rose to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. The site which the Company now occupied in Bethnal Green had never, he believed, been sanctioned by legislative enactment; but they had power to hold lands in the parish of Bow, close to Victoria Park; and they had twice sought to obtain legislative power to establish and increase their Works at that point. Last year, after considerable discussion, a Bill passed that House, but was thrown out in the House of Lords. That Bill was opposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and probably their opposition contributed to throw out the Bill in the other House. Under the present Bill the Company sought power to obtain 100 acres of land, and to establish enormous gas works in that district. The Bill was opposed very generally by the inhabitants, and especially by the Metropolitan Board, on the ground of the injury which would be done by the Works to the Victoria Park. The Victoria Park consisted of 240 acres, beautifully disposed, in the midst of a very crowded and poor district. It had cost £72,000 of public money, and the Metropolitan Board had laid out £20,000 in forming a road from Lime-house to it. He did not know any thing of the kind more useful, or, in a moderate way, more elegant than Victoria Park. It was quite a credit to the metropolis. The Gas Works would encroach on the north and east side of the Park, and would he fatal to the salubrity and usefulness of a place which had become a very favourite resort for health and recreation to the district around. He thought a site might be found on the low-lying lands further down the river which would be comparatively unobjectionable on public grounds; hut that proposed in this Bill would, to a very large and crowded district, be a serious annoyance and nuisance. He understood that the area had been limited in the House of Lords to thirty-seven acres, in addition to the twenty-seven the Company now possessed; but even that extent of Works would enable them to create all the nuisance which the neighbourhood apprehended. It was also stipulated that the Works should not be erected within 300 yards of Victoria Park. That would be about the distance of Charles Street from the place where they were now sitting, and what would hon. Members say if it were proposed to erect great Gas Works so near the House of Commons? He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

begged leave to second the Amendment. He was glad to find that if the inhabitants of the districts surrounding the Victoria Park were deprived on that occasion of the advocacy of their more natural guardian, the First Commissioner of Works, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had stood forward on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works as the vindicator of what he must call the rights of the people. He objected altogether to treat this as a Private Bill—it involved a great principle of public policy. In 1852, the Legislature had put an end to intramural interment on the ground of the public health; and when such a measure as this, involving the same consideration to a great extent, came before them for the second reading, the House had a right to consider whether it involved a violation of this principle or not. Now he (Lord John Manners) objected to the erection of great gas works within 300 or 400 yards of a place of public resort and recreation as a nuisance. He, therefore, objected to the Bill in limine, and upon principle. In Paris gas works were placed without the boundaries of the city. What would be the feeling of hon. Members if they were told that a gas works which would produce 17,000,000 cubic feet of gas per diem was to be erected in Charles Street; or would such a thing be tolerated within 300 yards of Hyde Park? He thought hon. Members would be very loud in their protestations against sanctioning such a measure. Then why should they impose on the East End of London what they knew in their hearts they would refuse at the West End? Having regard to every consideration of public policy, good feeling, and respect for the inhabitants—having regard also to the large sum of public money which had been expended for their recreation in the East End of London, he called on the House to support the Amendment and reject this Bill.

was anxious to say a few words in opposition to the Bill, as he held in his hands a petition signed in Victoria Park by the Rector of Bethnal Green and over 700 frequenters of the Park against the proposal. Referring, as it did, to a Private Bill, he was prevented by Standing Orders from laying it on the table of the House, but he appealed to it in defence of the opposition he was offering. He had spent the morning of Saturday on an ash-heap, by the River Lea, surveying the ground which the Company desired to usurp, and he had spent that morning in one of their gas works to realize the extent of the nuisance which gas-making produced. From the inspection of this gas work, which only made 2,000,000 cubic feet a day, while the proposed one at Victoria Park was to make 17,000,000, he had drawn his own decided conclusions. The new works of the Imperial Company were to he close to the Victoria Park Cricket-ground, which was peculiarly thronged. How would they like gas works, making 17,000,000 feet, a day, 300 yards from Rotten Row? He believed that the argument of the Gas Company was, that if they did not get the ground some other nuisances would. Well, all similar nuisances ought to be impartially put down within the limits of the capital. The time, in fact, had come, when it was necessary to consider on broad principles the condition of London as a place of residence and business, and not as a mere factory. If the first blow was not to be struck, and if the perpetuation of the evil in the permanent and gigantic form of such gas works was not to be put an end to, they never hereafter would have standing ground when they tried to abate the general mischief.

thought the Government should be careful not to interfere unnecessarily with the course of private Business; and the House ought not on the second reading to reject a Private Bill unless some important principle were involved. It was a question of public policy whether they ought to sanction the further erection of gas works in the neighbourhood of dwelling-houses? He (Mr. Cowper) thought it a grievance to the inhabitants to have a factory of this kind placed immediately in their vicinity. The peculiarity of the case was the gigantic size of the works. The noble Lord had said that gas works would not be tolerated near St. James' Park. Had he forgotten the works in Horseferry Road, within 400 yards of that House, and neither in St. James' Park nor in that House had any evil effects been experienced. Looking to the enormous extent of the proposed works, he did not see how it was possible to secure adequate protection by clauses, and in order to prevent the risks apprehended by many who were competent to form an opinion, he should oppose the Bill.

said, he was not disposed to press the second reading of the Bill, so far as it related to the erection of buildings in the neighbourhood of the Victoria Park; but there was a second portion relating to the raising of capital, and Parliament having imposed on the Company the obligation of supplying a very large district with gas, he hoped there would be no objection to proceeding with that part of the Bill, he undertaking that all the clauses relating to works should be struck out, and the Company would endeavour to find a fit site for their works elsewhere, He hoped on that understanding the Amendment would be withdrawn.

trusted that sufficient security for the public convenience would be taken if the Bill were read a second time.

thought that after what had been stated by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Staniland), the Bill might be allowed to proceed. The best course would be to send this Bill before the General Committee upstairs.

said, that that Committee had not power to examine witnesses upon oath, which made a serious difference when a Bill was likely to be strongly contested, and therefore he objected to the Bill being so referred.

hoped that equal justice would be meted out to the dwellers in the East and West of London. Victoria Park was peculiarly the people's Park, to which the hard-worked artizans of the thickly-peopled neighbourhoods resorted with their wives and children to obtain health and recreation, and their comfort and welfare ought to be carefully guarded.

said, that it had been argued that wherever gas works had been established they were a nuisance to the neighbourhood; but it was remarkable that there had been no complaint against the City Gas Company as producing a nuisance in the neighbourhood of their works. He thought that after the concession which had been made by the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill, it should be read a second time, and that an opportunity should be afforded to make proper inquiry as to its merits.

said, that the works were so placed that every north and east wind would blow the sulphurated hydrogen across the Park. He trusted, for the sake of the people using the Park as a place of recreation on Sundays, the House would reject the Bill.

hoped that, considering the manifest feeling of the House, the hon. Member (Mr. Staniland) would not press the second reading to a division. The hon. Member had stated that the Bill was divided into two parts, one referring to the construction of works, and the other to the raising of capital, and he was willing to withdraw the former. The House, however, would naturally feel a curiosity to know what the capital was needed for if the works were abandoned. If capital was wanted for other purposes than the construction of the works proposed, it would be open to the promoters to petition the House for leave to bring in a Bill for this special purpose.

said, he should not press his Motion.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he intends proposing any pensions to the widows and children of deceased Adjutants and Quartermasters of Militia Regiments?

said, in reply, that as the officers referred to were not liable to the dangers of foreign service common to officers in the Line, pensions to their widows and children had invariably been refused. He saw no reason for making the proposed change.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to carry out the recommendations as regards increased pay, &c, of the Committee which was appointed to inquire into and report upon the grievances of Medical Officers of the Army and Navy; and if there is any objection to lay the Report upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that the recommendation of the Committee involved not only a considerable increase of pay to medical officers in both services, but questions of the expediency of placing the medical officers of the two services on a different footing. The recommendations of the Committee were receiving due attention, and as soon as a definite decision was arrived at he would communicate the result to the hon. and gallant Member. He did not, however, think that it would be expedient to lay the Report asked for upon the table just now.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to lay upon the table of the House a Return relating to Ireland similar to those relating to England and Scotland which are now before the House in reference to the Reform Bill for those countries? He asked for this Return because he had an objection to being smothered in the dark.

Sir, we who occupy this Bench can greatly sympathize with the hon. and gallant Member opposite in his objection to being smothered in the dark, because we so nearly experienced that unpleasant operation. In reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I may say that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to lay upon the table very shortly the Return asked for.

said, he also would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to a statement that was made in this House last night in reference to the Reform Bill for Scotland. According to the printed form which had been laid before them, the town of Aberdeen was to receive an additional Member, but according to the speech of the Lord Advocate last night the city of Edinburgh, instead of that of Aberdeen, would receive the additional Member.

Sir, the statements contained in my speech and in that of the Lord Advocate are correct. The intention of Her Majesty's Government is to propose that three Members be given to the city of Edinburgh, and, therefore, it is not their intention to propose that an additional Member shall be given to the town of Aberdeen. It is, however, proposed to give a second Member to the county of Aberdeen. The error in the tabular form was owing to a misprint, which will be corrected.

said, under these circumstances, he begged to give notice that in Committee he should move that a second Member be given to the town of Aberdeen.

, in calling the attention of the House to the proposed alteration in the system of promotion among the Medical Officers of the Brigade of Guards, and in moving for an Address for Copies of the Warrant or Order of 1860, under which a change in the system of promotion among the Medical Officers of the Brigade of Guards is to be made; and of any Communication from the War Office or the Horse Guards to the Officers commanding the three regiments of Guards, intimating the proposed change of system to the Officers affected by it, said, that though his Notice nominally referred to the Brigade of Guards only, he believed, in that fact, the Motion affected the whole of the medical department in Her Majesty's service, and, through that department, the whole medical profession throughout the country. It could scarcely be expected that first-class men of the medical profession would enter Her Majesty's service unless they could be certain of the rules under which their promotion was to be regulated. It was supposed by some that his Motion went further, and affected the authority of the Crown over the army. He should be the last man to wish to see the power of the Crown over the army controlled in any way, and he should regard it as a great misfortune were that House to take the control of the army into its own hands; but they had a right to expect that the recommendations which were given to Her Majesty by her advisers should be made with a due regard to existing and ancient interests, and that any innovation upon the ordinary rules should be preceded by ample notice to the parties likely to be affected by such changes. The promotion to the rank of surgeon in the Guards had hitherto been regulated by seniority in the regiment, and he had heard of no reason why a system which had endured for so many years should be altered. It appeared that in 1858 a Royal Warrant was issued, founded upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1857, which ordered that the assistant-surgeons should as a general rule be promoted to the rank of surgeons in the order of their seniority in the service, unless exceptional circumstances should prevent them being so promoted. The medical officers in the Guards did not imagine that that warrant affected them, as it had hitherto been supposed that when the Guards were not especially mentioned in a warrant they were not affected by it. The warrant in question contained no special mention of that particular branch of the service, and, therefore, the medical officers in it were justified in believing that they were not affected by it. Either they were or they were not affected by it—if they were not, then his argument held good; if they were, then there was no necessity for any subsequent warrant. It now turned out, however, that in 1860 a special warrant was drawn up which decided that the promotion to the rank of surgeon in the Guards should go by seniority in the Brigade of Guards. He was not there to dispute the wisdom of that arrangement, but he thought that the gentlemen affected by it should have been informed of the existence of the warrant. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War on the 9th of April, in answer to a question, admitted that that warrant had been neither seen nor promulgated. Doubtless the noble Lord in his reply would state that, although the warrant had not been promulgated, the medical officers in the Guards were perfectly well acquainted with the substance of the warrant; but he (Sir Robert Anstruther) had made inquiries at the orderly room of the Guards, and there was no copy of the warrant there, and the only document to be found was a letter in 1865 from Earl de Grey, in which he said—

"That promotion by seniority in the Brigade is recommended by his Royal Highness as the most suitable arrangement, and would be adhered to."

