfactory than, that where a jury had tried a question of guilt or innocence, the matter should go before another and secret tribunal, where, upon a new inquiry, the question of guilt should again be determined. If capital punishment were to be continued, he thought it worthy of consideration whether there should not he an appeal; and if there were a ground of appeal and a question were to be tried again, whether it should not he in public and by a new jury. He believed the Secretary of State would soon be of this opinion rather than continue to be subject to such imputations as had been cast upon him that evening. The question was one which sooner or later must occupy the attention of the House.

said, that the substance of the Lord Advocate's speech seemed to be that it was a question of mercy to the guilty person, and that there was no intention on the part of the Government to throw a suspicion on anybody else. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not also stated as much, because it had been thought that he had cast an imputation on old Mr. Fleming. It would have been satisfactory, therefore, to find that now the Home Secretary agreed, with the Lord Advocate, and that they did not believe one tittle of MacLachlan's statement. Having read through the evidence which had been published, he confessed that he could hot find a syllable in it which confirmed that statement.

said, fie felt that the question before them was a very delicate one for the House to discuss, for it was one affecting the prerogative of the Crown, and perhaps the most important prerogative—namely, that of mercy. Therefore, upon the conclusion arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and arrived at upon a careful and an ample consideration of all the facts, he did not intend to offer a single observation. After the explanation which had been given by his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, he was happy to say that there did riot appear to be much difference between them. But he still disputed the broad propostion which appeared to have been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that when a person had once been examined as a witness upon a criminal trial in Scotland, that person could not be tried upon the charge with reference to which he had given evidence, even if it turned out that he was actually the person who committed the crime. He knew of no decided case in which the law as thus laid down by the Lord Advocate was set forth, nor did he believe that any decision could be found to establish such a proposition, unless at the time the witness was put into the box, being a suspected person, there was some understanding, expressed or implied, on the part of the prosecution, that he was to make a full disclosure of all that he knew respecting the crime in question. The authorities cited by the Lord Advocate Seem to refer to cases of that kind, in which the person was under suspicion at the time of his examination, and therefore gave evidence under peculiar circumstances. Now, he did not know whether anything passed between the Law Officers and Mr. Fleming which would bring that person within such a category, and prevent his being tried for the crime. But in all that took place of which the public were aware Mr. Fleming appeared to be treated as an innocent man, not lying under any suspicion, and he did not think any authority could be found in the Scotch law for saying that a person who had given evidence under such circumstances could not by possibility be tried. Suppose, for instance, that a man living next door to the house in which a murder took place produced at the trial a plan of the house and approaches, and gave evidence upon that point only. Would it be contended that, according to the law of Scotland, if it were afterwards found that he was concerned in the murder, he could not be put on his trial because he had previously been a witness in the case? Down to the date of the verdict he did not see what other course was open to his right hon. Friend than the one which he had taken; but it would, perhaps, have been more expedient if the subsequent investigations had not been left in the hands of the Lord Advocate, but had been conducted directly from the Home Office.

observed, that he had been misunderstood as saying that a meeting had taken place at the Glasgow Exchange, whereas he meant to say that a petition had been signed there.

I rise, Sir, to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present Ecclesiastical Settlement of Ireland." In common with many Members on both sides of the House, I cannot but regret the position which the question of the Irish Church has assumed. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) is disappointed at the somewhat Fabian policy of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the question which he brought before the House. At the same time, the hon. Member should remember that great ignorance prevails in this country as to the position and prospects of the Irish Church; and so long an interval has elapsed since our treatment of this question, which was formerly the stalking-horse as well as the stumbling-block of the Whig party, that no doubt it finds little favour now with the occupants of the Treasury bench. There is another consideration. It is easier to make appeals and read lectures to the Emperor of Russia on behalf of the Poles than to legislate for the people of Ireland. I can well imagine that the ghost of Banquo, rising in the midst of the festivities, was not more unwelcome to Macbeth than the re-appearance of their long-buried associate must be to the noble Lord and those of his Colleagues who formerly rocked the cradle of the Irish Church agitation, and who finally stood by, if not as murderers, at least as mutes at the funeral of their old friend—appropriation. But in spite of the apathy of the House and the disinclination of Her Majesty's Ministers, in the face of the Returns moved for by my hon. Friend, and in the face of the Census of 1861, it will not be possible for any lung period for this House to avoid dealing with the question of the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. That question is not whether we wish the Irish Church to remain as it is, but whether it will be possible to maintain that Church without extensive reforms and new adaptations. I have said that great ignorance prevails in England upon this subject, and I cannot but think that more knowledge is displayed here of the concerns of China than of the affairs of Ireland. Deceptive statements are so often put forward by people in high places that the real question is but imperfectly understood by the people of this country. From time to time the Viceroy draws a flattering but delusive picture of the prosperity of Ireland, to the astonishment of the residents in that country, but to the admiration of a brilliant and believing staff. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, taking his cue from his vice-regal master, denies all statements of Irish distress in this House, and it is not until the expiration of three years that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged by financial pressure, acknowledges a wide spread distress, almost unparalleled in history. The fact is, that Ireland is now much in the same position as it was twenty years ago, when Lord John Russell, in opposition, described the country as occupied, not governed. The Ireland of to-day is occupied, not governed. I will grant there is the tranquillity of exhaustion on the surface, but discontent, if not disaffection, remains beneath. It may be said that there are so few Irishmen connected with the Government that they have no means of information of the circumstances of Ireland. But there are such numerous opinions upon the subject of Ireland, and especially the Irish Church, that I will not Weary the House by reading all the opinions of Whig secretaries and Whig Lords Lieutenant; but there are three Gentlemen immediately connected with Ireland whose opinions I feel hound to read to the House. The first opinion I will read is that of a noble Lord who has run a purely Irish career—I mean the noble Lord who now presides over the destinies of that country. As Lord Morpeth he was Secretary for Ireland in 1835; and what was then his opinion of the Irish Church? He describes it in a way I would not venture to describe it—"as a Church without a flock, and a clergy without congregations;" and he said "that the worst gains of the sinecurist were kept up by the worst principles of the bigot." That was he opinion of Lord Morpeth, but the Earl of Carlisle now dispenses the patronage of that Church to the satisfaction of his old opponents, the Orangemen. Then, again, we have a high authority saying, in the year 1843, but upon the other (the Opposition), side of the House—

"I will venture to say, that you will not find in any country in the world a state of things, with regard to religious sects, such as you find in Ireland. Take the case of Austria—a Catholic country. If I am not misinformed, there are parts of Austria in which the entire population of a parish are Protestants, and there, I believe, the Protestant clergy are provided at the expense of the State. In Bavaria the same rule exists, and in Belgium also.… In Prussia, a Protestant country, the same rule obtains… I say that in no country in the world will you find a population like that of Ireland.…. That is a grievance of an enormous character; but it is a grievance which it is in the power of the Government to remedy, and for which, therefore, I hold that the Government are bound to provide a remedy." [3 Hansard, lxx. 1070–1.]

I do not wonder that an hon. Friend near me asks who said that. That speech was made by the noble Lord the Prime Minister, who now presides over this House and he destinies of this country. That was Lord Palmerston's opinion in 1843; and tore is the opinion of the Home Secretary of to-day. They were all acting together—a most unanimous body; but then they sat there, opposite, not here, in office. In February 1844, Sir George Grey said—

"It is impossible for any one who knows what he feelings of human nature are to suppose that the Irish people can look upon the present state of the ecclesiastical system in Ireland without the deepest dissatisfaction. It is not a mere question of money, it is one which concerns the feelings of a people. Among all the nations of Europe, we find hat in Ireland alone there exists in that country an exclusive Church Establishment, for the Episcopalian minority.… On this subject I certainly entertain very strong feelings.… Nothing appears to me worse, nothing more hazardous than for Parliament to declare that they will not entertain the question as to the state of the Church in Ireland, because it involves, and must necessarily involve, considerations of a difficult and complicated nature.… The Union must be maintained, but a complete Union never could be effected so long as an established and endowed Church of the minority exclusively existed." [3 Hansard, lxxii. 841, 843.]

