said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Lords of the Treasury in December 1865 received a Petition from the Clerks of the Convict Prisons, praying that their salaries might be increased, the same being recommended by the Governor Colonel Henderson; and if in December 1866 their Lordships received a further Petition from the same parties with the same prayer, and whether any decision has yet been come to regarding it, and if there is any hope that their expectations may be realized?

, in reply, said, the present Question was nearly identical in its terms with one which the hon. Member put to him three weeks ago, and which he then answered. The petition sent in at the end of 1866 was received and the matter referred to another Department, and it was still under consideration. But he wished to point out to the hon. Gentleman that every question of that nature was, more or less, a remonstrance against the control exercised by the Treasury over public expenditure. Since he had held office at the Treasury they had had applications from almost every branch of the Civil Service for an increase of salary; and if every such application was to be followed up in that House by the putting of Questions like the present, it would be exceedingly difficult for any person in his position to retain a proper control over the public expenditure.

said, that as he wished to make a statement on the subject of the Question he had upon the Paper, to call the attention of the Government to the observations reported to have been made by Mr. Justice Keogh, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, at the Assize Court of the county of Tyrone on Friday last, with reference to the conduct of certain Justices of the Peace for that county, and the alleged consequent failure of justice; and to ask whether any and what steps have been taken by the Irish Executive or the Lord Chancellor for Ireland to institute a full inquiry into the facts of the case and the conduct of the Magistrates referred to, he would postpone his Question till the Motion for going into Supply.

said, he would appeal to the hon. Member to further postpone the discussion of the subject. He himself was one of the bench of magistrates whose conduct was impugned; and though he was not present on the occasion, yet he knew very well that every one of his brother magistrates were persons of the highest character. ["Order, order!"]

explained to the hon. Member that he was out of order in discussing a Question which was not properly before the House.

said, he hoped that the hon. Member's sense of justice would induce him to postpone the Motion, in order that he (Major Stuart Knox) might have time to procure the necessary information from Tyrone, which he was sure would enable him to refute every word alleged against the magistrates.

said, that as his only wish was to ascertain whether justice had been done, he had no objection to postpone the Question till Thursday, when he would put it on going into Committee of Supply.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Statements made by him in the House that it is the intention of Government to increase the Representation of Scotland, and also that "the improved Representation of Scotland is not to be satisfied by the sacrifice of English interests," are to be explained by an intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to diminish the number of Irish Representatives?

Sir, when I first read this Question I thought it was probably intended to convey a friendly intimation on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the source whence the increased Representation of Scotland might be supplied; but it certainly is not the intention of the Government to provide that increased representation at the expense of the sister country.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will inform the House as to the source from which he intends to provide the promised additional Representation for Scotland?

I think, Sir, it somewhat ungracious on the part of the Scotch Members that after the announcement which has been made by the Government as to the increased Representation for Scotland they should press also for information as to the means by which the supply is to be found. I would beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have confidence in the bounty of the Sovereign and the wisdom of Parliament.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can furnish the House with any estimate as to the number of £10 Borough Voters which will be added to the present constituencies by the Clauses of his Bill relating to the distribution of seats only without reference to the alteration of the franchise; also, how many County Voters will be disfranchised by the same process; and, whether he can say how many £10 Voters will be added to the constituency of the Tower Hamlets when incorporated with the parish of West Ham?

Sir, as I have received no notice that the hon. Gentleman was about to put those Questions, and as they require a precise answer, it would, I think, be convenient that they should be put on the paper, in order that I may the more clearly understand them.

said, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of all Mines in Great Britain, to which the Act 23 & 24 Vict. does not apply. He considered the condition of the mining population, particularly in Cornwall, Wales, and the North of England, as very unsatisfactory. The state of things was very serious; the men employed in the mines were prematurely old, and communicated their infirmities to their offspring. Through the indomitable perseverance of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), then Secretary of State for the Home Department, thought it desirable to issue a Royal Commission, the Members of which, at great personal risk and inconvenience, visited the various localities, and came to a most conclusive Report. They reported in 1864; their Report was unanimous and very strong; but hitherto nothing had been done on the subject. The conclusions at which they had arrived deserved the serious attention of the House and of the Government. They had found that in metalliferous mines the men in many cases lived twenty years less than the general mass of our population. That excessive mortality was caused, not by any sudden and violent accidents, such as often occurred in collieries, but by the generally unhealthy influences to which the men were exposed. Among the principal of those fatal agencies was imperfect ventilation, and that amidst circumstances which must in any case be unfavourable to the maintenance of health. The miners had frequently to work at a temperature of not less than 100, and they were further subject to the alternate visitations of foul air, and of bitter and sweeping draughts. The Commissioners had recommended the adoption of regulations for the removal or the mitigation of those evils, and it was manifestly desirable that those regulations should as speedily as possible be adopted.

said, the statement the hon. Gentleman had made relative to the lamentable occurrence that had lately taken place must satisfy the House that there was a great call for legislation upon this subject. But the necessity for legislation was not limited to coal mines. There the danger forced itself on public attention by the wholesale sacrifice of life that too frequently took place, but the metalliferous mines equally required attention. The Report of the Commissioners in 1864 demonstrated this fact; but if they wanted a proof of the necessity of Reform they had it here, for that Report for all practical purposes hitherto might as well not have been made. Let him call attention to the following Resolutions:—

"Resolution 1. That there is a great excess of sickness and mortality among metalliferous miners which is mainly attributable to the imperfect ventilation of the mines. 2. That several other causes, both general and local, largely contribute to impair the health of the miner—namely, exposure to cold and wet, and to sudden alternations of temperature, wearing wet clothes, inhalation of gritty particles, and the exertion of climbing ladders from great depths."

And here he would remark that in metalliferous mines the danger arose, not from firedamp explosions, but from the ordinary state of the mine atmosphere, which was capable of remedy. The present system of ventilation only kept up a current of air; but what was needed was a second shaft, such as was in use in coal mines, to change the air completely. This would effectively secure a ventilation which would prolong the lives now prematurely and lamentably cut off by a slow process of poison. It had been proved that the real danger of the miner did not lie so much in the explosion of firedamp as in the vitiated and unwholesome atmosphere which he was compelled to breathe while pursuing his avocation. Sickness and loss of vital power were very common among them on this account, and as a general rule a miner at fifty years of age, instead of being in the full enjoyment of vigour, like ordinary men, was a decrepid old man. As an illustration, he would quote a small portion of the evidence given before the Commissioners?—

"Mr. Richard Burford Searle, M.R.C.S.: Are you well assured of that?—I was looking over my list to-day, and I came to that conclusion. It is remarkable how the children die off here.—Chairman; Is that conclusion drawn from the register, or from your own observation?—From my own observation.—Mr. Kendall; As far as your experience goes, do the children of the miners die more under three years of age than the children of the agriculturists?—Yes; most decidedly.—To what do you attribute that? Why should a miner's child be more subject to die under three years of age than the child of an agriculturist?—Because the father is generally in a more infirm state of health. The state of health of the miner tells upon the offspring decidedly. Mr. James Jago, M.D., Oxon, questioned by the Chairman: From your observations in the examination of miners, should you say that their illness was the effect of working in impure or poisonous air?—Looking at the anœmic and pasty colour of the miner, which is very peculiar, and other facts as to his breathing—and I have seen them come to me excessively weak, when I have been unable to detect any special cause to account for their want of breath and general weakness, excepting the mere absence of the red colour in their features—the unfavourable condition under which they work alone seems to me sufficient to account for the great deterioration in their strength, and very likely for their gradual decay, bringing on premature old age, and I think a loss of their vital power or force."

The third Resolution of the Commissioners was to the following effect:—

"That accidents are of frequent occurrence in metalliferous mines, and that they principally result from miners falling from ladders and stemples, or from one level to another; from falls of the rock or stuff; from want of caution in blasting; from defective gear and imperfect supervision of machinery; from sudden eruptions of water or foul air, and from the bursting of boilers."

