said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, as a Conditional Order has been granted by the Court of Queen's Bench to quash a Presentment of the Kerry Grand Jury, enabling Mr. Crosbie of Ardfert to close up the roads leading to as well as the Tower of Ardfert, it is not illegal for Mr. Crosbie to take any further steps in the matter, pending the final decision of the Court of Queen's Bench? He might, perhaps, be allowed to add that he has been informed that the proceedings of Mr. Crosbie have created great consternation amongst the people; and that he asked this Question in order, if possible, to prevent any rioting or breach of the peace in the neighbourhood.

said, in reply, he was not aware that it was the province of an hon. Member to ask Questions of the Law Officers in reference to a civil case pending before a Court of Justice, and as this was a Question of that sort he could not enter into any explanation of it. In fact, the matter to which the hon. Member's Question referred was entirely one of a private dispute. It was one in which the Attorney General had no right or power to interfere, and, as he had told the hon. Member privately yesterday, if there were any legal remedy it could be sought in the ordinary way.

, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill said, it was a measure which would be received in Ireland with a great deal of gratitude. Its object was to oblige Irish landlords to contribute directly to the county cess; to effect an equitable distribution of it between the landlord and the tenant; and to give the occupiers some control over the expenditure, by fuller representation of the cess payers at the presentment sessions. At present all the cess was paid by the occupiers, and the landlords paid none of it, or only paid the cess on any tenements they held in their own hands; though the improvements effected by the expenditure of the cess in the formation of roads increased the value of their property. As Grand Juries were at present constituted, the cesspayers had really no voice in the determination of the amount of cess to be levied.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stacpoole) would not press the second reading, as the whole question of the Grand Jury Laws, which involved the subject dealt with by the Bill, had been referred to a Select Committee at the instance of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French). The House, having taken that step, would not think it right to express any opinion upon the subject till the result of the labours of the Committee should be known. The county cess was not wholly paid by the occupier. The proprietors paid their proportion of it. It was, in fact, a charge upon the land, and it came eventually out of the landlord's pocket. It might be a subject for the Committee to inquire into whether, in reference to future lettings, the incidence of the county cess should not be assimilated to that of the poor rates; but existing contracts could not be disturbed without inflicting great injustice. He begged to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

agreed with the noble Earl in thinking, that while the Select Committee was sitting it would not be expedient to go on with the present Bill; but he suggested that the Bill might be read a second time on the understanding that it would not be pressed further on at present. If, as the noble Earl had stated, the landlord in reality paid the cess ultimately, that fact would constitute a strong argument in favour of the Bill, as the landlord could suffer no wrong in being required to pay directly what he at present paid indirectly.

hoped the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would agree to the suggestion of the noble Earl, and postpone the second reading. He was not prepared altogether to oppose a measure of the kind; but he thought that the present time, when a Select Committee was taking into consideration the whole question of the Grand Jury laws, was inopportune for the discussion of the Bill.

joined in requesting his hon. Friend not to press the second reading at present. In Ireland there were many tenants-at-will who held their lands upon an understanding that their rents should not be increased; but if this Bill should be passed in its present shape he feared these rents would be increased, and that, in consequence, much heartburning would be created in Ireland.

said, the Select Committee had been arranged since this Bill was brought in by his hon. Friend, and therefore he did not think it would be fair to stop its progress in a peremptory manner. He would suggest that the second reading should be agreed to, upon the understanding that the Committee should be postponed till after the Report of the Select Committee.

said, it appeared to him that the principle of the Bill was not objected to, and he would therefore suggest that, after the second reading, it should be referred to the Select Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon.

expressed a hope that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would consent to the second reading, in order that the Bill, might then he referred to the Select Committee on Grand Juries, lately appointed. The principle contained in the Bill was a very important one; and if the noble Earl would not yield to the appeal made to him by so many Members, he hoped his gallant Friend would go to a division, so that those who, like himself, considered the present system an unjust and impolitic one, would have an opportunity of recording their protest against it. Hon. Members opposite had stated that when a tenant took a farm, he knew he was to pay all the Grand Jury rate, and that he got his land for less in consequence. No doubt the tenant did know he was to pay all this rate, but he never could calculate what it would amount to; and then it was pretty certain that there was little abatement in the rent in consequence of the landlord not having to contribute a portion of the tax. The anomalies connected with the levying and expenditure of county cess were remarkable. One of the great principles of the Constitution, which says there shall be no taxation without representation, was flagrantly violated. The man who paid the tax, with few exceptions had no voice whatever in appointing those who were to expend it; and, practically, he had no control over that expenditure, no matter how extravagant it might be. To speak of the associated ratepayers was absurd—they were the nominees of the Grand Jury, and even if a few of them would venture to act independently, they could be overborne by the magistrates associated with them. As the law stood, the landlord had every inducement to heap as much cess on the tenant as he could. For if, by the contributions of the latter, better roads and bridges and other works of utility were constructed near his property, the latter would be enhanced in value, and the poor tenant, as often occurred, would find that the only result to him of paying heavy rates would be to enhance the value of his farm for the benefit of his landlord, and then to have the alternative of paying an increased rent or suffer eviction. If the landlord paid half the rate, he would be more economical in the expenditure, and the tenant would be in less danger of suffering, as now, in consequence of improvements made with his money. A very striking injustice to the occupier was the obligation he was under for the entire support of pauper lunatics, whilst he only paid for half the maintenance of those who were sane. At the town he (Mr. Blake) represented the poorhouse and lunatic asylum were nearly opposite to each other. So long as a pauper retained his senses, the farmer contributed only a moiety to his support; but the moment he lost them, and was sent across the road to be locked up, the unfortunate farmer had not only to pay all the expenses, but the cost was doubled as well, owing to the larger expenses attendant on the care of the insane; so that the occupier was mulcted to four times the extent he paid before, and so continued to be unless the lunatic recovered or became an idiot, in which event he crossed the road again to the workhouse, was maintained at half the cost as before, and the landlord had to commence again to contribute his quota. Now, surely that state of things called for amendment. The hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine had complained of the constitution of the Committee, and that some Members on it had never served on Grand Juries. Even if they had not, they might make very good judges of the reform required. But he never doubted if there was a single Gentleman on it who had not been at some time a grand juror. He (Mr. Blake) could not boast of being an important county man, or possessing much influence, but there were few who had given more attention to the question of Grand Jury reform. Pie had framed Bills to effect that object, and brought them forward for two years in succession; and though he did not pass them, he ventured to think he did something towards calling attention to the subject, and for that reason, he presumed, he had been placed on the Committee.