The Gentleman who used those glowing words is now Home Secretary, and, as such, is in intimate connection with Ireland. After those opinions, let us see what are the remedial measures proposed by these men for preserving the Union and redressing grievances. I have searched the records of Parliament, and I find a compulsory measure for the vaccination of infants. I find also another Bill, though its fate is still in nubibus, and that is the measure for the preservation of Irish salmon, and this exhausts the list of the Ministerial reforms for Ireland. Is this disgraceful state of things to be allowed, by what is called—I almost think in derision—the Liberal party, to continue? In the outset I wish to be perfectly candid on this subject, and to declare that in any remarks which I may make, or in any proposition which I may hereafter make, I do not contemplate to destroy or upset the Irish Church. ["Hear, hear!"] Though I believe that no man in his senses, not even my right hon. Friend who gave me that cheer, would now contemplate to erect or endow such an Establishment; yet, at the same time, I do not think that it would be either prudent or politic to uproot that Establishment, which has been interwoven for 300 years with the civil policy and the property of Ireland. Therefore, I expressly state that I do not wish to uproot that Establishment or confiscate its funds; but if it can be shown that the working of the system as it is, is not only prejudicial to the interests of religion, but contrary to the true principles of Protestantism, and most mischievous in its tendencies, then I say we are necessarily bound to enter upon some plan for the reform and re adaptation of the present monstrous Establishment. In discussing this question I wish altogether to keep apart the religious and political elements; and I will read to the House the actual view of the case embodied by Dr. Arnold in one of his lectures—

"In speaking of Christianity the word 'Church' is rather to be used as distinct from religion than as synonymous with it, and that it belongs in great part to another set of ideas, relating to things which we call political."

I mean to discuss the question in that sense alone; but, first, let me call the attention of the House to the nature of this Church, which in some people's minds has the character of being the United Church of England and Ireland. I shall attempt to prove, that so far from being united, the Churches are totally dissimilar in all respects. The Church of England has always been identified with the civil and religious liberties of the people of this country. It has struck deep root into the affections of the people, and the clergy of the Church of England in this country are as tolerant and as educated as any race of clergymen on the face of the globe. But what is the case with the Church of Ireland? Can any one say that the Protestant Establishment in Ireland is identified with the civil and religious liberties of the Irish people? We all know that the Established Church in Ireland was founded by Tudor violence, and perpetuated by Puritan tyranny. As a political institution the Church of Ireland is a blunder, and as a national religion it is a fraud, though, I am ready to admit, of a pious description. But the matter does not end here. Any person who is acquainted with Ireland, and has had the misery to listen to Irish sermons, must know that the great hulk of the clergy of Ireland are of a Puritanical and Calvinistic tendency. That is not the case with the clergy of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman who represents the University of Dublin, and who in that capacity speaks for the Establishment in Ireland, claims for the Irish branch of the English Church a higher title than is claimed for the Church of England itself. He speaks very much in the same spirit as that in which I could have imagined that a Churchman of the Tudor dynasty would have spoken. He not only objects to any discussion, but he deprecates all reform; and putting aside the lawyer for a time, and becoming a firm ecclesiastic, he would have the House believe that the Church of Ireland, so far from being created by Act of Parliament, is the sole depository of religious truth, and was the creation of St. Patrick himself. We have all heard the words of an old song, written by a countryman of the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin, "St. Patrick was a gentleman;" but it was left to the right hon. Gentleman to prove that St. Patrick was not only a gentle- man, but a Protestant! The right hon. I Gentleman, who has great admiration for Queen Elisabeth—and even goes so far as to think her virtuous—exclaimed. "Did not the Irish bishops of that day conform and assent to the Reformation?" But the right hon. Gentleman forgot to inform the House that those Irish bishops were Englishmen sent over to Ireland by Queen Elizabeth. They were English bishops of the Pale, and the Pale ex tended twenty miles from Dublin, Quit ting this preposterous argument, which is more suited for a society of antiquarians than the House of Commons, I would ask, is it not notorious that the priests and congregations of Ireland of that day, so far from agreeing with the bishops, refused to abandon their creed at the expense of their convictions? Is not that the case, according to every historian who has written on the subject. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman sneer at one of the most learned authorities in the country, Mr. Goldwin Smith; but he might have remembered that the Earl of Derby, who made him Attorney General for Ireland, also appointed Mr. Goldwin Smith as Professor of Modern History at Oxford. However, I will not quote Mr. Goldwin Smith, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman two historians of his own kidney. What does Plowden say on this subject? Plowden, speaking of the Eliza bethan era in Ireland, says—

"The people were provoked by the violence offered to their religious prejudices… The clergy, who refused to conform, abandoned their cures; no reformed ministers could be found to fill their places. The churches fell to ruin, the people were left without any religious worship, and the statutes lately made were evaded or neglected with impunity."

Here is another historian, whom the right hon. Gentleman will reverence very much, the old Recorder of Kinsale, Cox. [An hon. MEMBER: Cox?] Yes; but no relation of the hon. Member for Finsbury Cox, the Recorder of Kinsale, who wrote in the time of William and Mary, said—

"As for religion, there was but small appearance of it—the churches uncovered and the clergy scattered, scarce the being of a God known to those ignorant and barbarous people."