And here he would suggest that the substitution of copper for iron tools in blasting, copper being confessedly not liable to explode, would be preferable, and would avoid one present great cause of danger, and that by a little expenditure the iron ladders now in use might be divested of their danger by the insertion of a slip of lead or of copper, like a sandwich, in the iron. What was, perhaps, wanted now for carrying out the Report of the Commission appointed in 1864 was a Commission to report as to the best means of immediately carrying out the Resolutions of that Commission. This was all he had to say as far as the metal mines were concerned. With reference to the coal mines, a system of ventilation existed, but it was insufficient in many cases, as, for instance, in the Oaks colliery. There it was proved on evidence that for seventy miles of travelling way there was only one up-cast and one down-cast shaft. But at least two up and two down were necessary, and had they existed half the lives lately sacrificed might have been spared through that alone. The area of ventilation in all cases should be within defined limits. But this was not all—taking for granted that the men employed in mines would be often so unconscious of danger that they would frustrate the wisest regulations, he maintained that on that very account the risk they incurred ought to be reduced to the smallest minimum possible, and that if any indicator of risk existed the Legislature were bound to see that it was used. In the Barnsley pit the great loss of life would not have occurred if the state of the air of the pit had been registered. Mr. Ansell's fire damp indicator, he had reason to believe, supplied amply the means both of giving notice of any sudden outburst of firedamp and of marking its amount. The presence of 7½ per cent of firedamp was enough to insure explosion if mixed with atmospheric air. He thought, then, that it would be a great improvement on the present law if it was definitely enacted that the presence of 5 per cent of that gas should be considered an offence against the Colliery Inspection Act, for at present the amount was left indefinite, being "a dangerous amount," and therefore liable to be overlooked altogether. Some effective test, together with a system of telegraphic communication, would remove the present danger arising from sudden explosions, while a more effective ventilation would give a greater chance of escape, and also prvent the accumulation of firedamp to so great a degree. And a regular system of registration, also, while it would not prevent men "coming upon gas," would prevent their going down into the pit when gas to a dangerous extent was in it. One more suggestion he had to make was that this country should follow the example of the French Government, who had offered a reward of £4,000 for the best system of protecting lives. Such an offer would call out the energies of practical men to help in the solution of our difficulties.

said, that a Bill upon this subject was in preparation when the late Government went out of office.

said, he thought that while thousands of lives were being sacrificed it was no answer to his appeal to that House for some speedy legislative enactment to protect the lives and the health of miners to be told that a Bill had been in preparation. What was wanted was immediate remedial measures. The noble Chairman of the Commission (Lord Kinnaird) had himself prepared and brought in a Bill which might have proved beneficial; but it was impeded, instead of assisted, by the late Government, and it was a Member of that Government who obliged him to withdraw it. When the present Government came into office an appeal was made to them to introduce a Bill, but the mass of business devolving on a new Government was some excuse for their not doing so; but he hoped and trusted that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) would satisfy these poor men who were certainly some of the most industrious of Her Majesty's subjects. They were treated with considerable neglect when legislation was deferred from time to time, notwithstanding the presentation of a Report showing how their lives were sacrificed. No private Member could bring in a Bill on the subject, and these men felt they were not represented. Who were these men to look to for relief unless to the Government, after the Government had obtained the information contained in the Report? To the noble Chairman of the Commission it was a matter of the deepest regret that a Bill was not introduced, knowing as he did that the fatal consequences continued to this day from want of legislation on the subject. If a deaf ear was still turned to such an appeal he could only repeat what he began by saying, that the country had here a practical proof of the need of Reform. What he pleaded for would involve, doubtless, some expenditure of money; but if this were to be placed in the scale against the lives of a most deserving and industrious class of Her Majesty's subjects, then, he said, it was proved that the possessors of capital were more effectively represented in that House than the creators of capital. He trusted, however, that Her Majesty's Government would take this question into their most serious consideration.

said, he had had some experience in mining matters, and he, together with the other Commissioners, had endeavoured to prevent the noble Lord at the head of that Commission from bringing in a Bill upon the subject, showing him that the matter was one of extreme delicacy, and that great care was necessary. Contrary, however, to the wish of the Commissioners, his Lordship had brought in a Bill, which he undertook, as a practical man, to say was as unpractical and visionary a Bill as any ever brought into the House of Lords. The ventilation proposed would be most difficult and expensive. The noble Chairman, while in Cornwall, had endeared himself to every one, and, some short time since, would have been received with open arms. Now, however so great a change had taken place in the feelings of the people, that whereas he was formerly almost worshipped by the miners, he would now, if he went into Cornwall, stand a very good chance of a ducking. The fact was that the noble Chairman, by proposing his Bill, had greatly offended every one connected with the mining interests; and the lords and adventurers were so opposed to a measure introduced by one who pretended, and who I really believe, wished to be their friend, that they had of late evinced a reserve which made it difficult to approach them. About two years since mining operations, which had until then been in a flourishing condition, were in a terrible state, and the present moment, when mining interests were so depressed, was about the worst possible one to select for introducing a Bill which would tend to increase the expense of working the mines. One-half of the miners had left Cornwall, and of those remaining the half were unemployed. Great profits had been and might again be made by mining; but he hoped that, while mining was in its present depressed condition, no measure tending to increase the expense, and consequently to injure the interests of the poor miner, would be introduced into Parliament. He repudiated the assertion that the children of miners were less healthy than those of other people, and asserted on medical testimony that, though the father might be what is called consumptive, the children were as fine and as healthy as those of the healthiest man in the world.

said, he did not agree with the opinion that the question was one admitting of easy solution. On the contrary, there were great difficulties in the way, and these would require grave and mature consideration. The evils arising from the manner in which the mining operations were carried on had not been exaggerated by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive). The evils were mainly caused by defective ventilation, the ascending and descending, and the early employment of children in the mines. It was admitted on all hands that the mortality amongst miners between the ages of thirty-five and fifty-five was almost double the mortality amongst other classes of the working population. In collieries, good ventilation was absolutely necessary for carrying on the works. Without a large stream of air it would be impossible to carry on colliery operations; but it was not so in the Cornish mines; but the Cornish miner was behind all other miners in understanding the rules of ventilation. He (Mr. Bruce) knew that from having descended into mines of considerable depth. The condition of the workmen was awful, and the surprise was how they could do their work. When added to that the miner had to ascend after his work the height of a mountain, it would be seen what heavy calls there were on the strength of the miners of Cornwall. It was well known that in collieries the air was carried down one shaft and up another; but the ventilation in the Cornish mines was different, and men exhausted by work might have to climb up, breathing vitiated air that had passed through the mine. It would be impossible to supply the Cornish mines at once with the necessary facilities for ventilation, and the operation would in many instances be attended with great expense. The question was, what remedy should be applied. The late Government had examined the matter carefully; and after communicating with the Cornish Members and other persons, they had made considerable progress towards the preparation of a measure. He should pay homage to the humanity of Lord Kinnaird. His Lordship had spent a week at the mines in examining and acquainting himself with all the circumstances of the case, in order that he might be able to conduct the examination more effectively. What the late Government proposed to do, and what they would have done if there had not been a change of Ministry was this—they would have laid on the table a Bill re-constituting the Court of Stannaries with power to improve the ventilation of mines. And if there were no other means of doing so, it was proposed that inspectors should be appointed to recommend some means of ventilation. He believed the matter was ripe for legislation, and he believed that ventilation would not be followed by the ruin which his hon. Friend (Mr. Kendall) feared. The late Government very carefully examined the subject, but finding that the Bill of Lord Kinnaird was too sweeping in its provisions they could not support it. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole) would look into the archives of the Home Office he would there find material to enable him to proceed with this question.

