said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the present tribunal for the trial of Election Petitions is a satisfactory tribunal; and, whether he will consider the advisability of endeavouring to frame Clauses in the Bribery and Corruption Bill which shall define the limits beyond which clerical interference becomes "undue influence," and which shall state the precise amount of violence required to constitute a "general riot" at an Irish Election?

Sir, I hope to obtain leave to bring in a Bill on the subject of bribery, corruption, and undue influence to-night; perhaps I may induce the House to read it a second time on Thursday; and then on going into Committee my hon. and gallant Friend will have the opportunity of suggesting any clause he may deem advisable, if he thinks the provisions proposed by Her Majesty's Government are not adequately efficacious.

said, he was unfortunately not present the previous evening, when the business for Thursday was arranged. He therefore wished to ask, whether the first Order would be the Representation of the People Bill?

Yes; there will be no disturbance of the arrangements made.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Return ordered on the 16th May 1866, relative to the Metropolitan Board of Works, has not been made; and, if he is able to inform the House when that Return will be laid upon the table of the House?

replied, that he was not able to give any precise information to his hon. Friend as to the cause of the delay, the Metropolitan Board of Works not being under the Treasury. He had, however, made inquiry, and found that the preparation of the Returns had occupied a very considerable time, for which he was not responsible. The Return, however, had been laid on the table that day.

said, that the security for the proper expenditure of the Canada loan was twofold. One clause prevented the Treasury from giving a guarantee until they were satisfied that local Acts provided for the raising, expending, and appropriating the loan. Another clause provided that, in the event of any waste or excess in the expenditure of the loan, such waste or excess must be met by the Canadian revenue before any part thereof was applied to any other purpose.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the means adopted by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company for raising the share capital and exercising their borrowing powers under the various Acts of Parliament authorizing the construction of the main line and its extensions and branches. He should be wanting in candour to the House did he not at once state that he felt that he had grievous reason to complain of what he conceived to be the unfair and improper manner in which his name had been so prominently put before the public in connection with this company. It was not, however, upon his own account, but upon public grounds, that he asked the House to appoint this Committee, as he believed that a careful review of all that had transpired in connection with this company by a Select Committee of that House would teach the public some valuable lessons with respect to the legislation in the future for railway companies. In drawing the attention of the House to a few of the main circumstances connected with this company, he might state, in the first place, that the line with its various branches was 136 miles in length, while no less than twenty-six Acts of Parliament, or something like an Act of Parliament for each five miles of the line, had been passed by that House in connection with this company. When the House took into consideration that these Acts had only been obtained after the severest competition and at great cost, he thought it would concur in the necessity for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the expediency of permitting a single company to indulge in such an excess of legislation. The whole line had been split up into five distinct undertakings, having their own separate capitals and interests, which were worked by the parent line at certain fixed rates and charges. No less than thirteen suits in Chancery had been instituted by the various interests connected with these separate lines, to determine the rights of each against the others. There were twenty-four debenture powers arising out of these lines, and there were as many Chancery suits pending to determine the rights under each; there were twenty-nine separate share powers, and there were three separate share powers to be charged upon funds not yet created. He felt strongly that these facts formed a sufficient ground for inquiry by a Committee without personal imputations being thrown upon any one. One fact that had come prominently before him in 1863, when he first knew the position of the company, was that while the actual capital of the company consisted of several millions, the nominal capital, the holders of which alone possessed any control over the company, only amounted to £700,000. He hoped that in all future railway legislation, the House would feel the necessity for making some provision by which the debenture-holders and others having pecuniary interest in a railway company might have a power of veto with regard to the undertaking of additional schemes by the company. He would also suggest that companies should possess the power of abandoning all such schemes as were actually found not to be required, which would be a source of great and immediate relief. With regard to the constitution of the Committee he should wish, if it were appointed, that its members should be chosen by the Committee of Selection, so that it might command the entire respect and confidence of the House and the country. Although in making this application he only had in view the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, yet it would be quite possible, if the House should think fit, to extend the power of the Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with any other railway they might think proper. On these grounds he trusted the House would grant the Committee—and that the hon. Member for Maidstone would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.

I confess that, having listened to the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bristol, I have great difficulty in ascertaining and in recognising the connection between the subject of his Motion and the duty of the House of Commons to investigate it. No doubt we all know that there have been great disasters in connection with the enterprize, and I am sure that all who know personally the hon. Member for Bristol must regret that he has in any way been connected with those disasters. For myself, I may say that I have recognised with admiration the enterprize and energy of his character, and I deeply regret that he should have been mixed up with these troubled affairs. The House must also sympathize with an hon. Member who has sat among us for so many years, and who has shown so many high qualities which entitle him to our respect. Still, I think we must hesitate before we authorize—for the purpose of obtaining some object which it is natural that the hon. Gentleman should wish to attain—an investigation into matters with which it appears to me the House of Commons has no concern. The undertaking with reference to which this inquiry is sought is what, in comparison with the other proceedings of this House, we may call a private speculation, and those who have become connected with it must be prepared to take upon themselves all the responsibilities which may have arisen in consequence of its affairs not having turned out satisfactorily. I ask the House to consider for a moment where the line is to be drawn in the event of our assenting to this application of the hon. Member. If, in the event of any observations having been made upon the conduct of any individual Member of this House, in connection with any transaction, however extensive, we are to be asked successively to grant a Committee of Inquiry, I wish to know where the line is to be drawn? If we are to examine into the affairs of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, whose affairs have never been brought before the House of Commons, and with which the House of Commons has no connection, why should we not investigate the affairs of any other railway company, and why should we limit such inquiries to railway companies, and not extend them to the circumstances attending the failure of any great bank with which any Member of this House might be connected? If we agree to enter into the investigation of the case of this railway company, would not that Member have a right to come forward and ask us to inquire into the affairs of that bank, on the ground that its failure had created a great sensation in the public mind, and that many persons had complained that they had been much injured by the conduct of the managers of the concern—the imputation being altogether false—and therefore that if we would investigate the matter it would be shown that, although unfortunate, the conduct of the managers had been strictly prudent? The energies of the House of Commons are sufficiently tasked at the present moment in dealing with questions affecting the public interest, and I very much regret, therefore, that the hon. Member for Bristol has found it necessary to make this Motion. I cannot advise the House to agree to the Motion; as, if they do adopt it, I am sure they will establish a precedent which they will afterwards very much regret. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member for Bristol persists in his Motion I shall feel bound to oppose it.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Maidstone whether he intended to proceed with his Amendment, an Amendment which, from its wording, seemed to imply that the hon. Gentleman had some charges to make against certain hon. Members in that House?

felt that, after the opinion that had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer given against the appointment of a Committee, he should not be justified in persevering with his Amendment. At the same time, he wished it to be perfectly understood that he was willing to meet the hon. Gentlemen who were mentioned in the terms of his Motion in any way they might think proper.

I do not know, Sir, whether we are to regard the last speech as equivalent to a challenge; but without entering into private matters of that nature, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that an hon. Gentleman has placed upon the notice paper an Amendment couched in language clearly insinuating something amounting to fraud on the part of three Members of this House, and that the hon. Gentleman does not substantiate his charges when called upon to do so. I do not know whether any breach of order has been committed; but, if not, I still think that the opinion of the House ought to be expressed in discouragement of conduct which certainly constitutes a breach of the ordinary course of Parliamentary practice.

said, he desired it to be perfectly understood that if it was the wish of the House he was quite prepared to make his statement.

said, he rose to order. He believed that no hon. Member was in order in bringing under the consideration of the House the conduct of any hon. Member unless the conduct complained of had been committed by the hon. Member accused in his capacity as Member of Parliament or in the House of Commons. He therefore submitted to the House that it would not be in order for the hon. Member for Maidstone to proceed.

A notice of a somewhat personal nature has been placed on the Paper referring to the affairs of a certain railway company, and an hon. Member proposes to add to that Motion "and also into the means adopted" by certain Members of this House "for raising money" in connection with certain railway companies. An hon. Member who spoke just now says that the Amendment contains an insinuation of fraud. The words do not directly bear that construction. Whether anything out of order may arise in the discussion proposed by the hon. Member for Maidstone, it is not for me now to say; but there is nothing in the notice placed on the Paper that can be considered as a violation of order.

I apprehend, Sir, that technically, the hon. Member for Maidstone would be prevented from giving his explanation to the House on the ground that he has already addressed us once. I think, however, that the wish of the House has been misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman in his very natural desire to vindicate himself from any imputation of cowardice in shrinking from proceeding with his Amendment. It was very natural and laudable, too, that any hon. Member who felt himself to be injuriously affected by that Amendment, should challenge its being proceeded with; but I do not believe that it is the wish of the House that that course should be adopted. When my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone rose in his place I expected that he would, as I think he is bound to do, disavow any imputation with regard to the three Members mentioned in the Amendment, and now that no charge has been made against those hon. Members, we ought to regard their conduct as in no degree affected. I trust, therefore, if this discussion does not proceed, as I do not believe it can proceed, that those three hon. Gentlemen, whose high character and untainted honour are well known to us, will be regarded as being still as free from dishonour or suspicion of crime as they ever have been. With regard to the original Motion I have little to say beyond echoing the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both with regard to the just tribute he has paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, a man who has obtained a high position in this country, by the exercise of rare talents, and who has adorned that position by his great virtues, and also in the course which the right hon. Gentleman has recommended the House to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in representing to my hon. Friend that he has no locus standi in this House for proposing his Motion. It may be true, perhaps, that my hon. Friend might be justified in making such a Motion on the ground that railway companies solicit special Parliamentary powers, and that Parliament itself claims greater powers over railway companies than it does over other companies; but still, when it becomes a question of policy, I think that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer are unanswerable, and that we cannot draw the line between the case of those embarrassed railway companies and other companies in positions more or less analogous. The consequence of acceding to this proposition would probably be very considerable embarrassment in the conduct of this inquiry, and undoubtedly great future embarrassment in dealing with the precedent which this Motion would set up. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will consent to withdraw his Motion.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the position in which the question then stood. The hon. Member for Bristol had moved for a Committee of Inquiry as regarded himself, whereupon the hon. Member for Maidstone proposed an Amendment, asking inquiry into the conduct of other Members. The hon. Member placed on the paper, where it remained for several days, a notice reflecting on the conduct of other hon. Members, and when he (Mr. T. Baring) asked him whether he meant to persist in his Motion, his answer was that he was ready to give him any explanation anywhere else, but that it was not his intention to proceed with the Motion. Hon. Members might say that the matter should drop there; but surely when a Gentleman said that although he did not mean to persist with his Motion, he was ready to proceed if the House wished him to do so, there was no real withdrawal of the Motion. He (Mr. T. Baring) thought the House was bound, in justice to the hon. Members whose names were mentioned in the Amendment, to allow the hon. Member to proceed.

said, he addressed the House with the deepest pain. The hon. Member for Maidstone was his Colleague in one important undertaking, and his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was his Colleague in another. For both he had great respect. Some years ago the shareholders and bondholders in the latter enterprize, then in much difficulty, put the whole concern into his hands, and it became his duty fully to investigate everything connected with it, and especially the transactions for which the hon. Member for Huntingdon was responsible, and he was bound in duty to say that he had come away from that inquiry with admiration for the honour, uprightness, and the other high qualifications characteristic of the British merchant, by which the conduct of the hon. Member for Huntingdon had been distinguished. No doubt, the enterprize with which they were now both connected, had been unfortunate; but if men were to be hunted down because any enterprize with which they were connected had been unfortunate, where was this persecution to stop? The hon. Member for Huntingdon had become connected with this undertaking in his capacity of agent for one of the colonies, and he stood by it through good report and through evil report, and risked his own money to a large extent, in order that the work might be completed in its integrity as a property. When the day of settlement arrived, the hon. Member had in his possession securities amounting to several hundred thousand pounds, given to him to cover advances, which he might have realized for his own benefit; but, instead of doing so, he took his position as an ordinary creditor, in a manner that did him infinite credit, and he gave up these securities without condition. As representative of the bondholders and chairman of the company, he felt bound to express his high admiration of such conduct. He might also mention that at a meeting of the company to which he had alluded, at which some of the largest bond and shareholders attended, a resolution of thanks was unanimously voted to the hon. Member for Huntingdon for the magnanimous conduct which he had displayed.

said, he desired to make a few observations, because he was personally interested in the implied charge against those concerned in the conduct of the Grand Trunk of Canada Railway. Any charge with reference to that matter which was brought against the hon. Member for Huntingdon should also be preferred against the hon. Member for Kendal and himself, for nothing connected with the financial arrangements of that undertaking had been done or sanctioned by the one which had not also been sanctioned by the others. He was, indeed, proud to regard himself as included in this implied censure; for nothing had been done in the matter by himself and those associated with him which he was not prepared to justify, defend, and explain in that House or before any tribunal whatever; he would not say "anywhere else," because the phrase was capable of varied interpretations, but he would say that he was willing to meet those implied charges before the bondholders or shareholders, or any tribunal of law or equity.

said, that when he used the words referred to, he meant in that House or anywhere else. If he had appeared to go beyond what he ought to have done, he was now perfectly willing to express that he did not intend to attribute any personal act to the hon. Member for Huntingdon. He had merely raised this question on public grounds, and by reason of the confidence given to the public by so great a name being attached to the guarantee. If he had said one word more than he ought to have done he was willing to withdraw the expression.

said, that the hon, Member for Maidstone had withdrawn the inferred charge against the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who was no doubt infi- nitely obliged to him. With respect, however, to himself, he could tell the hon. Gentleman that he was ready to meet any accusation which any hon. Member might make against him, either in the House or out of it; but he demanded from the hon. Member an explanation as to his grounds for making the accusation he had. As far as he understood the Amendment of the hon. Member, it charged him, in company with the hon. Member for Huntingdon and the hon. Baronet opposite, with some guilty conduct in respect of the raising of money for the Grand Trunk of Canada Railway. As a matter of fact, his connection with that railway was very simple. He was an original shareholder, and had paid cash for the full price of his shares. Originally those shares stood as a first charge on the concern; they had since been converted into a fourth charge, under an arrangement made by the hon. Member for Stockport, who had assured the shareholders that the arrangement referred to was for their advantage. Possibly it was so. [Mr. WATKIN protested that he must explain.] He had great faith in the business qualities of the hon. Member for Stockport. What he had said was not spoken as a covert charge; he had no doubt that the arrangement was to the benefit of the shareholders. Leaving that point, however, he remarked that all he had to say with reference to the concern was, that it had been unfortunate. Still, he insisted that it had been managed honestly; and not a breath of calumny had been raised against its conductors, except what had been thrust upon the House by the hon. Member for Maidstone. He was quite sure, however, that no Member of the House would believe that any of the hon. Gentlemen concerned in the management of that company had done anything inconsistent with professions of the highest possible character. But the hon. Member had also made some indefinite charge against him with reference to the raising of money for the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company. He asked him upon what authority he implied a charge; and, if no charge were implied, then what he meant to convey by his Amendment? The contents of the notice papers of the House were not circulated in the metropolis alone; they found their way to every part of the mercantile world; and the Amendment of the hon. Member, with its implied charge, had gone with the rest. The hon. Member was therefore bound to tell the House what he meant. He especially desired him to explain himself because he courted the opportunity to answer whatever statement the hon. Member might make. He could not, consistently with order, go into the history of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway himself. He admitted, however, that the firm with which he was connected had conducted the legal business of the company for many years; and he ventured to say that there was no undertaking of greater public importance; nor had any undertaking been more independently and honourably promoted. The railway had been originated to meet the requirements of the landowners of Kent; and it had grown as necessity for it arose. It was first a line from Chatham to Canterbury, then it stretched from. Canterbury to Dover, and finally obtained powers to run up to London, when it became a great undertaking. It had been unfortunate, but its misfortunes could not be referred to him; and he called upon the hon. Member to substantiate his charges, or, if he could not do so, to withdraw them. He (Mr. Freshfield) could not be content to ride off on the high character of the hon. Member for Huntingdon, for he also had a character to lose—a character that was very dear to him. He thought the hon. Member for Maidstone owed it to the House to proceed with his Motion.