So much for that period which the right hon. Gentleman greatly eulogized; and I deny that he represents the opinions of the Irish Protestant clergy on this subject. That clergy is not opposed to the discussion of matters connected with the Irish Church, and to the reform of that Church. I hold in my hand a letter addressed to the right hon. James Whiteside by the Archdeacon of Meath, and what does he say? The Archdeacon of Meath, who has even the confidence of my hon. Fiend the Member for Sheffield, has stated that the clergy of Ireland are anxious to see abuses reformed, and that they are even ready to undertake the work themselves. On that point, therefore, the arehdeacon, a man of great ability and high standing, is directly at issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. But be that as it may, I come to another argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He tells us we are all under a delusion in imagining that the Irish Church is a wealthy institution; because it is, on the contrary, a poor one. If all its revenues were justly divided, of which I must say I do not think there is much chance, they would only give £200 a year to each clergyman. Is that a fitting provision, the right hon. Gentleman asks, for an educated gentleman? Well, Sir, in all these matters ecclesiastical as well as civil, the question is the same. Do these men earn their £200 a year? Have they duties which require a salary of £200 a year? £200 a year may be a poor pittance for a gentleman; but if a gentleman cannot earn £200 a year of public money, he ought not to be in possession of it. Let us see, then, how these duties are performed, and what claim a great portion of these clergy have to any salary at all? I will come to the Census of 1861. Let us see what was the condition of the Church of Ireland at the time of this census. The population of Ireland at that date was 5,764,543 of all creeds. Of these, the Roman Catholics were 4,490,583, being some thousands more in number than the population of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, of which we have beard so much lately. The Establisbed Church amounted—not to 691,872 as erroneously given in the Returns of his hon. Friend—and this was material—but to 678,661; whilst the Presbyterians amounted to some 528,992. For all this, for a great majority of these Roman Catholics there is no State religion, no provision is made for their clergy. The State hardly recognises them, except by the trumpery grant for Maynooth, which is voted grudgingly, and not without much abuse from some hon. Members of this House. There is also a small grant called the Regium Donum to the Presbyterians. For the Es- tablished Episcopal Church, however, a large spiritual staff is maintained, including, besides deans and chapters, two archbishops and ten bishops, whose net united incomes amount to something under £80,000 a year. Comparing Ireland with England, we find that there are seven English dioceses, each of which has a much larger population than the whole of the Episcopalians in Ireland. These dioceses are London, Winchester, Chester, Exeter, Lichfield, Manchester, and Ripon, each of which is presided over by one bishop, while no less than twelve bishops are required for the 678,000 of Episcopalians in Ireland. Therefore, it appears that one bishop in this country does the work of twelve in Ireland. Is the House content that that state of things should go on, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University should be successful in setting himself tooth and nail against all reform? In England there is one bishop to 410 benefices, comprising congregations of 1,500,000 souls. In Ireland there is one bishop to 118 benefices, comprising congregations of 5,000 souls. A small parish in England with a population of 5,000 is looked after by a rector, and probably a couple of curates In Ireland 5,000 people make a diocese with a bishop, receiving about £5,000 a year, and a dean and chapter. The united diocese of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh, in which there are about 686 Protestants, have a bishop and the usual staff, and the bishop actually receives £4,000 a year for looking after those 686 people. In the dioceses of Waterford and Lismore, with which I am intimately acquainted, there is a population of 134,336, of whom 5,000 belong to the Established Church. The bishop receives £5,000, and he has two deans and chapters, two cathedrals, two archdeacons, and sixty parochial clergy. Attached to Waterford and Lismore are Cashel and Emley, in the South Riding of Tipperary, with a population of 139,030, of whom 4,900 are Protestants; and there are two more deans, two more archdeacons, and another staff of clergy there. Between these united dioceses there are about 110 parochial clergymen. Is there any other country on the face of the earth where you can show a similar state of things? Dr. Paris, in a well-known work, has observed that the original type of the cabbage and the cauliflower are not to be found in animated nature. Sir, I think I may almost go further, and say that the original type of an Irish bishop is not to be found in the pages of the New Testament. In 1850 there appeared an advertisement in the Dublin Evening Packet, which is or was a highly Conservative paper, concerning the sale of a bishop's effects, which showed how comfortably the good man had lived. The announcement is of a peremptory and unreserved sale at the Palace Clogher, and it sets forth that "the wines, of which there were about 100 dozen, principally consist of very superior maderia, claret, old port, champagne, &c. There is an enormous stock of cattle, and a herd of about 200 fallow deer." The bishop had under 5,000 souls in his diocese, which has since been united to Armagh, but he died full of wealth and worldly honours. Such an advertisement as that of itself impugns the existence of the Irish Church. To make it more striking, it appeared during the famine year, and the luxury of which it spoke offered a strong contrast to the prevailing misery and destitution of the people. I may be asked what I would recommend as a remedy for this state of things. In my opinion, it would be no great stretch of the authority of the House if it were to extend the provisions of the Act which was brought in by Earl Derby when Lord Stanley. What is Archdeacon Stopford's opinion of that Act? Writing to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), the Archdeacon said, "Allow me to call your attention to the fact, that when a measure is proposed, people cry out that is a destruction of principle; but when it is passed, they always say the principle remains untouched." No Tory of the present day probably will say that the British constitution is ruined by the passing of the Reform Bill. The Archdeacon of Meath says that the Irish Church Temporalities Bill has been of the greatest value. In his opinion, it has been the salvation of the Church of Ireland, and he suggests the completion of the arrangement, which it established, in certain respects where it is defective. By that Act the number of Irish bishops was reduced from twenty-two to twelve, the income of the Archbishop of Armagh from £14,500 to £10,000, the income of the Bishop of Deny from £12,000 to £8,000 and all the other bishops were not to have less than £4,000 per annum. Vestry cess and first-fruits were abolished, leases of bishops' lands were converted into perpetuities, a tax was put upon livings, and the money arising from these sources was placed at the disposal of a Board of Com- missioners to be applied to the augmentation of small benefices, the building of churches and glebe-houses, and other purely ecclesiastical objects. What I would urge on the Chief Secretary, who at heart is a good Church reformer, whatever he may say to the contrary, is to reduce the number and incomes of the Irish bishops. Surely there can be no necessity, in the present condition of Ireland, for keeping up twelve bishops where six might do the work, and still less can there be any necessity for these bishops receiving the enormous salaries they do. Why should these bishops, with only 5,000 people in their dioceses, get from £4,000 to £6,000 a year? A Judge receives only £3,000, and yet he has something to dc for his money; whereas an Irish bishop has very little to do. Let the bishops have £1,500 apiece. [A laugh.] Hon Gentlemen laugh, and I suppose their idea of a bishop is a man who rides in a carriage with patent springs, who gives good dinners, and has a large income. But my proposal is not new; it was made years ago by one of the best friends of the Church who ever sat within the walls of this House, one whose opinion is not to be laughed at. The present Vice Chancellor Wood told the House in 1849 that he did not think it necessary for a bishop to have £4,000 a year, and he suggested that the Irish bishops should have £1,500 each; adding that he would go lower than that if necessary. Such was the opinion of Sir Page Wood, and I think it was founded on good sense and good policy. I urge my right host Friend the Chief Secretary, at least, to consider whether the state of the Irish Church, as regards its bishops, is satisfactory—whether it would not be just to the Church itself to reduce the number of bishops from twelve to six, and to cut their incomes down at any rate one-half. The measure may he a strong one, but I believe it to be necessary, and that if you do not do that in time, you will see the whole bench of bishops swept away in Ireland. So much for the state of the Irish bishops! I now come to the condition of the parochial clergy. No man acquainted with Ireland can say that the state of the clergy is satisfactory. No doubt there are many distinguished and exemplary men among that clergy, but there are also many of the most inferior description, both as regards learning and manners You cannot he surprised at it. How are they ordained? Clergymen in Ireland are ordained by the bishops in numerous instances without any University education at all I know, at all events, that the Bishop of Cashel requires no University education, and he has ordained in my diocese many most objectionable men, whose only claim was that they had spouted abuse of Roman Catholicism at Exeter Hall. The senior divinity class in the University of Dublin is rapidly falling off. Where there were a hundred students there are not now fifty, and you have great difficulty in getting men to enter into the Irish Church. Lord Westbury has lately brought forward in another place a Bill for the augmentation of benefices in England, and his principal reason for it was the impossibility of getting men to enter the English Church. That difficulty is twice as great in Ireland, and why? A cure of souls in England is given with reference to the number of parishioners existing in the parish; but in Ireland a cure of souls depends upon extent of territory. There may not he ten Protestants in a parish, but the cure is given for a great acreage. The Archdeacon of Meath says, in his pamphlet on Church reform, that the position of ordained and settled ministers where they have no opportunity for the exercise of their ministry, as is the case in many places in Ireland, is an "anomaly," and the subject which requires to be dealt with first in legislating for the Church of Ireland. He says—

"That to ordain ministers and settle them in a place where they have no opportunity for the exercise of their ministry—no books, no means of study—no society suited to cultivated minds, or to exercise the faculties of scholars or ministers, was an evil to the ministers themselves and to their Church"

He also says—

That on looking to the position of many of the ministers, he cannot vindicate it on moral, religious, or ecclesiastical grounds, or even on the How ground of political expediency."