said, that the observations of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) were extremely just and accurate as to the course which the late Government intended to pursue, and which they considered would have been the best mode of remedying the evils that now existed. The proposal amounted to this—that the metal milling districts should be divided into seven, and that each should be placed under the superintendence of three persons selected from a general body, composed of lords, adventurers, and mining workmen. He admitted that the numerous things which had fallen upou him to do had prevented him taking up the subject with that speed which it deserved; but he begged to assure the House that he had not lost sight of it, and after the appeal which had been made to him to-night he would do his best to take the matter in hand, and to see if some measure could not be framed so as to prevent the present disastrous and injurious effects in these mines. As regarded the question of Scotch business in Parliament, the hon. Member for Montrose had referred to a proposal which he made some years ago in this House for the better conduct of the Scotch business. He begged to say that he did not coincide with the conclusions at which the hon. Gentleman had arrived. He believed himself, from the ability which had characterized a number of Lord Advocates who had had seats in that House, and from their knowledge and acquaintance with the Scotch Members, there was no part of the business of this kingdom really better done than the Scotch business. At the same time, he could not close his eyes to the fact that a great change had for some years been coming over the minds of the Scotch people, and that they would prefer that some civilian in the shape of an assistant or Under Secretary should be the medium of communication with them instead of the Lord Advocate. When this matter was brought before the House some years ago, it was lost by a great majority. There was a discussion subsequently, and there was then considerable division of opinion even amongst the Scotch Members themselves; but he was bound to say, after listening to what had been said in the debate of to-night, that amongst the Scotch Members on both sides there seemed to be no difference of opinion now, and they all seemed to be agreed that some change in relation to the conduct of Scotch business in Parliament should be adopted. If he might venture to give an opinion, he would say that his own views more or less—he would say, more than less—coincided with the opinions which had been expressed by those Gentlemen—and seeing at the present moment the great inconvenience of not having the Lord Advocate in the House, he thought that it was a matter which deserved the consideration of the Government, and he promised that so far as he was concerned it should receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government. One word in reference to the present state of things. The hon. Gentleman had said that when these Scotch matters were brought under his attention, he (Mr. Walpole) was entirely in the hands of the Lord Advocate. On that point he wished to observe that there were three distinct matters which the Home Secretary had to look after in reference to Scotch affairs. In the first place he had to superintend in Scotland, as he did in England, the general criminal business of the country. Then he had Church patronage to a large extent, and in the third place he was supposed, and did, with the aid of the Lord Advocate, attend to the Scotch legislation which occurred in the House of Commons. Now, with regard to the first of these matters, the superintendence of the criminal business of Scotland, he thought he might say that he had paid and would continue to pay as much attention to that as he did to the criminal business of his own country. With regard to the patronage, it was not just to say that it was left entirely to the Lord Advocate. In the case of every one of the livings which were given away he had all the testimonials brought before him, and he examined them himself before any patronage was disposed of. Therefore, instead of a nomination or suggested name being taken as a matter of course, the reverse was the case. It had happened to him within the last six months that he had been in office that he had had to question the propriety of three appointments, and he did not sanction those appointments, which were recommended to him not only by the Lord Advocate but by others. He was thankful to say that the late Lord Advocate, before his promotion to the Bench, informed him that in two out of those three appointments he had ascertained that he (Mr. Walpole) was right and that the Lord Advocate was wrong. This would show that the business was not done in a perfunctory manner, but that it was carefully conducted. As to the Scotch legislation, without the aid of the Lord Advocate he could not conduct it. As regarded the business now before the House, the hon. Baronet the Member for Peeblesshire (Sir Graham Montgomery) would be considered in this House as the person with whom the Scotch Members could communicate on all subjects of Scotch legislation, and the Lord Advocate, out of the House, would also communicate with them, and by their joint assistance he hoped they would be able to get through some of the most important Scotch business which would be submitted to this House in the course of the present Ses- sion. He might here remark that there were two Bills already in the House of Lords. First there was the Hypothec Bill, which had passed through Committee, and the other was the Recovery of Debts Bill, which was on the point of going through Committee. Then there was the Justiciary Courts Bill, which he believed would come down to this house at no very distant day. Then, as regarded the House of Commons, the Lyon King at Arms Bill had gone through Committee, and the Consolidation of the Public Health Bill stood for Monday next. This was an important measure, and if the Scotch Members would give him their assistance he would do his best to facilitate Scotch business in the House. He thought there would be advantage in having a civilian Under Secretary, who could be the medium of communication between the Scotch Members and the Government as to what ought to be the transaction of Scotch business in and out of the House, and whether the Government could see their way or not to such an appointment, he would at least take care that it was brought under their notice.

said, he wished to confirm what had fallen from his right hon. Friend, not only as to the supervision by the Home Office of the affairs of Scotland, but also to the duties performed by the Home Secretary in reference to Scotch patronage. It was a mistake to suppose that the patronage was disposed of by the Lord Advocate. No doubt legal appointments were made after consultation with the Lord Advocate, and his recommendation was necessarily of great weight. As regarded the church patronage, the Home Secretary disposed of it on his own responsibility, as he did of the Professorships in the Universities, after obtaining the best information he could from every quarter. As to legislation, no doubt the Scotch Bills were framed with great care on the part of the Lord Advocate; but he understood that one complaint on the part of Scotch Members was, that during a large portion of the Session the Lord Advocate, if in extensive practice, was detained by legal business in Edinburgh. Another objection was that under the present system Scotch Members, not belonging to the legal profession, had no opportunity of being brought forward to take charge of the Scotch business. He should be sorry to express a decided opinion as to whether an Under Secretary should be appointed for the Scotch business; but he doubted whether he would have sufficient employment either of an administrative or legislative kind. He would suggest whether, by a different arrangement of the duties of the present Under Secretaries, one of them conversant with Scotch business might not, in the absence of the Lord Advocate, with the aid of the hon. baronet the Member for Peeblesshire (Sir Graham Montgomery), take charge of the Parliamentary business relating to Scotland. That arrangement might, as a temporary measure at all events, be satisfactory.

said, he was quite ready to go along with the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) in any reasonable legislation, having in view the important object of saving life in mines, as far as practicable. But some of the remarks of that hon. Gentleman were, he thought, not altogether reasonable. The hon. Member, referring to the recent deplorable catastrophe at the Oaks Colliery, stated that there was positive proof that if certain precautions had been adopted that accident would not have occurred. Now, when the inquest was held, and an inquiry conducted with the utmost care and skill had been brought to a close, the jury were absolutely unable to satisfy themselves as to the causes of the accident. It was therefore too bold an assertion to say that there was positive proof that the calamity would not have happened if certain precautions had been taken. The hon. Gentleman stated that if the indicator had been in use in that colliery the presence of explosive gases would have been ascertained, and the danger might have been averted. But it should be remembered that that instrument was a most delicate and complicated piece of machinery, and it was exceedingly doubtful whether, as at present constructed, it was adapted to the ordinary wear and tear of coal mines. Though, however, it was a comparatively novel invention, and as yet had been only tried on a small scale, there was no indisposition on the part of the coal owners to give it a fair trial. It was not quite fair when such a strong feeling had been excited in regard to that accident to say that if an instrument like that had been used it would not have occurred.

said, that he had not spoken upon his own authority on that subject. He understood from a gentleman of great experience in mining that the instru- ment in question was not so delicate as the hon. Gentleman supposed, and that where it had been tried it had been found effective.

said, he only wished to say one word upon the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Hereford. His (Lord Elcho's) attention had recently been drawn to this subject, and he would observe that the present state of inspection of coal mines was most unsatisfactory. They had twelve inspectors, but the inspection was practically null, for it appeared from a statement made by a deputation to the Home Secretary that one inspector had no less than 900 mines under his inspection, and therefore the House must see that it could not be well done. He had heard that the Oaks mine had not been inspected for six years, and Mr. Matthews, the chairman of the Mining Association, was of opinion that the two shafts at that colliery were quite insufficient. The upcast and downcast shafts were close together, and the air had to travel sixty miles through the works to supply ventilation. The men had to travel one-and-a-half to two miles each way through the works. Now, that was the case of a coal mine where there was the danger of an explosion. In the metalliferous mines there was not the same danger from explosion, but they were charged with deleterious gases most prejudicial to life; and though coal mines were nominally inspected, metalliferous were not inspected at all. There ought to be better arrangements for carrying off the noxious gases. It would be a wise economy, as well as to the interest of the miners, if there were a better inspection of all mines, in order to secure safety and proper ventilation. His hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) said that if miners were better represented in that House, these accidents would not happen; but he (Lord Elcho) had had an experience of twenty-six years in that House, and had always seen plenty of Members ready to take up such cases and to represent the views and interests of the working classes. With respect to the question raised by the hon. Member for Montrose, he had had some experience of the subject during the time that he was the Scotch Lord of the Treasury in the Government of Lord Aberdeen, and he must say that owing to the occasional pressure of legal business in Edinburgh rendering it impossible for the Lord Advocate to be in his place in Parliament, he had himself to discharge duties which would have properly devolved on that learned Lord. He thought that Scotch business would not suffer, but rather gain, if some such suggestion as that of the hon. Member for Montrose were adopted.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the justice of a claim for compensation to the late Inspectors of Weights and Measures in Ireland for the loss of their offices. He thought it was unfair to employ men for the best years of their lives in offices which they had reason to believe would be permanent, and then, when it was found that their services could be dispensed with, to displace them without compensation, leaving them, as was in many instances the case, to die of starvation by the roadside. Many of those gentlemen who held these appointments had given up others in order to accept them. Almost all of the officers whose case he was bringing before the House had received testimonials of their efficiency, and resolutions recommending the grant of compensation to them had been passed by the grand juries of various counties and the municipal corporations of several boroughs. The Act of 1860 had been amended by a subsequent Act in 1862; but a proviso introduced into that Act had proved fatal to the measure. The Act of 1835, which appointed these Inspectors, gave power to levy certain fees, and provided for penalties in cases of impingement. He hoped the House would consent to grant this Committee.