In the face of the warrant, however, Assistant Surgeon Kerin was appointed, in 1863, over the heads of the assistant-surgeons of brigades, and Surgeon Wylde was promoted in a similar manner. He thought it extremely hard that an officer entering the service before the warrant was signed should suddenly find his prospects destroyed without the slightest warning. At the time the warrant was signed many officers, he was informed, would, if it had been promulgated, have resigned and sought advancement in other walks of life; but now they found that all the time they had spent in the profession had simply been of no advantage to them. The discontent which existed among the members of the medical branch of the army was not, he thought, surprising, when it was found that the professional prospects of those officers would be so suddenly destroyed. On the con- trary, indeed, he thought it was but natural that such discontent and distrust should exist. In addition to all the objections which might fairly be urged against the warrant itself, the time of its promulgation was about the worst that could possibly have been chosen. He had, he ventured to think, brought the matter forward in the interest of the service itself, as well as in the interest of the medical men. The assistant-surgeons of the Brigade of Guards did not ask that the warrant should be repealed—they did not say that it was a bad warrant, and they would even admit that it might possibly be a good one—what they asked, however, was that it might not have retrospective action. He should conclude by moving an Address for—

"Copies of the Warrant or Order of 1860, under which a change in the system of promotion amongst the Medical Officers of the Brigade of Guards is to be made:"

"And of any Communications from the War Office or the Horse Guards to the Officers commanding the three regiments of Guards, intimating the proposed change of system to the Officers affected by it."

said, that the matter was a most important one. In his opinion the question affected the interests of the whole army. No Government was entitled to introduce measures having a retrospective operation unless great public interests were concerned. Some of these officers had entered the army fifteen years ago, and had served with credit and without the slightest reproach in the Crimea, in Canada, or wherever they had been called by their duty. No fault had ever been found with the medical organization of the Guards. The warrant was certainly not wanted, and was ruinous to the interests of the assistant-surgeons, many of whom had served thirteen or fourteen years. It was generally found, indeed, that retrospective measures created a want of confidence in the army, and when measures of that kind had been promulgated before it had been found desirable to make a fresh change. In 1854, for example, the warrant that was then issued had to be altered in consequence of the discontent it created amongst the officers in 1857 or 1858. The way to remedy the evil occasioned by the warrant in question was very simple—namely, to allow all those assistant-surgeons in the service before the promulgation of this warrant to have their promotion, according to the old regimental system. He thought it hardly worth while to create dissatisfaction by carrying out a rule which had lain dormant for so long; and he trusted that the Secretary of State for War would re-consider the matter to which his attention had been called, and not add to the discontent prevailing in the medical branch of the army, so largely contributed to the changes introduced since 1854.

supported the Motion, and said, that the changes which took place some time ago in regard to the medical officers in the public service had a great effect in raising the standard of those gentlemen generally. He, however, held that the advantages hitherto conferred on them were after all by no means commensurate with the services which they rendered to the country. Nothing was more calculated to injure the service than the adoption of any regulation by which the younger men of the service were advanced over the heads of their seniors, not because their merits were greater, but because it was thought expedient by the military authorities to introduce an entirely new system of promotion. The warrant in question committed a gross injustice against those officers who had entered the service upon the faith of that system under which promotion was to proceed according to seniority.

felt a great interest in a discussion respecting the medical promotion in a regiment in which he had had the honour to serve, and the interests of officers with whom he was as sociated. He could not help thinking that this warrant had not been sufficiently promulgated, and that it had remained for a long time unknown even to those whom it deeply concerned. He thought that its provisions should be made prospective and not retrospective, and that it should not affect those officers who entered the service before 1860. If that principle were acceded to, in his opinion there would be no semblance of a grievance to complain of.

said, that the fact of the medical officers having accepted the Warrant of 1858 seemed to be construed into an abnegation of all the privileges to which the medical officers in the Guards were formerly entitled. That, he thought, was a very hard construction to place upon the matter, and although he acquitted the heads of the Department of any intention to do injustice to those for whom the appeal was made, he could not help thinking there had been inadvertence. It was especially unwise to promulgate any measure of doubtful justice at the present time. He saw from the newspapers that a wiser course had recently been pursued by Russia, which, though a neutral Power, as England was, in respect to the agitation now prevailing in Europe, had issued a public notice with a view to reinforce the medical staff of the army. Seeing the difficulty of recruiting the medical staff of our army, he thought it was peculiarly necessary at that moment to observe religiously our engagements to those who rendered us such invaluable services.

Although I am unable to admit that the Papers for which the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire has moved are documents which the House has any right to claim, still, as I shall have to refer to them in the course of my reply to his Questions, it will only be in accordance with the rule of the House if I lay them upon the table. I therefore make no opposition to his Motion. I have, however, to make one or two observations with respect to his remarks and the request which he has made, and I hope I shall succeed in placing the matter before the House in a somewhat different light from what it appears in the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is quite true, as was stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, that up to the year 1858—and I think I may say 1860—the rule of promotion from the rank of assistant-surgeon to surgeon in the Brigade of Guards was by seniority in the regiment. However, in 1858, as has already been stated, a warrant was published altering in almost every particular the status of the army medical officers—altering their position with regard to pay, relative rank, allowances, promotion, and pensions. The rule of promotion from the rank of assistant-surgeon to Burgeon was, save in some exceptional cases which were specified, to be by seniority in the service. Now, it has been stated that, the Guards not being specially mentioned in that warrant, there was nothing to show that its provisions affected the medical officers of the Brigade. I was astonished to hear that statement. Does my hon. and gallant Friend deny that the surgeons and assistant-surgeons of the Brigade of Guards have taken advantage of every provision in that warrant which tended to their benefit? Does he deny that the assistant-surgeons are at this moment in receipt of the increased pay given by that warrant, and that in the Brigade of Guards two at least of the surgeons of the regiments have attained the rank of surgeon-majors simply through the operation of that warrant? There is no objection on the part of the surgeons of the Guards to accept those provisions of the warrant which tended to their advantage, and I have no hesitation in saying that the medical officers of the Guards have accepted this change as beneficial to them. If they had any doubts on the subject of promotion, surely it would not have been too much trouble for them to make inquiries as to whether the provisions of the warrant were to be set aside or not in their case. A great deal has been said about what has been called the Warrant of 1860; but that term is hardly applicable to the document in question, and if I have made use of the term it was in error. The history of it is as follows:—In 1860 a vacancy took place in the office of surgeon in one of the regiments of the Household Cavalry, and the Colonel of the 2nd Life Guards, Field-Marshal Lord Seaton, according to custom, recommended the appointment of the senior assistant-surgeon in his own regiment. At that time Mr. Kerin was not only the senior assistant-surgeon of the Household Cavalry, But also senior of that rank in the army. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, in a letter to Mr. Herbert (afterwards Lord Herbert) who was the Secretary of State for War, in recommending that the appointment should not he given to Mr. Buckland, the senior assistant-surgeon in the 2nd Life Guards, hut to Mr. Kerin as the assistant-surgeon of the Brigade, took occasion to state the way in which he proposed to carry out the provisions of the Warrant of 1858 with respect to the Household Cavalry and the Brigade of Guards, so as to fulfil the intention of that warrant, and at the same time to preserve, not the rights of the assistant-surgeons—who, it seems, he did not think had any rights at all to regimental promotion—but the rights and the privileges of the Colonels of the Guards, who had hitherto had the power of recommending these promotions. That letter of his Royal Highness, and the reply of Mr. Herbert, I shall be able to lay on the table of this House. The reply of Mr. Herbert will show that he had no doubt whatever about the propriety of the promotion of Mr. Kerin; the only doubt that existed in his mind was, whether or not the limitations proposed by His Royal Highness that promotion should go by seniority in the Brigade were in contravention of the warrant. The result of that correspondence between Mr. Herbert and His Royal Highness was a document which was submitted for the approval of Her Majesty, and which became what was designated the Warrant of 1860. That document, as I have explained, is not a warrant, but merely a "submission" by the Commander-in-Chief to Her Majesty of explanations of portions of the Warrant of 1858 applying to surgeons of the Brigade of Guards. Therein it is laid down—

"That on the appointment of surgeon becoming vacant, if in the Household Cavalry, the colonel of the regiment should be permitted to recommend for the succession the senior assistant-surgeon of those three regiments, if duly qualified, and he thought proper to do so, or, if he considered it more desirable to recommend the transfer of a surgeon from the cavalry or infantry of the line, or the promotion of the senior assistant-surgeon of the whole army, to fill the vacancy; and that the same rule should be observed on any vacancy becoming vacant in one of the regiments of Foot Guards, the promotion being given on the recommendation of the colonel either to the senior assistant-surgeon of those three regiments or the vacancy filled by the transfer of a surgeon or the promotion of a senior assistant-surgeon of the army if duly qualified."

After this document came from the Queen there was no necessity for keeping the knowledge of it from the Brigade of Guards; but I admit that through an inadvertency that document was not well known, and that this is a circumstance to be regretted. However, for reasons I have mentioned, I do not think that that circumstance is sufficient to make it necessary to postpone the operation of the provisions the document contained. For I maintain that the Warrant of 1858 is the only warrant under which the surgeons of the Guards, in the same way as the surgeons of the whole rest of the army are placed. If they wanted to become acquainted with the regulations affecting their promotion, they had only to look to that warrant, and if they thought that exception should have been made in their case they should have applied for it. As it has been admitted by the hon. and gallant Baronet who moved the Address, the decision arrived at on this subject has been perfectly well known to the surgeons in the Brigade certainly since the year 1861. With regard to the case mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, in which he said there had been a regimental promotion, he has omitted to mention circumstances which fully show that instead of the promotion of Assistant Surgeon Hayward being an in- fringement of the warrant, it was in conformity with the principle laid down in it—namely, that not the surgeon who has served longest in the Brigade, but longest in the army, should be promoted. My hon. and gallant Friend has also referred to Surgeon Major Wylde. Now, the Warrant of 1858 and the submission of 1860 did not refer in any way whatever to any promotion excepting the promotion from assistant-surgeon to surgeon. The regimental surgeon-major, the hon. and gallant Baronet is aware, is one of the peculiarities of the regiments of the Guards, which does not exist in any other regiments, and my hon. and gallant Friend will remember that what applies to the medical department of the lower ranks of the army no longer applies to the higher ranks. Considering, therefore, that the decision arrived at in 1860 was in strict accordance with the principles laid down in the Warrant of 1858, and that the surgeons of the Brigade of Guards have without exception acted under it, and that it has not been shown that they were ignorant of the decision arrived at in 1860, I do not think any cause has been stated for setting it aside,

said, that the Secretary for War had misunderstood him, in arguing that he admitted that the assistant-surgeons of the Guards were aware of the warrant. What he had said, however, was that there was absolutely no communication to them till 1865, and the communication then sent referred to a very small part of the submission from which the Secretary for War had quoted.

I understood my hon. and gallant Friend to say that, although it had never been officially promulgated, the assistant-surgeons of the Guards were perfectly aware of the decision which had been arrived at in 1860. If my hon. Friend does not admit this, I am prepared to assert on information which I possess, that the greater part, if not the whole of the assistant-surgeons of the Guards, previous to 1865, were aware of the decision, and that it underwent considerable discussion among them. With regard to the question of the merit of the case, I do not think it necessary to enter upon it at the present time. I do not see why what has been generally adopted in the army at large should not be adopted in the Guards. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) contended that faith has been broken with these officers, who were natu- rally dissatisfied that juniors should he promoted over their heads. But that is the very thing this regulation was intended to avoid, and the objection of the hon. Member for Leitrim therefore fails of its point. As to the passages which my hon. Friend read out from the Report of a Committee, which has not been laid on the table, but which, on the contrary, is a confidential document, I do not know how he obtained it, and I must decline to follow him into those passages, more particularly as the Report is one which has no special bearing upon the case. For the reasons which I have stated, I regret that I shall not be able to advise the Commander-in-Chief to postpone the operation of the Warrant of 1858 with regard to assistant-surgeons; but rather that matters shall be left upon the footing on which they were placed in 1860.

Although I am perfectly aware that the opinions I am about to express will not be in accordance with those of many of my hon. and gallant Friends, I cannot but regret that the assistant-surgeons of the Guards should have urged the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir Robert Anstruther) to call the attention of the House to a case with which [conceive it has nothing whatever to do. I take this to be one of the cases in which Parliament has, happily, come to the decision that it is not within its province to interfere with the administration and discipline of the army as long as confidence is felt in the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief. I believe it is the universal feeling of the country that our army should not be made a Parliamentary army, and I have never seen any disposition on the part of Parliament to make it so. But, unfortunately, hon. and gallant Officers on both sides of this House are constantly induced to get up to call upon the House to interfere with the discretion of the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief, and to seek by proceedings in this House to overrule the decisions of the responsible heads of the profession. A great case of hardship is made out for these assistant-surgeons of the Guards. I venture to say there never yet was a case of a Royal Warrant dealing with promotions which did not inflict hardship upon some individual or other When the Royal Warrant altered the promotion from the rank of lieutenant-colonel to colonel in the army, there is not the slightest doubt that captains and lieutenant-colonels in the Guards suffered, or that this medical warrant of 1858 affected all the assistant-surgeons in the service. The warrant contemplated the promotion from assistant-surgeon to surgeon throughout the whole army. Previously, the promotions had taken place within certain districts, and there can be no question that several assistant-surgeons who were senior within their own districts suffered hardship by the alteration. Though it is said that the assistant-surgeons in the Guards were not aware that the Warrant of 1858 applied to them, that they were never acquainted with it, and that it was never sent to their orderly room, I can state—for I was Secretary of State for War at the time—that it was circulated in the usual way. It was no doubt published in the monthly Army List, and no departure whatever was made from the usual practice in that case. The warrant was drawn up by myself from the Report of the Royal Commissioners; and it is quite evident from his proceedings in 1860 that the Chairman of that Commission, Mr. Herbert, when he became Secretary for War, conceived that the warrant applied to the medical officers of the Guards. But, whether it did or did not apply to the Guards, I am quite certain that the hon. and gallant Officer opposite will not dispute the power of the Crown, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, approved by the Secretary of State for War, to make alterations with regard to the promotion of officers. Everybody who enters the army enters it subject to the alterations that may be made in the conditions of the service, even though he may have entered it with the understanding that the promotion was to be by seniority. Captains and lieutenant-colonels purchased their commissions upon the understanding that the system was to continue; but in the case I have already mentioned they had to submit The hon. and gallant Officer who brought forward this subject, I must say, somewhat irregularly quoted evidence not before the House, and proposed to deal with the Warrant of 1858. Nobody regrets more than I do that the Warrant of 1858 was departed from. It think it a very bad thing for the service; but I never doubted the power of the Secretary of State to make the alteration. In the House and out of the House, I have always done everything I could for the medical officers of the army, and I am happy to say that in the Guards great good feeling exists between the combatant officers and the assistant- surgeons and surgeons of the regiment. I only wish that similar good feeling had been universal throughout the army, and in that case, I believe there would hare been no necessity for altering the warrant. As the noble Lord the Secretary for War has agreed to give the papers moved for, I have nothing further to say upon the subject.