thought the Bill ought not to be pressed forward without further consideration.

observed, that if the Bill were now read a second time its principles would be sanctioned. Now, the Bill, although plausible, was most delusive. So far from being beneficial, it would be highly injurious. It would unsettle the relations between landlord and tenant, and create discontent where it did not now exist. It would also throw difficulties in the way of the Select Committee on the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland.

said, he wished to add his earnest appeal to the noble Earl (the Earl of Mayo) to withdraw his opposition to the second reading of this Bill; and he did so, encouraged by the fact that with the exception of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), every Member who had addressed the House, including the noble Earl himself, had expressed assent to the principles of the Bill. ["No, no!"] He (Mr. O'Beirne) repeated his statement; it was so. The only objections taken were that the whole question was now under consideration by the Committee recently appointed, who had but just commenced their sittings, and that it would be a discourtesy to that Committee if the House expressed any opinion upon one branch of a subject, the entire of which had been so referred. Another objection offered was that the second reading of the Bill would be something like pre-judging the question which had been sent to the Committee to discuss; but not a syllable of dissent from the main object of his hon. and gallant Friend's Bill was uttered. Now he (Mr. O'Beirne) believed that there was some very palpable misapprehension on the part of hon. Members who took this view. The only effect that reading this Bill a second time could possibly have, would be to express the views of the House subject to the inquiry of the Committee; and the Committee would have the fullest power to do what they pleased with the Bill, to report in favour of, or to reject it, or to embrace the principle it advocated in a new Bill. In fact, all that could follow a second reading would be the expression of opinion by the House in favour of the principles enunciated, without in the least interfering with the power given to the tribunal up stairs. If then that be so, why should there be any hesitation in permitting the Bill to proceed. He hoped, therefore, that this useless, and be thought ill-judged, opposition would be withdrawn.

considered that nothing would be more mischievous than to read this Bill a second time with a view to immediate legislation. It appeared to him that the Bill contained as much mischief as any that had been introduced for some time past. The tendency of the measure was to tell the occupying tenants that they were suffering under a grievance, for which he believed there was no foundation; the Grand Jury cess being a charge upon the land apportioned justly among all classes. More than half the land in Ireland was held under tenancies from year to year; and as the Bill proposed the immediate application of the new law to all these tenancies, the result would be to create a vast amount of discontent between landlord and tenant, and to oblige landlords in self-defence to put an end to existing contracts with their tenants. He did not acquiesce in the principle that it was desirable that the Grand Jury cess should be apportioned between landlord and tenant, but he admitted that the subject was one deserving of inquiry before a Committee. It was against the practice of the House to affirm the principle of a Bill, when that very principle was to be one of the matters referred to a Select Committee.

said, that the Bill would not interfere with existing arrangements between landlords and tenants; for all existing contracts were specially excepted from the operation of the Bill. There could be no hope of preserving good-will between landlord and tenant—as the opponents of the measure professed to wish—if Bills founded like this on just principles were to be rejected. It was now declared that a simple act of justice would produce ill-will between landlord and tenant. What could be fairer than that the person who possessed the permanent interest in the soil should pay his portion of the burden, instead of the whole being thrown upon the shoulders of the tenant? The House was asked to read the Bill a second time; not for the purpose of immediate legislation, but that the Select Committee might have official cognizance of its provisions. There was nothing more common than to give instructions to Committees as to the manner in which they should conduct their inquiries.

contended that the tenants had a serious grievance of long standing in the payment of the county cess. It was loudly and universally complained of, that the occupying tenant should pay the whole of a tax which went substantially to improve the property of the landlords. The Bill would not create discontent; for discontent in connection with this question, was of long standing. Why should it not be put on the same footing as the poor-rate? It was only reasonable and fair that the charge should be shared by the landlord. He entered his protest against the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, and declared his belief that those who defended the present system did not understand the subject, or the feelings which existed among the tenant class of Ireland.

thought it most proper that the whole subject should be discussed and maturely considered by the Committee upstairs; but it would be contrary to the practice of the House, and not very courteous to the Committee, to sanction the principle of a Bill by reading it a second time, and thus endeavour to dictate to them the mode in which the question should be settled. The Committee had full powers to inquire into the whole subject; and he trusted the House would not fetter them by the reference proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy). Although he could not admit the grievance alleged by the hon. and learned Member for Mallow (Mr. Sullivan), he did not deny that some changes in the present system might be desirable. Exemptions similar to those made in the case of poor rates would, no doubt, be beneficial; but he had represented for thirty years a large agricultural population in Ireland, of all classes and creeds, and had never heard of this long standing grievance which pressed for immediate legislation. He looked to the Committee for useful suggestions, and hoped that beneficial legislation would follow.

said, he was in favour of apportioning the county cess between landlord and tenant as was already done in the matter of poor rates. There had not been a single objection advanced against the principle of the Bill. It was true they had been told that an interference with the relations of landlord and tenant might excite discontent among the people of Ireland, but there was no possible measure connected with land in Ireland to which the same observation did not apply. The only desire of its promoters was to make a fair and equitable arrangement, and the noble Earl would do a graceful act if he allowed the second reading to pass with a view to the reference of the measure to the Select Committee.