said, that after the observations which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, he had no choice but to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he could not refrain from thanking those right hon. Gentlemen for the courteous terms in which they had spoken of him. He was especially thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After having sat in the House for twenty years, with the exception of a brief interregnum, in political opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, the remarks which had fallen from him were extremely gratifying to his feelings.

said, he desired to repeat, in behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, that lie had taken action in the matter simply because he was under the impression that the public desired some Parliamentary investigation into the financial questions he referred to. His hon. Friend also wished him to say that his sole motive for withdrawing the Amendment was that the hon. Member for Bedford, who was the Chairman of the Committee of Elections, had told him that it was not the province of Committees of the House of Commons to inquire into matters connected with railways which had not previously come under the cognizance of the House. Thus the motive of his hon. Friend for giving notice of the Amendment was simply a public one; and his motive for withdrawing it was not to be traced to unwillingness to go into it.

said, that the hon. Member for Maidstone ought not only to be ready to retract, but he (Mr. Serjcant Gaselee) thought it ought to be done almost upon his knees. If the hon. Gentleman could not speak himself—if he were a mere puppet in this matter—the hon. Gentleman should have come forward in a manly manner to express regret, and to make apology to those Gentlemen whom he had slandered.

said, that in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People of Ireland, he should desire to explain the reason why on a previous occasion he had declined to relinquish his place on the list upon "a private Member's night" in favour of the Government measure. He believed he was correct in stating that once only in the course of his thirty-five years' experience in Parliament had an attempt been made to oust private Members from the position which they attained by the exercise of much personal watchfulness, and after the chances of the ballot. That attempt was made in the plenitude of Lord Palmerston's sway, and proved unsuccessful. He was very anxious to have an opportunity of laying his views on this matter before the House previous to the Easter recess, so as to obtain the opinions at once of the Government and of the country upon the subject. He likewise felt that a proposal emanating from a private Member might not be inexpedient, seeing that the plans propounded by successive Governments in late years had shown a steady deterioration. By the Reform Act the registered voters in Ireland had certain modes appointed for them by which they might place their names upon the register; £50 and £20 freeholders were enabled to register their right to vote for life, and those having a £10 interest could register for seven years, during which time their votes could not be questioned. When Earl Russell, however, brought forward his Reform Bill of 1850, he disregarded these circumstances. But the Bill of 1850 introduced by Earl Russell terminated in the most unjustifiable manner the rights of these persons. The excuse given was a curious one. These rights were extinguished in order that Ireland might have the benefit of a rating franchise—the very franchise which Earl Russell's Government repudiated last year in England, and went out of office rather than consent to. The nest measure on the subject was that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, which included a provision enabling Irish Peers to represent both county and borough constituencies, which was in direct contravention of the Act of Union. Very short work was made of that proposal; he himself presented to Lord Palmerston a protest, signed by eighty Members, against it, and the matter was abandoned. But more objectionable than anything else which had gone before was the measure which was brought forward last year by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fortescue). It proposed to unite two boroughs, sometimes at a distance of sixty miles apart, and then to semi-disfranchise them. The first glance at the measure suggested that it must have been framed with the object of securing the seat of the principal Law Officer of the Crown. Of course, he did not insinuate that there had been any such object in view; but, remembering the time when Irish business was carried on by Lord Palmerston's Government with hardly any official from Ireland in the House, it was not unnatural that when a Liberal Government had the assistance of two able men in Parliament they should endeavour to keep them there. He did not propose by the present Bill to disfranchise any boroughs in Ireland, but to group with them other towns in the vicinity, so that in no case would one borough have less than 1,000 voters. Neither did he propose, as former Bills had done, to give additional Members to Cork or Dublin. Cork had already eight Members, and admitting it to be the largest county in Ireland, it must be borne in mind that Mayo, Galway, and Donegal, the next in point of size, had only eight Members collectively. What claim, then, could Cork, or Dublin either, successfully put forward to extra representation? One feature of the Bill of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Lancashire—the lodger franchise—he proposed to adopt; but fancy franchises, whether literary or monetary, whether dependent on intellectual or pecuniary qualifications, he entirely threw aside. He proposed that the county franchise should be reduced from £12 to £8; which was the limit originally fixed by the Bill of Earl Russell in 1850, and he knew no reason why it should not be adopted now. Large reductions in the county franchise had been sanctioned, in principle at least, in England. The Government of last year proposed a reduction from £50 to £14; the present Bill fixed the limit at £15. If such large reductions were expedient and proper in England, what reason was there why a corresponding reduction should not take place in Ireland, from £12 to £8? There was another reason in favour of the reduction of the county franchise in Ireland. The reduced amount of the suffrage would give landlords a greater interest in keeping their tenants upon their land, and so tend to diminish emigration. With a reduced borough suffrage from £8 to £4, there would be no difficulty in providing that every existing borough in Ireland should have a constituency of 1,000 voters. Eight towns in Ireland already had more than 1,000 voters, and with these—namely, Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick, Londonderry, Newry, and Waterford—he did not propose to interfere. With twenty-five other boroughs, possessing very small constituencies, it would be necessary to deal. Portarlington, for instance, had only seventy-five voters at present. And what he proposed was, in the case of those diminutive boroughs, to group with them other towns in the neighbourhood, so as to bring up the number of their voters to the prescribed limit. The towns to be grouped were the following:—Armagh, with Portadown and Ballybay; Athlone, with Mullingar, Roscommon, and Longford; Bandon, with Drummany, Macroom, and Bantry; Carlow, with Athy, Tallow, and Bagnalstown; Carrickfergus, with Larn and Antrim; Cashel with Thurles, Tipperary, and Nenagh; Coleraine, with Ballymena, Ballymoney, and Portrush; Clonmel, with Carrick-on-Suir, Carrickbeg, and Cahir; Dundalk, with Kells, Navan, and Trim; Downpatrick, with Newtownards, New- castle, and Donaghadee; Drogheda, with Balbriggan; Dungannon, with Omagh and Strabane; Dungarvan, with Lismore and Cappoquin; Ennis, with Kilrush, Ennistimon, and Gort; Enniskillen, with Monaghan, Ballyshannon, and Cavan; Kilkenny, with Thomastown and Callan; Kinsale, with Skibbereen and Clonakilty; Lisburn, with Lurgan and Banbridge; Mallow, with Fermoy and Charleville; Portarlington, with Maryborough, Mountmellick, and Tallamore; Sligo, with Ballyna, Bailymote, and Boyle; Wexford, with Gorey and Wicklow; New Ross, with Enniscorthy and Tagmon; Tralee, with Killarney, Kenmare, and Dingle; and Youghal, with Queenstown and Middleton. He also proposed to assimilate the Parliamentary and municipal boundaries of towns. This Bill had the merit, or demerit, of not being framed to further any particular interest, but had been prepared solely with a view of giving a fair and full representation to the whole country. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would allow him to bring in the Bill, so that it might be printed and circulated, in order that the Irish Members and the Irish people might at once have an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to its provisions. He courted criticism, was ready to adopt any improvement the House might consider desirable; but, at the same time, was prepared and ready to defend the principle and detail of the measure against all comers.

said, he did not think that the Bill which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had sketched was likely to find much favour in that House, especially since the Government had promised to bring forward a Bill of their own shortly after Easter. In detailing the provisions of the Bill, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had omitted to name the sum at which he proposed to fix the borough franchise. [Colonel FRENCH: £4.] And the hon. Member proposed to have the county franchise at £8, the Government having fixed the English county franchise at £15. This did not seem to be right. The borough franchise in Ireland was now £12, and he did not think it could safely be reduced below that amount. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman then proposed to group towns with boroughs so as to make up the number of 1,000 voters, but perhaps he had not calculated how much the number of such boroughs would be increased when the franchise was brought down to £4. He (Mr. Vance) thought that additional seats should be given for places in the province of Ulster, where there was great increase of wealth and commerce. Some other districts also had a claim for more Members; and, indeed, he thought that Ireland, taken as a whole, had less Members than she was entitled to. He agreed that the proposition to allow Irish Peers to represent constituencies was very objectionable; but he hoped that the Reform Bill for Ireland promised by Her Majesty's Government would be founded on very different principles from those on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had proceeded.

said, that the Government did not object to the introduction of the Bill, as it was desirable that the House should see the scheme which had been framed by so experienced a Member. He must, however, reserve the opportunity of expressing his opinion on the measure until a future occasion.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners on Bribery and Corruption at the Elections for the Borough of Totnes; to the direct interference of the Duke of Somerset in the political affairs of Totnes, which was supposed to have ceased with the year 1863; to the ejectment of Somerset tenants after the election in that year; and to the acts of bribery, corrupt practices, and intimidation habitually practised by Mr. Michellmore, steward to the Duke, and detailed in that Report. He said that he took this course with great regret, because he thought that the punishment which the borough of Totnes was to suffer would be sufficient for all the bribery and corruption which had been practised there for a number of years; and he should have been glad if the scenes that had been there enacted should, as far as the cognizance of the House was concerned, have been buried in oblivion, But a Question had been put to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the other night, the answer to which led him to believe that an act of injustice was about to be committed by that House. He was anxious, before they sanctioned the prosecution of any individual, that they should clearly understand who were the persons most prominent in bribery, corruption, eviction, and the manufacture of votes that had taken place in that borough. Previously to the Reform Act Totnes had been a free borough, untainted with bribery and corruption; but, after the passing of that Act the boundaries of the borough of Totnes were much enlarged. He found this statement in the Report of the Commissioners—

"At the time of the Reform Bill the boundaries of the borough which had been the same as the Manor of Great Totnes were much enlarged, and those that were substituted, though drawn irregularly and from no fixed centre, took in that portion of the adjacent country on which most houses had been built. This portion contained the Manor of Little Totnes and also the Manor of Bridgetown, which was divided from the town proper of Totnes by the river Dart. The owner of both these Manors was the Duke of Somerset, who thus for the first time acquired weight in the political affairs of the then borough."

He might observe that Totnes was not exceptional in that respect. In the settlement of the boundaries consequent on the Reform Act, whenever the property of a Liberal or Whig proprietor was found adjacent to such a place as Totnes, those who had the settlement of the boundaries managed to include that property. After the passing of the Reform Bill, the Duke of Somerset represented Totnes till the death of his father, when Lord Gifford became what was called the ducal candidate. For to such a depth had the borough of Totnes fallen that it was no longer the borough which returned a Member to represent the opinions of the burgesses of Totnes or of the inhabitants of the surrounding district, but it became plain that a Member was returned to represent the interests, and the interests alone, of the Duke of Somerset. The Report of the Commissioners further stated—

"In 1855 the then Duke of Somerset died, and Lord Seymour's succession to the peerage creating a vacancy in the borough, the Earl of Gifford, as the ducal representative, was elected without a contest. We had no proof of any corrupt practices having prevailed at this uncontested election; we have not, therefore, inquired into the details of preceding elections except where they throw light on the conduct of persons concerned in the elections of 1857, 1859, 1862, 1863, and 1865. After the election of the Earl of Gifford the disunion that up to that time had existed in the Liberal party became less, the two sections were brought nearer together, and agreed to work in concert for the furtherance of the Liberal cause. No unity in money arrangements existed, but the exercise of the Somerset interest in favour of the independent Liberal was clearly thought an equivalent for money to be spent by the latter. Although during the life of the Earl of Gifford money was not required to secure his seat, yet throughout the time that he represented Totnes considerable sums were spent in bribery on behalf of the independent Liberal candidate, and on the Earl of Gifford's death had to be further expended in order to protect the Somerset Member, who had hitherto been considered safe."