said, that whilst he agreed with the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon that the House should not interfere with the discipline of the army, and that it had always shown great disinclination to trench on the prerogative of the Crown, he must still remind hon. Members that the House had a right to supervise everything relating to that great money-spending establishment, and if anything like a case of grievance or hardship were put forward it must give rise to a sort of jealousy if the House were told that they were not at liberty to pursue the discussion, because of the prerogative of the Crown. It did not appear to him that the noble Marquess had given a satisfactory answer to the point raised. The medical officers of the Guards complained that they had been taken by surprise; and he must say that the answer of the noble Marquess did not successfully refute that allegation. It must be remembered that many of these surgeons had given up large and lucrative private practice to take service in the Guards; and it certainly could not be satisfactory to gentlemen whose future must be materially affected by the contents of these documents, to be told as a sufficient reply that some of them had known of the warrant, and that others had discussed it. He hoped His Royal Highness upon re-consideration would see grounds leading him to decide that the warrant ought not to be retrospective in its operation, and that the officers who had entered the service under the previous regulations would be promoted in their proper turn.

concurred in the opinion expressed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon, and only rose for the purpose of making an observation with regard to a statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the subject, and which was the only blot on the Secretary of State for War—how it was that the warrant, which in fact was not a warrant, was not promulgated to the medical officers of the Brigade of Guards. He thought the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon had exhausted the arguments on this question, and he should follow the right hon. Gentleman with great pleasure into the lobby.

said, he thought his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War had scarcely met the case raised by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther). The grounds on which his noble Friend based his answer was, first, that the operation alluded to took place under a Warrant of 1858; and that the second order of 1860 was made known to the gentlemen whom it immediately affected very soon after it was written. In opposition to this the position of assistant-surgeons of the Guards was, that they did not accept the Warrant of 1858, and did nothing on the explanatory warrant or document of 1860. They had not accepted them because they really had no option in the matter. If they had had the opportunity they would not have consented to such a suicidal arrangement, for the sake of the additional 2s. 6d. per day pay, to take a position which would prevent them from rising to the higher ranks of their profession, or if they got there deprived them of their old pay or pension. With regard to the memorandum of 1860 this explanatory document was written, and what became of it no one knew—it was not made known to those whom it affected, and though his noble Friend said he had good reason to believe they were acquainted with it, he (Lord Dunkellin) had very good reason himself to believe that it was not known to many of them in 1861, or for some years afterwards. It was true that a rumour of the matter got abroad; but in 1863, two years afterwards, promotions took place in a regiment he was acquainted with expressly on the old arrangement. If the whole thing was to be opened the assistant-surgeons in the Guards ought to he promoted into the Line; but he was told that a surgeon going into the Guards had no chance of getting into the Line. The medical staff of the army was filled from the Line, and medical officers in the Guards were supposed to have been satisfied with the prospect of promotion to the rank of surgeon-major and its accompanying advantages. What they wanted to know was how this promotion was to go on; hut, at the same time, he did not think the Warrant of 1860 could be said to have been made known. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (General Peel) said this was not a question to be discussed by the House of Commons, as it related to the administration of the army; but this did not quite come under that head. He believed that in the matter of those warrants a hardship was inflicted on individuals without any benefit to the service; and as there were only eleven officers affected by them, he hoped his noble Friend would avail himself of the opportunity now afforded him of doing a very graceful act, and one which could not in any way impair the efficiency of the service.

said, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War having referred to the Warrant of 1858, he could not help remarking that if the surgeons of the Guards were amenable to that warrant surely all the high offices affected by it should be open to them. He was one of the Committee of the House on the Medical Department of the Army, and he must say that every Member of the Committee was satisfied that the medical and hospital arrangements of the Guards under their own surgeons were a model for the rest of the army.

said, the noble Lord the Secretary for War had admitted that there was an omission in not promulgating these warrants. With that of 1858 these gentlemen had nothing to do; and it was admitted that the document of 1860 was not a warrant, but only a submission or memorandum. The noble Marquess said that the medical officers of the Guards took the advantage of the Warrant of 1858 by taking the increased pay. Why, of course they took whatever was given generally to the army. He thought great credit was due to the hon. and gallant Baronet for the manner in which he had brought this question forward, and he ought not to have been met by having the prerogative of the Crown thrust down his throat; for if an injustice was done to any body of officers what appeal had they beyond those who made the order if it was not to the House of Commons? He wished to warn the present Secretary of State for War, and those who might hereafter hold that position, that the Warrant of 1858 was breaking down, and they were getting inferior classes of surgeons; indeed, it was very difficult to get any at all.

said, it should be borne in mind that the House voted all the supplies, and took a certain sum from the army and made the necessary provision for them. The Guards, however, were a separate and self-administering body, and that was the great point in the question. If they made it incumbent on any body of officers to look after the medical charge of their men, certainly they had a right to have something to do with the appointment of the surgeons. If they had for assistant-surgeons young men who had been, as it were, brought up amongst them, and in whom they had confidence, it was reasonable that they should wish them to be promoted and to keep them amongst them.

, In reply, insisted on the hardship of bringing parties under the operation of the warrant when the noble Lord himself admitted they had never seen it. He had not the least wish to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown in this matter, but he begged very respectfully to submit to the noble Marquess and the Commander-in-Chief, not as a question of right but of justice, that the action of the warrant should simply not be retrospective. He thanked the noble Lord for having agreed to lay the papers he required on the table.

rose to call the attention of the House to the recommendations contained in the Report (1854) by the right hon. Henry Labouchere, Sir John Patteson, and George Cornewall Lewis, Esq., Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Corporation of the City of London, namely—

"We recommend that the Irish Society he dissolved, and its charter be repealed by Act of Parliament; and that its property be vested in a new set of trustees, whose number and character should be defined in the Act. We recommend, farther, that the trustees be appointed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and that he have power to fill up vacancies as they occur from time to time. A general scheme for the guidance of the trustees in the management of the property ought, as we have already stated, to be laid down by the Act. but as it may be difficult to define once for all every portion of a scheme of this kind, and as it may be desirable, as circumstances alter, to alter the provisions of the scheme to meet them, power should be given to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to modify or vary the provisions of the scheme within certain limits."

The hon. Gentleman alluded briefly to the history of the Irish Society which had its origin in the plantation scheme of James I., who in 1609 negotiated with the London Corporation for conveying to the Irish Society the whole of the county of Londondery including Coleraine and Derry with extensive fisheries. This arrangement was confirmed by charter in 1613, and the Irish Society continued to hold and manage the estates vested in it. This Society consisted of a Governor, who was the only member of it who continued in office for more than two years, a deputy Governor and twenty-four assistants elected by the Court of Common Council from the freemen of London. He argued that the constitution of the Society precluded the possibility of a useful or uniform management of the property of which the society were trustees. The Lon-d6n Corporation had no beneficial interest in the estate, and their duties in connection with the society were limited to the election of its members. The property to which the Motion referred was what is known as the Indivisible Estate, and was distinct from that divided in 1614 between the twelve London companies and assigned to them in fee. From the earliest times the management by the Irish Society was called into question, As early as 1615 James I. complained of the slow progress of the plantation; and in the reign of Charles I., the charter of the Society was withdrawn in consequence of its disputes with the Crown. The Society, however, obtained a new charter in 1662 which re-conveyed the Indivisible Estate, consisting of the city of Londonderry, the town of Coleraine, certain lands and fisheries, all producing, in 1854, an annual rent of about £10,000. Grave abuses crept into the management of this property—the bare cost of which amounted to nearly half the income. The great grievance, however, was the withholding of suitable building leases. Originally, the Society granted leases renewable in perpetuity of the property within the walls of Londonderry, but leases of property outside the walls were restricted to a term of sixty-one or seventy-eight, and latterly of eighty years; but on a condition in operation until ten years ago to the effect that no lease should be renewed until three years of its expiration, a condition which, of itself, was sufficient to account for the backward state of Derry and its comparative want of progress in improvement. Several inquiries had been made into the management of the Irish Society, and all the reports were adverse. The Municipal Corporation of England Commissioners said they knew of no pretext for continuing the municipal supremacy of the Irish Society. The Irish Corporation Commissioners reported they had been unable to obtain the necessary information from the Irish Society, but that it appeared from the evidence of the Secretary given before the House of Commons Committee in 1824, that while the society had an income of £7,000 a year from Derry and Coleraine, their expenditure for public purposes was only £500. The Commissioners who last reported on the Society were the right hon. Henry Labouchere, Sir John Patteson, and Mr. George Cornewall Lewis, and after hearing full evidence they reported that the Irish Society should be dissolved, and its trusts declared by Act of Parliament; and that new trustees be appointed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He (Mr. Kennedy) trusted that those views expressed by men so eminent would command the respect of the House, even if they failed to command that of the Society; one of whose Governors (Alderman Humphrey) admitted that the Society found "Englishmen were not the best people to manage Irishmen." What he had already stated would, he felt, be sufficient for the object of his Motion; but he might fairly contrast the past and present condition of Belfast and Londonderry. Of these towns Derry originally had the advantage. Its port was superior to that of Belfast, but the latter town has completely outstripped it in commerce and population; Belfast being at present a population of 149,500, while that of Derry is only 23,375. And there could be no doubt that the difference was attributable to the fact that in Belfast suitable building leases were granted, and its trade fostered by those who had its management in their hands. In making his Motion he had a second object in view, and that was to elicit an expression of opinion from Irish Members opposite, who resided in the neighbourhood of Derry, and were conversant with the management of the Irish Society. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Return of papers of which he had given notice.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that as the re-presentive of a large body of the people who were affected by the management of the Irish Society, he would ask how the Society had performed the duties which they were expressly instituted to fulfil, and which were expressly set forth in their charter of incorporation? He believed they had directly violated their trust in not laying to the city of Derry and borough of Coleraine lands intended by the charter for them, by the misappropriation of the revenues to the twelve London companies, of which they are themselves members, by payment to themselves as trustees, and by an unnecessary and extravagant expenditure which they termed "management." With regard to the retention of the lands by the Society, that was a subject so wrapped up in legal difficulties that he did not wish to enter upon it; but it had been a lasting grievance in the minds of the corporation of Derry, because the effect was to withhold from them the revenues to which they were entitled, and thus driving them to contract loans for public works, resulting in a heavy debt, which still hung over the city. The conduct of the Society towards the corporation of Derry had been oppressive and arbitrary. By the charter of incorporation it was generally understood that the income derived by the Society from the lands was to be applied to public purposes and not to mere private gain. Up to the year 1831 the Irish Society were in the habit of finding themselves in possession of a surplus, which they constantly divided among the twelve London companies. Mr. Alderman Humphrey, before the Royal Commission of 1854, said that instead of devoting their revenues to the improvement of Derry and Coleraine, the Society unfortunately found a sum of money at their banker's, which they divided among the twelve London companies, giving £500 to each. Lord Langdale and the House of Lords declared that this was illegal, and added that if the Society were to do their duty they never could have a surplus. The constitution of the Society could not be defended, one great objection to it being that members remained so short a time in office as to take little interest in the affairs of the Society, and were replaced by new men, who know nothing of them. The corporation of Londonderry had introduced a Bill to provide for the longer continuance of the members of the Society in office, but they were opposed by the corporation of London, and that of Londonderry being the weaker of the two it was beaten. A deputation from the Society was required by the charter to pay an annual visit of a month to Ireland to look to the management of their estates; and they did devote a week to the accounts; but the remainder of the month they devoted to a tour through Ireland, and little was heard during the week after their return to London than the grandeur of the Giant's Causeway, the splendour or the squalor of certain streets of Dublin, and the unrivalled beauties of the Lakes of Killarney. From 1824 to 1832, there was a single item in their accounts amounting to £3,779 for tavern expenses—namely, costly banquets and entertainments at the expense of the citizens of Derry. Through these and other extravagancies the expenses of management for years had exceeded half their receipts. Then as to the mode in which the Society granted their leases it was most unjust, and was a complete barrier to improvements and investment of capital in Derry. In the year 1847 a Standing Order was passed that no determinable leases should be renewed till within three years of their expiration; and that no leases should be granted in perpetuity. He understood, however, that these Orders were now rescinded, but as an instance of their present mode of dealing with their tenants he would give the House one specimen. A Mr. Stewart Gordon applied to the Society to grant him a lease of some land which he had reclaimed at Derry, and they consented on condition that he should build four house B on it. Well, he built three, and died, and the Lord Chancellor ordered his representatives to finish the fourth. At last they obtained the draft of the lease, and one of the clauses provided that the lessee should not assign or sublet any one of these four houses, so that he must clearly occupy all four. Another covenant was, that should the lessee become insolvent or bankrupt the lease should be null and void. In other words, that the outlay for the houses should go into the pockets of the Society. Well, this draft lease was sent back to the solicitor of the Society, who was asked whether he had not made a mistake, and his answer was that the lease was in the invariable form of leases granted by the Society. This took place in the year 1863. The Society refused to grant an equitable lease, and the consequence was that the representative of Mr. Gordon took the case to the Court of Chancery, and it was in the Court of Chancery at the present moment. These were a few in- stances in which the Irish Society had abused their power and broken their trust. He trusted that the facts stated and the papers asked for would induce Her Majesty's Government to take the matter in hand. The recommendation of the Royal Commissioners was that the Society should he dissolved, new trusts prepared, and that the trustees should be nominated by the Lord Chancellor. This would place unlimited political power in the hands of the Government, a power which, looking at their proceedings with regard to the dockyard labourers, they would be sure not to exercise. The question, therefore, was how was this property to be settled? As one of the "boys" in Parliament, if he might suggest a course to the Government, he would say, "Follow the first two of the recommendations of the Royal Commission as regarded annulling the Society and revoking the charter; sell the property, and apply the money to the purpose of liquidating the public debts of Derry and Coleraine. At present there was a harbour debt of £150,000; pay that, and make Derry a free port for the benefit of the whole north-west of Ireland. There was a bridge debt of £90,000; pay that, and let Derry have a free bridge. There was a corporation debt of £100,000; pay that, and so free the citizens from the heavy rates now imposed upon them. He trusted that the Motion would be the means of drawing the attention of the Government to the subject, and that they would deal with it in such a manner as to confer a great boon on 35,000 of Her Majesty's subjects.