That is the deliberate opinion of a distinguished Churchman, and I think this House will concur in it. But to proceed—in England there is one clergyman to every 2,612 people, whereas in Ireland there is one clergyman to every 325 persons. A clergyman of my own acquaintance—an Englishman, who was anxious to be active in the cure of souls—on obtaining a living some time ago was surprised to find that his congregation consisted of five individuals, for whom he received £500 a year; but he was consoled by a relative, who remarked to him, "Well, you know, there is one great conveniences in it—when you pay me a visit, you can not only come yourself, but you can bring your congregation along with you." I have said that there are some bishops with £6,000 a year. On that point I can give some information from a book which was cited by the right hon. Member for Dublin University. It is the Irish Church Directory for 1863, and it contains a good deal of curious and interesting statistics. It gives not only the means of the bishops, but their Church accommodation. It does not, however, supply any information as to the numbers who attend the protestant worship, but I shall be able to give some information on that point. First of all, I will commence with the diocese of Month. That diocese is in a peculiar state. There is neither chapter nor cathedral there; but the bishop has £4,308 a year. By the bye. Archdeacon Stopord is in that diocese. The population of Meath is 110,609, of whom 103,489 are Roman Catholics, and the members of the Established Church 6,584. The facts relating to the church accommodation there are excessively curious. I am not so much surprised at the Archdeacon of Meath writing those letters, and calling for Church reform in Ireland; for the first thing that I find is that be has the living of Kells, the value of which is £1,151 a year; that the population of the town is 3,225; that the number of Protestants there is 31; and that there are sittings in the church for 500 persons. In the town of Navan the value of the living is £566 per annum, the church accommodation is for 290 persons, and the number of Protestants who attend is only 154. In Trim the living is £559 a year, there is church accommodation for 300 Protestants, but there are only 230 in the parish. In the diocese of Limerick there is the parish of Castle Island, with a living worth £531, and sittings for 20 people. In Killarney the living is £534 a year, the number of Protestants is 120, and there are sittings in the church for 300. Newcastle living, is worth £717, the sittings are 350, and the attendants 90. I now come to the diocese of Cashel, of which I can speak from my own knowledge. There are 145 benefices there, and the gross value of the see is £5,334, the net value being £4,691. In the city of Water-ford the Roman Catholics number 20,465, and the Protestants 1,900. In the county of Waterford the Protestants are 3,265 and the Roman Catholics 107,354. At Dungarvan the Protestants are 124, and the Roman Catholics 5,743; and the income is worth £487, while the church-room is for 300. At Cahir, diocese of Lismore, the members of the Established church are 93, and the Roman Catholics 2,953; while the church-room is for 130, and the income is £321. At Carrick on-Suir the Protestants are 140, and the Roman Catholics 4,831; the income being £436, and church sittings 300. In the church of Killaloan there are 150 sittings, and the number of Protestant families in the parish, besides the clerk, amounts to eight. In Kilcash there are no duties attached to the living, which has been given by the bishop to a gentleman who never comes near the place. In my own proper parish Kelshelan the income is £150. The rector resides in Wexford, and I have never seen him. I am told that I need not pay him his tithe rent charge unless he has had leave from his bishop to live at a distance; and I cannot think that so excellent a man as the Bishop of Cashel would give his permission to a clergyman to reside away from so remarkably Protestant a district. At Kilronan there is church accommodation for thirty Protestants, and the services are attended by three policemen, who are migratory in their habits, the wood-ranger, and the housekeeper employed by Lord Stradbroke, and the clergyman's own family, which is rather large, consisting of ten members. In Lisronagh, very near which I myself reside, the living is worth £206; the number of sittings is 100, and one policeman attends the church! Still, proceeding with the diocese of Waterford and Lismore, I find that at Mora, the living of which was lately given to a gentleman who resides thirty miles off, the income is £195, and there are no Protestants at all in that parish. At Mothel, again, the income is £535 the church-room is for forty, and the number of Protestants is seven. Go to the diocese of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin. The gross income of the see is £4,605, there are 70 benefices and 37 curates, and two of the richest livings in Irelands exist there. In one case the income of the clergyman is £1,845, while there are but 88 Protestants, with sittings for 160. In Powers-town the salary is £359; there are sittings for 100, but there are only two Protestants besides the clerk, and one of these has been bedridden all his life. At Kil- beacon the income is £214; there are 100 sitting, and only one Protestant family and three policemen attend the church. I might go on indefinitely with these details were I not afraid of wearying the House But let me refer for a moment to Connaught. There the population is 911,339, and the members of the Established Church only 40,605, or only 4 per cent of the whole. In the diocese of Tuam, Killala, and Achenry, the value of the bishoprie is £5,080 per annum. At Athenty the living worth £800; there is church-room for 300 persons, and the attendance, I am told, is very poor indeed. At Ballinrobe the value of the living is £410, the number of Protestants 121, and the sittings are for 400. At Castlebar there are 202 Protest ants, with accommodation for 400 and the income is worth £614. At Headford the living is worth £830, and there is church room for 200 At Westport there are 21 Protestants, and church-room for 900 the living being valued at £661. At Tnam the seat of the bishopric, there are 257 Protestants, and church accommodation for 450, the value of the living being £623 All these are very large livings, of £400, £600, or £800 a year; but the congregations are extremely small, the number of Protestants in no case amounting to mere than about one-tenth of those for whom church accommodation exists. Then, take the diocese of Killaloe. In the town of Killaloe itself the Protestants number 184, and there are sittings for 250. A friand of mine visited the cathedral the other evening, and found public worship so thinly attended that service was being performed in the vestry to fifteen persons. At Kilrush the Protestants number 222 and the sittings are for 500. At Longhrea there are sittings for 200, but there are only 89 Protestants, and the value of the living is £444. I think I have adduced enough from the Irish Church Directory, which the right hon. Member for Dublin University pointed out to me as a book to be relied upon, to prove that the Protestant clergy of Ireland have scarcely any congregations, that their own number almost exceeds the number of their flocks, and that they ought to be dealt with as I propose to deal with the bishops, giving them some duties to perform as well as salaries to receive. But does the evil end here? My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland lately appointed an excellent man to Cork—I mean Dr. Gregg. That I think was my right hon. Friend's own peculiar appointment, and I believe the only difference he has had with the Earl of Carlisle arose out that appointment. In Mallow, agreeable nice Mallow, there reside—

"Rev A. Baldwin, vicar of Rahan; Rev. J. Coghlan, rector of Mourne Abbey, salary of £427, church-room for 90: Rev W. Johnson, rector of Clenore, salary £596, church-room for 80 (he resides away from them); Rev. H. Orrnsby, vicar of Carrigamleary, salary £99, no church, Rev A. Todd, vicar of Clonmeen. In Midleton there are 186 Protestants, 3,155 Roman Catholics, income of rector £708, no church. Rev. S. Halloran, vicar of Clonmult, salary £175, sittings for 20. Rev. J. L. Robinson, rector of Templenacarrigan salary £394, sittings for 80. Rev W. Williamson, rector of Lisgoold, salary £760, sittings for 70. Rev. J. A. Roister, rector of the hardest name in Ireland, Killaspugmullane, with a salary of £522, and sittings for 450: he resides at Glanmire, some miles off. Rev. R. St. Laurence, rector of Murragh, salary £547, sittings for 150; he resides at Brussels."

This is the picture of the non-residence in the diocese of Cork I might multiply instances of non-residence, but I want to know whether the laity are bound to pay their rent-charge if the clergymen do not reside. I hope my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) will give a distinct answer to that question. Such, then, is the picture presented by this book, in nothing hostile to the Church, for it is recommended by the right hon. Gentleman. I have taken my facts from that hook, and I lay them before the House. The book sums up in this way—

"The church forms 20 per cent of the inhabitants of Ulster—the largest percentage in Ireland—12 per cent in Leinster, 5 per cent in Munster, and 4 percent in Connaught."

And it concludes in these terms—

"In conclusion it maybe observed, that the position of the Church in Ireland in respect of numbers and distribution, as disclosed by the Census of 1861, cannot be regarded as otherwise than satisfactory."

Such is the hook recommended by the right hon. Gentleman. Now then, Sir, I would press on my right hon. Friend to consider, whether as a great proportion of these livings with very large revenues in Ireland have very small congregations, it would not be possible to transfer the revenues of large livings without flocks to the town districts where there are flocks and very small emoluments. For example, there is the living of Louth, in the diocese of Armagh; it has an income of £1,638, church room for 250, and I do not think thirty people attend. [An hon. MEMBER: Not quite twenty.] I have been there when the attendance was not quite ten. Belfast has 30,000 Episcopalians, and but one vicarage of £400 a year. Why should these twenty Protestants of Louth "crying in the wilderness" have this large revenue of £1,638, while 30,000 in Belfast have only one vicar of £400 a year? Really we ought to insist on taking this matter out of the hands of the Government, and send them to the other side of the House, in order that they may agitate this question. In fact, it comes to this—the parochial system in Ireland is merely nominal. It does not exist, and we should substitute for it the congregational system. The territorial system is the natural one where the great populations of the country belong to the Church; but in the circumstances of Ireland, where the great populations do not belong to the Established Church, the congregational is the right, proper, and fitting system. Am I saying anything not supported by names of high authority? In 1837 a Bill was brought into the House, with the approbation of Archbishop Wheatley, to make the system congregational instead of territorial. And what said Members of the present Government in regard to that Bill? Here is the opinion of Lord John Russell—I am sure he is of just the same opinion now; and if he were at the head of a Ministry, he would no doubt again agitate this question. But Earl Russell is now in an unfortunate position. On February 13, 1844, Lord John Russell said—

"I concur in the plan propounded, as it is said, by Dr. Wheatley, the Archbishop of Dublin, for making it a Church of congregations, and not of parishes, as it is under the present system.… The Protestant Church ought to be fully provided for, but at the same time I do not believe that anything like the amount at present allotted to it is necessary." [3 Hansard, lxxii. 720.]