said, the Gentlemen composing the Select Committee would form an excellent Committee, thoroughly representing all the interests of Ireland, and there was only one Gentleman among them who had not been on the Grand Jury. He (Mr. Maguire) thought it might be useful to read the Bill a second time, and refer it to them. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Warren) laboured under a great misconception if he believed there was no grievance involved in the existing condition of the law. Those who were acquainted with the feelings of the people knew that a grievance did exist, and that it was felt very strongly. He had himself seen a petition, signed by 6,000 occupiers in the South of Ireland, complaining of the grievance; and if the noble Earl opposite would refer to the occupiers of his own county, he would find there were not more than ten in a thousand who would not be in favour of a division of the burden between landlord and tenant. But no improvement was ever attempted to be made in that House for Ireland without the parrot cry being raised that dissensions and divisions would be created between the landlords and tenants. That was, however, all nonsense. Hon. Members came here to improve the law. Good will, not ill feeling naturally arose from improvements. He hoped the second reading would be agreed to.

said, that last year he had opposed a similar Bill upon its second reading; but, that having received little encouragement in that opposition, he had not considered it his duty to pursue a similar course in this Session. His objections, however, remained the same, and he thought that the momentous consequences which such a measure involved were not sufficiently understood by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had not made out a case for it. If it passed in its present form, it would immediately effect a most disastrous blow upon the system of united education in Ireland. It would add very considerably to the burdens of local taxation; and almost all the grand juries of the northern counties of Ireland had protested against it. It had been urged that the grand juries would be left to take advantage of its provisions or not, as they chose; but there was no knowing how soon, if it were passed at all, application would be made to Parliament to make it compulsory. It was beyond the functions of grand juries to have the power of establishing schools out of the county rates, and he desired to record his protest against the measure, believing that it was wholly uncalled for; that it would add greatly to the burden of local taxation; that it would destroy the principle of self reliance among the lower order of the people; and that it would give perpetual opportunities for increasing religious rancour and acerbity.

moved that the House should go into Committee on the Bill on this day six months. There was a certain amount of plausible argument in favour of this Bill, inasmuch as its principle was one already in operation in England. The object of the measure was to extend the operation of the Industrial Schools Act to Ireland, but the circumstances of the two countries were wholly different. There was much more vagrancy in Ireland than in England. The consequences of the measure would be that vagrant children might be seized and placed in sectarian schools, and that an expense would be incurred pressing heavily on the ratepayers in Ireland. He entirely disapproved of giving such children a better education and better nurture than those of hard-working, industrious, and well-conducted occupiers. The poor law schools were quite adequate at present for the purpose of eleemosynary education. It is true the Bill is only permissive; but it would no doubt be put in force, in all places in which there are town councils and would shortly be made compulsory. Where parents are living and have not parish relief, they should educate their own children. It would increase the pressure of rates to an enormous extent, as well as add to the religious rancour by which Ireland was vexed.

said, he should vote; for the Motion for going into Committee; but he intended to move an Amendment to a certain clause of it in Committee. He thought it would be inexcusable not to make the schools self-supporting.

expressed his? surprise at the opposition from certain hon. Members opposite, to a Bill which was simply intended to extend the provisions of the Act which had operated so effectively; in England. He had received a vast number of letters from magistrates, heads of reformatories, and other gentlemen in Ireland, all expressing their highest approval of the measure, and the necessity of such an act for the sister country. At present many children were sent into reformatories who ought to be sent to industrial schools. The judicial statistics of Ireland proved that the proportion of children of this class was far greater in Ireland than in England. In respect to the petition presented by the hon. Member opposite from Armagh, he (The O'Conor Don) had received a letter from Mr. Hancock, a member of the grand jury of Armagh, in which he stated that, after the grand jury had finished their criminal business, and whilst they were assembled together with closed doors, a gentleman proposed that they should sign the petition he produced against the Bill. Mr. Hancock objected to being a party to such a proceeding, and stated that, though other members of the grand jury had signed the petition, he believed that none of them except himself and the gentleman who had made the proposal had read the Bill. If the intention was to set up the Reformatories Bill as a rival to this measure, the charge under that measure would be higher, and it would be equally defrayed out of the county cess. The children who would be sent to the industrial schools were not of a criminal class. In the absence, however, of such institutions, those children must be sent to reformatories, where they would be treated as criminals. He (The O'Conor Don) objected to the principle of branding those innocent children as criminals, and of contaminating them by associating them with criminals. The measure was one of a mere permissive character, and it lay with the grand juries to say whether it should be put in operation in any particular district. As the Reformatory Act had worked so well without being compulsory, there was no good reason for believing that this Bill would not work equally well as a voluntary measure. The head of the Gleneree Reformatory approved the measure. He (The O'Conor Don) did not believe that its enactment was at all likely to be followed by a compulsory measure, as the hon. Member for Armagh appeared to apprehend. But, even if such a consequence were likely to happen, the proper time to object to it was when the actual proposition was made.