It appeared, then, that it became necessary, in order to maintain the Duke of Somerset's power and influence, to create new votes; and, as the Reform Act of 1832 had included within the limits of the borough a large portion of the Duke of Somerset's property, the Duke and his agents were thereby enabled to manufacture qualifications.

said, it was not his duty in any way to defend the Duke of Somerset from the attack made upon him by the hon. Baronet. In the first place, he could not defend the noble Duke in this matter, because he was entirely ignorant of the mode in which his Grace managed his property. It was a matter in which he (Mr. A. Seymour) had taken no concern whatever. Whatever information he had on this subject was obtained from the same sources as those which were open to the hon. Baronet. The defence of the noble Duke he believed was in much abler hands than his; but having been referred to so personally by the hon. Baronet, and in terms—the propriety and good taste of which he might be allowed to question—he ventured to trespass on the attention of the House. He would confine himself to replying by a few remarks to what the hon. Baronet had said. In the first place, he could assure the House that he had had no communication with the Duke of Somerset upon this question, having carefully refrained from any such communication either directly or indirectly. Indeed, he was not aware what steps were to be taken in regard to his defence until he had entered the House that evening. He felt that the character of the noble Duke stood far too high in this country to render any defence of his Grace at all necessary. With regard to his (Mr. A. Seymour's) candidature for the borough of Totnes, he had one interview with his Grace, and one only. That interview was fully detailed in the blue book, which was open to the inspection of any Member who was desirous of obtaining a full account of the circumstances of the case. In that one interview his Grace plainly stated that he had no power whatever to name a Member for the borough; but that if he chose to go down as a candidate he might have his (the noble Duke's) support; but his Grace added that his success must depend on himself (Mr. A. Seymour), by making himself agreeable to the gentlemen of Totnes. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh; but he believed it was a notorious fact that the Duke of Somerset at that time did leave the choice of the Member for the borough to the leading Liberals of Totnes. Happening to have been a candidate for Exeter, his name became well known, although he would not say that his relationship to his Grace had not something to do with his nomination as a candidate for Totnes; but having arrived at that point, when he became a candidate, he must entirely decline to follow the hon. Baronet into all those questions and circumstances into which he had gone. Having been absent when the matter was previously discussed, he had had no opportunity of justifying himself before the House. He trusted that in the delicate position in which he was then placed, they would hear what he had to say in explanation, and that hon. Gentlemen would remember that if there was to be retrospective action, it should also include those hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who were implicated in the same degree as himself. He had no wish to justify anything which might have happened. He was, in fact, placed under very peculiar circumstances. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh, and he trusted that they were all of them in a position to be able to deny any accusation that might be brought against them of a similar kind. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon had made broad his phylactery, and had embroidered the hem of his garment with "purity and virtue;" but he trusted when the time came—and it might shortly occur—when the hon. Baronet went down to his own county, they would no longer hear those stories which were so rife in Devonshire and were so well known to all Devonshire men. The hon. Baronet whilst attacking his (Mr. A. Seymour's) noble Relative was endavouring to raise for himself what he might consider an appanage of his house—the enfranchisement of Torquay, and at the same time obtain a lesson of management in these matters. He trusted it would be a healthy constituency; but he could not think that a place "where wealth accumulates and men decay" could produce a healthy constituency. He cordially endorsed the sentiment which the late Attorney General uttered in reference to Lancaster. No man had a stronger opinion than he (Mr. A. Seymour) had against bribery and corruption, and he had always denounced it in public and in private. The late Attorney General said it was in the power of any constituency to prevent bribery, and that 600 pure men might have prevented it at Lan- caster. Now, he was inclined to go further than that, and to say that six leading men on each side could put a stop to bribery in any borough, however large it might be. They might legislate upon bribery and corruption; but, in his opinion, the only effectual mode of preventing it was to bring public opinion, as in the case of duelling, to bear upon it. The hon. Baronet had asked why some were to be brought to judgment whilst others were allowed to escape; but the hon. Baronet had read the blue book to little advantage, if he imagined that the innkeeper, in this instance, was to be tried for bribery. He was to be tried for direct perjury. It was possible, as the hon. Baronet had stated, that some of the great Whig landlords had increased their boroughs at the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, and so had Gentlemen who held opposite opinions and were lords paramount in other boroughs. If, as the hon. Baronet had said, Totnes only represented the ducal house, how was it that Mr. Spofforth, who was in constant communication with hon. Gentlemen opposite, recommended Gentlemen to go down, and with a commercial spirit as it was called, and with money in their pockets, to contest the borough? Could the hon. Baronet defend that conduct? Did he only see the "beam that is in our eyes" and not see the "mote that is in his own eye?" If that was the case, as there was every reason to believe, how could hon. Gentlemen opposite have the conscience to stand up in that House and raise their voices against bribery and corruption? The hon. Baronet had, however, entirely acquitted the Duke of Somerset of any improper action in the election. He said that the Duke did not instruct his agent as to any particular course he was to adopt with reference to the election. Of what, then, did he accuse him? With reference to Mr. Kennard, if the hon. Baronet had inquired a little further, he would have found that that Gentleman did not quit Totnes until he knew that if he contested the borough he would meet with certain defeat. Further inquiry would have shown the hon. Baronet that one gentleman (Colonel Dawkins, of whom he wished to speak in terms of the greatest possible respect) had been told by an agent of the Conservative party that it was of no use to go down to Totnes without an enormous sum of money. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might sneer; but let them take care that their own hands were clean. Now he (Mr. A. Seymour) would inform the House what his conduct had been in the matter. He happened to travel to Totnes in the same carriage with an intimate friend of Colonel Dawkins', and another gentleman, who it appeared was going to Totnes to take off the stray votes and stand the possible chance of coming in with Colonel Dawkins. Upon ascertaining the object they had in view, he pursued a course which he thought every Gentleman so situated should do, and which would receive the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He took out of his pocket his private poll-book, which contained entries of how every elector at Totnes was expected to vote, and handed it to Colonel Dawkins' friend and the other gentleman, in order that they might form their own opinion of their chance of success; and if afterwards they spent their money, and did not come in, it would be their own fault. After looking over it carefully, one of the gentlemen, seeing that it would be hopeless to contest the election, at once returned to London, where, no doubt, he saw Mr. Spofforth. That, he thought, was the best thing he could do between gentlemen. It saved one gentleman, at any rate, from putting himself in a disagreeable position, and had Colonel Dawkins pursued a similar course it would have been better possibly for him also. Though he did not suppose that he had justified himself in the eyes of the House from the finding of the Royal Commissioners, yet he thought that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had found themselves in his position they would have acted very much as he had done. At the time that he stood for the place he was utterly ignorant of its venality, and, considering the particular influence that was offered to him, he thought the most hypercritical Gentleman opposite would have accepted, as he did, that support, and he accordingly paid a certain sum of money—certainly not an extravagant sum, he thought—with which to clear off some back debts and subscriptions. He thought hon. Gentlemen had sufficient election experience to know what back debts were; but after what had been stated by the hon. Baronet he felt bound in justice to himself to make that statement. He paid, as he had stated, not a very extravagant sum for that purpose, and some long time after finding that a certain sum besides had been spent he felt bound as a man of honour to pay that also, and he did so. He only did what every hon. Gentleman would do—repay money which he found had been spent in his service. He had been found by the Commissioners as an approving and assenting party to bribery, when in fact he was utterly and entirely ignorant of it. He had nothing further to say in defence of his conduct, and he thanked the House for having so patiently listened to his statement.

said, that in the observations which he was desirous of making in defence of the conduct of the Duke of Somerset, he should endeavour most studiously to abstain from everything which he might not reasonably hope would command the assent and approval of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, because in a matter of this description he was anxious to avoid anything like a party tone. The hon. Baronet who introduced the subject had stated that it was not his object to bring any individual under the censure of the House; but to advocate impartial justice, in order that all who were implicated in bribery and corruption at Totnes might be dealt with equally and fairly by the House. He did not oppose that principle, neither would the Duke of Somerset, on that or any other occasion. The Duke of Somerset submitted himself unreservedly to the judgment of the House, and to the bar of public opinion. The noble Duke was, the last man who would justify bribery and corruption, and he believed, moreover, that he was the last man whom the House would consider likely to have been either directly or indirectly implicated in anything of the kind. If he were so implicated great would be the sorrow and regret all would feel that a man who had hitherto stood so high in public estimation, who had done so much good service to the country, and who had been so generally esteemed, should have condescended to so great an error. On the other hand, he (Sir Roundell Palmer) felt sure that the House would not very willingly receive or believe vague accusations of that kind, but that they would candidly and fairly do that justice to the Duke of Somerset which would be due to any one of the meanest of Her Majesty's subjects. He asked no more for the Duke of Somerset. The true history of the Duke of Somerset's connection with the borough of Totnes was to be found in the Duke's evidence, appended to the Commissioners' Report, from a perusal of which it would be seen that his Grace's hands were as perfectly clean and pure from any species of participation, either directly or indirectly, in bribery or corruption, or in any other illegal or improper practice, as those of the purest Member of that House. The Duke of Somerset's connection with Totnes commenced in 1834, and he represented that borough for a period of twenty-one years, until in 1855, on the death of his father, he succeeded to the Dukedom. So far from his being indebted for his seat to the use of bribery, corruption, or intimidation, he was, in fact, from the general estimation in which he was held, supported by both Liberals and Conservatives, and was invariably returned at the head of the poll. And when, moreover, an opposition did come, it came from a certain section of the Liberals and not from the Conservatives of the borough. Since he had ceased to be the Member for the borough he had on only two occasions—and only when requested to do so—recommended gentlemen to the constituency. The first was the late Earl of Gifford (at that time he was not related or connected with the noble Duke), and afterwards the present Member for the borough but on each occasion he had acted with the distinct understanding that he could do no more than recommend those gentlemen to the constituency, and that they must do everything else for themselves. In 1863, when his Grace became the lord-lieutenant of the county of Devon, he expressed his desire to his agent to separate himself from the politics of the borough, and he declined from that time to be concerned in the personal selection or recommendation of any candidate. He even ceased to make the moderate payment of £40 towards the bonâ fide registration expenses of the borough, and beyond that he had exercised no kind of influence upon the elections for Totnes, except that which, as hon. Gentlemen were aware, was inseparable from the position of a resident neighbouring proprietor, having considerable possessions and an historical name, if he were a person well discharging his duty in public and in private life. With regard to corrupt practices, the Royal Commissioners expressly exonerated his Grace from any connection or participation in them; the very questions put to him by the Royal Commisioners showed that they had not heard anything that could in the least degree bear the appearance of implicating his Grace in any way with corrupt practices. In fact, the Commissioners stated that down to 1855 no money was spent illegally in behalf of the Somerset candidate; the Duke himself (then Lord Seymour) having been the only Somerset candidate from 1834. The Commissioners stated that bribery was first resorted to by the Conservative party in order to counteract the territorial influence of the Somerset family; and, as the House well knew, the final result was that all parties in the borough resorted to the same practices, but the Duke was in no way responsible, directly or indirectly, for the result. In 1841, when Mr. Barry Baldwin contested the borough on Conservative principles, the Duke of Somerset, fearing that money would be spent, came to an arrangement with the opposite party whereby the representation was to be divided between the Duke and a Conservative. That arrangement continued till 1855, when his Grace ceased to represent the borough; and from that time to the present there was not the slightest suggestion that his Grace was directly or indirectly cognizant that any bribery was going on by his agents or by any one over whom he could exercise any authority or control. The hon. Baronet, he believed, did not accuse the noble Duke of participating in such practices.

said, that his remarks related exclusively to the evictions practised on the Somerset property.

said, he was under the impression that that was the hon. Baronet's meaning, and his explanation relieved him (Sir Roundell Palmer) from the necessity of saying more upon that part of the question. No one could regret more than the Duke of Somerset to find by the report that persons who were undoubtedly his agents—men holding important positions in the borough, and who were the agents also of other lauded proprietors—should have connected themselves with those corrupt practices. He now came to two points, on which the hon. Baronet wished for satisfaction, and he thought he could give it to the hon. Baronet. With respect to the "manufacture of votes," he interpreted the Commissioners' words as meaning not that there had been any illegal creation of fictitious votes with the knowledge of the Duke, but that, the Reform Act having provided that land let with any description of building upon it at a bonâ fide rent of £10 should give a vote, the Duke's agents had, from time to time, made such arrangements with persons of his politics who desired to vote as would qualify them under that provision. As the law stood, there was nothing whatever illegal in the creation of votes by the erection of buildings and the letting of them with land, at a real rent, upon real tenancies, to persons who desired to vote; the tenants were not persons whom it was proposed to coerce to vote against their opinions; they, on the contrary, held the same opinions as the Duke, they wished to qualify themselves, and their wish was responded to. All the tenancies were real; not one of those created with the knowledge of the Duke was even alleged to be fictitious or colourable. Besides this, if any person declined to assent to the proposition that any party to an election might be lawfully assisted by the creation of bonâ fide votes by bonâ fide occupancies, he would present to them another consideration. The practice was, in the first instance, adopted by the Duke's agents strictly as a measure of defence, for an example had been set them by the Conservative candidate, who had manufactured votes in a similar manner upon the neighbouring estate of Gerston; which, at a later period, itself became the property of the Duke. Upon the subject of evictions, he was gratified in being able to state, without fear of contradiction, that the Report made by the Commissioners on the evidence taken before them did not show the least trace of anything like an abuse of the rights of property on the part of the Duke of Somerset. The only cases of eviction mentioned referred to some occurrences which followed the election of 1863; respecting which the Duke of Somerset stated that his agent had indeed told him after the election that he had given notices to quit to several tenants, not because of their votes, but because they publicly boasted of having taken bribes. If more than this was done, it was without the Duke's knowledge, and the Duke's agent, of course, did not state, nor had the Duke any reason to suspect, that he himself had offered bribes. The Commissioners were satisfied with that explanation and made no further inquiry upon the subject. There was one other fact which it was material he should mention—namely, that when one of the Commissioners asked the Duke if any complaints of eviction had ever been made to him, he said he never to his knowledge received any letter of that kind. During the time the Duke was Member for the borough his own conduct was pure, and he maintained the purity of the borough. As to the rights of property, it did not appear that he had on any occasion personally exercised those rights, or authorized any of his agents to exercise them, in a manner which could be regarded as harsh and oppressive. The votes created were bonâ fide according to law. He (Sir Roundell Palmer) had been anxious to lay these facts before the House, because the Duke naturally felt desirous that his name should stand before the country and the House in as fair and pure a position as it had always done.

said, he felt it to be his duty to state certain circumstances which had come to his knowledge. He had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with the Duke of Somerset; but he had had the honour of representing a county in which the Duke had a large property and considerable influence, and he could state that no steps whatever had been taken by the Duke to influence his tenantry; on the contrary, his Grace left them to act entirely as they pleased. There was the prospect of a very severe contest, and he happened to know, from personal acquaintance with the tenantry, that the Duke's tenants had not been interfered with. He and his Colleague were opposed in politics to his Grace, and had the Duke used his legitimate influence they would have been no doubt put to considerable cost and annoyance. He therefore thought it due to the noble Duke to make this statement.

said, he had happened to form a very strong opinion respecting the question of undue influence on the part of the Duke of Somerset, and nothing that had been said during the evening had disturbed that opinion. Commissioners, he noticed, were never very anxious to find fault with great men; accordingly, he was not surprised to find that the Commissioners in this case had not made a very severe report respecting the conduct of the Duke of Somerst. He would ask the hon. and learned Member for Richmond whether the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se did not apply in their cases? There were two men who acted as his Grace's agents. One was guilty of gross bribery, the other admitted that he had accused some of the Duke's tenants, who were favourable to the Tories, of bribery, and that he knew the accusation to be false. He had never read evidence that more reminded him of the Italian Majocchi at Queen Caroline's trial than that given by the Duke of Somerset. It was all non mi recordo. At first there might be a presumption that his Grace's stewards did the right thing, but when their acts became matters of publicity, found their way into the papers, and were afterwards brought out before the Commission, affairs assumed a very different aspect. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether his Grace had discharged Mr. Michelmore? Because, if a man branded as this Mr. Michelmore was did not really act under the Duke's orders, did not take a nod or a wink from the Duke, his continued employment reflected upon the character of his employer.

said, that it was Mr. Michelmore's son who was now agent to the Duke.

