asked, Whether it was true, as stated in one or two of the public journals of the preceding day, that some sheep recently imported from Antwerp had been found suffering from sheep-pox?

, in reply, said, he had caused inquiries to be made on the subject, and it would be satisfactory for hon. Members to know that the fact was as follows:—On Wednesday, a cargo of sheep had been landed at the Victoria Dock from Antwerp, which had been marked by the inspector for a second examination; but, upon giving that full examination, they had been passed as entirely free from disease.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, When the Medal promised by the late Secretary of State for War on the 6th of last July to the Naval and Military Forces engaged in the late Campaigns in New Zealand is Likely to be issued?

, in reply, said, that the medal promised to the forces engaged in the late campaigns in New Zealand would be ready shortly, and the Estimates presented on the preceding day included a sum for them.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government intend, during the present Session, to introduce any measure founded upon the Report and Recommendations of the Select Committee on Special and Common Juries made in the last Session of Parliament?

, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill, which he hoped shortly to lay before the House, embodying several of the recommendations of the Select Committee of last Session.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Ministry to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland during the present Session of Parliament; and, if not, what are the intentions of the Ministry with regard to legislation on the subject?

, in reply, said, on this subject he must refer the hon. Member to what was said by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on the first night of the Session, when he volunteered the statement before a Question had been asked, that nothing but physical impossibility, or in other words, want of time in the present Session, had deterred the Government from dealing with this great question; and it was that, and that alone, which prevented them taking any action upon it.

said, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Irish Members were to understand, from the Answer just given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that Her Majesty's Government would not introduce a measure during the present Session to amend the law relating to the tenure and improvement of land in Ireland; and, in the event of Government being only prevented from attempting to legislate on the question owing to its being physically impossible, as stated by the Chief Secretary, whether a statement would be made as to the principles on which the Government would propose to legislate on the question hereafter?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me two Questions—first, whether Her Majesty's Government have abandoned all hope or intention of bringing in a Bill on the subject of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland during the present Session; and next, whether, if they do not, they will make some declaration of principle on which they would proceed to legislate. In answer to the first of these Questions, I should say, following up what has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that we do not see the smallest possibility of there being any such state of circumstances in the present Session as would enable us to introduce a Bill on this important subject with the due consideration which its real importance demands. With regard to the second Question, I think it would not be expected that Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to state their; policy—and it would be extremely difficult to make intelligible any such statement, unless it was accompanied by all those details and particulars which could only be presented in the former case.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the circumstances which led to the passing of the Act 8 & 9 Vict. c. 122, for the suppression of the African Slave Trade in Brazilian vessels, have not ceased to exist; and whether it is the intention of Government to take measures for the repeal of the said Act, with a view to rendering more intimate our relations with the Brazilian Empire?

said, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to take measures for the repeal of the Act in question, commonly known as the "Aberdeen Act;" and he believed that his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) had on the preceding evening introduced a Bill into the House of Lords for that purpose.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, from the "Letter of Service" appointing His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, such appointment appears to have been made for life or for a lesser period; whether the Secretary of State for War may recommend to Her Majesty persons for Commissions, either directly or by purchase; whether it is consistent with military discipline and the regulations of the Service to appeal from a decision of the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, or of the Military Secretary, to the Secretary of State for War; whether all high military appointments are first submitted to the Secretary of State for War for his approval; and, further to ask, whether, regarding both, efficiency and economy, it is the intention of the Government to inquire into the expediency of concentrating the duties of the War Office and Horse Guards in one Office, under the exclusive control of a Minister responsible to Parliament?