said, the cause of much of the opposition which had been offered to the Bill was the utter silence observed by the hon. Member for Roscommon as to the necessity of the measure and his reasons for introducing it. As a representative of a large county, he (Lord Claud Hamilton) had always felt it his duty to oppose any scheme involving taxation, the provisions of which had not been made thoroughly known to the country, and in respect to which an opportunity had not been afforded of opposing it, if disapproved, by any portion of the people. After the statement he had beard, and the explanation given in respect of its provisions, be should not feel it his duty to offer it the same opposition as before. The hon. Gentleman had omitted to state that this Bill was different from the Bill of last year. Only two individuals signed a petition against the measure. Since that time it had become a little more known, and had become the subject of eleven petitions, with 231 signatures, but all of the petitions were against the Bill. It might be an excellent Bill, but be thought it should not be passed until there had been given to the cess-payers of Ireland a more ample opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to the measure, either for or against it. The hon. Member had not stated the number of children likely to come under the operation of his measure. What with the facts of higher wages being given than heretofore, and the continuous emigration going on, he (Lord Claud Hamilton) believed that the number of vagrants under the age prescribed by the Bill was rapidly decreasing. He confessed he still shared the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Armagh that the measure was unnecessary; and, judging from experience, he did not think that those schools to be created under it were the best that could be established for teaching young people trades, or to become good agricultural servants.

supported the Bill, on the ground that it would compel some parents, who would not otherwise do it, to pay a portion of the sum necessary for the maintenance of their children. He thought that the Bill was as much required in Ireland as in England.

said, that in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Roscommon relative to the grand jury of Armagh, he begged to state that a copy of the Bill had been sent by request to the grand jury, and every member of it had full opportunity of reading its provisions.

wished to say one or two words in regard to the Bill. He did not propose, on the part of the Government, to take any action in respect of the Bill; but he wished to express his own individual opinions on the merits of the measure. He confessed he did not think that the hon. Member for Roscommon had made out a very strong case for extending the principles of the English Act to Ireland. He (the Earl of Mayo) had endeavoured during the last Recess to inform himself as to the feeling of the people of Ireland upon the subject; and, from all the inquiries he had made, it appeared to him that if this Bill were passed it was not likely it would have any extensive operation; but there was a very great difficulty in refusing to consider the provisions of a Bill which was almost precisely similar to the statute now in force in England. He thought that the House would do well to assent to the Committee on this Bill with a view of adapting, as far as possible, its provisions to the circumstances of Ireland. When in Committee it was his intention to move an Amendment which would have the effect of excluding all persons from the operation of the Bill who would naturally come under the amended provisions of the Irish Reformatory Act.

said, he should divide the House.

moved the rejection of the first paragraph of the clause—namely, that which related to vagrant children—on the ground that a distinction between reformatories and industrial schools should be maintained. The industrial schools should be for those only who had committed no legal offence; and children guilty of acts of vagrancy should be sent to reformatories instead of industrial schools. By his Bill all children who were guilty of an offence punishable by law were to come under the provisions of the Reformatory Act, the effect of which would be that vagrant children in Ireland would be treated in the same way as in England, and after suffering a short period of imprisonment would be sent to reformatories. Persons in Ireland who took an interest in the subject wished to have the distinction between reformatories and industrial schools maintained.

could not agree to the Amendment; because he did not think it right that such children, who might perhaps be sent out to beg by their parents, should be deprived of the advantages of these schools, and subjected to the contaminating influence of a prison.

thought it a considerable infringement of personal liberty to take up children merely for vagrancy, and send them to prison for a long time, although the prison was called all industrial school. He thought that there ought to be some safeguard to prevent the children of the poor being taken up and sent to industrial schools when they had committed no crime.

pointed out that the Amendment of the noble Lord really broke down the distinction which existed between criminal and other children, because though, no doubt, some vagrant children in Ireland were criminal, it was not so in the majority of instances. He considered it was preferable to send these children into industrial schools, rather than reformatories with the probationary process to going through a gaol. He thought the clause ought to be maintained in its integrity.

believed that the Amendment of the noble Lord would bring these children into the criminal class, a class whose future life was a source of so much difficulty to the country. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that his intentions had been misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman. His object was simply to extend the operation of the Reformatories Act in a direction in which the friends of those institutions thought it ought to be extended. As reformatories were working well, he thought the class to which he had referred ought to be sent to them. To secure the best possible results from the industrial schools it was desirable to separate those children who were properly the objects of charity from those who might more fairly be regarded as belonging to the criminal class. He had no objection to the House considering and deciding upon the question whether this particular class of children should be sent direct to a reformatory, or through the medium of a gaol.

, believing that the proposition of the noble Earl would overthrow the reformatory system, trusted that the Committee would retain the clause as it now stood.

said, the question was, how to draw a line between the two classes, who ought to be sent, irrespectively, to industrial and reformatory schools. He did not see how it could be done; and he thought the clause in the Bill of his hon. Friend was best suited to meet the circumstances under which children in Ireland were placed. It would be dangerous to depart so far from the system sanctioned by the English laws. He hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.

was afraid the Amendment would lead parents to send their children out to beg, in the hope that they would be instructed by the Government.

thought the magistrates ought to have a discretionary power of sending children direct to the reformatory without passing them through a prison; and did not see any objection to giving to magistrates the power which they possessed in the case of industrial schools.

believed the clause as it stood would give encouragement to parents to send out their children to beg.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

moved, that at the end of the clause the following words should be added:—

"Or, in case of there being no industrial School in the district where the child is found, the workhouse may be duly certified by the authorities as fit to receive children to be trained as in Industrial schools."

had no objection to the addition to the clause.

thought the addition would interfere with the working of the Poor Law system.

said, anything that could improve the industrial training of workhouses would be most desirable; but he was afraid there was no machinery in the workhouses to carry on industrial training.