Of course; and he would continue to be his agent; and as the Duke's agent, if opportunity offered in the borough of Totnes, things would go on precisely as before. Then it was said that the Duke's tenants were disposed to vote a particular way, and only acted up to their previous intentions; but there was direct evidence that Mr. Michelmore said, "If you don't vote so-and-so, you do not stay." So much, therefore, for the alleged free will of the voters. Nobody had accused the Duke directly of bribery or corrupt practices. But the Duke had broken the Sessional Orders of the House—the value of which no man ought to know better than himself, having been a Member of the House. That those Sessional Orders had been laughed at and utterly put aside by the Duke's stewards or agents there could be no more doubt than that he was now addressing the House. The only thing that he complained of was, that this case was brought forward alone, and that the Resolution had not been made more general, as there were many more names of Peers and Commoners of both parties which were capable of being questioned. There could be no doubt that a very large proportion of Members in that House had been returned by means which violated the rules of the House. No manner of doubt could exist that Members of the Peerage interfered with elections. The evil would go on flourishing and increasing till the House devised some very stringent means of putting it down. Hitherto, instead of being treated as a matter of shame and reproach, occurrences of the kind had been regarded as things of daily occurrence. But now that the light of day had been thrown upon such abuses they became a reproach to the Constitution, and if the House of Commons made light of them they would become a disgrace to the country.

said, that as he first brought this matter before the House by means of a Question, he was glad that the subject had given rise to some discussion. He felt strongly that since the country had incurred the expense of issuing Election Commissions, and the humiliation in the eyes of foreign nations of dragging to light all the abuses of our electoral system, something practical ought to follow the investigation. A different spirit, he believed, animated the House now from that existing in former years, so that these Reports were no longer likely to be cast into the waste-paper basket. He bore willing testimony to the fairness with which the hon. Baronet had stated the case; he had not shrunk from accusing his own party, while substantiating the case against his opponents. But he brought forward the question distinctly as a party question. And it was well that he did so. For if a certain amount of party feeling could be raised, and each side confined itself to attacking the malpractices of its opponents, they might hope that in time those evils would be exposed and checked. The question he himself had put was not at all of a party nature—it related to the alleged embezzlement of £1,200 belonging to Colonel Dawkins. The hon. Baronet made an appeal on the ground that this was a case of high against low, of the rich man against the poor. But if the Government should be advised to take ulterior proceedings, it must be recollected that this fund of £1,200 was available for the defence. He had pointed out that at Totnes perjury and subornation of perjury had been committed, and he had mentioned the name of "Heath and others" instead of including the whole list. The hon. Baronet had taken exception to his mention of Mr. Heath's name singly. He had done so with a view of avoiding unnecessary prolixity, but he would take care on a future occasion to repeat the entire list of names, Liberal as well as Conservative. It was said there was a great difference between the position of the Duke of Somerset and of an innkeeper. That point might be granted, but there was also a considerable difference in the offences with which they were charged. The hon. Baronet was rather late with the Motion he had submitted; and it would be a mere waste of money to go to the expense of printing such documents. In matters of corrupt practices there was, unfortunately, a Statute of Limitations, which he hoped would be removed by the proposed Bribery Bill of the Government. The gravity of offences did not depend upon the penalty which the law imposed. Duelling was regarded long ago in legal contemplation as murder, and yet public opinion always condoned the offence. So it was with bribery and undue influence in the present day. There were numbers of persons, not only in the House, but throughout the country, who regarded such offences as very trivial indeed. In the North of England they well knew that it was not merely the great landowners who exercised undue influence. Manufacturers, shopkeepers, attorneys, the humblest man who felt a sufficiently warm interest in politics were all as ready as a Duke could be to exercise undue influence. He did not think an Attorney General would be well employed in prosecuting for the embezzlement of money supplied for an illegal purpose. But the question of subornation of perjury stood on very different ground, and the Commissioners in their Report insisted strongly upon the fact that they had great difficulty in obtaining information from the witnesses examined before them at Totnes—three separate cases being instanced where parties had been guilty of perjury or subornation of perjury. This was a question which juries and Judges frequently treated with leniency, but it was one which the House of Commons ought to have fairly and fully before their eyes; and therefore he proposed after Easter to bring the whole matter prominently forward. The question of the Duke of Somerset's influence seemed to lie in a nutshell. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Richmond had made a very ingenious defence for the Duke; but the long and the short of it was that the Duke having sat many years ago as Member for Totnes—which was neither better nor worse than the pocket and nomination boroughs represented, not exclusively by noblemen, on both sides of the House—had, since that time, been endeavouring to shake himself free from all evil practices in regard to the borough. No one could doubt that, who read the Report of the Royal Commission in a candid spirit. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House knew that what he was about to assert, as a dockyard Member, was strictly and liter ally true. The Duke of Somerset was the first chief of the Admiralty, on either side of the House, who, as far as he had been able to ascertain, had deliberately set his face against jobbing in the dockyards. As a Member for a dockyard town himself, he could state that Government influence in the dockyards was of no value now to any candidate, and he hoped that system which rendered it valueless would be continued by the present Government. He thought that circumstance ought to be mentioned to the credit of the Duke of Somerset; because he thought that if a man spent his own money and used his own influence for his friends it was not so bad as if he spent the Government money and used the Government influence. It was only by dealing with particular cases and individuals they had put down bribery and corrupting; and certainly he should attack peccant boroughs and peccant individuals whenever he had a chance.

said, he rose only to make one remark in consequence of the concluding observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down—that the Duke of Somerset was the first chief of the Admiralty who had set his face against jobbery in the dockyards. He had the greatest respect for the Duke of Somerset personally, and for the impartiality with which he distributed his patronage; but a more unfounded statement than that of the hon. Member had never been made in that House. He would not go further back in disproof of it than to the Administration of his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War. In 1858, when his right hon. Friend went to the Admiralty, a strong opinion prevailed in many quarters that promotion in the dockyards was influenced by political favouritism on the part of inferior officers. In consequence, his right hon. Friend wrote a private letter to the superintendents of the different dockyards, requesting them to control such improper influences by every means in their power, and during the whole of the fifteen months in which he continued in office he (Mr. Corry) did not believe a single appointment or promotion was made except on the recommendation of the superintendents. He could certainly say that that was the case in respect of the promotions to subordinate ranks which was at his own disposal as Secretary.

said, he had no doubt whatever of the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and he must have been misinformed as to the Duke of Somerset having taken the initiative in the matter referred to. This circumstance only showed how unsafe it was to trust to one-sided statements.

said, it had been brought as a charge by the hon. Member for Bristol against the members of the Commission that they were not over fond of bringing accusations against persons in high places. He thought this was a most unfounded charge to be brought against the Commissioners for Totnes, who had done their duty, and spared no one. He agreed entirely with his Friend the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Bounden Palmer) that the evidence at Totnes had been fairly taken; and he contended that the charge made against the noble Duke by the hon. Baronet to the extent to which it was made was fairly justified by that evidence. The hon. Baronet had expressly stated that he did not charge the noble Duke with bribery or corruption, but with the manufacture of votes. The evidence of the manufacture of votes was confined to certain cases that were specified; while as to the ousting of voters, it appeared that the noble Duke was utterly ignorant that this was done on any other ground than that the voters had received bribes of a very aggravated character, and that they acknowledged having done so. Having gone through the evidence with great care, he thought it right to say that, in his opinion, there was not the smallest pretence for alleging that the Duke was in any way open to the charge of bribery and corruption in the usual sense of the terms; and as regarded the ouster of tenants, it appeared from the evidence that the Duke was not aware that they were removed for any other reason than that of their having received bribes. He believed that the proportions to which the charges were to be reduced were those to which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond had reduced them.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law as related to Mixed Marriages in Ireland. The House was aware that in Ireland marriages celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest between Roman Catholic and a Protestant were by the 19 Geo. II.—the last remnant of the penal laws—declared to be null and void. He did not, however, at the present time, propose to repeal that Act, and for this reason, that the whole question of the marriage law was under investigation of a Royal Commission, and he was willing to wait for their Report. His sole object in the present Bill was to prevent what in all quarters in Ireland and in every country was pronounced to be a crying evil and an abuse. According to the statute to which he referred there would be no doubt that if a man resorted to a Roman Catholic priest, and professed to be a Roman Catholic, and if the priest, believing his statement, solemnized his marriage with a Roman Catholic woman, he could subsequently repudiate such marriage if he could show that he had professed the Protestant religion at any period within twelve months before the ceremony was performed. The marriage so contracted was legally null and void, and the issue of it would be bastards in the eye of the law, while the woman would be left destitute of support. That such a state of thing called loudly for alteration no one could doubt. But his object was simply this—that where a man already married abandoned his wife, and, professing to be a Roman Catholic, subsequently married a Roman Catholic woman, and was afterwards indicted for bigamy, he should not be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and shelter himself under the provisions of this Act of Parliament from the responsibilities of his crime. Unfortunately, this was not a mere imaginary or sentimental grievance. From the time of the enactment of the law down to the present, repeated instances had occurred of men taking advantage of this state of the law. It would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that not many years ago a gentleman, from whose rank and position better things might have been expected, relied on this Act to screen himself from the consequences of his own wrong and to ruin the woman whom in the eye of God he had made his wife, though by the law of man he was enabled to repudiate her. There was another case which occurred in Ireland in 1865, and which he believed was the last case that had occurred. A man who was a Protestant married in 1858 a Protestant woman. He deserted her, and during her life-time he made the acquaintance of a Roman Catholic girl, to whom he represented himself as a single man, and a Roman Catholic. He made the same representations to a priest, and, all the necessary forms having been observed, the marriage was solemnized in the Westland Row Catholic Church, Dublin. The matter became public, and the man was indicted for bigamy. There was no denial of the facts, but the defence of the prisoner was—and his father and brother were brought forward to prove it—that he had been born and bred a Protestant, and that within twelve months of his marriage he had taken part in the services of a Protestant place of worship. The learned Judge (Judge Keogh), who tried the case, was of opinion that notwithstanding this defence, the prisoner was not protected by the Act of Geo. II., and the jury having convicted him, he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. An appeal was however taken, and the Judges who heard the case, with great reluctance, and expressing a strong disapprobation of the existing state of the law, arrived at the conclusion that the ceremony in Westland Row Church was a nullity, and that the conviction must be reversed. The scoundrel was accordingly discharged from prison. The feelings of the Judges who reluctantly arrived at this conclusion might be gathered from the expressions used by them in pronouncing their judgment. Mr. Justice O'Hagan characterized this as the worst and most aggravated of all deceptions practised under the colour of religion. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald described the state of the criminal and the marriage law which would permit conduct like this to take place with impunity to be highly discreditable to the country. Mr. Justice O'Brien concurred in the expressions of regret as to the state of the law which relieved from punishment persons who had been guilty of such scandalous conduct. And Mr. Justice Christian, whose recent elevation to the Court of Appeal was approved of by every member of the Irish bar, said he should deeply regret the decision he was about to give, if he did not feel convinced that the Act of Parliament, which he was compelled to put in force, would not long survive that decision, inasmuch as it was high time that a statute under which such iniquitous profligacy escaped punishment, and which was a remnant of a barbarous and, happily, nearly obsolete code, should be modified or repealed. If any apology were required for his trespassing on the attention of the House, that apology would be found in these facts. The sole principle and object of his Bill was to strike a blow at this iniquity, and to show malefactors that if they resorted to this law to gratify their villany they would no longer be able to do so with impunity.

said, it appeared to him that this question was environed with greater difficulties than the hon. Member appeared to be aware of. The question of mixed marriages had excited a great controversy in Germany, and he should be glad if the ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman could succeed in devising a remedy for the wrongs which he (Mr. Newdegate), equally with the hon. Member, reprobated. The case which the hon. Member brought forward was clearly a case of fraud; but he doubted whether the hon. Member would be able to find a remedy, as he must remind him that frauds of this kind were not confined to mixed marriages.

said, he rose to call attention to the control now exercised by the Secretary to the Treasury over the allowance of expenses to witnesses before Committees of the House. He stated that he was last year Chairman of a very important Committee, and at the end of the Session his recommendation respecting the expenses of witnesses went to the Treasury in due course. A difference of opinion arose between him and the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject. A witness might be summoned, say for Thursday, and it might happen that, owing to a longer time than was expected being taken up with previous witnesses, his evidence might not be wanted on that day. As Committees of that kind usually met only twice a week, the question was whether the witness was bound to remain in town until the following Monday or Tuesday, when the Committee might sit again, or was he at liberty to go down to the country? Who was the best judge to determine that? Was it the Secretary to the Treasury or the Chairman of the Committee? It seemed to him that it should be in the first instance the Chairman of the Committee, and if the Secretary to the Treasury differed from him, the matter might come before the House of Commons represented by a tribunal composed of the Chairman of Committees, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and two or three other Gentlemen of experience appointed by the House. In a particular case to which he was now referring, he, as Chairman of the Committee, had made a recommendation that a witness should receive certain expenses, but the Secretary to the Treasury, by the stroke of his pen, disallowed the expenses, and cut them down to the extent of about £2 10s. That was not a satisfactory position for a Chairman of a Committee to be placed in. He concluded by moving for a Copy of his Recommendation as Chairman of the Committee on Mines, and of the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury.