The "Letter of Service" appointing His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal-Commanding-in-Chief conveys the appointment, not for any specified time, but during Her Majesty's pleasure. The Secretary of State does not recommend to Her Majesty persons for commissions, either directly or by purchase. Commissions in the Artillery and Engineers are given entirely by open competition; the commissions without purchase in the Line are given either by open competition at Sandhurst or by selection to deserving non-commissioned officers; and commissions by purchase are given by qualifying examination. Perhaps I may be permitted to add that in my opinion it would be very unfortunate if patronage connected with the Army were transferred from the General-Commanding-in-Chief to a political Officer. It is not consistent with military discipline and the regulations of the Office to appeal from a decision of the Field-Marshal-Commanding - in - Chief to the Secretary of State for War, and that is perfectly consistent with the fact that reference is constantly made to the Secretary of State in cases of special importance and difficulty; and further, that, if at any time the discipline of the Army were to fall into an unsatisfactory state, the Secretary of State for War would not be exonerated from responsibility if he omitted to take measures to prevent the continuance of that state of things. There are not, so far as I know, any decisions of the Military Secretary; his duty is to convey the decisions of His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. All high military appointments are first submitted to the Secretary of State for War for his approval. There is no need for an inquiry whether it is expedient to concentrate the duties of the War Office and Horse Guards in one office, because Her Majesty's Government, and I believe the House, are perfectly satisfied, without inquiry, that it would be very expedient to concentrate them in one office, and that expediency is wholly irrespective of any changes in the functions properly belonging to the two Offices.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it be the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session any measure for the amendment of the Patent Laws; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to embody in the Bill the "Recommendations" of the Royal Commission (dated July 29, 1864) appointed to into the working of the Law relating to Letters Patent for Inventions?

said, there were so many important questions to be dealt with that he was not able to hold out any confident expectation that the Government would be able to deal with the question of the Patent Laws this Session.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any step, during the present Session, fully to exempt Public Hospitals, Infirmaries, Dispensaries for the Sick, and endowed Almshouses from liability to rating to the Belief of the Poor?

replied that that was a very large Question—a much larger one, indeed, than it appeared to be as put by the hon. Member. It would be very difficult to confine any such exemptions to public hospitals, infirmaries, dispensaries for the sick, and endowed almshouses. The Sunday schools, for instance, had been omitted from the list; and again, there was the question of endowed schools. If they were to exempt endowed almshouses the question would arise whether endowed schools should not be admitted to a similar privilege. Then they came to the public buildings, municipal buildings, and county buildings. The question was, in fact, an exceedingly large and complicated one and it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps in the matter this Session.