said, that great misapprehension prevailed respecting the constitution of the Irish Society, the benefits which it had conferred upon Ireland, and its present position. The Irish Society was established by the Corporation of the City of London at the request of James I., who desired them to take the management of certain devastated lands which had previously belonged to the O'Neills, and other powerful Irish families. The Livery companies of London were called into council by the corpora- tion, and advanced the money which was required to bring those estates into cultivation, and the controlling authority was placed in the hands of a body who had full power to carry out their operations. He maintained that the prosperous condition of Ulster, as compared with the other provinces of Ireland, was mainly due to the operations of the Society. The noble Lord the Member for Londonderry had complained that the Society had violated their trust, and had misappropriated the funds committed to their management. But who were the parties complaining? No such complaints had ever been made by the tenants, or by the corporation, or by the Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry; on the contrary, they had repeatedly agreed to resolutions thanking the Society for the benefits which they had received from it. The noble Lord also charged the Society with arbitrary and oppressive management, and said that everything connected with it was in an unsatisfactory state. Now, if anyone had a grievance he could bring it before the corporation of the City of London or the Crown; to whom, and to whom alone, the Irish Society were responsible. This was not a Motion simply to obtain particulars and papers, but was an attempt to confiscate the property of the Irish Society. That was what the speech of the noble Lord the Seconder of the Motion amounted to. He said, "Abolish the trustees, sell the property, and pay the debts which the inhabitants of Londonderry have incurred." That was the principle of the Fenians, which it appeared had now extended as far North as Londonderry. He thought it would be most extraordinary if the House should put itself in motion with the view of obtaining information to facilitate the confiscation of the estates of the Society. The Livery Companies of the City of London having advanced the money which was needed by the Society, the estates were after a time divided amongst them; and some of them, amongst others, the Goldsmith's and Haberdasher's Companies, disposed of their shares; and although the lands in Londonderry and Coleraine were not divided, they were just as much the property of the Companies as were those which had been apportioned amongst them, and to which they obtained indefeasible titles. The noble Lord had cited the judgment of Lord Langdale in the case of the Skinner's Company v. the Irish Society, but he had omitted to notice the remarks which were made by Lord Lyndhurst in the same case when it was carried to the House of Lords. Lord Lyndhurst refused to say that the purposes of the trust were so vast and considerable that they could never be satisfied; and he declared that the Society were bound to carry out the purposes of their charter, and that they were themselves the judges of what those purposes were. They might spend the whole of their income upon the improvement of their lands, or might divide it amongst the companies of the City of London. No one could call them to account except the corporation of London, or the Crown. The Irish Society, instead of endeavouring to accumulate profits to divide among the Livery Companies, had been in the habit of expending annually considerable sums upon the improvement of the towns, the assistance of educational establishments, and other measures for the promotion of the comfort and well-being of the inhabitants of Londonderry and Coleraine. At Londonderry they had subscribed £2,100 to the Water Company which supplied the inhabitants with water free of expense, and they had contributed largely to the cost of the bridge, and had established a sinking fund, which in a few years would make it free. The Society had induced the Government to relieve them from the payment of £200 a year to the Governor of Culmore Fort to abolish that sinecure office, and to give up to them the lands attached to that fortress; and although they had to pay £12,000 to the Government, they had devoted all the money saved, and all the profits received from the land to public improvements. A large sum of money had been spent in legal expenses in protecting the salmon fisheries of the rivers Foyle and Bann, but the proceedings which had been undertaken were absolutely necessary in order to protect the rights of the Society. It had divided its benefits impartially amongst the various conflicting interests, which were all anxious to monopolize its grants. Any one who knew Londonderry and Coleraine twenty or thirty years ago would be surprised at the enormous improvements which had since taken place. There were steam-boats running to Liverpool and Glasgow almost daily, and the Transatlantic steam ships called at the mouth of the river. The hon. Member for Louth, the Mover of the Resolution, had compared Londonderry to Belfast, and asked why had not the former progressed as fast, and become as large, as populous, and as wealthy as the latter city; but the hon. Gentleman had not considered that the geographical position of the one gave it great advantages over the other, and Belfast was only 158 miles from Liverpool, whereas Londonderry was 245 miles distant. He looked upon the present Motion as one for a roving sort of Commission, and believed that it was levelled at the destruction of the Society, and the prevention of any further improvements in the two places. The real object of this Motion was to get possession of the property of the Society, and divide it among certain bodies in Londonderry. It was tenant-right under a new form, an attempt to seize the property of the landlords, and divide it among the tenants. The promoters of the Motion desired to obtain information which they had no right to ask for—such as the terms on which the leases were held, and when they expired. It was not likely that the tenants would desire to make their holdings public, and it was not fair to call upon them to make such disclosures. It had been stated that the members of the deputation which annually visited Ireland spent one week on business, and three weeks on pleasure. It was true, that after the business was finished, many spent a few weeks among the Lakes of Killarney, but that was not done at the expense of the Society; all who did so paid their own expenses, and so Ireland derived some pecuniary benefit from their visits. The Irish Society had found it impossible to manage their property so as to give satisfaction to everybody; but that was equally the case with regard to landlords in England where such peculiarities did not exist, as were to be found in Ireland. The Society had done its utmost to promote the interests of the country, and he trusted that the House would not, by assenting to this Motion, give any encouragement to those who sought to cast a censure upon its management, and to deprive it of the property which bad been intrusted to its care.

said, he believed the Irish Society to consist of gentlemen of high honour, who were anxious to discharge their duty in a proper manner. They were, however, unacquainted with the management of large landed property in Ireland, and they fell into the error of dribbling away their funds in small donations which did more harm than good to the recipients. He found that during the course of last year their donations were 165 in number, varying from £1 to £200. A great deal of good might be done if this money, instead of being dribbled away in small sums, was applied in a more useful manner. He was glad that the subject had been discussed in that House, and it was right that the Irish Society, who had nothing to conceal, should know that the complaints of the inhabitants of Derry and Coleraine were founded on the conditions in the leases granted by the Society. Their complaints were that the tenure of the holdings was not sufficiently long, that the conditions on which leases were granted were onerous, that the trustees as a body had not sufficient local knowledge, and that they were appointed for too short a period. He thought, however, the good folks of Londonderry would laugh at the statement of the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) of the great things the Irish Society had done for the improvement of their city. They did not owe these things to the Society, but to their own industry and enterprize.

did not rise to enter into the merits of the controversy between the Irish Society and their tenants, but merely to observe that he understood that the Irish Society had ever desire to give as much information as possible respecting the receipts and expenditure, and some important parts of the Return which his hon. Colleague in the representation of Louth (Mr. Kennedy) had given notice of his intention to move for would be produced, but the Society naturally objected to give the case of every particular tenant, and of the grants and renewals of leases. He hoped the hon. Member would agree to accept the information offered, for when it was in their possession they would be better able to judge of the question before them.

thought that the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had made a mistake in saying that the property of the Irish Society was private property with which the country had no right to interfere. He agreed with the Chief Secretary that there was something inquisitorial in the part of the Return to which he referred, but he was glad that the remainder was to be given. He could not admit that the Irish Society had made the improvements with respect to the supply of water referred to by the hon. Member for London. He had himself been one of a deputation to the Society on that subject, when their request was not only refused, but they were received in a manner rather discourteous. The complaint of the people of the North was not as to the charities of the Society, but as to the manner in which the estates were managed. He fearlessly asserted that the management of the estates of the Irish Society was not satisfactory, and was not in accordance with usage in Ulster. Though the Society held their estates in trust only, they did not deal with their tenants in the same liberal spirit that would be shown even by private individuals.

said, that in the main part of the Motion he fully concurred. The revenue of the Society amounted to £14,000, and was mainly held by the Society as trustees for local improvements. He did not think that in the management of their estates the Society had given sufficient encouragement to building leases in Londonderry. Another complaint had reference to the Society as a governing body, as there were only two of its officers who were permanent—one was the Governor, elected for life, and the clerk, who held office during pleasure. None of the other officers remained in office for more than two years. This part of the question was, some years ago, brought under the consideration of the corporation of London; but they positively refused to re-construct the Society on a more permanent basis with respect to its officers. He could confirm the statement that a great deal of irritation prevailed in the North of Ireland as to the management of the Society's estates. From his knowledge of the locality, he could endorse most of the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1854, although he must express his dissent from that part of those recommendations by which the transfer of the trust to the hands of the Lord Chancellor for Ireland was proposed, a functionary who from his position must necessarily be a strong political partizan.

understood the substantial portion of the Motion would not be objected to, omitting that portion referring to the particular tenants and the tenure under which they held. The Motion might, therefore, be put in the amended form.

said, that the Irish Society were anxious to afford every particular in their power with reference to the nature of their trust and the manner in which their powers had been exercised. That information would, he believed, be fully contained in the particulars relating to their receipts and expenditure, pointing out how much had been expended for the benefit of Ireland, how much for the expenses of management, and the particular items of that expenditure. The standing orders of the Court might also be given from time to time. He thought, however, that a great misapprehension existed as to the nature of the trust. Reference had been made to a suit carried on for many years, and decided first by the Master of the Rolls, and afterwards carried into the House of Lords, and from those decisions it was inferred that the Irish Society were the trustees for the benefit of a particular part of the North of Ireland. That was not the case. They were trustees for the Livery Companies by whom the money was originally advanced, coupled with this condition—that before applying any portion of the funds for the benefit of the Companies, they should apply such part of the funds as they thought fit for the benefit of those parts of Ireland in which they held property. It was distinctly laid down by the Master of the Rolls that the Society had an absolute discretion as to what the amount so to be applied should be. The ultimate trust was for the Livery Companies, by whom, 'in the reign of James I., the sum of £60,000 had been advanced. It would be a violation of the trust to apply the funds for the purpose of paying off the debts which certain towns had incurred. He did not propose to enter into the question of the general management of the estates of the Irish Society. He merely wished to set the House right as to the nature of the trust vested in that Society, and at the same time to express in its behalf a desire to furnish the fullest information as to that trust and the manner in which it had been exercised.

said, that after having given the subject the most careful consideration, he felt satisfied the original object of the trust had not been duly carried into effect.