said, he was not at all sorry that his hon. Friend had brought this matter before the House, because, although it referred to a small matter, the principle involved in it was great. He ventured to submit that in taking the course which his hon. Friend complained of, he had simply been fulfilling his duty and doing that which all his predecessors had done. Only the other day he had occasion to call the attention of the House to the heavy expenses entailed upon the public by witnesses being summoned to attend before Committees on days when they could not possibly be examined, and of witnesses being paid for a number of days when they had only given one or two days' evidence. His hon. Friend was not in the House on that occasion. He regretted this because, although he did not allude to his hon. Friend particularly, the Committee over which his hon. Friend presided was, he might say without any disrespect, a great offender in the matter then alluded to. The total of expenses recommended to witnesses who were examined before the Mines Committee, even after deducting disallowances, was no less than £462. A great number of witnesses were in attendance seven days, and were only examined one day; a few were in attendance eight days, and were only examined one; one witness was in attendance ten days and was only examined four; one witness was in attendance eleven days and was only examined two; one witness was in attendance ten days and was only examined three. He thought, therefore, that in this particular Committee very small care was taken to save the public money by providing that witnesses should only be summoned for such days as they were likely to be required. The first time that the expenses in connection with the Committee on Mines were brought under his notice was upon an occasion when an application was made to him to give compensation to a gentleman who had been employed as agent to keep witnesses together, and to arrange their evidence. He was then told that the Chairman of the Committee had employed a person as agent to ascertain who would probably be the best witnesses, and to settle the time when they should be summoned, much in the same way as was done in the case of Private Bills. Upon hearing this, he said that he did not consider that the expenses given in connection with this agent should be allowed. He knew of no authority for such proceedings. If the Committee required the assistance of an agent for such a purpose the Chairman should not have appointed one, but should have applied to the House for authority to that effect, and he therefore refused to allow the expenses claimed by the agent on that account. The next time that his attention was called to the subject was when the claims were sent into the Treasury on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee. On that occasion the officer in the department who dealt with these things pointed out that in the case of a certain witness from Yorkshire the travelling expenses had been charged twice. He (Mr. Hunt) said that this witness could only be allowed the expenses of one journey up and one journey down. It was then suggested to him that it was possible the witness might have been summoned twice; but upon inquiry it turned out that he had never been summoned at all. Being thus led into some inquiry, he pursued the investiga- tion a little further, and found that out of fifty-one witnesses examined before this Committee only eighteen had received summonses to attend. Had he done his strict duty he should have disallowed the expenses of all the witnesses who had not been summoned. He did not consider that every witness should be allowed expenses who merely tendered himself to the Chairman. The proper procedure would be for the Chairman to intimate to the Committee the witnesses whose evidence might be required; and should the Committee think it desirable to take their evidence summonses should be issued, and no expenses should be allowed to witnesses unless they were so summoned. Everybody knew that there were certain periods of the year when gentlemen from the country were anxious for a trip to London. These gentlemen found out that some subject was being examined before a Committee upon which they had some knowledge. They came into the Committee-room, sat down, and wrote upon a slip of paper to the Chairman that they were from such and such a place, and could give important evidence. Thus if this practice were encouraged, every person who could induce a good-natured Chairman to call him as a witness might get his expenses paid to and from London. Had he therefore, as he already remarked, acted strictly in this instance, he should have disallowed the expenses of all witnesses except those summoned in accordance with the recommendation of the Chairman. What was done in the case referred to was this:—the gentleman employed as agent for keeping the witnesses together took into his own hands the work of getting these persons to appear; and, although the Chairman did not sign their summonses, a claim was sent into the Treasury for their expenses. He went through the claims of these persons and disallowed such as he thought were irregular. The question raised by the hon. Member for the city of Oxford had been on more than one occasion inquired into by Committees of the House. In 1841 it appeared, from the inquiry then instituted, that the Treasury had always exercised a control over these expenses. An officer of the House, in the course of his evidence, distinctly stated that the only effect of the signature of the Chairman to the accounts of expenses was to give the Treasury jurisdiction in the matter and to transfer it into their hands. An officer from the Treasury was examined before another Committee in 1840, and he stated that he could see no advantage that would result from having the expenses of witnesses paid by an officer of the House of Commons, and that the check exercised by the Treasury afforded better security against abuse. That Committee reported upon the subject, placing no limitation upon the Treasury in dealing with the expenses of witnesses, but urging that the expenses should be curtailed by the Chairman of Committees. In 1848 the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure again recognised the control of the Treasury. It would thus be seen that the control of the Treasury in these matters had been recognised by the House, and that the House had never objected to the exercise of that control. He thought, therefore, that in the case now submitted to the House he had acted strictly in accordance with the practice of his predecessors. His hon. Friend stated, that upon remonstrance, the Treasury had allowed one guinea more to the witness whose second travelling expenses had been disallowed. That guinea had not, however, been allowed in order to meet his hon. Friend half-wya; but because, upon further scrutiny, it turned out that the witness might have justly claimed for another day's attendance. He hoped that the effect of bringing this question before the House would be to induce Chairmen of Committees to pay greater attention to the matter than they had been in the habit of doing. He would suggest that Chairmen should in no case send in a recommendation allowing expenses to witnesses unless they had been summoned. It was not right that persons coming to London should volunteer their evidence and then claim their expenses. Unless, then, the House should think fit to express an opinion to the contrary, he should continue the practice he had pursued since he had been at the Treasury, and endeavour to protect the public against exorbitant charges made in connection with witnesses before Select Committees.

said, that if witnesses were sent for, either by summons or by invitation, their reasonable expenses ought to be paid. The allowance for witnesses was very small, and when sent for from a great distance, such as Edinburgh, there was necessarily some delay, because they must be in attendance when called.

said, he wished to correct a misapprehension that the expenses of professional witnesses only were paid, since there was a special scale per diem allowed for tradesmen, mechanics, and others who might be summoned, and recommended by the Chairman to receive remuneration. The hon. Member for Oxford suggested that a Committee should be appointed to act as arbitrators when the Chairman of a Select Committee recommended a certain payment which was dissented from by the Treasury. He did not think that the appointment of such a Committee would effect any good. The amounts to be allowed per day had been laid down, and so far an established rule worked well; but the number of days that a witness need be detained in order to give his evidence must always be a matter of discretion with the Chairman of the Committee, who should make it a point to arrange business so that witnesses should be detained as short a time as possible. The best plan would be for the Chairman of the Select Committee to carefully consider the question and take care that no witness should be detained in town a day longer than was absolutely necessary. A Return of the payments made to witnesses summoned by the Select Committee on Trade in Animals showed how much could be done by the Chairman of a Committee, in the making of arrangements; for, although there were witnesses from all parts—even from the Continent—they were not detained more than three days, except one from Ireland, who was detained six days. The Chairman of a Committee was not absolute; his recommendation was liable to check by the Treasury; and it was not necessary to check the economy of the Treasury, because it was easier for the Secretary of the Treasury to be good-natured, and to consent to any recommendation submitted to him, than to put himself in the invidious position of refusing to accede to it. The only effect of appointing a Committee of arbitration would be that the Secretary of the Treasury would feel that if he put himself in the disagreeable position of refusing to sanction proposed expenditure his opinion might be overruled by that Committee, and he would incur the odium of the refusal without obtaining the result of promoting economy. There was sufficient check at present, for if the claim of a witness was excessive the Chairman of the Committee could refuse to recommend it, the Secretary of the Treasury could refuse to allow it, and if he erred in being too stingy or too liberal the last resort was an appeal to the House.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he must dispute the correctness of the words constituting the preamble of this Bill which, he submitted to the Committee, were untrue in themselves, and were contradicted by the whole course of our legislation. It was not merely on account of religious belief that special provisions were made excluding Roman Catholics from holding the offices of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor of Ireland; but it was because that religious belief was nothing but the outward and visible sign of what might be called a confederacy on the part of certain persons assuming ecclesiastical power and authority to obtain money and to secure influence all over the globe, under the pretence of affording spiritual consolation to those persons who should submit themselves to them. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was, that the admission of those persons to a seat in that House was distinctly coupled with restrictions which one by one and piecemeal were sought to be removed. So far as the Roman Catholic hierarchy were bound by the principles of honour they were bound to accept the Emancipation Act with all its conditions and restrictions; and it was contrary to the spirit of legislation for the past two centuries that these should be swept away one by one. If this were necessary why should not a general Act be passed at once for the purpose. But if this were deemed expedient then our ancestors, from the time of Charles I. and of William III. downwards, must have been under a delusion. When this Bill was first introduced, he stated, and read authorities for his statement, that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were at this moment before the country as organizers of rebellion, and that they had been so since 1862, and he was then called to order, though it was now admitted that that was from a misapprehension. When he last spoke on this subject he was called to order by the Speaker, on the ground that he ought not to say anything offensive to the feelings of Gentlemen professing the Roman Catholic religion; and if the same rule should now be laid down by the Chairman of the Committees, he would return to his house, and remain there until he received a letter from the Speaker, informing him that he had somewhat misunderstood the extent of the restriction imposed on him. It would be impossible for a Member of Parliament to perform his duty efficiently if he were to be restricted in the statement of his earnest convictions, the expression of which should not be offensive to Gentlemen of the Roman Catholic religion, who sat in that House in their legislative capacity, and not as members of the Roman Catholic faith. It was at one time considered offensive to Roman Catholics to say that the earth moved round the sun, and he believed that that statement would still be offensive to Dr. Cullen. He could not therefore consent to hold a seat in that House unless he might have the opportunity of exercising his right of speech in matters which affected the national welfare; and on that ground he had felt it his duty to call upon his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) to answer the statements he (Mr. Whalley) had before made. He had read extracts from the speeches and sentiments of various persons in high authority among the Roman Catholics, including at least one Bishop, declaring that the only reason why they did not come forward and declare their countenance of the Fenian conspiracy was that the proper time had not come, because this country was not at war, because England's time of difficulty had not yet arrived; but that when it did the case would assume a different aspect. The Fenian conspiracy, of which they heard so much, was nothing but the continuation of that long succession—more certain than any apostolic succession—that succession of rebellions in Ireland since 1641, which were the natural result of the doctrines which from Sunday to Sunday were inculcated by the agents of the Roman Catholic Church respecting the "heretics" among whom they lived, and the heretical Government of which they were subjects. The matter he supposed would be treated with the usual contempt, although he had expected that, on the second reading of the Bill, some reply to what he had stated would have been attempted. Instead of treating his statements and arguments with levity it would be much better to answer them; but they were not answered because they did not admit of an answer. He would give a further intimation upon that subject. He believed that the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy were endeavouring to maintain the Fenian conspiracy.

said, he rose to order. The Question before them was, whether the Preamble of the Bill should be postponed; and he would put it to the Chairman whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking to that Question?

said, the Question before them was, whether the Preamble of a Bill for removing certain religious disabilities should be postponed? and that question opened the general character of that measure.

The Fenian conspiracy was at present discountenanced by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and priesthood, because it had for the moment served its turn. But it was still retained, and was not openly countenanced solely because that difficulty of England which was to be Ireland's opportunity had not yet arisen. In confirmation of that view lie would ask the permission of the House to read a document with respect to the authenticity of which he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would afford facilities for proving, in the inquiry with reference to the proceedings of Mr. Justice Keogh. The document had been published in the newspapers of Canada and also in this country, and it naturally excited feelings of apprehension on the part of Protestants or Orangemen living in the midst of Roman Catholics. That document was the following oath which was said to be administered to the Fenian conspiracy:—

"I swear by the Almighty God, by all in Heaven and upon earth, by the blessed and holy Prayer Book of my holy Church, by the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, by her sorrows and groanings at the foot of the cross, by her tears and wailings, by the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, by the glorious apostle of Ireland, St. Patrick,"—

(this is the person to whom Dr. Manning alluded, at least I believe it is the same)—

"by the blessed and adorable Host, by our blessed and holy Church in all ages, and by our holy national martyrs, to fight on the Irish soil for the independence of Ireland until I wade up to the knees in the red gore of the Saxon tyrants and murderers, for the glorious cause of nationality, and to fight until there is not a single vestige, track, or footstep left to tell that the holy soil of Ireland was trodden by the Saxon robbers and murderers; and, moreover, when the English Protestant robbers and brutes in Ireland"—

(it was published in Canada, and in England, and he had fair reason to believe that it was an oath that had been extensively taken)—

"shall be exterminated or driven into the sea like the swine Christ caused to be drowned, we shall then embark and take England and root out every vestige of the cursed brood of the adulterer and murderer, Henry the Eighth, and possess ourselves of the treasures of the beast that has so long kept our island of saints, Old Ireland, in the chains of bondage, and driven us from her genial shores exiles to a foreign land;"—

then came this passage, which he asked the noble Lord to include in the evidence in the inquiry about to take place—

"and I will wade in the blood of all Orangemen and heretics who do not join us and become one of ourselves. Scotland having had her blood shed by the Beast, we shall leave her in her gore. To all this I swear with my eyes blindfolded, not knowing who to me administers this oath."

He would leave it to the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Clare to decide whether he should by anticipation notice that oath, while he was asking them by his Bill to remove restrictions which had been deliberately adopted by Parliament, and which had been accepted by that very power which he represented.

said, he rose to move the omission from the clause of those words which related to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In doing this, he felt that he was separating himself from his party, and he entered very unwillingly into the discussion of questions of that description; but he proposed his Amendment for a variety of reasons, one of which was, that in his opinion every argument which would tend to throw open the Viceregal office to a Roman Catholic would necessarily and irresistibly lead to the opening of the office of monarch of this country.

I rise, Sir, to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland. When this Bill was last before the House, an hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck), whom I do not now see in his place, but to whom I am indebted for much good advice on that occasion, spoke of the pain with which he always listened to discussions of this nature. But he forgot to add—and I may be permitted to remind the Committee—that the defenders of the status in quo can by no figure of speech be said to originate these debates; and as to the pain which they occasion, hon. Gentlemen opposite must not suppose that they have any monopoly of that. If I may judge, Sir, from my own feelings, these discussions are at least as painful to Members on this side as on that. But this is a case in which there is a principle to be defended, and a duty to be done, and which leaves no room for the consideration of what is personally agreeable or the opposite. I therefore think, Sir, we might very well be spared those indiscriminate charges of bigotry and intolerance which (permit me to say) furnish such a curious commentary on some people's enlightenment. Now, I think that I shall state the case correctly if I say that the argument of the supporters of this Bill proceed on this wise. They take, for example, the office of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and divest it of all its other incidents and attributes. They then proclaim it to possess a purely civil and judicial character, and as such to be fairly open to the just ambition of the Roman Catholic. Indeed, they contend that it is only proceeding in the spirit of the Act of 1829 so to open it. And I will frankly admit that if they could establish their position, it might be extremely difficult to resist these claims. Accordingly, to suit this train of argument we have lately been favoured by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with a new and startling theory of the office of Lord Lieutenant. We are told that he is "a mere wheel in the Executive machine, receiving his impulse from an official, who may be a Roman Catholic." Is that a description, Sir, which exhausts the attributes of the Lord Lieutenant's office? Has he no representative position? I always thought he was, in an especial manner, the direct representative of the Sovereign in Ireland; that as such he held Courts, and conferred knighthood, and was prayed for in the Churches, and wielded the prerogative of mercy, and exercised a special supervision over the Irish branch of that United Church of England and Ireland, of which the Sovereign is the head. What other officer in the United Kingdom so distinctly exercises Viceregal functions? And then, Sir, as to the statement that he receives his orders from the Home Secretary, who may be a Roman Catholic, it would be more accurate, and more in accordance with the theory of the Constitution, to say that the Home Secretary, who may be a Roman Catholic, transmits the orders of the Sovereign, who must be a Protestant. The orders are not his own, they are merely transmitted through him from the Sovereign to the Sovereign's representative. It is then, Sir, on the connection of the Lord Chancellor with the Lord Lieutenant, and of the Lord Lieutenant with the Crown, that I, for one, rest my objection to this clause; and I conceive that considerations of a similar nature were present to the mind of the author of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, who, wishing to guard the principle of the Protestant succession to the Throne, drew those lines around it which it is now sought to remove—leaving the Lord Chancellor of England and the Sovereign isolated in the necessary profession of their Protestantism. Passages abound, Sir, in the speeches of the late Sir Robert Peel, showing that he ascribed to the Roman Catholic system—viewed in its relation to civil society—a special aptitude for encroachment and aggression, and a singular impatience of equality, which induced him, by way of precaution, to lay upon it those restrictions—I suppose, Sir, I must not call them "weights"—of which it is now sought to get rid. And when I make that statement of an historical fact, how am I met? It is not contradicted, for it cannot be; but the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose absence I again regret, meets me with a question of this kind, "Was that the position in which the hon. Member for Cheltenham considered himself in reference to the Roman Catholic? Did he want the Roman Catholic to be weighted because he was a better man than himself?" That is a question which I shall answer with another, going more directly to the point. "Was that the position in which Sir Robert Peel considered himself in reference to the Roman Catholic? Did Sir Robert Peel want the Roman Catholic to be weighted because he was a better man than himself?" The idea, Sir, is preposterous. Sir Robert Peel was dealing with a system viewed in its relation to civil society, and it never entered his mind to institute personal comparisons, which least of all men he need have feared. Sir, he feared the system and took the precautions which I have described. Those precautions I believe to have been wise. As such they are regarded by the great body of the people of this country. As such I have ventured to defend them with my voice, and as such I shall support them by my vote. But do the events of recent years lend any colour to these views? Why, what has occurred, Sir, even in the present Session? The noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas) no sooner announced his readiness, upon a late occasion, to yield in the matter of the Lord Chancellor, than up rose the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and "trumped" him with the Lord Lieutenant. And in the same manner, if my noble Friend had "led" the English Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman, I presume, would have had no option but to play "his Queen." And all the while, Sir, arbiter pugna,œ there sits the hon. and learned Baronet watching the game in which, whoever else may lose, he and his friends can hardly fail to win. But the people of this country—the Protestant people of this country—are no party, Sir, to these transactions. They view with repugnance and alarm concessions of which they understand neither the motive or the necessity; and further concessions will assuredly give rise to a loud and angry protest on their part. And even now, Sir, I sometimes think that we may hear the first mutterings of the storm. Be that as it may, we are going to enfranchise the Members of a class which views these encroachments with peculiar jealousy, and who, with that vigorous one-sideness which is at once the forte and foible of their character, are certain to make short work of Motions of this kind and their authors. I therefore am convinced, Sir, that Roman Catholic gentlemen, fortunati nimium sua si bona nôrint, fortunate as the subjects of a Protestant Sovereign and the citizens of a free country, would do well to pause before it is too late, and to accept the Act of 1829 as a settlement to be respected and maintained. When this question, Sir, was last before the House, many of Her Majesty's Ministers were unavoidably absent. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Absent in attendance, I believe, upon the Sovereign; but I hope that we shall now receive from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer an explicit statement of their policy—a statement which shall leave no doubt that it is a policy Conservative of the Protestant Constitution of this country.