, in rising to call attention to the present system of Irish Representation and to put Questions to Her Majesty's Government thereon, said, he was conscious that the House must feel as fully as he did the desirability of such a question as this being taken up by abler and more experienced hands than his, but as no Member better qualified seemed disposed to deal with it he hoped the House would not refuse him the kind indulgence which it usually accorded to those who addressed it for the first time. In the first place, it would be necessary for him to review some of the principal incidents of the Reform legislation of the last few years, but he hoped to do so without any superfluous reference to those controversies which took place at the time. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the course of last Session the Government introduced Reform Bills for Ireland and Scotland; and that, whilst that for Scotland had the good fortune to emerge from the Legislature a complete and perfect measure, such a fate did not befall that for Ireland, for at a very early period of its career those most important clauses which had reference to the redistribution of seats were withdrawn, and only those relating to the franchise became law, the Government believing that it would be impossible for them to carry at that time any measure on which any serious difference of opinion existed. He would ask the House to go back a little earlier in the history of Reform. In 1866, a measure was introduced by the Government of Lord Russell, which contemplated treating the question of Reform in two separate parts, and a Franchise Bill was introduced without having any reference to the re-distribution of seats, but that course did not obtain general approval; and his noble Friend the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor) proposed an Amendment by which he sought to obtain from the House a declaration that it was desirable that the question of the franchise and that of the re-distribution of seats should go together. Her Majesty's Government, after some resistance, assented to that principle, and brought in a mea- sure for the re-distribution of seats for England and Wales, even though they were compelled to do so without that mature deliberation and careful inquiry which they might have wished to bestow on the subject. Since then it had been generally recognized by both sides of the House that the question of Reform ought to be treated as a whole, and that the franchise and re-distribution of seats should be dealt with in one measure. That policy had been pursued with regard to England and Scotland, but not with regard to Ireland. One of the principal objections offered to such a course as that of separating the two measures from each other was the possibility that a dissolution might possibly intervene between the passing of the Franchise Bill and the introduction of a measure for the re-distribution of seats. Now that was precisely what had occurred with regard to Ireland—and at what a crisis in her history. That Her Majesty should be advised to dissolve Parliament and appeal to a constituency but half reformed, a mere apology for an electoral body, and rather the ghost of the old constituency than the germ of the new, had been hitherto regarded as little short of a mockery of representative institutions. Yet that was precisely what had occurred in dealing with Ireland; nor did the anomalous state of her representation end there. By the Acts of 1866–7 England had one representative for every 41,000 of population, Wales had one for every 38,000, and Scotland one for every 52,000, or thereabouts. Ireland had one for every 56,000, and although that state of things might be viewed with calmness by those who always expected Ireland to occupy an inferior position, he doubted whether the House would be content to allow her to be worse treated in this matter than the sister kingdoms. The anomaly was even more striking if the representation of the counties alone was compared. The English counties had one Member to every 58,000 of population, the Welsh one to every 49,000, the Scotch one to every 56,000, but Ireland one only to every 78,194. Considering so much had been said about Reform, he was somewhat surprised that not even professed grievance-mongers had discovered and published this very gross electoral anomaly. He would put it in another way. The 5,000,000 of Ireland had, through their counties, sixty-four Members in Parliament; if those 5,000,000 had the good fortune to be situated between the Thames and the Tweed they would have eighty-six Members; if their lot had fallen in the still more fortunate country north of the Tweed they would have ninety, and if they had occupied that political paradise, the district lying between the Severn and Cardigan Bay they would have 102—only one less than the Members returned by all the boroughs and counties of Ireland. Again, if the representation of the English and Scotch counties had been framed on the estimate for Ireland, the House would number some fifty or sixty less than at present. It was resolved in the course of the Reform discussion to increase the representation of English counties exceeding 300,000 in population from four Members to six. Exclusive of the two large counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire, no less than ten English counties obtained this measure of justice, and there were fifteen counties in England containing a population between 150,000 and 300,000, which returned at the present time no less than four Members. Now, the population of the great county of Cork was, exclusive of boroughs, 419,000, and yet that great county returned only two Members to the British Parliament. The counties of Antrim, Down, Mayo, Galway, Donegal, Tyrone, and Tipperary, each of them containing between 200,000 and 300,000 inhabitants, and each of which, if situated on this side of St. George's Channel, would return four Members, only returned two. There were at least a dozen more—he would not weary the House with their names—which, if situated in England, would be placed on the same footing as Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Hertfordshire. He confessed, in days when they heard so much about the great things they were going to do for Ireland, it appeared singular that no one should have taken up this question. If the mantle of O'Connell, who had always been alive to national rather than to party grievances, had descended on any Irish Member, this subject would have been brought forward before, and they would have obtained a far more just and satisfactory measure for Ireland than they had done. It might be supposed that he had taken up something of a forlorn hope in pressing this subject on a Ministry who had shown themselves so indifferent as not to think it worthy of a place in the Speech from the Throne. But there were two circumstances on which he built his hopes. The first was that there was among Her Majesty's present advisers one who had promised to drag his Colleagues to the bar of public opinion whenever he found them wanting in their duty to the public. Well, he would call upon that right hon. Gentleman now to perform that patriotic though somewhat painful operation in a case which must move his sympathies so strongly. In common with those who had watched that right hon. Gentleman's career he knew his implacable animosity to little boroughs, and his sympathies with large populations that were not fairly represented. He did not see why the Irish counties should not have the same sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman might yet find an opportunity for one of those confidential communications—which some said were more frequently tendered than accepted—recommending this act of justice to the Irish people. The other ground on which he relied was that this Parliament had been specially elected and the Ministry had come into power on the simple, broad, and equitable platform of justice to Ireland. This was no sentimental grievance. In a very few days they would be all engaged in a wild-goose chase, they would be pursuing every ignis fatuus that a disordered fancy could conjure up. Before setting out on that Quixotic enterprize he hoped they would receive a promise that a real grievance such as that he had set forth would receive due attention from Her Majesty's Government. They were told that the Irish people were dissatisfied, and that they distrusted the good intentions of the British Parliament. Why should they not distrust a Parliament in which they had only a mockery of representation? He was not at present going to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the House to entertain a question that might lead to a distribution of seats throughout England and Scotland as well as Ireland. The remedy was close at hand. He had said that the electoral unit in the Irish counties was 78,000, in the Irish boroughs 21,000, and taking this basis of population as their guide they found that the Irish boroughs were as much favoured as the counties were injured. The boroughs in Ireland might be fairly divided into three classes. First, there were four great cities—Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Limerick—which counted for a population of 500,000 out of 800,000 who inhabited Parliamentary boroughs. Next to them in importance was another set of boroughs, the most populous of which was Waterford, and the least populous Lisburn, and which contained about 224,000 inhabitants. They returned eighteen Members. Below that limit were thirteen boroughs, containing about 72,000 inhabitants, and returning thirteen Members, their average population being 5,529, while, as he had said, the average population to each Member in the great counties was 78,194. Was a state of things of that kind to be allowed to continue? They had now got in the House a Ministry which could command a great majority, and who could employ their majority to do that which a weak Ministry could not attempt. He would ask them to sweep from the face of the earth these thirteen little boroughs, and to give their Members to the great populous counties which he had named, and even when they had done that they would find that, in the counties, the average population represented by one Member would be 64,000, while in the boroughs it would be 25,000 or 26,000; so that the boroughs of Ireland would be nearly three times as well represented as the counties, instead of four times, as they were now. From the thirteen seats thus obtained they might give two to Cork county—he did not see why it should not return six Members—two additional to Antrim and Down, and one additional Member to each of the counties he had before enumerated. Suppose such a course was taken he should be probably told it would do no good. There were two bugbears to Members of that House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would say there was no use in giving more Members to Irish counties because they would in that case give more power to the landlord. Thus, the Irish landlord was the bugbear of hon. Members opposite. On the other hand, hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side would be inclined to say—"You are giving too much power to the priests." Thus, the priest was a bug- bear to hon. Members on that side. But when they were doing an act of simple justice they ought not to look to results. If they owed a man £50, they should not inquire before paying it how he meant to spend it. If they adopted the plan which he had recommended, they might find an opportunity of giving a representative to the minority in each county, and thus diminish the bitterness to which election contests in Ireland gave rise. They would tranquillize the enmities, and at the same time recognize the just aspirations of the Irish people to have a fit representation. He would say, in conclusion, that they were invited at the present time to pay particular attention to the mote which might be observed in the eye of the Bishops and clergy of Ireland. Where, he would ask, was the beam which had obscured the vision of our English Reformers? Their conscience was so tender that they strained at the gnat of the Church Establishment in Ireland, and yet they expected the Irish people to swallow such a camel as to be represented in that House by persons—excellent and worthy persons no doubt—but sent to Parliament by constituencies unworthy of the name of towns. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, a measure for the Redistribution of Seats in Ireland, and, if so, when; and further, whether it is not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, somewhat premature to enter upon legislation materially affecting the welfare of Ireland before such a measure has been considered?