The question of the water supply of London, affecting, as it necessarily does, the daily comfort and essential well-being of at least 3,000,000 of our fellow-subjects, is one which might almost be considered as one of national interest; but certainly to us who live in this metropolis it can hardly be doubted that it is one of paramount importance, and I therefore hope that it will not be thought useless if I ask the House to grant me their attention for a short time whilst I state the reasons which induce me to ask for a Committee to take into consideration the question of the present condition of our water supply for London and its immediate vicinity. It is now about fifteen years since any serious inquiry into this subject has taken place before this House. The whole question was then very fully investigated, and legislation took place by which the then existing Water Companies who had, and who continue to have, a monopoly for the supply were placed under fresh regulations and required to lay out considerable sums of money for improving both the quality and increasing the supply. I am not going to find fault with the way these arrangements wore then carried out, nor in a general way do I question either the quality or the quantity which, as a whole, is daily poured into London; but whilst I admit this in a general way, I am pro-pared to contend that the distribution is not satisfactory, nor are the prospects at all satisfactory for the future, nor are the poorer classes as well supplied with an abundant supply of that most essential ingredient to their health and comfort, as might be the case under more improved arrangements, and such arrangements as are generally made now in most of the large towns in England. I will divide what I am about to state into two parts—1st, as to the present mode of distribution; and 2nd, as to the future prospects of supply. First, as to distribution—the great object is, of course, to secure the largest quantity or a regular supply to every house at the smallest amount of cost. Sir William Clay, formerly a Member of this House, and who was then a Chairman, I believe, of one of the large Water Companies in London, and who will be admitted to be a good authority, writes in a little pamphlet on this subject in 1844—

"That any person who will take the trouble to ascertain the utmost quantity of water which an individual requires day by day for all possible purposes of cleanliness and comfort, will find that a supply of twelve gallons to every member of a household will leave a surplus abundantly sufficient for other purposes in a large or small family."

In 1848 or 1849, before the last Parliamentary inquiry took place, the quantity of water supplied daily by the ten London Companies was about 45,000,000 of gallons—the population being then rather under 2,000,000. That quantity afforded a supply of about 22 gallons per head on an average for each individual. The present supply according to a notice which I hold in my hand from the Registrar General for the months of January and February last is 88,500,000 of gallons, which I call in round numbers 90,000,000—though I believe, taking the whole years' supply, the average will be nearer 100,000,000; but assuming 90,000,000 for any present purpose, with a population of 3,000,000 this would show an actual supply of about 30 gallons per head on the average for every individual. The total number of houses supplied is 430,000—the average population per house, 7. To what, then, can we attribute, with such a supply, a prevailing opinion, which I know to exist, that in very many parts of London, especially amongst the poorest districts, the supply is not so ample or so regular and constant as every one would desire, and as is really very essential for their health and well-being. I believe that it is mainly owing to the mode of supply being intermittent and not continuous, as the supply is now given in almost all the large towns which have lately improved their water supply. By the intermittent mode of supply, I mean a supply not direct for use from the service pipes, but into casks or cisterns in every house. These cisterns are supplied from the mains (which are always charged so as to afford a supply of water in case of fires) by service pipes to every house, the owner of which is willing to pay the water rates (which are not, I believe, in any case excessive) for a short time in every twenty-four hours, for six days in the week, varying, I believe, from half an hour to two or three hours. No supply from the mains is given on Sundays; consequently every house, in order to have a constant supply of water, must have cisterns the size of which, I believe, is not limited, but which must be large enough to hold water for two days' consumption, or otherwise there will be no water for use on a Sunday. Say, however, that each house has cistern-room enough for only thirty-six hours' consumption; there will, then, necessarily be a storage of water in houses to a total extent of probably not less than 100,000,000 of gallons. The evil of these cisterns must be very great, and they would be perfectly unnecessary if there was a constant supply of water always available from the main pipes. But this evil is not the only objection; it is the great desire of all consumers of water to have water of the softest quality—in other words, as free as possible from that combination of lime and salt which renders water what is commonly called hard, and ill adapted for use with soap. But the softer the water the more it is unfit to be kept in leaden vessels, which is the most common material of which cisterns are made. No one can for a moment doubt that, unless there is some unknown and serious objection, it is most desirable to have the purest and most constant supply of water direct from the fountain of supply with as little storage as possible. What, then, are the objections to a continuous supply which was clearly contemplated by the Act of 1853? For there is a clause in that Act requiring every Company to give continuous supply after 1857, on the application of a certain number of the inhabitants of every district. The objections are, I understand, that water would be constantly at high pressure in every house, and might cause serious inconvenience in case of bursting of pipes; and also, that if such a power of unlimited use were granted, it would be impossible to prevent great waste, and that general carelessness of the interests of the Water Companies would involve great additional expense to the Companies, and consequently in the end increase of evil to the consumer. I believe both these objections to be ill-founded. In the first place, I believe that no town where a continuous supply is now afforded would revert willingly to the old plan, which is the existing plan now in London; and secondly, where there could be no pos- sible motive to waste, it would be more easy to enforce regulations which would prevent it. At present, without a regular system and careful attention to the maintenance of ball-cocks to every cistern, there may be great waste in every house—and there, doubtless, is great waste in that way—and everybody is more anxious to have a good supply in their cistern, than they are careful to use it afterwards or to prevent its waste, about which, if sufficient remains for their direct wants, they are perfectly indifferent. There is no such risk or annoyance experienced with respect to gas, of which every house paying for gas has a constant supply. There is no inconvenience felt from escape of gas, at least, not to any material degree; because everybody has a direct interest to prevent its escape or waste, and every house has the means immediately of cutting off the entrance of gas into their house by turning off the supply from the external pipes. I believe that the cause of gas and water are parallel in all respects. This is, I think, a fair subject for inquiry. I wish to inquire whether, if a continuous supply of water were given, and such a quantity used as would be equal to fifteen gallons a day (whilst Sir William Clay says twelve is sufficient), the total quantity consumed would probably exceed 45,000,000 gallons for the 3,000,000 inhabitants, and if it would not thus show an abundant surplus of water for all other purposes out of the 100,000,000 gallons daily poured into London? If we admit, however, that the present supply is not more than sufficient for the demand, it then becomes a matter of most serious importance to consider what I have called the second branch of my inquiry—namely, how is the future supply to be obtained? for if the present population goes on increasing at its present ratio, and the 3,000,000 of inhabitants require the whole of the present supply of 90,000,000 to 100,000,000 of gallons per day, what will be done when, in the course of ten or twenty years, the population may amount to 4,000,000 or 4,500,000 of persons? Of the present supply about one-half is obtained from the Thames; of the remainder, half is supplied by the New River Company, and the remaining quarter by the other three smaller Companies in the east and south-east of London. Those who have paid any attention to the question of the present condition of the River Thames must be satisfied, I think, that the water of that river cannot be farther abstracted without injury to other towns claiming an equal privilege with the metropolis for its use. I have understood that the New River Company do not consider that they have any means easily within reach which will enable them very largely to augment their supply of water, and I believe that the same may be said respecting the three other Companies to the; east of London. The existing ten Companies have, since the year 1852, largely augmented their works, and at a cost of little less than £4,000,000, without any adequate advantage to their shareholders. I mean not commensurate in a pecuniary point of view with the large augmentation of capital. It is not reasonable to expect that these large mercantile Companies will be willing to lay out large Minis of money solely for the public benefit. If they were willing, however, could the object of obtaining a greatly increased supply of water from such means be effected? This is a fair subject, surely, for inquiry; for if it is not practicable, it is then high time to inquire from what other source we could obtain that which we should all admit is absolutely necessary to be obtained in some way or other. Many Members may have read an ingenious and able pamphlet on the subject of the Water Supply of London by Mr. Bateman, than whom there is no higher authority, I believe, in England on such questions. He proposes to bring the supply, which he considers will be absolutely required before eight or ten years are past, from one of the watery mountainous districts of North Wales, and now drained by the valley of the Severn, and a little to the west of Shrewsbury. I am not proposing my present inquiry with any wish to advocate Mr. Bateman's scheme—that may well stand or fall on its own merits—his knowledge on the subject is too notorious to leave it doubtful that any scheme of his will be well and patiently considered whenever the public are satisfied that the present supply of water for London is deficient. If proved, however, to be deficient, this, and any other scheme having a kindred object, ought to be inquired into. I think I have shown grounds enough to justify me, then, in asking for an inquiry. I ask it solely on public grounds. The question is one in which we are all interested, and if the inquiry is entered into with the view of ascertaining, first, what are the deficiencies complained of, and secondly, whether they are capable of a practical remedy, I do not think that the time of any Committee which the House may appoint will be otherwise than usefully employed.

said, that his motive for calling the Speaker's attention to the thinness of the attendance in the House when his hon. Friend rose was, that if that subject was then to be proceeded with there might at least be something like an audience to hear the discussion. His hon. Friend had made an interesting but by no means conclusive speech. Having no connection with any of the Water Companies—and he trusted he never should, for he held it to be very inconvenient for Members representing metropolitan constituencies to mix themselves up with commercial speculations—he took a dispassionate view of that question, and thought the House would not advance the interests of the inhabitants of the metropolis by acceding to his hon. Friend's Motion. When a subject like that was mooted within the House, it was generally the case that there was some enthusiastic person outside who had drawn the hon. Member's attention to the subject for some end of his own, and who had some private interest to serve; and before his hon. Friend sat down he disclosed what might be called the causa causans of that proceeding, inasmuch as he had told them that a certain engineer was anxious to bring water into London from the head waters of the Severn. Without entering into the merits of that scheme, he thought the population on the banks of the Severn would have a great deal to say to it before they allowed their sources of supply to be cut off from them and their river to be turned into a dry channel for the sake of the metropolis. Why, it was but a few Sessions ago that the people of this metropolis were called to resist a scheme to carry the head waters of the Thames to the dwellers by the Severn—that scheme was resisted successfully; and was it to be supposed that the people in the Severn Valley would not equally resist this attempt to rob them? But his hon. Friend, keeping that project at first in the background, had enlarged upon the merits of a constant supply, as contrasted with a supply by means of cisterns. Now that question had been fought out with the utmost zeal and vigour between the advocates of the rival systems and theories before the Act of 1852, dealing with the water supply of the metropolis, was passed. The arguments against the system of constant supply were numerous and conclusive, and the House recognized that fact by sanctioning the opposite system. £4,000,000 having been spent in carrying out the principle adopted, after full investigation, in 1852, his hon. Friend thought it would be a wise and economical proceeding now to reverse their decision, and throw upon the inhabitants of the metropolis, who, after all, really had to bear the cost of these projects, the enormous expense incident to such a change. His hon. Friend had started the novel and extraordinary theory that there was no practical difference between the passage of water and of gas through pipes; but every one who thought upon the subject would see that there was no comparison between the two. The hon. Member was impressed with the fact that water and gas were equally distributed by pressure, but he took no account apparently of the fact that the arrangements and machinery of the Water Companies were all calculated to meet certain requirements, and that a greatly increased strain might burst their pipes or render them powerless for the object in view. The hon. Member said he only asked for a Committee. As a metropolitan representative he (Mr. Ayrton) was quite ready to undertake the responsibility on behalf of the inhabitants of the metropolis; but he entirely objected to have the responsibility of so serious an investigation cast upon metropolitan representatives and Members of the House of Commons without a very serious case being first made out, without some substantial cause of complaint being shown. Under the existing statutes twenty inhabitants anywhere in the metropolis who might be dissatisfied with the supply of water had only to present their complaint and a solemn inquiry would be held under the authority of the Board of Trade. But no such step had been taken, no petitions had been presented; and it was merely upon the suggestion of two or three persons who had spoken to the hon. Gentleman about water that he proposed to embark in this serious undertaking, affecting the taxation of the citizens largely, and all the ramifications of their social interests. Inquiry by a Committee, he believed, would be insufficient for the purpose, and he greatly feared it would end in the launching of some kind of speculative movement. A Committee would have no engineers, no scientific staff at its disposal. It was liable, therefore, to be overreached by persons who came before it with views and motives of their own. Of these, though his hon. Friend would be the last to encourage them, he feared he would be the victim, and therefore he trusted that the Secretary of State would not acquiesce in the course proposed.

said, he did not agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. His argument was, that this inquiry should not be granted, because fourteen years ago what he called a settlement of the water supply of the metropolis had been arrived at. No doubt fourteen years ago a certain settlement was come to on this water question—that was to say, a Select Committee sat to consider certain Bills promoted by private Companies, and they passed certain resolutions. But was the London of 1852 the London of 1866? The question of metropolitan gas had been referred to a Select Committee, and the question of metropolitan water was much more pressing than that of gas, and certainly justified and demanded inquiry as much. A Bill was before the House last year embodying a project, which was opposed on the ground that the volume of the Thames was now so diminished that not a drop of water could be spared. There was certainly a danger that the water of the Thames would before long become insufficient for the healthful supply of the increasing population of the metropolis. The question was not whether Mr. Bate-man's scheme should be adopted, but whether there should be an inquiry with the view of ascertaining the best scheme for obtaining a supply of water. If the Committee met upstairs to-morrow, and recommended any plan for supplying the metropolis with water, it would be six or seven years before this new source of supply came into operation. Manchester and Glasgow had set a bright example in this respect, and the Government would be incurring a great responsibility if they did not look ahead in this matter.

said, he could not admit that the metropolis possessed a satisfactory supply of water; and if London went on increasing for the next twenty years as it had increased during the last twenty years, he, for one, did not know what the inhabitants would do for water. The question was one of great importance, and the House was very much indebted to the hon. Member (Mr. Thomson Hankey) for bringing it forward.