There is another most important opinion, it is that of one on whose accents this House always hung, and whose judgment it always respected—I mean Sir George Lewis, He wrote considerably on the Irish Church, and gave most important evidence in regard to it. Here is his opinion on the Irish Church question—

"So long as the penal laws were in force, and Government held that every Irishman ought to be a Protestant, it was quite consistent to maintain a Protestant Establishment, which should be sufficient for the wants of the entire population; but now that principle is abandoned, there can be no excuse for not reducing the State provision for the Protestants to a level with their actual, not their possible, numbers.… The number of clergy required for 852,000 Episcopalians might be con- siderably reduced if a congregational instead of a territorial system were adopted, and if as many persons were assigned to each minister as could conveniently attend the church at which he would officiate.… When the number of clergy had been thus reduced, there would be no necessity for keeping up the Episcopal Establishment of two archbishops and ten bishops; probably four bishops, one for each province, would be an ample provision for the government of such a Church."

I ask for six, but he says four bishops would be enough for the sustentation of the Irish Church. But, it may be said, "These are the opinions of Lord Russell; we are not followers of Lord Russell." Well, but my right hon. Friend is a follower of the noble Lord, whose opinion I am going to quote, as expressed on the 12th of July 1843—

"I would ask the Government, are there not parishes in Ireland in which there are not twenty Protestant parishioners—are there not parishes in Ireland in which there are not fifteen Protestant parishioners—in which there are not ten—in which there are not five—nay, in which there is not one Protestant parishioner? If there are such, then I say that nothing would be more just, nothing more fair, than that, after the expiration of existing interests, the revenues of those parishes should be suspended, and applied to other purposes connected with the general interests of the mass of the people in Ireland." [3 Hansard, lxx. 1068.]

This is the opinion of Viscount Palmerston, speaking, it is true, in opposition; but, no doubt, if properly supported by my right hon. Friend, he would be ready to act on the sentiments he so eloquently expressed in 1843. But it has been said that the Irish Establishment, though with large church accommodation and few attendants, is a missionary Church. Let us see how far that is so. And here, I must say, the popular delusion has been fostered by men of high authority and great mark in this country. The Irish Church Mission Societies have been in existence since 1852. They have spent upwards of £30,000, and they claim to have made 30,000 converts; but the effect has been to deceive the public mind. A monstrous deception has been and is practised on the old ladies of this country who have more money than wit, with regard to these Missionary Societies. Here is an extract from a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, preached in Westminster Abbey on the 29th of August 1852. Now, I must say that Dr. Wordsworth is, in some measure, open to reprobation, inasmuch as he has been the innocent means of deceiving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Ireland. But, be that as it may, Dr. Wordsworth says—

"We refer with thankfulness to the fact, that within the last few years thousands and tens of thousands in Ireland have renounced the errors of Romanism. A work is now going on unequalled in importance since the 16th century. The number of converts within the last two years is stated as 30,000, in page 40 of the Report for the present year of the Society for Irish Church Missions."

Thus, Dr. Wadsworth gives it out from the pulpit that there is a work going on in Ireland in the way of reformation, which is unexampled since the 16th century, and computes the number of converts made at 30,000. Now, I hold in my hands Good News from Ireland, and I find that this society, called "The West Connaught Society," is only two years old It appears, nevertheless, to have been very active in getting together a good deal of money, although I do not perceive that it is in reality much weighted with converts The society, at all events, held a meeting recently at—if I mistake not—the Hanover Square Rooms, My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland will be able to correct me it I am wrong. Mind, I find no fault with him for going there, because I know he is a man of strong Protestant feeling No one, at any rate, has a right to complain of his attendance at the meeting, because we learn from Good News from Ire land that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, from whom he received his appointment, and who made such fine speeches when in Opposition, now subscribes £20 a year to the West Connaught Society. The tight hon. Gentleman, no doubt, attended the meeting, having been taken in by the sermon of Dr. Wordsworth. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I never read it.] Yes, but be told us he read Good News from Ireland, and it is to be found in that. But, however, the right hon. Gentleman stated that an immensity of good was done by those missionary agents, and that declaration is so far important that it goes down to Tamwoth with his Imprimatur, and may help to aid the funds of the society, as holding it up as a great missionary success. He milled that since 1847 there had been a large increase in the church accommodation in Ireland—I let you into the secret of that accommodation—and that the Irish was a true missionary Church. Well, it is certain that Dr. Wordsworth tells you that there are 30,000 converts as the result of its labours, and these it appears have been made chiefly in Galway. Now, the popu- lation of the county of Galway is, I believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Galway will correct me if I am wrong—254,256; out of that number there are, I find, 7,500 members of the Established Church. Well, then, what becomes of those 30,000 converts? Are they included in the 7,500? I can nowhere discover them, and yet this is the success of which Dr. Wordsworth and my right hen. Friend talk so loudly. Now, if anybody, after what I have said, gives assistance to the West Connaught Society, that person must, I think, be held to be bereft alike of intellect and judgment. Let me institute a comparison which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin for a different purpose, when be read a quotation to show that of the Roman Catholic emigrants who went to America the greater portion had become Protestants, Where, let me ask, was the missionary Church in that ease; and if this be true, of what further argument in favour of the reform which I advocate do I stand in need? If you wish to convert the people of Ireland to Protestantism, it is clear that you had better do away with this missionary Church. Then you will stand some chance of having more than 30,000 nominal converts. I think the House will not be slow to draw from the fact to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman called our attention an inference unfavourable to the conclusion at which he wished us to arrive. But, says the right hon. Gentleman—I am anxious not to pass over any of the arguments which he advanced—"Laving aside altogether the circumstance of its being the depository of religious truth, the fifth article of the Union forbids you to meddle with the Established Church in Ireland;" as if it were not meddled with by the Earl of Derby on the occasion to which I have already referred. But the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion on the point, and I will now give him the opinion of a man who is his equal, whether as an orator or a lawyer. What was the opinion of Lord Plunkett, a steadfast supporter of the Established Church, and opposed to any scheme of abolition? These were his words—

"He had heard a great deal of vehement declamation and energetic denunciation, but not a single argument to show that this [that is, the partial appropriation of Irish Church property to educational purposes] would he in the slightest degree a violation of the principles of Protestantism, or of the Act of Union. By the Act of Union the Churches of England and Ireland were consoli- dated. By the fifth article of that Act they were identified in doctrine, worship, and discipline; but was there anything in that article which identified the temporal possessions of the Church of Ireland with those of the Church of England? There was nothing of the kind. The Irish temporalities were altogether distinct from those of the Church of England. If they were not so, they had been violating the articles of Union ever since they were passed. The whole system of composition of tithes in Ireland was a violation of these articles. But, when they looked to the temporal possessions of the Church of Ireland, they were not to throw out of their consideration that Ireland was a nation of Roman Catholics, and that they were bound to apply the same principles with regard to the temporal concerns of that nation which they considered themselves justified in applying to the interests of this great Protestant country."

That is the opinion of Lord Plunkett, but I have likewise the opinion of the estimable and illustrious father of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this article of the Act of Union, which is now, as always, thrown in our faces in such discussions as the present. The late Sir Robert Peel, in 1844, said—

"It may be asked, are compact and authority to be conclusive and decisive? If we are now ourselves convinced that the social welfare of Ireland requires an alteration of the law, and a departure from that compact, and a disregard of that authority, are our legislative functions to be so bound up that they must maintain the compact in spite of our conviction? I, for one, am not prepared to contend for such a proposition." [3 Hansard, lxxiii. 244.]

Having given you the opinions of Lord Plunkett and of that Sir Robert Peel, who did not attend meetings of the West Connaught Society, I will now give you that of another noble Lord, because I am anxious to be fortified by the views of those who are the great friends and bulwarks of Protestantism. This is the opinion of Viscount Palmerston when in Opposition in 1856—

"I do not, however, go so far as those who would argue that that article prevents you from dealing with the Irish Church.… Parliament is competent to deal either with the Church of England or the Church of Ireland according to varying circumstances." [3 Hansard, clxii. 767.]