seconded the Motion.

said, it was with great reluctance that be must ask the House to take a view of the case different from that of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The fact was admitted that considerable hardship had been inflicted on those officers by the Act of 1860. He must, however, observe that they were not persons who gave up the whole of their time to the performance of their public duties, and that they did not occupy a position similar to that of officers in whose case compensation for loss of office was usually given. Upon that point, however, he did not lay much stress, the real question for the consideration of the House being out of what fund the proposed compensation was to be paid. It was in 1862 suggested by the then hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) that it should be paid out of the local rates; but that suggestion was received with general disfavour, in fact no one else supported it. The demand now made was that the compensation should come out of monies to be voted by Parliament; but with every disposition to relieve those officers, he could not see how a case could be made out for doing so out of the public funds. There was no recent precedent for the adoption of such a course, and he was sure that it would be resisted, not only by the present but by the late Secretary to the Treasury, on public grounds. It would therefore be simply deluding those officers to hold out to them false hopes by acceding to the Motion of his hon. Friend for inquiry. The more candid and straightforward course was to negative the proposal.

said, the late officers of weights and measures in Ireland were paid by fines and fees, a portion of which were now paid in aid of the salaries of the clerks of petty sessions. The Imperial Treasury, consequently, had the benefit to that extent of the fines and fees, for it would be the duty of the State, if the fines and fees were not so appropriated, to make up to the clerks of sessions any deficiency in their salaries. The principal portion of the time of these gentlemen was occupied in such a way as to keep them from other occupations, and they had a fair ground for coming to that House to ask how the funds were applied which might have been rendered available for their assistance. He thought that a fair ground had been shown for the appointment of a Committee.

said, that the late inspectors of weights and measures in Ireland did not at the present moment ask for compensation, but only asked for inquiry. The noble Lord said that those officers were not appointed by the Crown, but by the grand juries. He had, however, known men in a good position, and having friends in that House, to obtain pensions, though they had received no appointment from the Crown—he alluded to the proctors in the different Courts of Probate, and he trusted that the claims of the inspectors of weights and measures would not be disregarded, because they happened to be humble men without influence. He knew one case in which the whole of the officer's time had been employed, and that in many they had been reduced to great straits.

said, he thought it would be better for the late inspectors to submit their case to the Treasury, and to the justice of the House, than to have a Select Committee appointed. They had made out their case.

said, he did not see how justice could be done without the appointment of a Committee, whose business would be to ascertain whether compensation should be granted. The noble Lord had fully admitted the justice of the case, and the House ought to see that justice was done.

said, he thought that the noble Lord had taken the wisest, and even the kindest course, in declining to submit the case to a Select Committee. It was not to be expected that the result of inquiry by a Committee would induce the Government to pay the compensation asked for out of the public funds, for the fines and fees went to the relief of the local funds. He was sorry for the condition of the persons whose case was brought under consideration, but he should feel it his duty to vote against the appointment of a Committee.

said, he rose to call attention to the circumstances under which a pension was granted to Mr. Robert Young, agricultural and historical poet. The question involved in this matter was not an Irish grievance, but one which equally concerned all parts of the country. This was not a solitary instance of an abuse of the Royal fund out of which pensions were accorded to literary and scientific men. He regretted to say that the fund had been too often abused and made the means, if not of rewarding incompetence, at any rate of bestowing eleemosynary aid on persons of mediocre ability, who had no other claim to that aid than their poverty, or perhaps their incompetence. There was, however, something worse than this, and that was when the recipient had no claim to literary merit or services rendered to his country; but if he had a claim at all it was one that ought not to be recognised—namely, party services, rendered, not to his country, but against his country. One distinguished instance of the abuse of the fund was that of the poet Close; but in that case the late Leader of that House (Viscount Palmerston), who was entrapped into granting the pension, had confessed his mistake, and retracted what he had done, though he compensated from his own purse the object of the misplaced public benefaction. The case to which he (Mr. O'Reilly) now wished to draw attention was also that of a poet—at least, of a man who wrote rhymes. It might be said that it was difficult to judge of poetic merit; but it would surely be expected that the noble Lord who had so ably translated Homer (the Earl of Derby) would at least have been able to decide upon the merits of poetical compositions, and that a pension would not have been granted by him to a wretched rhymester. Homer sometimes nodded; but in this case the noble translator not only dozed, but slept his sleep outright. He freely acquitted the noble Lord of anything but ignorance, and that was a serious fault to find. He believed that the noble Lord must have been ignorant of the circumstances under which the pension was granted; that he knew nothing of the true history of the poet, and never asked to look at his works. It was exceedingly difficult to get a copy of the poetical works of Mr. Young; and although the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry (Lord Claud Hamilton) and the Earl of Enniskillen had subscribed liberally for copies of the book, it was stated that no sooner was the pension granted than every single copy that could be got hold of was consigned to the flames. He (Mr. O'Reilly) knew a gentleman who had applied to every bookseller in the country to get a copy and found it impossible. He had procured two copies, one of them the real original edition, and certainly a valuable work it was. For a moment let him trace the history of this person before he received his pension. In early life he was a nailer. Nine-tenths of his poems commemorated different Orange festivals. They were addressed to the Orange body. The hon. Member for Peterborough had been frequently requested to favour the House with a poetical recitation, and he had apologized by saying that he was not able to comply with the request. Now this work exactly expressed his sentiments. These poems were exactly what he would write if he was a poet. He would make a present of one of the copies of the work to the hon. Member for Peterborough on the condition that he would favour the House with extracts from it in the course of his different speeches. If the hon. Member would not accept a copy on that condition, he Mr. O'Reilly) would deposit it in the Library of the House for the improvement of hon. Members. For many years Mr. Young wrote songs for the Orangemen of the North of Ireland, and the time came when he looked for a reward of his literary and Orange loyalism in a pecuniary sense, but the Conservatives not being in office, his hope was long deferred. Either because the occupation was unprofitable or for other reasons, he had for many years ceased to write Orange songs. It was said that Mr. Robert Young had become an agricultural poet; but he (Mr. O'Reilly) could find very little about agriculture in this book. Probably the Secretary of the Treasury might favour them with the proofs that Mr. Robert Young had devoted himself to agricultural subjects. He would not disgust the House with the greater part of what the book contained. This writer contrasted himself throughout with the late Thomas Moore. He remarks that the late Thomas Moore wrote poetry of which he entirely disapproved—as not being loyal in the Fermanagh sense of the word—and he attached to the airs of some of Moore's songs words more suited to the tastes of the Orangemen. To the air of "The Exile of Erin" he attaches the following words:—

"In Munster assassins in league are invited,

The laws to resist and confusion create,

By priests of sedition to outrage excited,

To bring back the horrors of dark Ninety-eight."

He was aware that there was one hon. Gentleman in the House who would applaud the sentiment, but he did not think that the House would view it in the same way. To show that this was a man who had constantly libelled the great mass of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, he (Mr. O'Reilly) begged to read the following words attached to Moore's air, "Oh, Erin, my country":—

"Thus maddened by Jesuit's poisonous chalice, The Popesmen no longer contented remain; But bigotry, fierce persecution, and malice Inflame their dark bosoms and over them reign."

"The Scripture that tells of eternal salvation, And man, erring man, in religion renews, The prelates of Rome to their flocks ruination, Withhold or pervert them to suit their own Views."

He (Mr. O'Reilly) need not say that there was throughout the book the most ribald abuse of the late Mr. O'Connell. There was a man of whom all Ireland was proud—a Roman Catholic bishop—a man celebrated as a writer—the friend of the late Duke of Wellington—"J. K. L.," the late Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare. Here was the way in which he was mentioned by Mr. Robert Young—

"Hail, Erin! most delightful land For strife and superstition, Where Lucifer to govern seems, And to excite sedition.

"Of vows and murders almost sick, Old Satan, discontented, Of late a most surprising trick For change of scene invented.

"Sure, none but he or J. K. L., Who does our isle enlighten, Would propagate so strange a spell, The cholera to frighten."

He could give a few more extracts if it would not weary the House. ["Hear!"] The title of the next extract—"Croppies lie down,"—required some explanation. By the word "croppies" the poet meant Roman Catholics.

"We'll fight for our country, our Queen, and Her crown,

And make all the traitors and Croppies lie down, Down, down, Croppies lie down.

Our country's applauses our triumph will crown, While low, with the French, brother Croppies lie down,

Down, down, Croppies lie down."