said, that if any substantial complaint had been made as to the quality or quantity of the present water supply, his hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson Hankey) would have made out a fair case for the appointment of a Committee. His hon. Friend had not, however, rested his Motion on that ground, but had admitted that the supply to the metropolis was ample for the wants of the present time. But then it was contended that in twenty years' time, if the population went on increasing at its present rate, 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 would be added to the inhabitants of the metropolis, and that then the present sources of supply might be insufficient. But as his hon. Friend admitted that the present supply was ample, and the quality good, it seemed that, at present, the only thing that inquiry was wanted for was to determine whether the supply should be constant or intermittent, and whether Mr. Bateman's plan was a good one. His hon. Friend said he did not wish the Committee to inquire fully into Mr. Bateman's plan; but, if so, it would be better not to inquire into it at all, for without a searching inquiry a Committee would not be able to say whether it would be safe to act upon it. As to any plan of getting a supply of water from a distant place, if there were any well-founded apprehensions of a limited supply, public Companies would be formed, plans would be prepared, Bills would be brought in, they would be referred to Committees, and ample evidence would be taken upon them. He thought the House was not now in a condition to inquire into such a project as that of Mr. Bateman (though he did not mean to say it was not a good one), or to appoint a Committee. If any complaint were made as to a deficient supply or distribution of water, and if that were brought before the House by petition or authentic information, he should consider it his duty to advise the House to act upon it. By the clause of the Act which had already been pointed out, it was provided that, if at any time there should be a complaint as to the quantity or quality of the water, such complaint might be brought under the notice of the Board of Trade by a memorial signed by twenty of the inhabitants, and the Board of Trade might, at any time within one month after the receipt of such memorial, cause an in- quiry to be instituted. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was not at present in his place, and he did not know whether any complaint had been addressed to the Board; but, as he had not heard anything on the subject, he presumed that, to say the least, those complaints must have been very infrequent. The subject was, no doubt, an important one; but under the circumstances which he had just stated, and having regard to the number of Committees now sitting, and to the advanced period of the Session, he would advise his hon. Friend not to press his Motion. If he thought there were grounds for an inquiry, he could bring forward a similar Motion at the beginning of the Session. He might observe that in 1856, four years after the passing of the Metropolis Water Act, a Report on the subject was called for by the First Commissioner of Works, and a very full Report was made as to the course taken by the different Water Companies. It is stated that all the requirements of the Act of 1852 had been in all essential respects fully and satisfactorily complied with by the Water Companies, but that the provisions for a constant water supply would not come into operation till 1857. That was the last official Report on the subject. If his hon. Friend thought that a further Report of the same description would be desirable, means could be taken with the view of having one laid before Parliament.

said, he had no other object in bringing the matter forward than the public good, and after what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the Motion.

Sir, I rise to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the Abolition of Compulsory Church Rates. In doing so, I shall not have occasion to trouble the House at any length. It may be in the recollection of the House that during the debate on the second reading of the Bill for the Abolition of Church Rates, I presumed to offer certain suggestions which it appeared to me, from the state of opinion in the House and the kind of progress which had been made, if not towards a union, at any rate in the way of an approximation towards a union of sentiment, might possibly so far prevail as to offer the hope of a conclusion to a long and vexatious controversy. What followed in that debate made me believe it would be my duty to put these suggestions in the form of clauses; and by the kind aid of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General I have been able to do so. When the suggestions which I had so laid before the House assumed the form of clauses they were submitted to my colleagues; and they were of opinion that if there was any fair prospect of these clauses meeting with—I will not say the unanimous approbation of this House—but with so large a share of approbation as that they would be likely to become the basis of a settlement, they should then be introduced as a Government measure. At the same time, it was far from the wish of the Government in coming to that conclusion to add to the subjects of protracted controversy which we have on our hands this Session. It is obvious that we are quite sufficiently charged with matters of that description, and in laying on the table of the House the Bill which I am about to ask for leave to introduce, anxious as we are to proceed with the measure, we must remind the House that our proceeding with it in the present state of public business must necessarily depend on the manner in which it is received, and on the pressure of the demands on our time which may be caused by more urgent and important subjects. However, I have communicated individually with Gentlemen on the other side of the House whose declared opinions on the subject appeared to make it proper that they should be informed of the course the Government proposed to take. I have communicated with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope), who took a part in the debate on the second reading of the Bill to which I have referred, and whose language on that occasion was such as to lead to the hope that a settlement might be come to. I communicated also with my hon. Friend who introduced the Bill for the absolute abolition of Church Rates (Mr. Hardcastle), and likewise with another hon. Member whose absence from this House I deplore on personal as well as public grounds. I allude to Mr. Morley, in whose removal from Parliament I think we have experienced a serious loss, not only because of the respect in which he is held for his intelligence and his talents, but also on account of the singular manner in which it is given him to unite decided and pronounced opinions on those subjects which most interest Dissenters, with a character and mode of treatment essentially conciliatory, and a disposition never to enter into controversy, except for some real and vital object. Both my hon. Friends the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle) and Mr. Morley, after seeing and considering the clauses of my Bill, came to the conclusion that my proposition ought to be entertained, and after consultation with their friends, made a communication to me, the substance of which I understand to be this:—In a spirit of peace, in the disposition to sacrifice all that could consistently be sacrificed for peace, those who have been prosecuting the measure for the absolute abolition of church rates would accept this measure. Of course, I do not understand them to state that in the event of the failure of this attempt they would feel precluded from following up the object which originally they sought to attain. I could not understand or expect that by this concurrence on their part in offering a contribution to what they consider to be the cause of peace, they undertook to abandon their former line of action if what they believe to be the well-meant efforts of the Government should prove abortive. Having said so much as to the circumstances under which I bring this Bill forward, I will now state the nature of the clauses and the points in which they differ from the suggestions I made on the second reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend. The first clause provides that from and after the passing of this Act no suit shall be instituted or proceeding taken in any Ecclesiastical or other Court, or before any justice or magistrate, to enforce or compel the payment of any church rate in any parish or place in England or Wales. That provision will be the basis of the whole of the subsequent enactments. The second clause is one similar in its general aim to a clause in the Bill of the hon. Member for Bury. It provides for the payment of debts contracted on the security of the church rates to be levied under the system which now prevails. The third clause relates to the same subject. It provides that, notwithstanding anything in this Act, any church rate made at any time before its passing may be collected and recovered in the same way as if the Act had not been passed. The fourth clause provides that, notwithstanding anything in this Act, it shall be lawful in any parish wherein there shall be no sufficient trust fund or endowment adequate for the maintenance of the Church and churchyard and of the fabric and services—subject, however, to the disability named at the conclusion of the Act—for the parishioners to assess a voluntary rate upon the owners or occupiers of property within such parish for any purpose for which church rates may now lawfully be made. By Clause 5 it is provided that the inhabitant householders and occupiers of land within any ecclesiastical district, not being a parish, shall have a similar power. The provisions in these two clauses are not intended to introduce any element of compulsion, but merely to define the class of persons who may enter on a discussion or proceeding touching a voluntary rate, In Clause 6 there is a provision to the effect that on any discussion or difference of opinion with respect to a proposal for giving effect to the provisions for making a voluntary rate, if a poll be demanded, all the votes shall be taken in writing in a book or schedule having a heading, in which there shall be a statement that the persons voting are willing to pay their respective shares of such voluntary rate as may be determined upon by the majority of votes at the poll then being taken. The persons voting arc; to sign their names or marks in the book or schedule. I think it would not be correct to say that the provisions of this clause do, in fact, make the payment of the church rates compulsory. The next and most important clause is that which provides a compensation or counterpoise, if I may so call it, to the first provision of the Bill, abolishing the compulsory process. And here I will state the difference between the Bill as it stands and the suggestions on the subject which I tendered to the House on the occasion to which I have alluded. These suggestions were in two branches. One of them, which appeared to receive the universal and unqualified assent of the House, was that persons who did not think fit to take part in this process of supporting the Church services and the churchyard by a voluntary rate should likewise be excluded from taking part in any proceedings relating to the voluntary rate, or in offices connected with its distribution, or in questions which might arise from such distribution. That was so obviously rooted and grounded in the whole nature of the pro- posal that there did not appear to be the smallest difference on the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. Hardcastle), acting on behalf of those who are opposed to church rates, assured me that there was no feeling of jealousy with regard to the abandonment on their part of all title to interference with what would cease to be their affair, but that there was an anxiety among them to give effect to such provisions as contemplated the absence of such interference. But in the suggestions which I made there were one or two points of another description. I contemplated that, inasmuch as the so-called "accommodation" in the Church and in the churchyard would, under the Bill if it became law, be provided by the contributions of Churchmen only—I had better say by contributions payable only out of the voluntary rate—those who did not contribute ought to be made liable to an extra charge for any use they might be disposed to make of the accommodation obtained by means of that rate. I thought that in equity any just objection could not be taken to that proposition. And I am bound to say that no such objection would be taken on the part of those in whose interest, or by whose desire, the abolition of church rates has been particularly urged. But upon looking further into the matter there did appear to me to be something of an invidious character in any attempt to apply practically such provisions; and I was the more inclined to abandon them because those persons whom I consulted, and who might be supposed to contemplate the question from the point of view most sympathetic with the Established Church, were inclined to set no value upon them. I therefore willingly abandoned them, and no trace of them is to be found in the Bill—no extra demand for any accommodation which non-payers of the rate may be entitled by law to obtain either in the Church or churchyard will be found in this Bill. The clause which relates to the subject of disability is to this effect:—Those persons who either decline or neglect to pay the voluntary rate shall, after the lapse of a certain time, "be deemed to have elected to become, and shall be, disqualified and ineligible for the office of Churchwarden for ecclesiastical purposes." That is the first effect which non-participation in the voluntary rate shall have. But we have been careful to provide that such disability should not extend beyond its legitimate purpose. There are many functions now committed to the hands of Churchwardens by law from which it would be very invidious and unwarrantable to attempt to exclude persons not contributing to the church rate. The whole matter of parish charities is an example, because it is one in which the greatest interest would be naturally felt. The whole of the duties of Churchwardens, with the single exception of the disposal of church rates and the proceedings connected with them, will remain untouched by the Bill, and consequently we have the expression here used, "for ecclesiastical purposes," inasmuch as in every parish where the voluntary rate does not include the whole of the community there would be a Churchwarden, by a distinct election of the inhabitants of the parish, who would be authorized and empowered to discharge all the other duties connected with the office of Churchwarden. The clause went on to say, that the person not contributing would not

"Be entitled to vote at any meeting of the parishioners or inhabitants in vestry assembled of the said parish or district upon any question relating solely to the election of any Churchwarden for ecclesiastical purposes, or of any chapel-warden, or to the repairs, re-building, ornaments, ministers, or services of the church of the said parish or district, or to the care or maintenance of the churchyard of the said parish or district, or to any voluntary rate assessed or proposed to be assessed for the purpose aforesaid upon the owners or occupiers of property within such parish or district under this Act, or to the application or disposal of any monies raised or to be raised by any such voluntary rate, and no such person shall be entitled to demand as of right that any seat or portion of the church be allotted, assigned, or appropriated to him by the Churchwardens."

The only other material provision in that clause is that it shall be lawful for any persons who have declined to take part in the business of the voluntary rate upon change of mind at any period to pay or tender payment to the amount of any voluntary assessment made during the three years last preceding; and upon such payment he shall henceforth be entitled to all the powers with respect to voting and participating in the proceedings with respect to church rates, as if he had voluntarily paid from the beginning his share of the assessment. There is, I think, nothing else material in the Bill, except a definition necessary for the special purpose of the measure, on account of the division of duties in consequence of the two kinds of Churchwardens. This Bill will, I hope, be in the hands of Mem- bers to-morrow morning; but, nevertheless, owing to the great interest felt in the subject, I thought it desirable to state its substantial provisions to the House, and at once call attention to the important, though I think beneficial, changes introduced into it, as compared with the original suggestions which I offered in the church rate debate on which the Bill was founded. I abstain on the present occasion—and I think the House will approve my doing so—from all argument on the subject. I confine myself to placing those provisions in the hands of the House. My desire is that the Bill should assume in a subsequent stage as little as possible of a controversial character. It is an offering made in the spirit of peace—an offering accepted, on the authority of the hon. Member for Bury, by a very large portion of those who have been engaged in this controversy, and, being made in the spirit of peace, I sincerely trust that the attainment of peace may be its destined end.