said, he would venture to suggest that both the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House upon this question had mistaken the principles of the Constitution of this country, which were not founded upon the idea of excluding any person from the councils of the Sovereign, or from office, on account of religious opinions. If he recollected rightly, it was Lord Bacon who contrasted the citizenship in this country with the citizenship of the Roman Empire, showing that while in the latter there were various forms of citizenship, that privilege in our own country was complete and entire; and that everybody, unless there were some special reason to the contrary, was eligible for office under the Crown. The adoption of a contrary opinion would be not only an abridgment of the right of the subject but also an abridgment of the prerogative of the Crown—for it was the undoubted prerogative of Her Majesty to select for the performance of public duties such persons as she might think fit. He felt convinced that the two hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee had not adduced a single reason in proof of the assertion that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought not to be a Roman Catholic, or to show that any danger would arise from such a selection being made. The hon. Member who commenced the discussion had stated that this would be a step towards getting rid of the Protestant succession; but the Protestant succession rested upon the principle that the majority of the people of the United Kingdom were Protestants; consequently, the arguments of the hon. Gentleman—if they possessed any force at all—would go far to show that Ireland, being a Roman Catholic country, ought to have a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant as her Governor. He begged the Committee to remember that the question they were discussing was a serious one. It was the one referred to in the preamble of the Bill—that of religious equality; and without that religious equality the people of Ireland never would be satisfied. As long as there was a distinction made between the majority and the minority of the people of Ireland to the disadvantage of the majority, so long would there be discontent in that country. Discontent would produce its legitimate and illegitimate results, and would lead people who were otherwise loyal to act in a manner in which unfortunately too many persons in Ireland were now acting with regard to the Constitution of this country. He could only express his deep conviction that there never would be thorough peace in Ireland until complete religious equality had been established in that country; while if, on the other hand, they established that equality, loyalty and order would prevail among a people who, as a rule, were more strongly inclined than most other people were to pay respect to authority.

I do not know, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick is aware of the extent to which his argument may be carried. He states, that the only reason why the monarchy of this country is Protestant is that the majority of the people are Protestants, and that it is by their will of the hour that the monarchy is Protestant. He seemed to justify the retention of the Protestant character of the monarchy of this country on that ground, and to remain satisfied with it. But then the right hon. Gentleman turns to Ireland, and, speaking as if with authority, said that the people of Ireland are Roman Catholics, and that unless complete religious equality was established in that country they would never be satisfied. I am quite aware that the Roman Catholic Members from Ireland have unanimously adopted that opinion under the instructions they have received; because, Sir, we have recently seen in the Roman Catholic papers an authoritative letter from Dr. Moriarty, who claims, legally or illegally, to be called Bishop of Kerry, setting forth that view. He has no right to the title by law; but he assumes it, and he has stated the argument which has met with the approval of Gentlemen opposite. I fully admit that Cardinal Legate Cullen and all the prelates and priests who are under his authority hold that doctrine with respect to Ireland. And what does it lead to? It leads to this—that Ireland is to be governed upon principles different from those on which England is governed. Now, one of the most distinguished Irishmen of modern times, one who commanded largely the support of his countrymen, held that opinion. That is the opinion which was held by the late Mr. O'Connell, who throughout his life agitated for the repeal of the Union, and consistently; for unless the same principles of Government are to prevail in Ireland as those which prevail in England and Scotland, the Union is an abuse. Mr. O'Connell, in his repeated declarations against the Union, was consistent; and the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick goes directly to this, that the Union ought to be repealed. The right hon. Gentleman was also pleased to say that it was an undue limitation of the prerogative of the Crown that any person whom the Crown might nominate or wish to nominate to an office should be excluded by law on account of his religious belief. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that the prerogative of the Crown is limited by the Act of Settlement and by other laws of this country. He seems to have forgotten that since the year 1688, if not before, but certainly since the Revolution, it is provided that the Crown of this country shall be held upon certain conditions, defined by law, which were first embodied in the Bill of Rights, and then with the Bill of Rights were embodied in the Act of Settlement, and that by the Act of Settlement the Crown is limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, being Protestants. The right hon. Gentleman has been pleased to give his own definition of the prerogative of the Crown; and there is an exact authority for the definition he has given which I hold in my hand. It is the Declaration which James II. issued. I have that Declaration here, and with the permission of the House I will read the substance of it. The right hon. Gentleman will then see how precisely he has enunciated the very principles for attempting to enforce which James II., with his descendants, was expelled from the Throne of these realms. The pith of the Declaration is contained in these extracts—

"His Majesty's Gracious Declaration to all his Loving Subjects for Liberty of Conscience.

"We cannot but heartily wish, as it will easily be believed, that the people of our dominions were members of the Catholic Church."

And that I have no doubt is the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.

"We humbly thank Almighty God it is, and long time has been, our constant sense and opinion, which upon divers occasions we have declared, that conscience ought not to be constrained, nor people forced in matters of religion. It has ever been directly contrary to our inclination, as we think it is to the interests of Government, which it destroys by spoiling trade, depopulating countries, and discouraging strangers; and, finally, that it never obtained the end for which it was employed, &c. We therefore, out of our princely care and affection unto all our loving subjects, that they may live at ease and quiet, and for the increase of trade and the encouragement of strangers, have thought fit, by virtue of our Royal prerogative, to issue forth this declaration of indulgence, making no doubt of the concurrence of our two Houses of Parliament, when we shall think it convenient for them to meet, &c. And, forasmuch as we are desirous to have the benefit of the service of all our loving subjects, which by the law of nature is inseparably annexed to and inherent in our Royal person, and that none of our subjects may for the future be under any discouragement or disability, who are otherwise well inclined and fit to serve us, by reason of some oaths and tests, that have usually been administered on such occasions, we do hereby further declare that it is our Royal will and pleasure that the oaths commonly called the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and also the several tests and declarations mentioned in Acts of Parliament made in the 25th and 30th years of the reign of our late Royal brother, Charles II.,"—

These are the very tests we are now called upon to deal with—

"shall not hereafter at any time be required to be taken or subscribed by any person or persons whatsoever, who is or shall be employed in any office or place of trust, either civil or military, under us or in our Government; and we do further declare it to be our pleasure and intention from time to time hereafter to grant our Royal dispensation, under our Great Seal, to all our loyal subjects so to be employed, who shall not take the said oaths or subscribe or declare the tests or declarations in the above-mentioned Acts and every of them."

Now, Sir, it was for issuing that declaration, which the Bishops refused to have read in the churches; it was because James II. sought to thrust these principles upon the people of the United Kingdom, that the House of Stuart was deposed and banished the country. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been so outspoken, because he has been labouring for years among the oaths and declarations required by the Constitution of this country, to which he has now pronounced his emphatic hostility. He has declared emphatically that Ireland will never be satisfied, and that the inducements to revolt and rebellion never will cease, until the English people abandon the Protestant Constitution under which they live—that Protestant Constitution which they established by a revolution; that Protestant Constitution which secured their liberties; that Protestant Constitution which, I believe, they are prepared to defend. Sir, it is very fortunate that we have at last an explicit declaration upon this subject. I admit, to the right hon. Gentleman, that there are as many circumstances at the present time which might induce the House to consider whether it would not be advantageous to repeal the Union and govern Ireland upon different principles to those which are applied in England. Look at the existing state of things. The Habeas Corpus Act is suspended in Ireland. If we are to govern Ireland upon the principles of James II. we have it upon the authority of Mr. Hallam that the object of that monarch was to get rid of the Test Act and the oaths, because they prevented the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, and also to get rid of the Habeas Corpus Act, because he held that that Act limited the absolute sovereignty, which he desired to establish. The sovereignty being absolute would exactly coincide with the prerogative the right hon. Gentleman wishes to establish, and of which he says the laws he now proposes to abolish are an infraction. Strange to say the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal party have for years past been proceeding upon the policy of James II. Why, during the reign of James II. many of the ultra-Nonconformists hailed his adoption of that policy, for they believed that under his notion of religious equality they were to enjoy perfect freedom, but the King and his advisers knew better than that. They held out to the Dissenters and Liberals of that day the repeal of the Tests Acts; but they took care to keep in the background the fact that they meant also to abolish the rights and the freedom which the people enjoyed under the Habeas Corpus Act. They did not inform the people of this, until near the close of the unhappy reign of James II., when he showed clearly that he meant to govern absolutely, and without Parliament. It is said if the Union was repealed, that it would be difficult to re-establish the Irish Parliament; but, according to the principles enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, Ireland ought to be governed without any Parliament at all. In other words, as the hon. Member for Clare hinted the other day, Ireland ought to be governed as a dependency. But since I pointed out where these principles would lead them, his supporters have cooled in their enunciation, if not in admiration of them; but, basing my argument upon the principles of your legislation, and the speech made by so influential a Member from Ireland as the right hon. Gentleman, I have a perfect right to show you the direction in which you are tending. It is well known that the establishment or ascendancy of the Roman Catholic Church is everywhere adverse to free and Constitutional Government. Take the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion, and with it you take absolute government. Have the events even of recent times been swept from your memory. Have you forgotten that the Jesuits in Naples professed openly to the late King—not the exiled King, but his father—that their order was devoted to the establishment of absolute government? It is a well-known fact. It is contained in a document, which has been published—a thing that is seldom done in such cases. There was a slight difference between the late King of Naples, the father of the present deposed King, and the Jesuit Order; and the latter published—as I observed they rarely do—a document, in which they professed their adhesion to the Neapolitan dynasty, because it was an absolute government. You cannot deny that these principles—the principles that have been enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman—the principle of throwing open all offices indiscriminately to persons of every and any creed, and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, which the right hon. Gentleman avowedly seeks on every occasion, involve the establishment of absolute government; and if you wish that Ireland should be governed as a dependency, perhaps you may be gratified by a repeal of the Union, and by seeing Ireland governed as a dependency. Desiring to preserve to you not less than to ourselves the Constitutional freedom which we rejoice to have extended to our fellow-countrymen, I cannot obliterate from my mind all the warnings of history. I and those with whom I act refuse to abandon the securities provided by the Constitution under which we live, and the laws which give it force. Say what you will, you cannot change the nature of a religion. The Protestant religion tends to freedom—the Roman Catholic religion tends to absolute government. And not even at your own request, prompted by those who seek to establish in Ireland the domination of a foreign Power, not even at your own request will I consent to sacrifice, at the dictation of the misguided zeal by which you are directed, the liberties that you now enjoy, and which the proposal before the House tends to endanger.

said, that not long since a Bill was passed in that House for the Confederation of the North-American provinces, but no one thought of proposing any restriction on the religion of the representative of the Sovereign in Canada. And yet what difference was there between Ireland and Canada, except that Ireland was nearer? There was a very large Roman Catholic population in Canada. Lower Canada was chiefly Roman Catholic, but no restriction had been made upon the religion of the Viceroy. If the restriction was needful in Ireland, surely it ought to have been carried out in Canada. He wished to put it to the Scotch representatives in that House what would be the feelings of the people of Scotland if a representative of the Queen were living in the old palace at Holyrood, and the law provided that that representative should not be a Presbyterian? If those hon. Gentlemen who represented Scotland would for a moment reflect upon that point, and would take into consideration the propriety of acting towards others as they would wish to be done by, they could have no hesitation in voting in favour of the present Bill. He must express his surprise that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire should have taken exception to the remark of the right hon. Member for Limerick, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not cease to agitate for perfect equality. Three-fourths of the people of Ireland were Roman Catholics, and though he was as thorough a Protestant as any man in that House, he thoroughly sympathized with and felt the justice of their agitating upon this ques- tion. If Members of the Protestant Faith constituted three-quarters of the population of Ireland, and were situated as the Roman Catholics in that country were, would they not, he would ask, think that they were acting in a manner derogatory to their dignity as men if they did not, so long as they believed there was a chance of attaining their object, agitate for a change analogous to that which was now proposed? It had been suggested that the Act of Settlement was imperilled by this measure; but he could no more imagine the possibility of a Roman Catholic Sovereign of England than he could imagine the possibility of a Protestant Emperor of France. In each country the Faith of the Sovereign would be determined by that of the great majority of the population. If they were settling this question he urged them to settle it entirely, and not leave behind one disability to remind the Irish people of the whole series of disabilities which had existed 100 years ago.