If that machinery were introduced into the workhouses it would effect a most charitable revolution.

said, this was a most outrageous clause, as it provided that a child who escaped from school could, at the discretion of the magistrate, be sent to prison for a period of fourteen days with or without hard labour. He would divide the Committee on this clause.

said, if this clause were not passed the Bill might as well be abandoned.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, thought it right to offer a brief explanation of its provisions and some account of the charity itself. He observed, by the way, that he specially appeared on behalf of Christ's and Caius Colleges, Cambridge, peculiarly benefited as they were by the institution; and that the Bill which he had brought in was substantially the one of last year, originally introduced by his noble Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council (Lord Robert Montagu), and then amended by a Select Committee. The founder of the institution was a certain Mr. Tancred, a Yorkshire squire of strong prejudices, one of which was an objection to heirs female. Early in the last century, this gentleman executed a trust deed, settling the largest portion of his property (of which the principal seat was at Wixley some dozen miles from York), on a trust which would, no doubt, had he had issue male, have made an entail for ever; but which, as the case was, created a charity, speaking roughly, divided into two parts—one an almshouse situated in the town of Wixley for twelve decayed bachelor gentlemen, and the other an establishment of twelve studentships—four for law, to be taken at Lincoln's Inn and the residue at two Colleges of renown at Cambridge, at either of which it was a privilege to enter; four for divinity at Christ's College; and four for medicine at Gonville and Caius College. Several years later Mr. Tancred executed a will, leaving his remaining property in augmentation of the settlement. Still a bachelor, he died a few years afterwards, and his will became the subject of a Chancery suit; for his sisters and their representatives naturally objected to it. The then Lord Keeper Henley pronounced a decree, in which he established the settlement with certain modifications; and in consequence of this judgment a Private Act, 3 Geo. III., incorporated the charity in conformity with Tancred's arrangements, appointing as its governors the Treasurer of Lincoln's Inn, the Master of the Charterhouse, the Governors of Chelsea and Greenwich Hospitals, the President of the College of Physicians, and the Masters of Christ's and Caius Colleges, Cambridge. At the same time, Christopher Tancred's whimsical provisos of keeping up for ever a deer park at Wixley was abrogated; and the estate placed on so satisfactory a fooling that instead of yielding something under £1,000 a year, it produces, at the present day, upwards of £4,000. He need hardly observe how the selection of these trustees was wisely designed to secure the proper fulfilment of the second object of the charity—the maintenance of the twelve studentships, four in law at Lincoln's Inn, four in medicine at Caius College, Cambridge, and four in divinity at Christ's College, Cambridge. He should observe that both with regard to these studentships, and the pensioners of the "Hospital" at Wixley, the beneficiaries were strictly enjoined to be members of the Church of England. He was not now concerned with the question as it affected Wixley; but so long as the Colleges retained their connection with the Church he saw no hardship in the provision. The Church of England offered a most ample area, when the benefits to be conferred were so limited; and Christ's and Caius Colleges were foundations which it was an advantage, and not a detriment, to enter, particularly when £100 a year was the result of the transaction. As to the Wixley Hospital, he must confess that it had proved a failure. It would be easy to conceive the evils which would result from twelve bachelors of fifty, afflicted with an inability to get on in life—or otherwise they would not have offered themselves as candidates for the Tancred benevolence—living together on a common income barely sufficient to keep one gentleman in decent circumstances, in little rooms cut up out of a small country house, touching which the founder had the vanity to propose that the buildings should never be enlarged or altered. Having to dine together and live in community without any special occupation, religious vocation, or manly sports, soured in temper by the degradation of being regarded as recipients of charity, and with nothing to do but to kill time, these masculine old maids would naturally take to smoking, eavesdropping, and quarrelling, if not something worse. In 1865 the case of the Hospital became so flagrant that its governors submitted a scheme to the Charity Commissioners, proposing to reduce the number of the pensioners from twelve to six. Some other reforms were suggested; but the whole proposal was manifestly too timid and compromising to command success, particularly when it was remembered that the estate, which when Tancred died, was worth something less than £1,000, had now increased in value to more than £4,000. The Charity Commissioners were accordingly solicited from various quarters to take vigorous measures, and they did so with a vengeance. As a first step, they sent their assistant Commissioner, Mr. Martin, to report on the condition of the Hospital. He made a very minute examination of its internal arrangements, in which he was assisted by the fussy ingenuity of the inmates, men of, perhaps, a once large experience, who had withdrawn their powers of observation from the world to concentrate them within the narrow limits of their own circle. The Commissioners came to the generally approved conclusion that the Hospital as an almshouse should be done away with, and that the income should be dispensed in the shape of out-door pensions, supplementary to other sources of income, to educated gentlemen, so that no recipient should run a risk of collision with any brother in misfortune. The scheme also provided that when the number of inmates had been reduced to four, these should be withdrawn from the building and the establishment broken up. The charity would thus in time have assumed a shape similar in organization to the Royal Literary Fund and similar institutions. Embodied as this plan was in the original scheme, and consequently in the Bill as it first came before the House last year, it was also accepted by the Select Committee, and therefore was embodied in the Bill of the present Session, so he hoped it would be cordially approved by the House. Regarding the studentships, Tancred had laid down these three conditions:—First, that the beneficiaries should be natives of Great Britain, thereby shutting out Irishmen, colonists, and the whole world beside; secondly, that they should be members of the Church of England; and, thirdly, that they should, as students, be educated at the particular institutions, in relation to which the list of governors had been settled. The limitation to members of the Church of England was objected to; but surely, for an endowment limited in amount and in the number of possible recipients as this was, it opened a field of distribution sufficiently wide to secure an unquestionable power of selection among excellent competitors. What better schools of law, of medicine, or divinity existed than those which this testator had selected? Of Lincoln's Inn he need not make himself the advocate. As to Caius College, it had, from the days of its second founder, been a renowned school of medicine; while the fame of Christ's College as a seminary of divines was incontestible. Yet the Charity Commissioners, for some reason of their own, wished to make a clean sweep of all restrictions, leaving the governors of the charity to elect the students out of the wide world; and whether these would, in consequence, take their degrees in England, in France, in the United States, or in China, was to be a matter of the most complete indifference. The Bill introduced by his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council, as the mouthpiece of the Charity Commissioners, for giving effect to their scheme, appeared in a shape which might have become usual with regard to enactments brought before Parliament to give legislative sanction to such proposals, but against which he felt bound to protest. Instead of the scheme being cast, in proper legal language, into a Bill, which might in time become a statute, it was with all the amplifications and fine language incident to a report, and out-of place, in a law, transferred just is it stood within the four corners of the Bill, with a few words of prefatory enactment, professing to give validity to the subsequent essay as the scheme of the Charity Commission. This Bill was referred to a Select Committee, which altered the scheme in various particulars; and yet, the Preamble having been, by the forms of the House, first adopted, it still professed to state what had become an untruth—that the scheme so propounded and proposed to be enacted was that of the Charity Commission. His Bill, which substantially embodied all the alterations of the Committee, did not follow this bad example, but adopted the ordinary form of other Bills. The Select Committee of 1867 restored the vested rights of Lincoln's Inn and of the two Colleges as recipients of the gift, together with the limitation to members of the Church of England of these studentships. In this he cordially concurred; but there were other points embodied in the amended scheme, with which he could not so thoroughly agree, although he felt it was most respectful to the Committee to introduce the Bill in the shape in which they had cast it, leaving it to the House to amend it in Committee if they pleased. Mr. Tancred had devised the advowson of Wixley to the charity; but Lord Keeper Henley pronounced this devise illegal. Consequently the patronage of the living had since continued in alien hands, although a small provision had been made to the clergyman who was constituted warden of the Hospital. The scheme proposed a permanent addition to the living, consequent on its being purchased by the governors, and then the advowson being sold with the estate. The Committee retained the whole of the land, probably looking upon it as the best security on which the charity fund could be put; and yet owing, he hoped, to the misadventure of the provision for the increase of the living having come earlier in the scheme, rejected the proposal of augmentation, with the view, no doubt, of subsequently rejecting the complex transaction affecting the sale of the estate. He would be glad, if his Bill got into Committee, that this provision would be reinstated, without prejudice to the retention of the estate. It was absurd to argue that the purchase of the living was contrary to Tancred's intentions. In the first place, Tancred wished the living to belong to his trust; and, in the second place, regarding the pension portion of it as a provision for meritorious gentlemen outworn by work, he would ask, who could be so meritorious a recipient of its benefits as a clergyman broken down by devoted services in some overgrown town or unhealthy colony? In fact, the vicar of Wixley might and ought to be the first Tancred pensioner. The Committee also struck out the extension of the pensions to women. Tancred, no doubt, was a misogynist; but he thought this a poor reason, now that the Hospital was to be extinguished, to refuse this concession. Such was the Bill of which he moved the second reading. All agreed that the Hospital, as it stood at present, was a crying evil. The Bill proposed a remedy for this offence. Its other details might or might not be open to discussion; they could, however, be taken in hand in Committee. For the sake, however, of abating the Hospital, he contended that the House ought to give the second reading now. If it refused to do so, it would render itself responsible for all the evils which were making Wixley a byword.