Varying circumstances very much depend, no doubt, on the side of the House on which a man happens to sit. He adds—

"Undoubtedly, the property of the Church belongs to the State, and the State, represented by its proper organ, the Legislature, has the power and the right of dealing with that property as the circumstances of the time may require.' [3 Hansard, clxii 768]

After the extracts which I have read I need, I think, delay the House no longer with any arguments about this fifth article If the Reform for which I contend be necessary, the fifth article cannot be allowed to interfere. But, suppose it were held to do so effectually, what better handle can you give to those who advocate a repeal of the Union than by saying, that as matters stand, it prevents justice being dune in this respect to the people of Ireland? I have entered at great length into this subject, and I thank the House sincerely for the attention with which they have listened to me; but I wish to say a few words before I sit down with respect to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have the management of the Church property in Ireland. That Commission was instituted in 1833, and consists of the Archbishop of Dublin, the Chief Justice being a Protestant, the Lord Chancellor, and "three other proper and discreet persons." I find that there is under its control 132,701 acres of land, which the Commissioners describe as profitable. It produces, however, under their management, only £42,770, which is, I contend, a sum totally inadequate. The Commissioners, I may add, spent one million sterling in the last thirteen years for the repairs and building of churches—and what is the cause, I would ask, that while the churches are most excellent, and their numbers on the increase, their congregations are growing "small by degrees and beautifully less?" What have the Ecclesiatical Commissioners done in my own neighbourhood? There was a very commodious church in the town of Clonmel, and a considerable Protestant population. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners were asked to improve and enlarge; this church. They expended £4,000, and now the church is finished they discover that it holds 200 less people than before, and they are actually about to lay out £800 to enlarge the church which they have reduced in size at the expense of £4,000. That is a fair specimen of the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. What is the expense of this Commission? The only three persons who receive salaries are the three proper and discreet men. The expenses of the Board are very large indeed. There is no church rate in Ireland, and everything is found for the country gentlemen for nothing out of the funds of the suppressed sees. The requisites for Divine service cost £7,438. The clerks and sextons for these 600,000 Protestants, cost £23,529. Yet, I have seen cobwebs in the fonts, no parochial duty whatever, marriages at a stand-still for want of people, and funerals likewise In many instances the sextons are women. In my own church the sexton was a woman, and a Roman Catholic, because they cannot get a Protestant. Organists, organ blowers, and timers for the 600,000 Protestants, £1,020; fuel for the churches, £3,540; ceremonials alone, £33,118 a year. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: What ceremonials?] The organ-blowing, clerks, and sextons. The salaries of the three propel and discreet Commissioners are £6,097 12s. 8d. a year. They lately paid to soli chore, £2,365; rent and coals, £998 a year. They have done an extraordinary thing lately, and I call for an explanation of it. A vacancy occurred in the deanery of Ardagh, which has no cure of souls. In their Report, dated April 10, 1862, the Commissioners say—

"The Commissioners being apprised of a vacancy in the deanery of Ardagh, appointed a day to consider the propriety of recommending the Lord Lieutenant to suspend the appointment. This intention was not able to be carried out, for they learnt that your Excellency had filled up the vacancy."

Looking with some confidence to the right hon. Baronet to keep the Lord Lieutenant in order, I want to know how he accounts for the Lord Lieutenant having, in the teeth of an Act of Parliament and in the teeth of the Report, filled up the deanery of Ardagh without any cure of souls? And I hope he will give me an answer. So much for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and so much for the Ecclesiastical Commission! I cannot think that this debate will be altogether unprofitable. However liberal you may be to volunteer suggestions and reforms to foreign States, I think you will he of opinion that some time ought to be given to domestic! policy. It is very true that, with the Treasury Bench, "'tis distance lends enchantment to the view." But while they are endeavouring with such assiduity to pull the beam from the eye of his Holiness the Pope, I think they might find sufficient time to remove the Irish mote from their own vision. This I know, that a noble Lord in another place has lately kindly offered a palace and an asylum to his Holiness at Malta. I think it may he suggested to the noble Lord, that if the people of Ireland were consulted, they would not object to see the Protestant primate of the Irish Church removed to a smaller mansion, and a more circumscribed income. I know that where the Pope is concerned the people of England are apt to lose their reasoning powers. At the same time, there is a strong analogy between the position of the Pope and the situation of the Prime Minister. Both the Minister of England and the Pope of Rome have been heads of the liberal party in their respective countries Both, at one time, have been ardent Reformers. Both have produced Reform Bills, and both have abandoned them The Pope is supported at Rome by French soldiers. The Prime Minister of England is kept upon the Treasury Bench by Conservative votes. Both are inclined at present to do little or nothing. Non possumus is as much the motto of the Pope of Rome as of the Minister in Downing Street. I regret that Her Majesty's Ministers do not sometimes look at home "and see ourselves as others see us." If they did so, they would see four and a half millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland who would gladly accept some of the six points which are offered for four millions of Roman Catholics in Warsaw. I think they would not object to see men who have the confidence of the Irish people sitting in the noble Lord's Cabinet, The noble Lord can recommend to the Czar in suggestive lectures that there should be nothing but Poles having the confidence of Poles in the administration of Poland, but he sedulously excludes every man who is an Irishman and enjoys the confidence of Irishmen from filling a public office in Ireland. It is because I am not content to masquerade as a reformer in a foreign country, and act as an obstructive at home, that I, for one, who prefer contentment in Ireland to unity in Italy, am opposed to these projects of the noble Lord; and I think that if the Liberal party pretend to have any claim to the name, they will not be content for ever to rest in their present torpid state, but will unite upon this question, and insist upon the measure which I have so inefficiently and so lengthily advocated.