said, that he must regard the proposal under discussion as a new chapter in the history of Papal aggression. Sir Robert Peel, before he became a convert to the expediency of granting a Roman Catholic emancipation, prophesied that if such a measure were to pass, there would be a number of Roman Catholic Members in that House who would act together as one man, and who, holding the balance between the two opposing parties, would be able in time of difficulty, as it were, to control both. An instance of the correctness of that prophecy was, he believed, furnished on the present occasion. Nobody would some time ago have foretold that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have consented to give up so completely the Irish Lord Chancellor, or that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire would have bid higher still by giving up the Lord Lieutenant. Let the Committee reflect on some of the minor consequences of what they were asked to accede to. It was distinctly provided by the Act of 1829 that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should not be a Roman Catholic, and the office was in every respect a Protestant office. The Lord Lieutenant, as a Protestant, attended the Chapel Royal each Sunday. Was it to be turned into a Roman Catholic chapel if a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant were appointed, as would no doubt be the case, to conciliate the support of the small party who held the balance of power between the rival parties? The Lord Lieutenant had attached to him a dean, sub-dean, and thirty-six chaplains, and he should like to know, in the event he had described, what religion the dean, sub-dean, and thirty-six chaplains were to profess? The Lord Lieutenant had considerable ecclesiastical patronage. By what tribunal was it to be exercised if the holder of the office were a Roman Catholic? The fact was, that if it were enacted that the Lord Lieutenant might belong to the Roman Catholic persuasion, the whole office must be re-cast. The Committee, he might add, was asked to proceed on a most dangerous course. The other evening certain Roman Catholic Members proposed and supported a Bill for the repeal of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, but others, more wary, opposed it, because they saw that it affected England as well as Ireland, and they feared that the attention of English Protestants might be directed to projects which had lately been brought before the House, and that public indignation would be roused so as to render their success impossible. The precedent which would be established by permitting a Roman Catholic to be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would soon be insisted on in England to the extent of a person of that persuasion being held eligible for the Crown of Great Britain, and so the Act of Settlement would soon be set aside.

said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, practically, according to his own arguments, appeared to be the only Member of that House who advocated the repeal of the Union between England and Ireland.

The hon. Member has totally misrepresented me. I opposed principles which I believe would lead to a repeal of the Union.

said, he considered that the most successful agitators for a repeal of the Union were those who opposed the application of the principles of civil and religious liberty and the establishment of perfect religious equality amongst all Her Majesty's subjects. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) opposed the Bill because it would lead, as he thought, to a repeal of the Act of Succession; but in no respect was the Lord Lieutenant included in, or affected by, the Act of Succession. The hon. Member further said he feared that the Lord Lieutenant's chaplains would become Roman Catholics, but that was no argument against the Bill. The measure was founded upon the principle of the establishment of perfect, civil, and religious equality in Ireland, and he thought it would commend itself to the common sense and justice of every Member of that House.

said, that the hon. Member for Dublin had invited the opinion of a Scotch Member, and he would candidly give it to him. The Scotch Members did not come there asking for a Lord Lieutenant for Scotland; they did not want such an officer. The people of Scotland were too economical and would not sanction such waste. That House had twice voted that the office of the Viceroy of Ireland should be dispensed with; and the late Duke of Wellington, in one of the last speeches which he made, prevented that consummation from being attained, asking with whom the Home Secretary could communicate on Irish affairs in the event of the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenant, and whether he was to do so with the Lord Mayor of Dublin or with the Mayor of Kilkenny, who was at that time in gaol for rebellion. If the Lord Lieutenant were to go away altogether from Ireland and take his thirty-six chaplains with him, there would be an end to the question now before them.

said, there were two things which ought to take place before they went to a division—the one was that hon. Gentlemen opposite should allow one English Member on the Liberal side of the House to speak on that question; and the other was that time should be given to the Government to pronounce their opinion upon it. It would, he thought, be very unfair towards the Irish Members to go to a division before they had heard the views of the Government; and, on the other hand, the Liberal party ought not to leave the conduct of the debate entirely to the Irish Members. The Motion of the hon. Baronet ought to be accepted and indorsed by the Liberal party, which had gained many victories in the cause of civil and religious liberty in conjunction with the Irish Members, whom, he was sure, that party would not desert when such an issue was raised. He was sorry that the Amendment had proceeded from his side of the House. He knew there was some truth in what was urged by certain hon. Members opposite—namely, that there was a large body in this country who viewed with some alarm these aggressive Motions, as they termed them. But if there was one duty which seemed to him more incumbent than another in these cases upon English Members of Parliament, it was to speak plainly to their constituents if they put pressure upon them on subjects of that kind. [An hon. MEMBER: There is no pressure.] He said there were many constituencies which were alarmed at Motions like the present; and hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered him when he made use of that expression; and the Members for such constituencies ought to tell those whom they represented that they had to deal, not only with questions affecting England, which was Protestant, but with questions affecting Ireland, which was Roman Catholic; that, however much their constituents might be opposed to Popery, "No Popery" could not be the cry for a country where four-fifths of the people were Roman Catholics. How was it possible for Parliament to govern Ireland satisfactorily if the views of that class of Protestants were to be enforced upon that country? He would ask the House whether any real danger had been pointed out as likely to arise to Ireland from the appointment, even if it were made, of a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant for that country? Hon. Gentlemen opposite confined themselves to going back to the Act of Settlement and the reign of James II., as if it was not because what had been done had not been done completely that they had failed to satisfy Ireland and had left her as discontented as she was unhappily seen to be. For these reasons it seemed to him the last vestiges of religious disability ought now to be swept away. They knew what was the matter with Ireland—that it was outraged national sentiment to a great extent. If so small a Bill as that would soften existing asperities in any degree, the Liberal party would do well to support it; and he had some confidence, after the course they had taken on the second reading, that the Government would share in the views he had expressed.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to this fact, that Ireland was not altogether a Roman Catholic country, for there was a numerous body of people there who were essentially Protestant; and even if they were small in number their views and feelings should not be ignored in that House.

said, he at first thought that it would have been better for his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clare to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and to have allowed the question of the Lord Lieutenant to remain for future discussion; but he now thought that the time had arrived when such discussions should terminate in that House, and that the name of Roman Catholic disabilities should never again be heard within those walls. When his countrymen looked for a redress of their grievances to the Imperial Parliament, it was a sad and embarrassing reflection that, owing to the effects of misgovernment, British troops were now again pursuing the footsteps of Irish armed insurrectionists, But to the present hour—and the best working half of the Session was drawing to its close—not the slightest remedy or palliation for the evils afflicting that unfortunate country had been applied. He regarded the present measure as an insignificant one; but it was, perhaps, as large a measure as was within the scope of a private Member. Larger measures must originate with the Government. But up to this time no proposal had been made, except a proposal for the continuation of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and one for the permanent fortification of the police barracks in that country. When they considered how few Lord Lieutenants could be Roman Catholics, and also how little the Lord Lieutenant had to do, except to administer the laws, it was an insult to Protestantism, and to its hold on the affections and conditions of the people of this country, gravely to argue that its interests were in any way bound up with or dependent upon the maintenance of a Protestant Viceroy in Ireland. With equal justice it might be said that this Motion went to the abolition of the standing army, or to the repudiation of the National Debt, as that it aimed a blow at the Protestant succession. If any man were to assert that these Protestant institutions were not deeply rooted in the hearts of the people of England they would be very much offended, and utter an indignant denial if they were told that these institutions could be affected by the question whether the Lord Lieutenant was to be a Roman Catholic or not. He could understand those who wished the Bill to be rejected altogether; but he could not understand those who drew a distinction between the office of Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant, and thought they were open to the charge of inconsistency. It was said that there was a settlement in 1829, and that the Roman Catholics ought to be content with that settlement. He denied that there was any such settlement. There was no bar in that Act to prevent Roman Catholics from asserting their rights. There was no finality except that of complete equality. It was an injustice in the year 1867 to quote Sir Robert Peel as an authority in favour of these invidious distinctions. Were that statesman now alive, he believed he would regard what at one time might have been safeguards as irritating sources of discontent. He hoped the Committee would accept the Bill as it originally stood, and reject the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City has just asserted that we all know what is the matter with Ireland. I can assure him, as far as I am concerned, that I do not share that knowledge. I know he is a very able man, and he must be a very favoured one if he has thoroughly mastered the causes of disaffection which afflict that country. I think the debate of this evening must have given us all reason to feel that there is some truth in the observations I am making. At this moment Ireland is the scene of a conspiracy constantly on the point of breaking out, and for which no one has yet assigned any authentic reason—which is not national—which is not indigenous—which is said to be imported—and which, if it does not come from the other side of the Atlantic, is assisted by sympathies on the European Continent. There can be no doubt that certain effects are produced by these extraneous agencies, which are extremely inconvenient, not only to those who govern, but also to those who are governed. I am therefore surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have announced so distinctly that we are all acquainted with the causes of the disorders and discontents of the country, which certainly appear to me to deserve the deepest consideration, but which may also perplex the most attentive. In the course of the debate to-night considerable reference has been made to the conspiracy now so prevalent in Ireland, and its causes have been attributed to the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood. I do not want to go into details on that subject—one that might lead to controversy and divert our attention from what is before us as a simple matter; but I could not allow the observations which I have heard, and heard at much length, charging sympathy and connivance with the Fenian insurrection to the Roman Catholic priesthood, to be made, without rising and stating, as a Minister of the Crown, that from our experience of all that has passed with regard to this unfortunate conspiracy and insurrection, and with regard to all that is occurring even up to the present moment, we have had no cause to feel any distrust of the loyalty of the Roman Catholic priesthood. And I will go further and say that to their sympathy with the Crown and the interests of England—to the information which they have given—to the general information and valuable knowledge which they possessed and have afforded, we have been much indebted and greatly assisted in the management of affairs of extreme difficulty; and, although we have been obliged to have recourse to severity, I trust the country will feel that it has not been an extreme severity, but that it has been tempered with that discretion of which real force knows how to avail itself. With regard to the present question before us, it is very important that we should distinguish between the nature of things which seem similar, but which are really distinct. The conditions on which the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act was passed are not part of the English Constitution. They were a statesmanlike settlement, and, as a statesmanlike settlement, they were adapted to the time and circumstances with which those statesmen had to deal. They were founded, no doubt, partly on principle and partly upon expediency, and, generally speaking, they were adjusted to the requirements of the period to which they related. But although I look upon those arrangements as the arrangements of very wise and considerate men, I do not hold that we are foreclosed from revising the policy under which those arrangements were recommended to Parliament. Now, with regard to the two particular offices touched by the present discussion, my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, with the frankness and clearness which distinguish him, made a statement to the House some time ago, in which I entirely agree. I believe from what I myself heard some years ago from one who was a great authority connected with this settlement, that the intrusion into the arrangement of the office of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was a step founded in error. It arose from a misconception of the circumstances connected with that office, and from the mistaken belief that it was identical in its attributes, influence, and patronage with the office of Lord Chancellor in England. The Lord Chancellor of England is placed in a peculiar position with regard to the Church of England. He has great control over the patronage of the Church, and he is peculiarly the Adviser of the Crown in all matters connected with the Church. That is a very good reason why we should maintain in the Constitution of this country that the person who holds the office of Lord Chancellor of England should profess the Protestant religion. But there is not now, mid there never has been, anything in the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland which renders it unfitting that it should be held by a Roman Catholic. It is not connected with Church patronage, nor does it possess any peculiar relations with the Established Church in Ireland. It is simply the highest legal office, and as such the greatest prize that can be enjoyed by the legal profession, and it is therefore desirable that every Irishman, whatever his creed, should have the opportunity of obtaining that high dignity. But there is a very great difference between the two offices of Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant; and even if the distinction were not so complete and absolute as I think it is, it would be, in my opinion, the most unwise and indiscreet act for the Roman Catholics to press a change in the law in respect to the office of Lord Lieutenant. That would be a course which would only revive prejudices and re-call animosities which I had hoped, if they had not been entirely banished, were greatly appeased. The Lord Lieutenant is the direct representative of the Sovereign of this country, and he is placed in intimate relations with the patronage of the Established Church of England in Ireland, and it would be a most unwise course for us to sanction a change that would create great distrust and dissatisfaction in the minds of the population of this country. Therefore, the course originally taken in this debate by my noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was discreet and wise—a course founded on principle, while to proceed further than the line which he indicated would very much offend the feelings of a great majority of the population of this country. It would, at the same time, create consider- able distrust and alarm, and be an obstacle to the encouragement of those feelings which I have always endeavoured to foster; and instead of inducing that equality of position and sentiment of which we have heard so much, would rather tend to produce exactly the reverse. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I shall support the Amendment, which is in unison with the policy of my noble Friend. I am quite willing to open to Irishmen, whatever may be their religious creed, the office of Lord Chancellor. I see no reason why difference of religion should be a bar to any Irishman arriving at that distinction. But I cannot sanction the other part of the Bill; and I believe that we shall be acting a discreet and proper part by determining that the relations of the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the Crown and the country shall not be changed in the manner proposed.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken on this subject with a moderation and with a studious and unaffected concern for the feelings of the people of Ireland, which, in my opinion, do him honour. But, at the same time, I think it must have been obvious to the House that in the argumentative portion of his speech he felt the difficulties of his position; and to use an old and familiar expression drawn from a high source, "his wheels drave heavily." The right hon. Gentleman must be conscious that it is upon grounds of no breadth that he offers a resistance to a most important portion of the Bill. He commenced his speech by stating that he did not pretend to know the source of the evils of Ireland, and it would be most presumptuous in me to contradict him, or to assert for myself any such knowledge. But although it may be true that there are ancient wounds which we cannot heal, and which perhaps are not yet probed to the bottom, still physicians when dealing with the constitution of a patient, even when they doubt as to the ultimate seat of the disease, have recourse to alterative methods, by which they can soothe, if with limited benefit, and which they confidently hope will do something to mitigate the disease. Admitting frankly the fairness of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that if we strictly observe the paramount principles of civil justice—if we carefully attend to the susceptibilities of national feelings—although we may not go straight to the core of the evils of Ireland, we shall assuage their intensity and prepare the way for the ultimate operation. The right hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between the two offices of Lord Lieutenant and Lord Chancellor. He says with regard to the former that its occupant holds a peculiar position with regard to Church patronage. The Bill, however, proposes to divest a Roman Catholic Lord Lieutenant of the exercise of that patronage; and, in the second place, even if it did not, the fact would still remain that the Lord Lieutenant has not one shadow of the higher responsibility with regard to ecclesiastical patronage. Whatever he does is done under the responsibility of the Ministers of the Crown. Then we are told he is a representative of the Crown. Certainly he is the representative of the Crown on all matters of dignity, of ceremonial, of courts, drawing-rooms, and on public occasions, when ladies are presented to him, and in various functions of that description. But this is not to be denied, that the constitutional responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant is inferior in dignity and weight to that of the Ministers forming the Cabinet, and that still the very place of the Minister who specially superintends the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his duties—namely, the Secretary of State for the Home Department—may at any time be filled by a Roman Catholic. The right hon. Gentleman has said that those who propose and support this measure will in pressing it revive prejudices and excite animosities. But when we are told that we are not to apply to Ireland principles different from those which we apply to England and Scotland, say that the same principles, so far as they are consistent with the unity of the Empire, should be consulted in framing the laws and institutions of each country. My belief is, that to follow out to their natural conclusion, courageously, prudently, but firmly, the principles of strict civil justice is the way not to weaken and disparage, but to confirm and consolidate those institutions. The right hon. Gentleman says, that to press these claims would awaken animosities and revive prejudices. Where? In Ireland? No, but in England. But is that a sufficient reason why a majority of the people of Ireland should be debarred and deprived of enjoying a matter of a civil right, because the minority allege that their prejudices would be wounded? Now, I ask, is that a fair, generous, and equitable mode of handling this question? Is it a mode by which we may seek to soothe the sore and wounded feelings of the people of Ireland, if, on a question that is not English, but Irish, we are to say to the people of Ireland, "Abate your rights, do not urge your demands, because we who inhabit England and Scotland in a matter purely Irish declare we have prejudices which you must respect?" There is no man in the House, I think, who seriously would urge or could possibly believe—certain I am that the right hon. Gentleman will not seriously urge and cannot possibly believe—that danger would result to the Constitution, the Church, and the religion of the country by the contingency—not arising at the moment, but should it ever arise—by the holding of the office of Lord Lieutenant by a Roman Catholic subject of the Queen. I am only doing the right hon. Gentleman justice when I point out to the House that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech made no such allegation. He rested his opposition on the question of the ecclesiastical patronage of the Lord Lieutenant, which the Bill proposes to take away; he rested it on the representation of the Crown by the Lord Lieutenant, which representation is exercised under the control and responsibility of the Government and a Minister of the Crown, who by the existing law may be a Roman Cotholic; he rested it on the prejudice of this country, to which it would be most unworthy of us to give weight as against the civil rights of a people who are not English, but Irish. But of danger to the Constitution, the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word; and I am persuaded that he believes that danger to be a phantom. If danger there be, it is in this:—in slackness, in reluctance, in niggardliness on our part in dealing with those claims of Ireland which are founded on justice. But to extend largely and liberally civil equality to the entire of Her Majesty's subjects in these kingdoms is the true way of consulting the interests of the religion, the Church, and the Constitution of this country.