seconded the Motion.

said, the hon. Member had not stated precisely the nature of the scheme recommended by the Charity Commissioners, which, although of a comprehensive character, did not go as far as he himself wished. The Charity Commissioners proposed that the Hospital should be done away with; that the pensioners should be increased from twelve to twenty-four; that women as well as men should be admitted to the benefit of the charity; that this should be thrown open to all British subjects; and that restrictions upon the religion of the pensioners should be wholly done away with. They further proposed that the allowance of the students should be increased to £100 a year each; that these should not be obliged to belong to airy particular College or Inn of Court; and, further, that the estate, consisting of 2,500 acres in Yorkshire, and possessing a considerable residential value, which non-residential trustees were incapable of fully developing, should be sold, and the proceeds invested in Consols. A Bill for carrying out the scheme of the Charity Commissioners had been brought in last Session by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council; in doing so, however, he never told the House that he disapproved of the provisions of that scheme, but referred the Bill embodying it to a Select Committee composed of five Members chosen from his own side of the House, and but two taken from the Opposition Benches. Bearing in mind that the Liberal party had a decided majority in the House, the preponderating influence ought to have been exactly reversed. The Committee at once proceeded to cut out all the liberal parts of the Bill, and so completely altered its character that nobody could any longer recognize it. On its return to the House he had endeavoured to restore it to its original condition, and gave notice of Amendments for that purpose. The noble Lord endeavoured to force the Bill through the House; but, in order to prevent its being discussed in a thin House, he (Mr. Lefevre) had stayed up night after night till three in the morning, and eventually the Bill was dropped. But now, in the present Session, his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, fresh from the honours of an Election, in which he had received considerable Liberal support, re-introduced the Bill in the same reactionary form, instead of leaving the matter to be dealt with by a Government measure, introduced with the concurrence of the Charity Commissioners. In its present shape he thought it was really impossible to amend the Bill. It would be better to throw it out, and to leave it in the hands of the Government to bring in a measure dealing in a wider spirit with this charity. Here was an estate, producing something like £5,000 a year, which might be turned to very useful purposes of an educational character, such as had been pointed to by a noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) in "another place" when he accounted for the delay which had taken place in producing the educational measures of the Government by the hope which he had entertained of getting hold of some of the waste foundations of the country. He thought that when there was such a cry for technical education this charity might be used for that purpose. He believed that, in Yorkshire, there was not at present a single school for technical instruction the scheme of the Select Committee, as embodied in the Bill of the hon. Gentleman, was most illiberal; as he hoped the House would not sanction it, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, the hon. Gentleman had attempted to give this Bill a thoroughly party aspect, and had started some theories on the subject of endowment, which were almost as novel to Members of his own party as they were to those who sat upon the Ministerial Benches. He really failed to gather what were those "liberal provisions" which the Committee had so wickedly struck out. He found that widows and daughters had given way to decayed and necessitated gentlemen, and that the restriction to British subjects had been omitted. Was it part of the creed of the Liberal party that the widows and orphans of pensioners should share in the endowments? Had the Liberal party any objection to "decayed and necessitous gentlemen?" He was also puzzled by the statements which he had heard as to the party composition of the Committee; for, as it happened, the two Liberal Members did not vote upon the same side. If he were compelled to determine between the purity of water of the Liberalism of Gentlemen opposite, he should say that the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent) was, on the whole, more orthodox than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe). The principle now laid down by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) could not be narrowed to a particular case. If the intentions of a man who mode his will with the full knowledge that there were members of the Church of England, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters, and who discriminated between them, were to be deliberately set at nought, why, in fairness to testators at the present day, these principles of action ought to be declared. At one of those three o'clock sittings which the hon. Member had alluded to he startled the House by the declaration that it was ridiculous for anybody to suppose that the testator could care for the Church of his baptism. That might, of course, be the hon. Member's own view of the case. But there were, nevertheless, large numbers of individuals who did attach importance to their religious belief, and were prepared to help more earnestly those who agreed with them in religious belief than those who did not; and if that were the place to quote Scripture, passages might be adduced in support of that view.