I will not aspire to continue the animated and amusing tone which has pervaded the speech of my hon. Friend; but I trust the House will be willing to listen to a few practical and serious remarks upon a subject of great importance to the welfare of Ireland and to the interests involved in the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. My hon. Friend, who has made the Motion with his accustomed ability, began with very large propositions, but narrowed his argument as he went on, till at last it seemed to me directed rather to a reform of the Church than to the question which really engages our attention. But with regard to the proposal the hon. Gentleman makes, he has pursued exactly the contrary course. He began with a narrow one, and he has ended with a very broad one. On the 19th of May he gave notice of a Motion which was limited to a Committee to consider how far it may be expedient to carry out further reductions in the Establishment in Ireland on the principles of the Act of William IV.; but in the Motion he now makes he invites us to appoint a Committee to consider the general question of the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. We all know what is meant by a proposal to consider the ecclesiastical settlement of Ireland. It is not to consider whether three gentlemen sitting in Dublin as Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall have a larger or a smaller salary; nor whether the Act of 1833 shall be carried further in its spirit and provisions; but it is to re-open that great question of Irish and British politics which agitated Parliament, governed parties, and disorganized Ireland before the hon. Gentleman and I had seats in this House. The course which the Government intends to take is to ask the House to resist this Motion, and proceed with the ordinary business of the evening. My hon. Friend began his speech by an eloquent reply to an eloquent speech made in this House on a former occasion. It is not necessary for me, in the course which I have to recommend to the House, to uphold the arrangements of the Church of Ireland as they now exist; it is not necessary for me to contend, that because it is ancient, therefore it cannot be changed; or because it is English, therefore it is to be maintained; or because the Act of Union contains stipulations with regard to the Church, therefore it is not within our province or power to re-consider those provisions. Neither is it necessary for me to contend, that because we have confidence in the truth of the principles of our Church, we should therefore impose it on a people who do not choose to receive it. The argument which I shall venture to lay before the House is of a practical character, founded on the state in which we find this question, and on the state in which we should leave it by acceding to the Motion of my hon. Friend. I am not without high authority when I say that we ought not to disturb a question of this sort, touching the foundation of the moral, social, and political interests of the people, without grave cause, and without a well-founded hope of bringing it to a safe and satisfactory conclusion. My hon. Friend himself told us that the Church of Ireland was founded by Tudor violence—that politically it was a blunder, and ecclesiastically a fraud; but, if he so thinks, what is the conclusion we should naturally expect from such premises? I was astounded to hear him say in his next sentence that he would not uproot a system which had existed for three centuries, which had been intimately connected with all the deepest social and political interests of Ireland. He will excuse me if I also have my own opinion with regard to the original establishment of a Protestant Church among a Roman Catholic people, and who have never denounced it in such language. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: It was a quotation.] Yes, but a quotation endorsed by the hon. Gentleman. He will excuse me, I say, if I point out that it is a very different thing to overturn an institution when you find it firmly established, and that it is a very serious matter, for those who are responsible as the Members of this House are for the good government and the well-being of the country, to appoint a Committee to unsettle a question without a prospect of bringing it to a safe and satisfactory conclusion. My hon. Friend has quoted from speeches made by high authorities in former times, strong speeches in favour of Motions stronger than his own. But if the statesmen whom he has quoted, and the great parties by whom they were supported, were unable to accomplish their object, what does he suppose would be the result of the appointment of a Committee selected equally, or nearly equally, from both sides to consider this question? This is not merely a matter of argument, we have experience upon it. In 1833, when this question was brought forward by one of the most powerful Governments we ever had, before the flood-tide of reform had begun to ebb, no sooner had they brought in the appropriation clause than they found it necessary to withdraw it. In 1834 the appointment of a Committee to consider this question dissolved that strong Government, and was almost immediately followed by the retirement of Earl Grey from office. In 1835 the Government of Sir Robert Peel was expelled from office on this very question from 1836 to 1838, this House was in perpetual conflict with the House of Peers, and in 1838 the broad proposal which this House had placed on its records had to be surrendered by the House, and a settlement was made in direct defiance of that abstract Resolution. What is the proposal of my hon. Friend? It is not really the appointment of a Select Committee. He would think I was trifling with him if I were to argue that it was too late this Session to appoint a Committee to go into all the details of this question. What he really means is an abstract Resolution of this House again condemning the Irish Church—that is to say, he means now once more to enter on that course for which we have so little encouragement from experience. Twenty-five years have elapsed since 1838, when this question was finally settled without the adoption of that celebrated clause, and during that period there has been almost uninterrupted silence upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman has quoted speeches made in the debates of 1856; he says that circumstances alter cases, and that when Gentlemen change their seats they are apt to hold different opinions. My hon. Friend has not told us where he was at that time. He then had the honour of a seat on this bench, and I do not remember, nor do I find it recorded, that we had then any of those animated and pointed sallies and brilliant sarcasms which have enlivened the debate to-night My hon. Friend referred to the plans which have been brought forward at various times, but I do not know that he identified him self with any of them, nor did I gather which of them he intends to bring before the Committee. He spoke with particular praise of the plan of my right hon. Friend whoso loss this Session we have all had to deplore That plan, I believe, was to place all the tithes in one common fund, and then to make a congregational Church, and to re distribute the money to Protestants, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics according to the number of their respective congregations. There must be a Concordat with the Pope, and arrangements made with the Roman Catholic bishops. However wise these provisions may be, if you argue this as an abstract question, I need scarcely ask what would be the result if it were proposed to refer them to a Select Committee of this House. I believe this House will not surrender the principle of an Established Church. I believe it will not alienate the property of the Church from he ecclesiastical uses to which it has been devoted. With regard to the payment of Ionian Catholic priests, I have yet to lean hat the priests themselves desire that payment. [Sir GROUSE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] By that cheer my hon. Friend confirms my belief that that part of the plan is not likely to be accepted by either party. That is the ground which I take, do not at all wish to be understood as baring in those arguments which would recommend the original institution of a Protestant Church in the heart of a Roman Catholic people. I have no wish to disguise the opinions which I entertain, nor do I wish to put forward any argument in the force of which I do not sincerely believe. The ground I take in opposing the present Motion is this. It is practical ground, and, as I submit, thoroughly sufficient for the occasion. The question is, whether you ought to appoint a Committee to inquire into the general question of the ecclesiastical settlement in Ireland. I think those who think that settlement wise, and those who think it unwise, must concur that it would be a mischievous day when we should appoint a Committee to make such an inquiry without there being any probability that it would lead to a satisfactory result. The result of such a proceeding would necessarily be to disturb and unsettle the question, without there being on your part any prospect of bringing it to a complete and satisfactory conclusion. I have referred to the history of the question, I have touched on the various stages through which it has passed, and I ask the House, whether, seeing that great statesmen and powerful majorities were unable to effect a settlement of it at a time of tithes, a time of pluralities, a time when the whole of Ireland was disturbed by matters connected with the Established Church, this is a moment at which there is any hope of the labours of such a Committee as that proposed by my hon. Friend being attended with a satisfactory settlement of the question. I think the House will agree with me that it is not. There are other ecclesiastical endowments in Ireland besides those of the Established Church. There is the Regium Donum, which receives the consistent support of many hon. Members of this House, on the ground that it is a part of the ecclesiastical establishment in Ireland. Then there is the Maynooth endowment, which many hon. Gentlemen vote for on the same ground, who would not support it on its abstract merits. The same reasoning applies to the endowments of the Established Church; and therefore, when a Motion of this kind, which, while it is not likely to be attended with any good, may do a great deal of harm by exciting a strong feeling throughout the country, is submitted to the House of Commons, in my humble judgment the House will do wisely to meet that Motion with a direct negative.