Perhaps the Secretary for Ireland would wish to have these poems re-published, to improve the spirit of loyalty throughout Ireland. Amongst the most unfortunate reminiscences of the North of Ireland were the memories of the contests between Roman Catholics and Orangemen. The following was a poem which Mr. Robert Young wrote on what he called the battle of Castle Wellan:—

"It was in the year of thirty, on July the first old style,

The Castle Wellan Orangemen and Clarkhill rank and file,

To Clough with flags and music sweet, marched off in grand array,

Where fifteen banners were displayed in honour of the day.

So let cringing politicians vile and Whig and Papist join,

Still annually we'll celebrate the conquest of the Boyne.

"Thus may we still triumphant be and keep rebellion down,

Maintain our just ascendancy and guard the British Crown."

The following was another beautiful extract:—

"Oh! could I Homer like, indite Sublime heroic lays,

My faculties should all unite In singing Graham's praise;

Who, undismayed by threatening foes Has faithfully revealed

The worth, the woes, and deeds of those Which time from us concealed.

"His pages true bring to our view The actions of the brave,

Who fought of old like lions bold Our liberty to save.

"Weak Statesmen may to Rome give way, Expediency their guide,

Lest civil war should Erin mar And spread through Britain wide,

Each passing year some through fear, Give up to bigots base

Who Church and Crown would trample down And cover with disgrace.

"Not so our sires, whose glory fires The breast of Graham brave

Behaved of old, but Rome controll'd And fought our rights to save."

From a Conservative Government able to appreciate literary fame—with a noble poet at its head capable of rewarding loyalty like that of the Fermanagh trueblue—Mr. Robert Young received the pen- sion which in his own opinion he had long deserved. In his preface he states—

"If a Moore, the author of seditious and licentious songs, has been considered deserving of a pension by our present Whig-Radical Administration, the humble man who exerts his talents in writing loyal and constitutional pieces, must surely have some claim on the patronage of those whose cause he advocates, although he cannot make pretensions to the expansive and highly cultivated genius of the celebrated Irish bard. Should he be assailed by critics of the Romish or Radical school, who scruple not in the present day at attempting to blacken by calumny—every man, no matter how eminent for virtue, who has the manliness to speak or write on behalf of the Protestant religion, he tells them beforehand that he despises their malignity, and can afford to treat their lucubrations with silent contempt."

He regretted that the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry was in Ireland, but a relative of his was in the House, and he (Mr. O'Reilly) had nothing to say but matter of fact. The reason assigned for the giving the pension was that Mr. Robert Young wrote four volumes of poems and songs of considerable merit, was connected with a newspaper, and sixty-seven years of age, old and infirm. To that he (Mr. O'Reilly) had nothing to say. He believed the man was old, infirm, and poor. If poverty were a claim upon the literary and scientific fund, he (Mr. O'Reilly) had not a word to say against the pension. But if Parliament voted the money to reward literary merit, he then would say that Mr. Robert Young had no claim to it. Attached to the memorial for the pension were the names of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Derry and of several Roman Catholic clergymen; but that did not justify the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry in not inquiring into the literary merits of Mr. Robert Young. For years this man had libelled the Roman Catholics, and had been noted as their enemy. It was said to the Roman Catholic Bishop and clergy "this poor, wretched, and old man will get a pension if you will not stand in his way, and will charitably put your name to the memorial." They did so, and he honoured their motive however mistaken they were in doing so. But that was no vindication of those having to administer the bounty of the nation on literary and scientific grounds. He had also been informed, on authority which he could not dispute, although he could not assert it from positive knowledge, that the noble Lord the Member for Londonderry recommended Mr. Young for a pension, stating as of his own knowledge that his songs were as free from any taint of Orangeism as of Ribbonism, and were as acceptable to Roman Catholics as to Protestants. If such were not the fact he hoped it would be denied on behalf of the noble Lord, who was now in Ireland, but who had received notice that the statement would be made. He (Mr. O'Reilly) might be asked, was it generous or right to make war against an old man of sixty-seven, who was poor, feeble, and infirm, for a wretched sum of £40? But he did not make war upon him. He protested as a matter of principle against a fund which should be devoted to the reward of literary and scientific attainments being applied to reward mediocrity, because it happened to be feeble and impoverished. If the pension were withdrawn, as it ought to be, and a subscription to aid Mr. Young entered into by his friends and patrons, he (Mr. O'Reilly) would be happy to subscribe. The granting of the pension he considered an abuse of the fund.

said, his acquaintance with the works of Mr. Robert Young had only commenced that evening, and he thought it would probably end there. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that these pensions ought to be confined to persons of eminence in literature or science, and ought not to be granted to persons in Mr. Young's rank of life.

I said literary eminence, not grade of life. Robert Burns was in a humble position, but he was a man of genius.

said, the hon. Gentleman had several times referred to Robert Young having commenced life as a "nailer," and seemed to think that he was thereby fastening an opprobrious epithet on him. He had supposed, therefore, his complaint was that a person of such humble origin had been selected for a pension. Now, it had for many years been the practice of Prime Ministers not only to give pensions of larger extent to persons of eminent literary and scientific attainments, but pensions of similar amount as that given to Mr. Young to persons of humble origin, who had so far educated themselves as to publish poems acceptable to their readers; and it seemed to him very desirable to encourage men who, without having had educational advantages, had devoted themselves to literary pursuits, even though their works were not such as to deserve world-wide fame. It was plain from the way in which the extracts that had been read had been received, that Mr. Young's poems were not appreciated by that House. Tastes, however, differed. The hon. Member had said it was difficult to obtain a copy of his books, the natural inference from which would be that they were valuable works, and were greedily bought up. The hon. Gentleman, however, said they had been burnt; but he did not say whether he stated this of his own knowledge. He held in his hand a volume, of which no less than twelve pages of small print were occupied with subscribers' names. ["Read!"] If he read them, the House would probably be none the wiser, for they were mostly those of persons unknown to him; but so long a list showed that many persons in Ireland were anxious to encourage Mr. Young in his poetical efforts. The memorial upon which Lord Derby granted the pension was signed by clergymen of various denominations, magistrates, members of corporations and others. It described him as the Irish historical and agricultural poet, and stated that he had published four volumes of different degrees of merit, which had been well received and widely circulated. It also stated that his writings were strictly moral, and that their tendency was to inculcate loyalty to the Throne, and to promote feelings of mutual goodwill among the people. It then went on to say that if the noble Lord made some provision for Mr. Young, it would afford great gratification not only to the people of Derry, but to the whole of Ulster. That was the memorial on which Lord Derby acted. It was quite clear the Prime Minister had not time to peruse the volumes of every poet whose claims were brought before him for a pension, but that he must necessarily be guided by the representations of others. He had pointed out that Mr. Young's poems were largely subscribed for, and from the number of signatures to the memorial it was quite clear that his poems created considerable interest in his neighbourhood. The hon. Gentleman assumed that Mr. Young's claim rested on political grounds, and that the adherents of Lord Derby were the only persons anxious to give him a pension. The hon. Gentleman spoke of Mr. Young as having passed his life in abusing persons of the Roman Catholic faith. If so, all he should say was that they must be of the most forgiving nature, because at the head of the list of signatures was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Derry. The Protestant Bishop of Derry likewise signed the me- morial, together with three Roman Catholic priests, two Presbyterian ministers, one Congregational Minister, and one Dissenting minister. So that persons of all sects and denominations came forward to bear testimony to the merits of Mr. Young. The memorial was also signed by twelve justices of the peace. As a Prime Minister was obliged to be dependent upon the representations of others in such matters, and as out of all question Lord Derby had never read a line of Mr. Young's poems, what more complete testimony in favour of a man of that humble rank could he have than when such a body of persons, including ministers of all denominations and twelve justices of the peace, came forward and bore testimony to his merits? Under these circumstances, he asserted that Lord Derby was justified in granting a pension to Mr. Young, supposing that pensions of that kind were to be granted at all to persons of that class of life. It was suggested that his noble Friend the Member for Londonderry (Lord Claud Hamilton) had got up this testimonial as a sort of political weapon to strengthen his influence at elections; but he held in his hand letters from persons who could not be considered as political adherents of Lord Derby. Here was a letter addressed to the noble Lord the Member for London-derry—

"I think that Mr. Young is well deserving of a small pension. I have always understood him to be a very respectable person, and that he has educated himself in a manner highly creditable to him."