begged the noble Lord's pardon. He had never used the words attributed to him on any occasion at three o'clock in the morning.

Well, then, it was at half-past one.

said, he had never, at any time, made use of any such expression.

certainly had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he felt no individual preference for those who belonged to the same religious body as himself; but was glad to find that he had misconceived what was actually stated. The hon. Member, however, must admit that he had now advocated the conversion of this endowment to purposes of primary education—purposes which were wholly foreign to those which the testator had in view.

had the authority of the Charity Commissioners for stating that they had never been consulted with regard to the Bill that was now before the House; and he certainly thought it a rash and hazardous proceeding, in a matter of this nature, for private Members completely to ignore the Commissioners, and take the disposal of the revenues into their own hands. Me hoped the Bill would pass, and that such Amendments, as to the wisdom of the Committee might seem fit, would be introduced. Its broad features would, however, no doubt, remain as an embodiment of the will of a deceased benefactor, whose views they were bound to respect and give effect to. He therefore should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Reading, although unable to agree with him in all the views that he had expressed.

said, he did not think that the present was the time in the history of the country when a desire to increase the comforts of old and decayed persons could be legitimately regarded as out of date. In Bradford there were collections going on in favour of various asylums devoted to the purpose. The question involved in the opposition to this Bill was, whether, when there was an endowment in favour of a religious communion, the members of that religious communion should be allowed to enjoy the property devised for their benefit. The issue at stake in this case did not affect one religion alone, but the endowments and bequests of all bodies of Christians in this country. He must adhere to the broad principle that a man could spend his money as he liked, and so leave it after his death. The Report of the Middle-class Schools Commission was in favour of this Bill, which, he trusted, would be read a second time. Any alterations which it was desirable to make in the details of the Bill could be effected in Committee, while its broad principles were preserved.

thought the discussion showed the necessity there existed for some efficient representative of the Charity Commissioners in that House. There was at that moment no Member of the Government on the Benches opposite to say a word in favour of the Report of the Charity Commissioners, or to give any explanation with regard to the Bill. It would be more satisfactory if such measures as this were introduced by the Government, instead of being left to private Members. It could not, he thought, be said that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) factiously opposed the Bill. What the hon. Member asked was, that action should not be taken in the matter until the Charity Commissioners expressed their opinion with respect to it, and until the Government thought fit, on their own responsibility, to bring in a measure on the subject. He supported the Amendment.

said, there was a large charity to be dealt with. It was admitted that great inconveniences had arisen from its existing condition. In consequence of the state in which it was represented to be, Commissioners were sent to the spot to inquire, and upon their Report, which contained much valuable information, the Charity Commissioners framed schemes,—not, however, in strict accordance with the Report of the Commissioners who had made the inquiry—and submitted to Parliament a Bill to carry them out. The Bill was referred to a Committee, of which he had the honour of being a Member. It so happened that all the parties interested, without exception, were opposed to the scheme of the Commissioners. Those who were rich enough appeared by counsel; those who were not rich enough were allowed to appear and state their own case. It happened that one of the pensioners had been formerly a Member of this House. What had the Committee to do? They had to sit a few hours every day to devote to a consideration of what was just and liberal. The House had received that day a definition of what liberality, or rather Liberalism, really was according to the view of a Liberal Member. They were told upon that authority that it was a Liberal thing to do away with everything that a founder had in view when he made a specific bequest, and to substitute something entirely different. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) said the intentions of the testator should be disregarded, and that the revenues of the charity should be applied to general educational purposes. But the Legislature had come to the conclusion with regard to endowed schools that, if the words of the bequest were precise, the advantages of the endowment were to be confined to persons of that particular form of religion which the testator indicated. The same principle should be applied in the present case. It was quite clear that the testator had done all in his power to secure his charity for members of the Church of England; and another circumstance was that if nothing were done there would be a Chancery suit to settle the different interests. The Committee shrunk from ordering a sale of the estate; and from doing this in order to obtain an increased present advantage with the certainty of a less income in the future. They thought that in reference to the questions that had been raised they should rather be dealt with by a general change in the law than by legislating for this particular instance. The Committee had come to the conclusion, that the advantages of the charity should be confined to men, and not extended, contrary to the obvious intention of the founder, to women. They differed from the Commissioners also on this question. The founder said that his charity should be divided into two equal parts—one for pensions to needy persons, and the other for educational purposes; and the Committee saw no good reason why this limitation should be broken through; and they also saw no reason for extending the area beyond the locality to which the testator had limited it. Another thing that weighed much with the Committee was the consideration that the Bill would have to go to the other House; and they desired such a measure as would have a fair chance of passing there; and the more especially so when it was admitted on all hands that legislation was necessary to remedy the state of confusion into which the charity had fallen. If money left for one purpose was to be diverted to another it ought to be done directly, and not incidentally. He hoped that the House would agree to the second reading, and if any Amendment were thought necessary, that matter could be considered in Committee.