said, he believed the right hon. Gentleman was sincerely endeavouring to reconcile that which had been the subject of controversy for so many years, and as a member of the Church of England, felt grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the attempt. It was his intention to postpone to the 30th of this month the Bill which he had himself brought in, so that it might stand after the measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. Such a proceeding on his part was nothing more than was due to this intervention of Her Majesty's Government to settle the question. Having considered the subject, however, for many years, he feared that there was danger in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He feared that, by this proposal, a minority in a parish might acquire power to sanction a manner of conducting the services of the Church which was disagreeable and offensive to the majority; and that the means of introducing variations of the services in the different parishes would be obtained. One argument in favour of church rate3 among Churchmen was this—that if a congregation disapproved the manner in which the services were conducted, they had the remedy in their hands by withholding the rate. This Bill would considerably impair that power. He deprecated anything which would encourage variations in the service of the Church, and also the domination of a minority over the majority of a parish,

thanked the. Chancellor of the Exchequer for the excellent spirit in which he had subordinated political feeling at this anxious time to a desire to settle this long vexed question He would enter into the scheme with the utmost desire to see in it some settlement based upon the release of those who for any reason did not wish to pay church rates. A short time ago he made a similar suggestion himself by recommending the insertion of the word "conscientious," so that relief might be given to all, whether Churchmen or Dissenters, who did not wish to pay the rate. That was the early policy of the "Exemptionist" party. As, however, the chief obstacle to a settlement on exemption principles was the objection of Nonconformists to what they called "ticketting," which they thought involved in the term conscientious, he no longer pressed it. With regard to the Bill of his hon. Friend, he must strongly and clearly insist on one consideration. He hoped that after the persons who did not wish to pay church rates had absented themselves, and those who wished to pay had assembled in the vestry, the church rates should, as much as possible, minus the Courts of Law, assume the same character which church rates used formerly to bear—in other words, that, while there should be no bias beforehand to compel people to pay church rates, there should afterwards he no bias the other way, no attempt to force out of their old way those who chose to pay them as they had heretofore done. In describing the purport of the 4th clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the new form of rate would come into operation in parishes in which no other "sufficient" provision existed for the sustentation of the Church. Now, was not such a hint so thrown out almost a pledge from the Government to take into consideration what ought to be a sufficient provision; and did it not give the House an opportunity of striving to amend the unjust laws which the jealousy of the last generation had imposed upon the liberality of persons who were willing to devote a portion of their substance to religious purposes? He referred to the series of laws commonly known as the Mortmain Acts. All were aware of the absurd excitement which was raised by Alderman Guy's foundation of the hospital that had been such a benefit to London, which had led to the last and worst of those laws; but had not the time now come when the desirability of relaxing them might be taken into consideration for the benefit of Nonconformity as well as of the Church? In his opinion, no relaxation of the church rate law would be complete without a consideration of this question, more especially as Parliament would, if it passed this Bill, recognize the desirability of a sufficient substitute for church rates being provided. Would not that recognition be barren of results unless means were given of easily providing such a substitute? There were the Exchequer Loan Fund, for instance, and certain societies chartered by Act of Parliament to advance money upon land for good and profitable objects, and he would suggest that some provision might be made under which a proprietor of land—whether he was tenant in fee or tenant for life—might borrow money from the Exchequer Loan Fund or some other society, and place it in the hands of trustees for the benefit of the church of the parish within which the land was situated, such land being declared for ever free from church rates. Such a mode of procedure would have an advantage over the method of saddling the land with a rent-charge for ever, because the land might afterwards pass into the hands of persons holding different religious opinions, and something analogous to the church rate grievance might in such an event arise. If, however, the money were settled upon trustees, it would belong for ever to the Church, while the land would for ever be free from church rates. Such a system, if it were to be generally adopted, he believed afforded the best solution of the church rate question, because it would give a sufficient amount to carry out the objects for which church rates at present existed. In conclusion, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in this Bill, and to express a hope that a long day would be given before the second reading in order that the country at large, the clergy in particular, who were so interested in it, as well as Churchmen and general Dissenters, might have time to read and digest its provisions.

thought it was a matter of congratulation that this proposal had been recognized on both sides of the House as one likely to settle this long and much-vexed question. He believed there would be a general disposition upon both sides of the House to accept the measure proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wished, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. A parish in the borough which he represented (Sunderland) had an Act of its own under which the church rate was levied, and he wanted to know whether this Bill would supersede and override not only the general law of the land but also a special Act such as he had referred to?

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman had introduced this Bill, and the debate had then terminated, he probably should not have presumed to say anything on the subject; but after what had fallen from the last speaker (Mr. Candlish), he thought it incumbent upon him to say, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen, at any rate, on that side of the House, that they were not at present disposed to accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the measure met the views of those who took the side of the Church in regard to this question. The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that the measure would necessarily receive the support of Gentlemen who sat upon that side of the House. Now, he rose for the purpose of saying that, as far as he could form an opinion from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not think the measure would be regarded on the Opposition side of the House as a satisfactory compromise of the question. Of course, he said that with great reserve, for he had not yet seen the measure, and was only speaking on the first impression derived from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had terminated his short speech with a sentiment in which he was sure every Gentleman on that side of the House would join. The right hon. Gentleman said that he proposed this measure in the interests of peace, and that he trusted peace would be the result of it. All must concur in that wish; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that peace might be obtained in two ways—namely, by capitulation and by compromise. He had not had the advantage of seeing the draught of the Bill, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the House that the measure had been accepted by Mr. Morley, upon whom the right hon. Gentleman passed a high, and, doubtless, well deserved eulogium. He had, however, had the advantage of reading yesterday a speech de- livered by Mr. Miall on this question. Whether Mr. Miall had seen the draught of the Bill he could not, of course, say, but that Gentleman seemed to have no hesitation whatever as to the course which he and his friends would take in reference to this measure. Mr. Miall accepted the Bill as a settlement which was entirely satisfactory to the Liberation Society, and told Churchmen that if they chose to regard it as a "compromise he would not quarrel with them about the phrase, though he reminded them that the whole of the substantial fruits of victory remained with the Liberation Society. That being the deliberate opinion of Mr. Miall, be was not surprised to hear that Mr. Morley, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Hardcastle), had accepted the measure; If his fears were correct, it would bring about a peace of which they who had hitherto maintained church rates would have no cause to be proud. He would not prolong the discussion, but he wished at that stage of the proceedings to protest against the assumption that hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House would be obliged to support the measure. He greatly feared, indeed, it would turn out to be a measure which, while keeping up some semblance of the church rate, would in reality destroy the whole substance of it.

said, he agreed with the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) that this was not a compromise, as it abolished church rates in the only form in which they were recognized and could be enforced by law. If he were a Dissenter, he should say this was not a compromise of the question, but the winning of it. As a Churchman, however, he must express his regret not that church rates were to be abolished, at which he rejoiced, but that they were to be abolished in the particular form proposed by this Bill. Church rates, as they have hitherto existed, had, at all events, one advantage—they compelled every man, according to his pecuniary ability, to subscribe towards the maintenance of the Church. The abolition of church rates would throw the burden of the maintenance of the Church exclusively on the friends of the Church; they would have to support it by voluntary contributions, and that would be the result of voluntary church rates. It was now proposed to abolish church rates by a Bill which set up an apparatus that would present to the minds of the people the idea that they were still maintaining the church by a rate, while the Bill absolutely locked the door of every court into which a person could go to enforce a rate. No matter whether it was sought to do so under a local Act or under the general law, all courts were to be closed. The Dissenters did right to rejoice at this arrangement if it were right that there should be no church rate; but what of the Church people? The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope) rejoiced; and hon. Members on both sides of the House accepted the proposal as one made in a spirit of compromise; but where was the benefit of this supposed compromise? The Dissenters were relieved by the Bill from the payment of church rates; everybody who did not want to pay them, whether Dissenter or not, was relieved, and had a right to rejoice; but who was benefited? Suppose it passed—what was done Instead of a single clause Bill abolishing church rates, we had a Bill which kept up the form of compulsion without its force. We lost all the advantage of the compulsory, such as it was, rate, and he could not see that we gained anything. This was the objection which, on the part of the Church, he felt to this sort of compromise. For years he had advocated a compromise, but one of a different form. He had said that the maintenance of the fabric, as a public building, might be thrown upon a public rate, and the expense of the worship on the worshippers. That would be a real compromise of the church rate question; but this was not a compromise—the whole tax was abolished and abandoned; but it was thought necessary and desirable to keep up the form of compulsion when the force was gone, and to keep up the name of a rate when the thing itself was abandoned. To this scheme he, as a Churchman, totally objected. A vestry was a meeting of rated inhabitants; but now it would become a meeting of subscribers; and what, therefore, was the use of passing a Bill of many clauses to enable the friends of the Church to do what they could do equally well without an Act of Parliament—namely, to meet together and make a subscription? No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer earnestly desired to effect a compromise; but the real truth was church rates were abandoned and Dissenters had won the whole battle. For the sake of the Church, he rejoiced at that result, but he wished Church people would agree with him in thinking that the form of compulsion should not be kept up when the force was gone. By such a scheme they would keep none of the advantages and yet retain all the disadvantages of a rate; they would have a thing called a rate which would be no rate at all, which there would be no power to enforce, and which would be nothing but a subscription. Still worse would it be if the hon. Member for Stoke could carry out his plan, have the laws of Mortmain repealed, and have an immense sum raised to endow the Church, and pay all its expenses; the Church would die. It lived by the voluntary efforts of its friends and supporters; and in proportion as it was endowed and its expenses met by payment in advance, secured in the funds or in any other way, in that proportion would its energy and force be diminished. The hon. Member for Stoke ought to know this as well as any one, for there was no more liberal friend of the Church, and he should have a deep conviction that in proportion as the voluntary liberality and energy of Church people were roused on the part of the Church was the Church living and doing good, making great efforts and doing its work; while in proportion as you stifled its energies by endowment and the ostentatious employment or, as in this Bill, the pretence of legal force, you destroyed the Church. That was the reason he objected to the retention of useless and mischievous forms by the Bill, as abolishing a compulsory church rate, and so far as it did that, he heartily approved of the measure; but as an attempt to make a voluntary subscription look coercive, and to give to spontaneous liberality the aspect of a tax, he totally objected to its provisions.

Of course, it is premature to discuss now the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has submitted; but I must express my dissent from the observations made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Thomas Chambers.) He says that, on the part of the Church, he looks with apprehension on the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am rather inclined to concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Beresford Hope.) I care not whether the Liberation Society, or any other society, has been working for the abolition of church rates. I think the House will concur with the hon. Member for Stoke in looking upon the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exche- quer as proposals made in a spirit of conciliation, with the view of promoting the common object all must have in view—the settlement of this long-vexed question. For ten or twelve years I have invariably voted against all Bills introduced by a private Member for the abolition of church rates:—I have always maintained it to be the duty of the Government to take up the question and that it would be in vain for any private Member to attempt to settle it. Now my right hon. Friend has submitted a Bill and I cordially approve the course he has taken; and I trust the House will support him in the object he has in view. In the borough I represent we have' had a most painful church rate case. Although I am a strong Churchman, I have felt that nothing could be more odious—nothing could give rise to worse feelings than the case I allude to, in which a Roman Catholic was called upon to contribute a few pence or a few shillings to the Established Church. I discourage to the utmost of my power legal proceedings to enforce payment of church rates. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone has said that the Courts of Law will be closed against any attempt to enforce payment. I rejoice at it. I may say that nearly £2,000 has been spent in prosecuting the gentleman I have named, a tenant farmer, because, as a Roman Catholic, he conscientiously refused to contribute to the maintenance of the Church of England in Tamworth. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question which has been put, I wish to ask whether, if a Dissenter does not pay church rates, he can, in a country parish, claim, as a right, interment for his family in the churchyard of the parish church. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated assent.] I think that unless a person contributes to the maintenance of the churchyard of the parish he ought to have no claim whatever to bury members of his family there. [Expression of dissent.] Well, that is my opinion; but there may be differences of opinion on the subject. I merely wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a Dissenter would claim a right to bury, because I think it open to objection that unless a person has contributed steadily—say for three years—to the maintenance of the Church and churchyard, he should have a claim to bury his family in the parish churchyard. I rose also to express my concurrence with the hon. Member for Stoke, and to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer cordially for undertaking the settlement of a question of this character, which will put an end to that unhappy strife which has occurred in too many places, will do more than almost any other measure could do for the peace of the country districts, and will save them from the heart burnings that church rate cases have occasioned. I do hope that the House will accept this measure in the spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has submitted it, and that the Bill will be carried successfully through all its stages.

regretted that the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) should have introduced the word "victory" in reference to this subject, having hoped that no victory would be spoken of but that of justice and peace; for, while the measure was one of simple justice, and Churchmen would sacrifice but a small amount by the abolition of the rate, it would bring the Church an amount of peace, independence, and vigour of action which would be of immeasurably more value than all she resigned. The Bill would remove the double injustice of requiring Dissenters, under the name of religion, to pay a compulsory rate, which was contrary to their principles, and also to pay for the maintenance of a form of worship of which they did not approve, while they maintained that of which they did approve; and this injustice could not be removed without the Church reaping fruit in the accession of valuable strength. He was confident that the Church would raise more voluntarily than she had done by church rates. If the Bill were carried, there would be no attempt on the part of Dissenters to interfere with the administration of the funds to be raised by the Church under its provisions: such interference would be an impertinence and an injustice, and he would discourage it to the utmost. He really did not understand the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Chambers), because if the courts were closed against the enforcement of a rate the form of compulsion would no longer exist. It was, indeed, possible that in some places a kind of moral compulsion might be attempted; but he hoped it would not be so, and it would certainly be known even in the remotest village that legal compulsion no longer existed. He could not help thinking the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel), with reference to the exclusion of Dissenters from burying in the churchyards, was not consistent with his generous and liberal nature. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I only asked the question.] He begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon—he had understood him to suggest that they should not be buried there. He joined with those members of the Establishment who had spoken in favour of this proposal in hoping that a measure of real justice and universal peace would be carried in the spirit in which it had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman.

felt grateful to the Dissenting body, so far as it was represented in that House, for the very handsome manner in which, as it appeared to him, they had met this question. But he merely rose to put a question to his right hon. Friend. He understood him to say that the Bill provided for the continuance of existing engagements where churches had been rebuilt and expenses incurred on the security of rates. The main difficulty would fall on the country clergy; but he knew that many of these looked forward to this settlement with hope and thankfulness. The question he wished to put to his right hon. Friend related to prospective engagements, whether there was anything in the Bill inconsistent with some such arrangement as this—where it was necessary to rebuild the church of a country parish, that the parishioners assembled in vestry should concur in rebuilding it, and that possessors of landed property, in conjunction with the next in succession to the entail, might charge their estates temporarily with a certain amount for the purpose of rebuilding such a church; and also whether it would be competent to the vestry to raise money for that purpose on the security of a voluntary rate?

asked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not also embody in the Bill a clause for the abolition of the compulsory payment of certain Ecclesiastical dues, such as visitation fees, synod fees, and sundry other charges for which Churchwardens were personally liable?

asked, if the Bill was only applicable to rates for the Church of an Ecclesiastical district or to the rates for the mother Church as well?