This letter was signed "Dufferin." That noble Lord was a distinguished member of the late Government, and he had never heard that he was known for his Orange tendencies. On the principle of laudari a laudato viro he would next quote a letter signed by Lord Cremorne, now Earl Dartrey, a man whom Earl Russell delighted to honour:—

"Dear Claud Hamilton,—I shall be very glad if Mr. Young's well-known poetical abilities are rewarded by placing him on the Pension List, and I authorize you to attach my name to any memorial that may be presented on this subject to Earl Russell."

He read these letters to show that there was no foundation for saying that this was a mere Orange memorial, or that it was got up for electioneering purposes in Londonderry. Although the House might not appreciate Mr. Young's poems—and he confessed for himself that he would much rather read Lord Derby's translation of Homer—yet he trusted that he had satisfied the House that Lord Derby had not in this matter acted in a hasty or hurried manner, because he had been fully supported by the representations made on behalf of Mr. Young. After the testimonials which had been addressed to the noble Earl it was clear that he was justified in granting that pension, if such allowances were ever to be made to poets in the humbler ranks of life.

said, he considered that every one who had listened to the speech of his hon. Friend who had brought the subject forward must be convinced that Lord Derby had been shamefully imposed on in this matter, and that if his Lordship had exercised a little more care and caution the grant to Mr. Young would never have been made. The Government had carelessly prostituted—not to use too strong a word—a portion of the fund set apart to reward literature and art to the vilest purposes. The reply of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was most unsatisfactory, and though it had called forth the mirth of the House, the subject-matter was really too serious to be turned into a joke. It was a sad and lamentable reflection that the bounty of the Crown should be conferred on a man who had turned the little talents—and they were small enough—which he possessed to inflame and embitter the animosities which raged so fiercely in the North of Ireland. He held in his hand the volume containing the "poems" of the person thus marked out for the distinguishing favour of a pension, and they were so full of ribaldry, if not, indeed, of blasphemy, that he really did not dare to read them to the House. He would hand the book to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he liked. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented.] Well, if the right hon. Gentleman—whose fine literary taste the House was well acquainted with, and was justly proud of—would devote a short time to the perusal of the volume, he (Mr. Cogan) was convinced that before twenty-four hours had passed away the pension would be revoked. His hon. Friend, when he brought forward the subject, had not concluded with a Motion; because he never for a moment supposed that, after the light which he was prepared to throw on the appointment, the Government would try to vindicate or maintain it. He still hoped that, before the debate closed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would rise in his place and announce that the Government would reconsider the matter; but if this was not done, he begged to inform the House that his hon. Friend would feel it to be his duty, on another occasion, to bring forward a distinct Motion for the discontinuance of the pension; and he believed that such a Motion would be carried by an over whel mingly large majority.

said, he would entreat the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember the course pursued in a case similar to the present one by Lord Palmerston when Prime Minister. That noble Lord, when it was made plain to him that he had been led to confer a literary pension of that kind on a person who was unworthy of it, announced, after some consideration, that the pension would be withdrawn. That was a proceeding which commended itself to both sides of the House, and he thought it was an example which he might most respectfully beg to submit to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and to Lord Derby. In the remarks which it was the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to offer to the House that evening they all knew that he had a very difficult task to perform. A pension had been granted, and it was that right hon. Gentleman's duty to rise at that table and defend it. ["No!"] Well, the Secretary to the Treasury was there, and it was his business to make a speech on the occasion. He could not, however, congratulate either that hon. Gentleman, or the unfortunate recipient of that pension, on the success of that speech. Every word which the hon. Gentleman had said proved either that that particular pension ought not to have been conferred, or, perhaps, that pensions of that kind ought not to be granted at all. The sum at Her Majesty's disposal for the reward of persons who distinguished themselves in literature, in art, or in the public service was, they knew, very limited; but it was a sum which had been the means of promoting the comfort, and in some degree rewarding the talents and services, of many eminent persons. And he did say that the House which voted that sum had a right to see that those rewards, small as they were, and must be when bestowed upon persons of real merit, were not made ridiculous and contemptible by being conferred upon individuals like the poet whose works had now been brought before them. A memorial to the Government, as he understood, had been signed by many persons of distinction and position in the part of Ireland where that gentleman resided, and letters were written by them to their friends in the Cabinet. They got their friends to do the same; and yet not one of those noble Lords or hon. Gentlemen had thought it right to come there and help the Secretary of the Treasury to defend what had been done. The question involved in the granting of those literary pensions was a very large one, and he should not enter into it on that occasion. He must, however, call the attention of the House to the example—if, indeed, example were wanting—which was furnished by the present discussion of the utter worthlessness of all memorials. Hon. Members knew that any person was ready to sign any paper which might be laid before him on any subject, provided he saw a certain number of names already attached to it. From what had that evening occurred they might learn that they could not depend even on private letters, for he could not pay his noble Friends whose letters had been read the poor compliment of saying that they were acquainted with Mr. Young's works. If they had been acquainted with them they would scarcely have desired to have been presented to the House as having displayed so remarkable a taste in literary criticism. He hoped that what had just passed would convince the Government that the granting of the pension to Mr. Young was a matter which ought to be re-considered. It was suggested that it had been granted out of charity to a person who was poor and old, and in bad health; but he could not see how the House, although it might decide that he should be deprived of that pension, would be committing in the administration of the public funds the slightest injustice by handing him over to the charity of his acquaintances and friends, among whom it appeared he was respected, and who, he must say, owed him, he thought, considerable reparation for having been the means of dragging him and his works as they had been dragged before the House.

said, he considered that the hon. Gentleman opposite was hardly justified, considering the number and weight of the names attached to the recommendation to Lord Derby in favour of Mr. Young, in imputing to those gentlemen an attempt to impose upon the noble Earl. No such attempt had been made, and no grounds whatever for such an imputation existed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Perthshire had criticised the absence from the House of all the Gentlemen who had signed the recommendation. Now he (Sir Hervey Bruce) was one of those whose signatures were attached. He was prepared to justify the recommendation; and, though he was not in his seat when the debate commenced, it was because he did not expect that it would have come on so early. The absence of other gentlemen who had joined in the recommendation, and especially of the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), was explained by the assizes that were now being held and by other business; and, if the hon. Gentleman opposite had desired to have all information on the subject, it would have been better if he had put off the Motion for a week.

said, that he had written to the noble Lord in question, and had had no reply; but he had been informed that his noble Relative in the House would represent the noble Lord.

said, he was not aware of this; but he trusted that he had explained the absence of the noble Lord, as well as that of many others of those who signed the recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cogan) had thought it his duty to attribute the pension of Mr. Young to party motives, and had suggested that he was indebted to it for the inflammatory tone of the poems.

said, that he had conveyed no such imputation; but only expressed his regret that the writer of such a tendency should have been selected for the bounty of the Crown.

said, that he had no desire to adopt the insignificant line of argument involved in retorting upon an opponent that he had been guilty of the very offence with which he charged you. But he warned the right hon. Gentleman opposite to beware before he brought forward a Motion for the discontinuance of the pension, for if that were done, he (Sir Hervey Bruce) could place this pension in a light of transcendant eminence compared with some that had been made on the other side of the House. He desired to mention no names; but he should be fully prepared to do so, if the threat of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out. When it was argued that Mr. Young was an insignificant poet, the House must remember that a pension of £40 a year was intended only for comparative insignificance, and that such a sum would be beneath the acceptance of any man of even moderate position in the intellectual world. A Milton or a Byron needed not the Queen's bounty. But it might very fairly be given as a reward to a poet in humble life, who had been able to write verses that were admired by those among whom he lived. He (Sir Hervey Bruce), knowing Mr. Young well, and the neighbourhood in which he resided, could say that this was the case in the present instance. The poems of Mr. Young were read by the poorer classes in the district with pleasure if with no particular benefit to their minds. He was therefore no unfit recipient of the Queen's bounty, which was intended for the benefit of poor men, not of rich ones. He thought this man had shown himself able in the sphere of life into which he had been born, and had written a certain kind of poetry which went down very well with the people for whom it was written. Under these circumstances, he did not think it was fair to challenge the pension. The hon. Member said his attack was not against the man but the principle. If so, it would have been fairer to have attacked the principle and let the man alone. He defended the grant upon the broad principle that it was a pension given out of Her Majesty's bounty, one of the objects of which was to give help to self-educated meritorious men in struggling circumstances.