said, that, while he agreed in the desirability of removing existing inconveniences, he could not but think that the Bill could not be considered apart from the general principle which applied to endowments. The Legislature had committed certain duties to the Charity Commissioners, who were empowered to devise schemes for improving and promoting the efficiency of charitable institutions; and it was intended that such schemes, if they were approved of, should be submitted to the Legislature by some Member of the Government. It was the practice, in the first instance, to place them before the Vice President of the Committee of Council, whose duty it was, if he saw anything objectionable in them, to refer the measures back to the Commissioners for further consideration. In the present case no such objection was made to the Bill as prepared by the Commissioners last year; bin when it came back from the Committee it was submitted by an independent Member, and not a word had been said in support of its principle by any Member of the Government. The question whether the recommendations of the Bill were such as should receive the approval of the House deserved much consideration; and he did not think it ought to be read a second time, unless the House was prepared to sanction the principle with respect to endowments, that, in all cases and under all circumstances, whatever restrictions were imposed, the will of a testator should be adopted and carried out. He did not deny that the first recipients of the benefits to be derived under the will in question should be members of the Church of England. They were to live together, and it was perhaps right therefore that they should belong to the same denomination; but the question was whether, now that they were no longer to live together, but to be scattered, the same restriction should be maintained. Again, they could not be quite sure that if Mr. Tancred had seen the ritualistic tendencies of the day, and the other alterations that had taken place, he would have been so anxious to limit the charity to members of the Church of England. And with respect to the scholarships, it was worthy of consideration whether, after the lapse of 100 years, the will of the testator should be in nil respects adhered to. If the limitations with reference to residence were disregarded, why should not the limitations with regard to religion? At any rate the tendency of Parliament was now to take such restrictions into consideration; and the School Commissioners had recommended that every fifty years such endowments should be considered by some competent authority, which should determine whether the will of the testator should in all respects be adhered to. He thought that a Bill of this importance should be brought forward on the responsibility of the Government; and, under all the circumstances, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Reading.

said, that he was by no means indifferent to the propriety of respecting the general intentions of testators who aimed at forwarding great and good objects; but it was quite another thing when the House was called upon to assist in placing restrictions around institutions, and where the testators were selfish men and wanting in natural affection for their relations. This Mr. Tancred had been described by the Judge who gave a decision in reference to his will, as a man who seemed to have cast off all natural affection; and the Judge regretted that he was bound by precedents to assist in carrying out his intentions. He had surrounded his estate with a wall, and had erected certain buildings and out-buildings, and he ordered that no one should pull down the wall or buildings, or should erect any new buildings. His first object seemed to be to cheat his sisters. He also ordered that forty deer should be kept in the park. Were those who opposed the extension of the benefits derived under the will to a few ladies anxious that those directions should be held sacred? He (Mr. Acland) thought that important principles and main objects should be respected and upheld; but that the whims and fancies of such a testator, at the moment of death, ought not to be allowed to prevent Parliament from applying the charity for the benefit of the greatest number possible. It was true that the testator named members of the Church of England; but circumstances had greatly altered since the founder directed that the residents in his cenobite house were to be members of the Church of England. His views about the Church of England might be very different from those which were now entertained; he might have looked upon the Church in a much wider sense than was supposed; and certainly they ought not to put the narrowest construction upon his words. What they were bound to do was to see what the main object was, and to give effect to it, and not to limitations which had a smack of religion about them, perhaps for the purpose of making them look respectable. It ought also to be considered that the testator was doing for persons, who lived 150 years after his death, what the law would not allow him to do if the bequest had been applied to his own immediate descendants—that was, regulate the terms upon which they should hold the property. He hoped the House would not adopt the broad principle involved in the Bill, which was one which should be dealt with on the responsibility of the Government, and that they would not allow the Bill to be read a second time.

said: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has certainly formed no very high opinion of the character of the late Mr. Tancred; but I did not gather from anything he said that he felt the slightest objection to fingering the money of the departed; and I must say, Sir, that it is rather hard to take a man's money for upwards of a century, and then abuse him at the end of it. At half-past one o'clock this morning, "while men slept," the Church of England was suddenly deprived by Bill of dues and rights she has enjoyed for centuries; on Monday next it is proposed to rob the Irish Church by Resolution; and to-day, I presume to keep the Liberal party in wind, the disposition is evinced of setting aside the intentions of a Church of England testator and diverting the uses of a Church of England charity. But hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember that, in thus acting, they are forging weapons which may be used against their own endowments, and which, if we cannot defend our own possessions, when the time comes, we shall not be slow to use against theirs. Motions and speeches of this kind are two-edged swords which will not always be allowed to cut one way. In the next place, Sir, if these endowments had their origin in the religious sentiment—if without it they would never have existed — I would ask, how much honesty there is in diverting them to uses secular, and disconnected with the profession of any religious faith? It seems to me, Sir, very like obtaining money under false pretences; but then we are told, Sir, that dead men should not be allowed to govern the living from their graves; but there is one thing, at least, you cannot prevent their doing — they can warn the living from their graves; and, unless this House more scrupulously respects the intentions of founders, we shall soon have heard the last, I fear, of bequests for religious and charitable uses. On general grounds, then, and because, as a Cambridge man, I feel a deep interest in this particular instance, I trust that the House will not refuse a second reading to this Bill.