said, that in the debate on the second reading, the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland called his attention to the fact that the Lord Chancellor had some jurisdiction in the appointment of delegates for hearing ecclesiastical appeals, and was an ex officio trustee of certain Protestant charities. He had consequently prepared a clause providing that when the office was filled by a Roman Catholic those functions should devolve on one of the Chief Judges, being a Protestant.

Sir, the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) having assigned no reasons whatever for his introduction of this Bill in the present Session, I am bound to conclude that he is actuated by the same reason which prompted him to bring in this Bill last Session. These were that the Declaration, prescribed by the Act of Charles II., which is embodied in the Act of Settlement, and by that Act is required to be made by the Sovereign of these realms at his or her coronation—that this declaration of adhesion to the Protestant religion is considered so offensive by Roman Catholics, that they will not permit any Protestant officer of State to pronounce it. Now, I beg the Committee to observe how these matters proceed. We have had an eloquent oration to-night from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition against preserving any office to persons of the same religion as the Sovereign, and every argument that the right hon. Gentleman used struck directly at the principle that the Sovereign ought to be a Protestant. I know there is a most extraordinary indifference to these Constitutional questions in this House. In my experience I have never known a Parliament in which the principle of religious indifference, to say the least, was so manifest as in the present. It appears to me that the opinions of the Protestant people of this country are neglected and wilfully violated; every principle they most value is bartered away for the sake of the political convenience of the moment. I am happy to say, however, that the people of this country are at last becoming sensible of this; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire and his Friends may disregard the opinions of their constituents, I have reason to believe that gradually their constituents are coming to the conclusion that, unless they act with energy, the government of the country must eventually and permanently lapse into the hands of the only party in the House who consistently seek to establish the domination of the power they represent—I mean the power of the Papacy. I know that this feeling exists. I know also that it is justifiable. I am, nevertheless, most desirous of avoiding anything needlessly offensive to my Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. I therefore propose an Amendment which would remove from the declaration certain words that they deem to be objectionable. That these words are offensive, however, is a new discovery; for this declaration has existed ever since the reign of Charles II.; and it has only just been discovered by the Roman Catholic Members of this House, that it is an offence on the part of Protestants if they express their religious opinions. Whilst hon. Gentlemen are proclaiming the doctrine of religious equality in this House, his Holiness of Rome is denouncing that principle; commanding his officers to abjure it; forbidding them to unite with any other religion whatever, and urging them to be more and more exclusive. Nevertheless, with characteristic carelessness, the more stringent the directions issued from Rome and the more evident the obedience which they command, the more lax is the guardianship extended to the Protestant Constitution of the country by this House. There is a good deal of idle declamation about the bigotry of Protestants; but what bigotry can be greater than that of a Bill by which the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholic body forbid the Protestant officers of the State to express their religious convictions in a form that has existed and been in use for more than 200 years? Can any intolerance surpass that? Why, Sir, it would have been but decent that a Protestant should move this Bill; but no, it is reserved for a Roman Catholic, an active, energetic, zealous Roman Catholic, in obedience to his superiors, to desire that the House should abolish a declaration made by the Protestants. I confess that to me this appears an act of aggressive intolerance that ought to excite a just indignation throughout the country. If Protestantism is to be strong, however, Protestantism must continue to be tolerant. I propose, therefore, that whilst retaining the requirement for the declaration of those opinions, which constitute the distinctive features of the purity of the Protestant faith, as contrasted with what we believe to be the corruptions of the Church of Rome, we——[Laughter from Sir George Bowyer.] The hon. Baronet opposite is ever the exponent of intolerance, and was never more so than in the manner in which he has just given vent to his feelings. [Laughter.] Why, look at him now! Is he not the very picture of sarcastic intolerance? Anything that is said in the course of debate which is not agreeable to him he laughs at or flatly denies; and after having himself expressed in this House extreme Roman Catholic opinions, no sooner does a Protestant Member rise to propose the removal of what he himself proclaims to be offensive, than the hon. Baronet receives him with interruption and ridicule. This Bill marks another step in the career of concession to the Papacy. That is the sense in which it is moved, and it is in that sense I resist it, and I resist it in this manner—by seeking to substitute for a declaration, which is asserted to be offensive in the terms in which it is expressed, another that cannot be fairly said to be so, though about the meaning of it there can be no mistake, inasmuch as it distinctly repudiates the doctrines of the Church of Rome to which Protestants object; but it is free from every offensive word that might serve as a hook upon which the hon. Baronet might hang his ribaldry. For this purpose, and acting under the advice of Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir James Whiteside, I prepared this Amendment last Session. I will not read the terms of the existing declaration, because I am told that those terms are offensive; but I will read the words of the two articles of religion which are embodied by reference in the declaration I propose to substitute for the present; because I wish to show to the House that there is in them no expression which should be offensive to the Roman Catholic, who is really liberal, really tolerant of the opinions of others. For 300 years the Protestants have thus declared their rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation—that cardinal dogma of the Church of Rome. The 22nd Article of Religion, as received by the Church of England, runs thus—

"The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of reliques, and also invocation of Saints is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."

It is not possible that any terms should be more studiously void of offence. And the other Article, the 28th, is to this effect—

"The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

If you study that article you will see that it is couched in terms, which are the least possible offensive, consistently with the utterance of an entire repudiation of the doctrine to which it refers. After giving the matter, therefore, the fullest consideration, and after having had the advice of Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir James Whiteside upon the point, I came to the conclusion that it would be impertinent on my part to suggest any other terms than those contained in some formula, issued by authority, such as are the Articles of Religion. It has been a rule of this Protestant country for 300 years to require from Protestants a declaration of their faith, and to accept them upon their own declaration as thereby qualified for high office. I wish to avoid the consequence that must follow the passing of this Bill as it stands. The object of the Bill is this:—that whereas some few high officers of State, who are still to be of the same religion as Her Majesty, have for 300 years been required to make the same declaration of faith as Her Ma- jesty, thereby declaring themselves to be in religious communion with Her Majesty, that henceforth the Sovereign shall be isolated in declaring her adhesion to the Protestant faith. Pass this Bill, and no officer of the Crown or of the State will hereafter be required to make either the same or an equivalent declaration to that which is made by Her Majesty. Thus you deprive the Sovereign of the security that she has a few high officers of the State avowedly of the same religion as herself. Besides, let it be remembered that our Sovereign is a lady, and surely that ought to command for her some consideration on the part of this House. If it be wise to maintain the declaration by the Sovereign of adherence to the Protestant Faith, it is also wise to require some of the great officers of State to make the same or an equivalent declaration; it is wrong, it is inconsistent with every feeling of loyalty, to allow the Sovereign to be isolated in making a declaration of faith, which this House will, if it passes this Bill, have stigmatized as offensive. If the profession of Protestantism by these officers of State is condemned by this House, how long will it be before an assault is made upon the Act of Settlement itself? and that will be the next step. In these liberal days I know that large sections of the House think lightly of these matters. But I speak in the presence of many Members who remember the late Lord Lyndhurst, a man who was no less remarkable for the liberality of his opinions than for the clearness of his perception. His liberality, indeed, was undoubted; for he was the great promoter in the House of Peers of the measure for admitting the Jews to seats in Parliament, and when Attorney General he drew up the Roman Catholic Relief Bill; yet Lord Lyndhurst, in the last great speech that he ever made, declared that he could conceive no greater misfortune for his fellow-subjects than that the throne of this country should again be occupied by a Roman Catholic. Sir, it is in defence of that great principle—the principle that the Sovereign of this country shall be a Protestant, and therefore tolerant, and therefore of a religion and of a disposition consistent with the Constitutional freedom which has stood firm amongst us for centuries, whilst it has waxed and waned in Continental countries—it is in support of this great principle that, whilst asking the House to remove every just occasion of offence, I pray the House, by adopting my Amendment, not to allow Her Majesty to be isolated in declaring her adhesion to that Protestant Faith which, thank God, most of us in this House profess; would that many more defended it earnestly!

said, that the object of the Bill was to abolish one of the most offensive declarations which the ingenuity of man could devise, and it was directed against some of the most sacred tenets held by Roman Catholics. The declaration was one which had to be taken by the Lord Lieutenant and by all the holders of offices for which Roman Catholics were ineligible. The Bill would not open any office to Roman Catholics which they could not hold now. It was supported last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whom he regretted not to see in his place at that moment, and on the second reading was carried in that House by a majority of more than 2 to 1; it had been sent up to the other House, but at too late a period to be considered. On that occasion the noble Lord the chief of the present Government stated that he thought it could best be considered after the Oaths Commission, which was then sitting, had made its Report. No doubt the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was less offensive; but it referred to the Thirty-nine Articles, which contained expressions in reference to Roman Catholic doctrines which were offensive, and it also contained for the first time a reference to purgatory. The Bill would not in the slightest degree interfere with the Coronation Oath. The declaration contained in the oath was worthy of consideration by the Commission. He thought it also ought to be abolished; but the present Bill only referred to declarations taken by Her Majesty's subjects.

said, that there was a disposition last year to reject the Bill because the Commissioners on Oaths had not then presented their Report, and as they had not yet reported, the reason for delaying the Bill still existed. It was true the Bill had gone up to the other House last Session, and had not been proceeded with; but he had good grounds for believing that it was the determination of the Government to have rejected it.

said, that though the Commission referred to had not yet reported, a more important Report in reference to this question had been made. A Commission had been appointed to consider what declarations ought to be taken by holders of office, not being laymen, belonging to the Established Church. On that Commission were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Primate of the Established Church in Ireland, several of the then Ministry, the present Home Secretary, and some of the most prominent men, lay and clerical, connected with the Irish Established Church. That Commission unanimously reported that this very declaration which the present Bill proposed to abolish was one which ought to be abolished, and it had accordingly been abolished. The hon. Member now proposed to add another declaration which had reference to purgatary. Now, there was a homely saying in Ireland which would apply to the hon. Member, which was that, "if he did not like purgatory, he might go further and fare worse."

protested against these continual concessions to the Roman Catholics.

said, he must repeat his objection to the Bill, that it transferred to the Consolidated Fund certain charges in connection with criminal offences hitherto borne by individuals without any of the forms prescribed by the House having been gone through. That was a proceeding which was of an inconvenient character and formed a precedent which the House ought to resist. He hoped the House would require the examination of the charges by a Committee of the whole House, and would not admit that, in consequence of an arrangement between the promoters of the Bill and the occupants of the Treasury Bench, that they were bound to include these expenses in the Estimates, and vote them year by year.

said, that the proceeding that was proposed by the Bill was in accordance with an arrangement suggested by Sir Robert Peel in 1846. He took it that they were doing nothing more than was done when the cost of prosecutions was first thrown on the means voted by Parliament, as was done by Sir Robert Peel in 1846. He gave great consideration to the suggestion of his hon. Friend, and though he was at first anxious to assent to such a clause, he had afterwards concluded that considerable difficulty would arise on the question of expense. He believed that if the Bill were passed into law, the expenses of prosecution would become considerably lessened; because under the present law there were often three or four witnesses summoned to one fact, and therefore the public would probably be materially benefited.

said, he thought there were reasons why they should not argue too rapidly from the precedent of 1846. The measure of that year was carried under circumstances of extraordinary pressure, and since that time a keener eye had been kept upon the public expenditure. He accepted the declaration of the hon. Member that the House would be as entirely free to consider the subject when the Vote for the expenses of criminal prosecutions was proposed as if the present Bill had not passed.

said, that if the Bill were passed into law the expenses would be provided for in next year's Estimate.

did not think that this Bill would decrease the cost of prosecutions.

said, that great care and caution should be exercised in the prosecution of the works, and he believed the estimate he had formed as to the expense of the armament would be found to be correct. He had no doubt our interests would be well protected by the present Secretary at War.

said, that experiments had proved iron fortifications to be most efficient for defensive purposes, while iron plates introduced into masonry formed a most imperfect defence.

explained that iron shields, which would be expensive, were not provided for by this Bill. It merely provided for the re-appropriation of money already granted. The subject of iron plating would, however, receive his most careful attention.