said, he did not happen to be in the House when the discussion commenced, and he had not therefore heard the charges which it seemed had been made as to the use of inflammatory language in the works of Mr. Young. All he could say was that when he signed the memorial to Lord Derby he did so after having seen some of the poetry in question, which, so far as he could judge, contained nothing inflammatory or objectionable. He thought, knowing as he did that Mr. Young was in distressed circumstances, that he was of good character, and in every way, so far as he was aware, deserving of the recognition which it was proposed to obtain for him, that his was a case in which a pension might properly be granted. That was the sole motive which had led him to attach his signature to the memorial.

said, he wished to call attention to the present aspect of the Fenian conspiracy. In reference to a previous statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that he could afford no information as to the origin, nature, or extent of the conspiracy, he wished to know whether an inquiry had been instituted for the purpose of obtaining such information, and the nature thereof; and, if not, whether it was intended to institute such inquiry? He had visited Ireland on the 12th of July, and thought it only fair to a class which had been much maligned to bear his testimony to their admirable conduct. Positive orders had been given by the Lord Lieutenant that no public meeting of Orangemen should be held on that day; but under the advice of a magistrate, who held that the Lord Lieutenant had exceeded his duty, they did assemble to the number of some 20,000. An enormous number of dragoons and foot soldiers was sent to put them down; but the officers, in conversation with him, admitted that a more orderly or peaceable assembly they had never seen, and they greatly regretted that their orders were so peremptory. He told the officers that he was prepared to accept the responsibility of the proceedings. He should gladly have received a communication from the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Chancellor upon the point, but nothing ever came of it. The statements which had been made in the course of this debate were malicious and calumnious.

said, he rose to order. Was it proper that statements made in the course of a debate should be designated as calumnious?

The words used were "malicious and calumnious," and I think those words should not have been used.

said, he would leave the House to form its own opinion. For himself he withdrew entirely the words he had used. He would quote a passage which deserved almost to be written in letters of gold, commencing, "Justice to Ireland?—Do it," and describing the hatred of Irishmen to everything English. This passage he attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Young had obtained honour of all persons who could appreciate his sentiments, which he with great humility offered to him on that occasion. Before hon. Gentlemen presumed to express the feelings of England they must get repealed that part of our Constitution which required the Queen upon her oath to declare that the things which the poet Young has been engaged in denouncing are blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits. As the House seemed for once in- clined to afford him a hearing, he would state the most unusual and improper mode in which the noble Lord had answered his (Mr. Whalley's) questions about Father Maginn and Bishop Moriarty. He asked whether Father Maginn refused to be sworn against the men engaged in the affray where the police-constable Duggan was shot, saying he was acting as a priest; and whether he had the effrontery to say that he purposely put his handkerchief over his eyes that he might not see who were the parties engaged in the murderous affray; and whether Bishop Moriarty had approved the conduct of Father Maginn. The noble Lord said he had received no information upon the subject, and that no investigation had taken place; but the information contained in his (the hon. Member's) Question was communicated to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who suggested it should be forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant's secretary answered that communication. Notwithstanding this, the noble Lord had led the House to believe that there had been no investigation whatever. He submitted that this must be borne in mind in regard to any matters he might have to submit to the House to justify an inquiry into the present state of the Fenian conspiracy. Last Session he endeavoured to bring this subject before the House; but after an hour's attempt to be heard the Speaker intimated that he could not obtain for him a hearing, and that it would bring discredit upon that assembly if he proceeded further. In yielding on that occasion he thought he had entitled himself to some consideration on the present occasion, when the facts, as they had developed themselves from day to day, had tended very much to confirm the statement he then made, that this Fenian conspiracy was a very serious matter, that there was a very deep and extensive organization, and that the mistakes which had been made by the Government at that time ought to induce them to institute full inquiry. The mistakes and miscalculations had continued since, and there was therefore the more reason now for an investigation of the subject. It was with no hope of restoring peace to Ireland that he proposed this, because the disturbances of 1867, like those of 1848, 1798, and 1641, were due, not to political, but to religious causes. It was said there were religious wrongs in Ireland. Those wrongs were that persons differing from the Roman Catholics in religion were allowed to live, write poetry, speak, and act amongst them. It was a religious wrong that he should be allowed to speak, and the poet Young to write. When General Garibaldi was over here he purposed visiting Ireland, to point out to the people how they could relieve themselves from their troubles; but the most eminent men on both sides of that House, when they heard that such was his intention, hurried him out of the country. He had seen in the handwriting of Garibaldi that which amounted to a statement that he was sent away to prevent his expressing the sentiments which he (Mr. Whalley) was now endeavouring to express. He had lately visited Wolverhampton, Chester, and Liverpool, and found no difference of opinion on this point—that the danger to be apprehended from a Fenian rising was co-extensive with the cause which made the Roman Catholic quarters of those towns the scenes of constant squabbling. The outbreak of Fenianism was for the purpose of supporting an application contemporaneously made to the President of the United States, to declare the Irish republic belligerent, and he had seen a statement to the effect that several of the leading merchants of New York had subscribed 5,000,000 of dollars, to be employed, when England was engaged in civil or foreign war, in fitting out privateers under the flag of the enemy, whether that enemy should be Irish Republicans or foreign Powers. Another statement was, that during Smith O'Brien's rebellion in 1848 a subscription was organized on his behalf in America, some of the subscribers being leading statesmen of the day, including Mr. Seward and Mr. Horace Greely, and that when the rebellion was over 95,000 dollars of this money remained in hand, which sum the Fenians were now seeking to recover. It was said they could not restore permanent tranquillity to Ireland unless they redressed the religious wrongs of the country. No doubt it was a wrong that he was allowed to speak in that House, and it was a most grievous outrage that Mr. Young should be allowed to publish his poetry. According to these persons Ireland could not be relieved from her wrongs till persons of different opinions from the Roman Catholics consented to hold their tongues, and not in any way to interfere with the full exercise of the utmost authority of the papacy. If they could not throw off that yoke, if they must continue to subsidize their irreconcilable enemy, there should at all events be an inquiry into the origin of the rebellion. They would then have no more of those transparent falsehoods about the political wrongs of Ireland being the cause of the outbreak, and they would at all events be doing something to maintain the character of England, if they could not maintain her independence of this foreign power.

said, he was surprised, after the appeal of the hon. Member for Perthshire for the re-consideration of the question of the pension, that no Member of the Government had risen to give any reasons in its favour. The principle involved was a very serious one; and he was surprised to hear it said that anybody who endeavoured to educate himself, or who wrote a book that went down with a certain class of people, was eligible for a pension. This announcement had astonished him. In his country—Ireland—there were many humble men, self-educated men, who had illustrated the language, the history, and the antiquities of Ireland, who had received no pension. But here was a man pandering to the worst passions of our race, by writing, he would not call it poetry, but ribald trash, who was receiving a pension for literary services. If Lord Derby had been assured that the productions were not of a party character that matter should be explained. His own opinion was that Lord Derby had been imposed upon. This was a matter in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might interfere. The right hon. Gentleman was a man himself of the highest literary character, and if he took up by chance this volume and read any page of it, would hardly endorse the exercised discretion which granted the pension in question for such wretched poetry. The Secretary of the Treasury had defended the granting of this pension. But he (Mr. Sullivan) said it was a scandal to the country that such a grant should have been made. It was a great injustice to those who had a claim to a share of the literary fund that a poetaster should be deemed worthy of a pension, and that the bestowal of it should be sustained.

It was my intention to have risen, Sir, when the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) caught your eye; but as he seemed anxious to speak on the general merits of the question, particularly as it related to the country in which this act of patronage has been exer- cised, I was unwilling to interpose. I would mention, in the first place, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the house labours under an error in thinking that this pension was granted from the Literary Fund. The Literary Fund is a private institution, presided over by Earl Stanhope.

said, what be meant was the fund at the disposal of the Crown for Literary pensions.