I have to answer very briefly the questions which have been put to me. I must, in the first place, say I have not the same horror of shutting up any description of Court that seems to be entertained by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Akland), asked whether it would be provided in the Bill that charges already imposed by local Acts should not be affected by the scope of the Bill? That certainly was the intention of the Bill, and I hope its language will be found to cover such cases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), for whose cordially expressed support of the measure I feel very grateful, asked whether Dissenters and their families, not paying church rates, would continue to be entitled to interment in the churchyard? The answer is, that there is no disability created by this Bill of any kind, except such as are expressly cited and set forth in the Bill—namely, those relating to the power of taking a part in the management of the rate, in the election of Churchwardens, and in the title to demand an assignment of seats in the Church; in no other respect is any right now existing touched by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cubitt) asked whether a double rate would be levied in Ecclesiastical districts and for the mother Church? I certainly believe that in the processes contemplated by the Bill no levying of a double rate will take place. The hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Akland) asks whether the Bill contains any provision to enable possessors of landed property, or the persons having life interest in such property, together with the heir of entail, to charge their lands temporarily for purposes connected with the re-building of the church? There are no such clauses in the Bill. I see no objection in principle to give powers of that nature, but I confess I have considerable doubt whether it would be entirely akin to the object of the Bill. It would certainly raise a number of separate issues entirely different from the main issue, and would be much better dealt with in a separate form. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Read) has asked whether it would not he possible to abolish the fees paid by the Churchwardens at visitations? but I apprehend that the Churchwarden is at present authorized to charge these fees upon the church rate, and the consequence will be that these fees will be paid like all other charges provided by the Bill to be paid out of the rate.

I wish to suggest that in this Bill an end should be put to another imposition which I think is much less justifiable than what are called church rates, and much more offensive, and that is the collection of what are called Easter dues. In a portion of Lancashire there have been proceedings of a most offensive character carried on against persons who refused to pay those dues, and dues of the smallest amount, of a penny, or twopence, or threepence from each house. And these dues are not levied by a vote of the parish, but at the will of a clergyman of the parish, and on that account I think they are more offensive than church rates themselves. It seems to me a pity that some clauses should not be introduced for abolishing Easter dues into a Bill the object of which is to abolish church dues. I give no opinion at present on the Bill itself or its details, because I did not know anything of its provisions until I came into the House this evening; but surely if gentlemen outside, to whom reference has been made, who have been charged with conducting the agitation against church rates are satisfied with the Bill, it is not very likely that I should take it upon myself to express any discontent with it.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he hoped it would meet with the general approval of the House—indeed, he should not have expected that any opposition would be offered to the measure had he not seen on the paper a notice by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. As, however, on the first reading the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the acquiescence of the Government in the Bill, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), with that conciliatory manner which always characterized him, notwithstanding the strong views he entertained with regard to certain principles, also assented to it, he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not disturb the unanimity of the House by persevering in his opposition. The Bill proposed to abolish the declaration now required to be made by certain high functionaries—he believed only the Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor of Ireland—on assuming office, that certain doctrines held by Roman Catholics as part of their religion were idolatrous and superstitious. It was peculiarly offensive to the Lord Lieutenant on entering upon office in a country where the great majority of people were Catholics, and surrounded by members of his Privy Council and Law Officers, many of whom professed that religion, should be obliged to make such a declaration. No one would pretend that the interests of Protestantism could be in any way served by it, and it was calculated to excite feelings of hostility and strife which every good subject should seek to allay. Its original object was to exclude persons professing the Catholic faith from those particular offices; and as the supporters of the Bill did not wish by a side-wind to remove this ineligibility—although in a country allowing freedom of religious opinion the holding of any offices under the Crown should not be limited to persons holding a particular creed—the Bill contained a proviso that nothing contained in it should be construed as giving Roman Catholics a right to fill the office either of Lord Lieutenant or Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The simple object of the measure was to remove a declaration which was at once offensive and useless, and he hoped that, in the interests of peace, conciliation, and Christian charity, it would receive the sanction of the House.

complained of a question of such importance being brought forward by a private Member, and not on the responsibility of the Government. The same course had been taken with regard to the Oaths Bill and the Scotch Episcopal Bill, although these questions lay at the very root of the Constitution. However, he did not intend to move the Amendment of which he had given notice; and the reason why he did not do so was because the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) had acquiesced in the principle of the measure. He had not altered his opinions, and he would, with the permission of the House, shortly make known what his views were. The Declaration against Transubstantiation was adopted as the best and only test against Romanism in the time of Charles II., and as such it had been regarded for 200 years. If it was needed when it was established, 200 years ago, nothing had occurred since to render it unnecessary. Romanism was still the same, and Protestant Jesuitism was rampant amongst us. He would relieve his own conscience in the matter by challenging the Government to consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the Fenian movement. Evidence would be given before such a Committee to show that that movement was neither more nor less than a deliberate organization, in accordance with all the antecedents of the Roman Catholic Church—to gain the objects of the Roman Catholic hierarchy by force, if necessary, by means of a bargain with the Government, in pursuance of which this and similar little Bills were to be given as the price of keeping the Fenians in check. The country at large was in most profound ignorance as to the state of these most important questions in that House, They believed that hon. Gentlemen opposite were sufficiently watching the Government, and that his interference was almost impertinent. All the energies of the Pope were directed to the destruction and injury of this country. Let them suppose the occurrence of an European war, and that our army and navy were affected with foreign allegiance to the extent that they contained Roman Catholics. ["Oh, oh!"] He had last Session challenged the Secretary for the Colonies to state whether he had not received from Sir George Grey, the Governor of New Zealand, a dispatch informing him that the war in that colony was organized and sustained by Roman Catholic priests—and the right hon. Gentleman had not denied that such was the case. He had since received letters from dignitaries of the Church and others in New Zealand assuring him that all that he then asserted was perfectly true, and that the losses which we sustained, and the disgrace which befell our troops, could be attributed to nothing so much as to the direct organization upon Riband and Fenian principles, of the natives in rebellion against our authority. H did not wish to offend the hon. Gentleman who had moved the second reading of the Bill, by calling his religion impious, but it had in all past times been associated with allegiance to a foreign power which under circumstances of difficulty might be fraught with the greatest danger to this country. He was not called upon to defend the bulwarks which had been erected against that danger; it was for the hon. Gentleman to show that they might safely be abolished. [The hon. Member spoke amid continued interruptions and noises.]

said, that he would not enter upon the question as to the share which the Fenians had in the war in New Zealand; but he wished to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, that the Government most cordially supported the Bill. In reply to the objection that the introduction of the measure had been left to a private Member, he must observe that this Declaration against Transubstantiation was so utterly indefensible and devoid of foundation that it required but the touch of any Member of the House to make it fall to the ground. The only wonder was that the proposal for its abolition should not have been made long ago, and that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other officers of the highest rank in Ireland should have been so long compelled on entering office to stigmatize, in terms which amounted to nothing short of contempt, the sacred doctrine of a Church to which many Gentlemen of the highest rank in the country and Privy Councillors sitting round the same table with himself adhered. The Government were about to issue a Commission to inquire into the whole question of oaths and to report as to which it was desirable to do away with or to amend; but this particular Declaration was so simple and indefensible, that the Government had no hesitation in giving the Motion before the House their support.

observed, that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) whose observations against the Ministers were always delivered from that (the Opposition) side of the House, always supported them by his vote. The present mode of legislation deserved, he thought, the notice of the House. This form of Declaration had been made for some centuries by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and therefore he thought it was the duty of the Government to have considered this question. But the Secretary for Ireland said that it did not matter who touched a subject of this kind; and, although a Commission on Oaths was pending, the right hon. Gentleman maintained that this Declaration should be abolished in the meantime, so as to relieve the Commissioners from considering whether any test should be applied to the case of the Lord Lieutenant. The inference was that, if the test was not to be applied to the Lord Lieutenant, a Roman Catholic ought to be allowed to fill the office as well as any other person.

rose to ask indulgence for the hon. Member for Peterborough. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had just said that the hon. Member's speeches against the Government were all very fine, but that he always voted with the Government. That was a most singular case of political ingratitude. The only critical division which took place before that on the Reform Bill was one which was well and judiciously selected on the other side—namely, that on the Parliamentary Oaths Amendment Bill. It was sought to mutilate and spoil the oath to be taken by Members of Parliament by the addition of words to the effect that no foreign Prince or Potentate had or ought to have any power in the courts of this country. Why nobody ever said or could say that they had. In the division list there were two names recorded, singularly enough, side by side—those of "Whalley, J. H.," and "Whiteside, Right Hon. J." With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman had stated as to the duty of the Government, he had only to observe that the Government proposed to deal with the whole question of oaths by a Commission, and they could not, therefore, deal with this portion of it. But when the hon. and learned Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) brought in his Bill, as he had a right to do, and asked them—Would they support it?—they had no hesitation whatever in saying that they would, and that they wished the measure every success.

wondered what the Commission which the Government were going to appoint would have to do, for the Government had settled the Parliamentary oaths, and were now about to sweep away this Declaration. Without denying that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) generally voted with those who wished to defend the Protestant Constitution of the country, he must say that he knew no Member who, whether from accident or incapacity, did so much disservice to the cause he advocated as that hon. Member. The hon. Member had suddenly withdrawn his notice in opposition to this Bill, and when he rose on a question of this sort, the hon. Member invariably played into the hands of his opponents. The expression of "damning with faint praise" was well known, but he was not aware of any advocate who damaged a cause so effectually by his support as the hon. Member for Peterborough. [Laughter.] Though the House might treat the matter with levity, it was not lightly thought of out of doors, and he had presented 122 petitions that night against the abolition of the Declaration under consideration. By those who believe in the Roman Catholic tenets, the Protestant Constitution of this country was regarded as a heretical establishment, and one that ought to be swept off the face of the earth; but he (Mr. Newdegate) was surprised at the indifference with which it was treated by the Protestant Members of that House, By the opinions which he had expressed that evening, the hon. Member for Peterborough had cut the ground from under his feet. The hon. Member ought not continually to repeat that the religious opinions of different sects were, in his opinion, of no political importance. He was sorry to be obliged to make this observation, but he warned the hon. Gentleman that if he were a Protestant, and were sincere in his adhesion to the Protestant faith, he was damaging the interests of that religion, misrepresenting the opinions of the Protestant people of the country, and bringing into contempt in the House feelings which were deep and sincere. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought that it was but reasonable that the High Officers of State, the direct representatives of our Protestant Sovereign, who was bound to the Church of England, should express their adhesion to the substance of the articles of the Church of England, and that was in reality the substance of the declaration. It was right, too, that the same declaration should be made by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had not only to decide on many questions relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but also enjoyed the dispensing of considerable ecclesiastical patronage.

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) that a reference to the second clause of the Bill would show that his fears were groundless, and that he laboured under a misapprehension. As a Roman Catholic Member, he acknowledged that the hon. Member for Peterborough had done his religion essential service, and to that fact must be attributed the silence with which the Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion received the extraordinary charges in which the hon. Member so frequently indulged. When the hon. Member attributed the war in New Zealand to the combinations of the priesthood at Maynooth, such statements could only be attributed to a fevered brain.

, amid cries of "Order! "denied that he had made any such statement.

was speaking within the recollection of the House, by whom it would be remembered that the hon. Member stated that he had received letters informing him that the New Zealand war was attributable to the machinations of the Roman Catholic priests, many of whom had been educated at Maynooth. As far as Parliamentary usage would permit him to do so, he challenged the hon. Member to prove his charges; and if he thought he could do so, to move for a Select Committee, before whom he could adduce his proofs.

rose to reply, but was called to order by the Speaker.