observed, that the fact of the Motion having been made showed that all the people of England did not think it fair that the Church of the small minority of the people of Ireland should monopolize the whole ecclesiastical revenue of Ireland. The arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), when the subject was under discussion on a former evening, consisted In the assertion that the Established Church in Ireland was right, and that, therefore, she was entitled to monopolize the ecclesiastical revenues of the country. If that was the point which it was necessary to argue in dealing with the question, the subject would afford the present generation matter for discussion, and leave a reversion of discussion to their Children, It was time that the question of the Irish Church should be discussed in that House, For a long time the Roman Catholic Members had not moved in it; find, perhaps, those Englishmen who would wish to see the present system put an end to, had thought to themselves that it was not for them to make the first move, as they were only indirectly affected by it. His constituents had frequently urged him to take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the misappropriation of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland, and he entirely recognised the grievance of which they complained. Could there be a greater infringement of national rights than to have a Protestant Church in a Roman Catholic country supported by funds provided by Roman Catholics? Was it not a mockery to say that religious equality prevailed so long as the Established Church continued in its present form? He conscientiously believed that the Protestant Established Church, as it existed at present in Ireland, was an anomaly unparalleled and unprecedented. He believed the justice of the complaint of the Roman Catholics clear and self-evident. If he had hesitated to take the course which his constituents wished him to take, it was because he knew that their opponents, though they defended no great principles, were the advocates of great interests, which were sustained by mighty influences, and to a certain extent by popular prejudices, and that the justice of a cause was not sufficient to insure its success. According to the last census, the Episcopalian Protestants in Ireland were, in round numbers, 600,000, and the Roman Catholics 4,500,000. In this country the ecclesiastical State revenues were appropriated to the Church of the majority. According to that rule, they ought in Ireland to be devoted to the support of the Roman Catholic Church. For that, however, he did not, nor did the Catholics of Ireland, ask. In a clear and accurate Report of the Committee of the National Association of Ireland, in the year 1840, which was drawn up by Mr. O'Connell, it was distinctly stated that they did not claim that the ecclesiastical revenues should be applied to the support of the Church of the majority, but that, as existing interests dropped off, they should be appropriated for the benefit of the community, to the support of the poor, the promotion of education, and in works of charity, without distinction of sect or persuasion. The people of England would not endure such an application of ecclesiastical revenues in this country as existed in Ireland. The Irish people did not sanction, and never had sanctioned, that application On the contrary, all the 4,500,000 Catholics and many Prote3tants felt that it was a monster grievance, He should lay down two propositions. The first proposition for which he contended was that Ireland was a Catholic nation. The second was that it was unjust to compel her to contribute to the support of a Church in whose doctrines she did not believe, and whose teachings she bad emphatically rejected. In support of the first proposition, he appealed to the Returns of the last census. In support of the second, he appealed to the common sense of mankind. Was it possible to name any nation in which the State Church differed from the religion of the majority? In England the establishment was Protestant, because the majority of her people were Protestants; in Scotland it was Presbyterian, in conformity with the religious views of the majority; in Ireland it was Protestant, though the majority were Catholics. According to the Return made to the House, there was in 1861 a decrease of 16,000 and upwards in the Protestant population of Ireland, as compared with 1834; and in some dioceses the Protestants could all he conveyed in a few omnibuses, in others they could not fill a single Catholic chapel. In eleven dioceses of Ireland there were fewer Protestants than there were Catholics in a single parish in the city of Dublin. In the county of Cork there were nearly as many Catholics as there were Protestants in the whole island. The existing state of things was felt by the Irish nation to be an intolerable grievance, and he hoped that the House of Commons would not, by refusing the Motion for inquiry, show that they were determined to maintain a system of injustice, and a policy of repression towards Ireland wholly inconsistent with that fair and liberal system of Government which they advocated in all other parts of the world. His belief was that many Protestants would be found in Ireland who were not anxious to uphold the existing monopoly, and he maintained that Parliament had as much right to deal with the question as with any other. No doubt the House would be told of a compact entered into at the Union to uphold the Irish Church, Now, if there was a compact, it bad been already violated; but the Irish people were no parties to the compact, and were not in any way bound by it. At the Union the contracting parties were on the one hand England, and on the other a small place-hunting minority; and it was monstrous to say that such a contract was binding on the present and on all future generations, no matter what the interest of Ireland might be. It could not be said that the maintenance of the Established Church was necessary for the preservation of the Union. The example of Scotland settled that point. The simple question was as to the distribution of the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland; and was it reasonable that the Protestants of that country, numbering only 500,000, should monopolize all these, to the exclusion of the rest of Her Majesty's subjects in that country. No doubt an attempt would be made by their adroit opponents, through lack of argument, to array against the Motion the Protestant prejudices of the House and of the country; but while the supporters of the Motion would do all they could to avoid exciting religious animosities, they were not to be debarred from pointing out the grievances and anomalies inseparable from the maintenance of a Protestant Established Church in Ireland, through any pusillanimous fear of irritating those champions of Protestant ascendancy who had never shown the Catholics any quarter. All they sought to establish in Ireland was religious equality. They had no intention to assail the doctrines of the Protestant Church; but their case was one of grievous hardship, and they appealed with confidence to the sense of justice of Englishmen. He was anxious to stand well with his Protestant fellow countrymen and to unite with them in furthering the common interests of their country, But he believed there never could be a sincere and cordial or lasting union of Irishmen till the great principle of religious equality was established on a sure, firm, and eternal basis. In conclusion, he would quote the opinion of Lord Macaulay that no good defence could ever be made for the Irish Church till it was shown that, like the English, it deserved the name of "the poor man's Church;" that it had trained the great body of the people in virtue, consoled them in affliction, commanded their reverence, and attached them to itself and to the State.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, he desired to draw attention to the peculiar position of this debate The debate was practically a renewal of the debate raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). To this an Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ker Seymer), which he had the honour of seconding. The hon. Member for Swansea, by withdrawing his Motion, compelled the withdrawal of the Amendment, of the hon. Member for Poole; and now the hon. Member for Liskeard, taking advantage of the forms of the House, which enabled any Member to bring on a Motion as an Amendment to the Motion to go into a Committee of Supply, renewed in substance the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea, after the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poole had been got rid of, on an evening when be (Mr. Bernal Osborne) knew that the great body of the Conservative Members would not be present, having an engagement elsewhere, from which it would be highly inconvenient for them to be absent—[Mr. REGNAL OSBORNE: I knew nothing about it]—and when he knew the Prime Minister would be absent from indisposition. He then proceeded to dress up that old doll of the Appropriation Clause with such tinsel as his wit could furnish; he pressed it on the attention of the House at an hour when he well knew that it was impossible that the discussion could be concluded that night. Well, the hon. Member for Liskeard had explained in very few words the nature of his Motion—it was to turn out the Government, and agitate against the Church of Ireland. That was the solution of this Motion, though the hon. Member pretended that all he wanted was reform. But he had avoided the means of obtaining the information necessary for reform, which his acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poole would have furnished. Why was this new phase of the agitation got up? It was because the Protestant community of the country, having become aware that in the West of Ireland a considerable number of Christian congregations had been formed by missionary clergymen in places where the means of supplying them with the ministrations of the Church were wanting, had ventured to meet together and subscribe their own money for that, purpose—it was because of this that the present attack was made on the Church of Ireland. On a recent occasion, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) used expressions with regard to this movement which ought no longer to pass unnoticed.

interposed, and reminded the hon. Member that it was irregular to refer to a previous debate.

said, that in the course of his speech the hon. Member for Liskeard had made constant reference, without objection being taken, to the speech of the right hon. Member for Dublin University, which had been made in a previous debate some days before. He (Mr. Newdegate) had contributed his mite to help his co-religionists in the West of Ireland; and he might be pardoned if he alluded to the fact that in this House—he would not say when—expressions had been used to the effect that a certain pamphlet, written by the Rev. Mr. Garrett in aid of this movement, was a mere trap to catch the credulous and the fanatical in England. It happened that he had known this gentleman for some time, and he knew him to be a gentleman of veracity; and he knew also several Members of the Committee, all of them men of the highest character. Lord Plunket, the Bishop of Tuam, who was not only a bishop but a gentleman of high character, the chief promoter of the movement, had stated to him that he knew the conversions in the West of Ireland to be real. If further evidence were needed of this, he would state that he (Mr. Newdegate) had in his hand a letter from the Bishop of Chichester which fully supported his statement. With such testimony as this the House lad palmed upon it a statement that this missionary undertaking was simply a trap for credulity and fanaticism. They had heard an eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), who virtually prayed for the abolition of the Church in Ireland. It was not for him (Mr. Newdegate) to interpret the obligation that that hon. Member had taken upon himself when he entered that House, according to the hon. Member's understanding of it; but it seemed to him that according to plain English be, as a Roman Catholic Member of that House, was bound not to seek to disturb or weaken the Established Church in Ireland. He regreted that the opinions of the hon. Member on the subject of property, if they might judge by his recent speech on the subject of tenant-right, seemed as lax as those which he now avowed on the subject of the Church in Ireland. The House was mistaken if it supposed that the affections of the people either in England or Ireland towards that Church were weakened. Although in a great community like this there might be members of the Church of England who spoke of the Irish branch of the Church of England in the spirit of a purse-proud man casting off a poor relation, yet he had had the pleasure of being present at a meeting at which the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the Archbishop of Armagh in the movement that had been spoken of in the House of Commons in terms of derision. They were asked to abandon the parochial system in Ireland, and to substitute for it a congregational system. But the policy of the Church of Rome in England was quite different; for, in defiance of law, that Church was endeavouring to divide England into foreign dioceses and parishes. The House was also appealed to upon the ground of equality; but it appeared, from a recent number of The Tablet, that the Pope, in dealing with the South American Republics, had acted upon the great principle of inequality. All the animosity which the House had seen, was excited by the simple attempt to supply, by means of their own money, their coreligionists in Ireland with religious instruction; and yet the House was appealed to against this movement, on the ground of religious freedom Where was the violation of religious freedom in the people of England endeavouring to supply the religious deficiencies of the people of Connaught from their own private resources If the House was prepared to reconsider the 5th article of the Union, he trusted that they would reconsider the Union; altogether; and then perhaps the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) might see his own property, and that of other Irish landlords, dealt with by an Irish Parliament. There had been repeated attempts to injure the Establishment in Ireland, but they had all failed from the direct opposition of public opinion. He (Mr. Newdegate) denounced the cowardice of those Members of the Church of England who shrink from the duty of tendering to Roman Catholics the moans of accepting the religion which they themselves enjoyed, no less than from the duty of placing the Sacred Volume in the hands of the Irish people. He thanked the House for having allowed him to defend the endowment, which, if successful, would ensure society having among the Irish people guardians from whom the House would hear if persecution reached the people, and who would be ever ready to make them remember that they were the subjects of a Christian and a Protestant Sovereign.

said, it was impossible that the debate could close that night, and he therefore hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be agreed to.

remarked that the Motion for adjournment would be illusory unless the intentions of the Government as to its continuance were made known.

said, that as the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard was made as an Amendment to the Question that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, of course upon the next Supply day that Amendment would stand upon the paper, and he anticipated that it would come on early on Monday.