There is no such fund or bounty in existence, although the mistake is not one confined to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Her Majesty has the power, with the consent of Parliament, of distributing the sum of £1,500 annually in pensions; but that sum is not exclusively devoted to literary or scientific claims, and it is only by the gracious permission of Her Majesty that a portion of it has been devoted to these purposes. It has been distributed ever since Her Majesty's accession, and has not been considered to be a profuse amount; but it was not all destined to be devoted to the claims of literature and science. There is no doubt but that of late years a considerable portion has, by the gracious consideration of Her Majesty, been allotted to these purposes; and I think that, on the whole, the pensions that have been awarded to science and literature have been granted with great taste and discretion by whatever Government happened to be in power. There have been cases, certainly, more than one, in which, upon erroneous statements to persons in authority, pensions have been granted—one, a case of great notoriety, with which the House is familiar. These cases are to be regretted; but we must remember that in granting these pensions, in which the claims of literature are concerned, the Prime Minister cannot always act on his own personal experience. A man of great accomplishments, as Prime Ministers generally are, and as we must all admit Lord Derby to be, will have acquaintance with the merits of literary men of high eminence; but literature is so multifarious in its character, that it is hard for a Minister to know the merits of all who may prefer a claim to the Royal bounty. As a general rule, he must depend on the representation of others. In the case of a great poet, like Mr. Tennyson, or an accomplished scholar, like Mr. Southey, the reputation of the individuals would be a sure guide; but there are many other instances, perhaps a majority, in which pensions are granted without the previous knowledge on the part of the Minister who is responsible. On what, then, must he depend? I take the case of a poet—of a person whom the hon. and learned Gentleman calls a poetaster, or it may be a poet. It might be the case of the author of a Farmer's Boy, or some other work which is now looked upon as a rustic classic. How would it be possible in such a case for a Prime Minister of England to be familiar with the merits of a Bloomfield or a Clare? He must be guided by persons in the locality in which the writer had distinguished himself. Now what happened in the present case? We are told now that this writer is a poetaster, and that his writings are distinguished by very vindictive feelings and the worst passions of a violent political faction. This may be true, it may or it may not be true, and if the test is to depend on my reading this writer's works, I must say, with all respect to the distinguished persons interested, that I would not undertake to read them through. What is it Lord Derby sees? That wonderful and mysterious document which exercises such an influence in all the transactions of public life—a memorial. He sees that, with all that patriotism and liberality which has always distinguished the Irish people, the memorial in favour of this poetaster who had indulged in the worst rancour of Orange politics is signed by a Roman Catholic prelate of that part of the country. It was unjust thus to treat Lord Derby. It was not fair thus to throw him off his guard, to play off this hoax upon him. I am the last man who would reward a poetaster, whether he was an Orangeman or of opposite politics, who attempted by means of his power of versification to propagate opinions of a malevolent description; but I should myself be thrown off my guard if he came recommended by a Roman Catholic prelate, or vice versâ by a Protestant prelate. It was no doubt actuated by the sublimest feelings of charity and patriotism, that the Roman Catholic prelate, in this case, recommended the writer who had attacked his creed and country. I know there is a Christian charity that may distinguish Roman Catholic prelates and Protestant prelates. There is a sublime feeling of forgiveness described by the hon. Member for Longford. And no doubt it was in consequence of this person's continuous attacks on his creed and worship that the Roman Catholic bishop was induced to recommend him for a pension. I think we should take a large and generous view of this case. Lord Derby is, perhaps, by natural temperament too apt to believe what people tell him, and when a man in the position of a Roman Catholic prelate makes an appeal he would naturally believe his statement. Who can believe that Lord Derby would refuse? If he were a cautious or suspicious character he might hesitate. He might think that the man was perhaps a strong political or religious partisan, and that representations had been made to him which the circumstances did not justify. But I look about—I look again at the memorial, and I find that one of the most accomplished men in Ireland, and a practical statesman of the Liberal school, has also signed it. I find attached to it the classic name of Dufferin, a nobleman who is not attached to the party of Lord Derby. I find also the name of a nobleman, a high Wig—the name of Lord Cremorne. Lord Cremorne is particularly anxious that this pension should be bestowed. I say, then, that all these circumstances must be taken into consideration; and when Roman Catholic prelates and Whig Peers and statesmen came forward and pressed upon Lord Derby the exercise of the patronage of the Crown, it is really too absurd to have strictures made in this House as if this was some villanous political job by which some reckless political partisan was to be rewarded. It is quite clear that Lord Derby—perhaps from some error in his education, was not acquainted with the writings of Mr. Young. But when this memorial came supported by Anglican and Roman Catholic prelates, countenanced by endless local potentates, by justices without end, and by the distinguished names of Dufferin and Cremorne—men well known for their acquaintance with literature and science, surely Lord Derby was justified in granting such an inconsiderable pittance. The moral which this case, as well as the whole experience of my life, teaches me is to beware of testimonials. Nobody ever acted on a testimonial who had not afterwards cause to regret it. I am sure that Lord Derby would be sorry to do an unkind or harsh act to any one; but he will notice in the spirit of a man of the world what has occurred in this House, and will do what is proper. In future, when asked to do a similar act by Protestant and Roman Catholic prelates and by Liberal Peers, he will, I am sure, if he possibly can, first read the works of the poet who is to receive the pension.

said, that as this was the same Bill which the late Government had introduced, he had no objection to the House going into Committee on it; but he wished first to know what Her Majesty's present Government intended to do with the subsequent or supplemental Reports of the same Commissioners upon whose first Report this Bill was based. Did they intend to introduce a second Bill?

said, that with regard to the second Report of the Commissioners, which dealt with the official staff of the Court of Chancery, it was considered better to deal with it in an independent Bill; and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill was in preparation and would be introduced as early as possible.

said, that as the Bill proposed the appointment of a Vice Chancellor in the place of three Masters, and as the duties of the latter were to be discharged by chief clerks, with authority and power nearly equal to the Masters, but certainly with not the same amount of legal knowledge, he wished to know if the proposed change would increase the expense to the suitors as well as to the country by the pensions to be granted to the retiring Masters?

said, the procedure of the court would not only be more effective but cheaper. The chief clerks were not intended to take the place of the Masters, but to take the non-judicial business and carry it out under the directions of the Vice Chancellor.

said, there was now much unnecessary expense, attended with delay, owing to the needless multiplication of documents and meetings, which might be avoided by a single Judge taking a case throughout, and he would suggest that there should be two scales of costs—the lower one for cases involving sums below a certain amount.

said, he had to propose an Amendment, which had been formerly proposed by the present Attorney General for Ireland. Its object was to prevent the delegation of duties resulting in the creation of bastard Masters, men not qualified to discharge judicial duties. In form it was to omit certain words, and to insert others requiring that the chief clerk "shall assist the Judge in business not of a judicial character."

said, he would accept the principle of the Amendment.

said, that under the clause as it stood, a chief clerk appointed under this Act would be entitled to set up a claim to be compensated to the full amount of his salary in case of his office being abolished.

said, the clause was like the clause in the Act relating to the officers of the English Court of Chancery.

said, that was the very reason he objected to it. He suggested that if the words "shall hold his office on the same terms as a civil officer" were added, his objection would be removed.

said, he consented to postpone the clause.

moved the second reading of this Bill. He said, that it should be set down for Committee on an open evening, perhaps the 29th April, of which hon. Members should have due notice. If the hon. Member for Manchester desired then to move that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee, he should have an opportunity of doing so.

said, he hoped that the second reading would be postponed, as the measure was of so important a character that it would be better to afford an opportunity for discussing it upon the second reading. He suggested that the second reading should be postponed and fixed for some other day before Easter. He should take an opportunity of moving a Resolution on Tuesday which would have the effect of raising the whole question, which was exciting the greatest interest throughout the country.

said, he should have been glad to follow that course; but there was no Government night between now and Easter on which he could be sure to bring the measure forward again. If, however, the second reading were agreed to, there would be ample opportunity for discussing the provisions of the Bill in Committee.

said, the hon. Member for Brighton could not do as he proposed, and suggested that the Motion for reading the Bill the second time should be put down for Tuesday.

said, that if the Bill were read a second time now, and its further consideration were postponed to a distant day, it would not be in accordance with the rules of the House to discuss it in the interval, as proposed by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett).

said, he wished to ask whether the Government contemplated introducing a measure embodying the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Gangs, the touching disclosures of whose Report he had read with much pain.

said, he apprehended that there would be the greatest difficulty in the way of this being done; and if the hours of labour of these children were to be limited, the only consequence would be to expose them to greater temptations to vice. He hoped the Government would bring other trades under the provisions of the Bill besides those it dealt with.

said, he should move the adjournment of the debate, as he thought it most important that the Bill should be properly discussed.

said, he should support the Motion for adjournment, because he thought it useless to discuss a Bill on the Motion for going into Committee unless the Committee itself was postponed. It was most important that the Bill should be thoroughly discussed, in order that the country might understand its provisions.

said, that the second reading should be adjourned for the present, but still he fixed for a day before Easter.

said, every Government night between now and Easter was filled up; but if the House would consent to the second reading, he would not go into Committee until the Bill had been fully discussed.

said, he thought they ought to read the Bill a second time that night.

said, he trusted that the proposed limitation of hours would not be applied to the glass trade, as that trade could not be carried on within the limits as to time imposed by the Bill. The necessary skill could only be acquired by practice from a very early age.