said, that what the hon. Gentleman wished was to have the Irish people represented through counties; but as the representative of one of the small boroughs which the hon. Gentleman wished to abolish (New Ross), he must deny that the proposal would afford any satisfaction. What the Irish people themselves complained of was that the counties had a far larger representation than the counties in England, and very much larger than the boroughs. What the Irish people wanted was to be put in the same position as the people of England—that the counties should not have a larger proportion, and that the boroughs should have the same proportion of representatives as the boroughs of England. That Irish matters were brought before the House so often was all owing to the undue predominance of the landlord interest in Ireland. There were 105 Members returned from Ireland; two by the University of Dublin, sixty-four by the counties, and thirty-nine by the boroughs. Substantially there were sixty-six county Members to thirty-nine borough Members in Ireland. But in England, how stood the proportion? Up to the passing of the last Reform Act there were about three borough Members to one county Member. It was true some alteration was made by the late Act. In England, under the present law, the boroughs had 112 more Members than the counties; but the hon. Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor) wanted to increase the representation of the Irish counties. Formerly there were 236 borough and sixty-four county members in Ireland; but at the Union, while the counties kept all their representatives, 200 borough seats were abolished. When the Irish Church was abolished he hoped the Government would bring in a Reform Bill for Ireland; and he hoped they would do so next year, or even, perhaps, towards the end of the present Session, if no needless opposition were offered to the passing of their measures relating to the Established Church. But what the people of Ireland desired in the matter of Parliamentary Reform was that their representation should be put upon exactly the same footing as that of England, and that the proportion of seats now given respectively to the counties and boroughs of Ireland should be reversed.

said, that the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes), in his zeal for the interests of Ireland and his kind intentions towards her people, had devoted a considerable part of his speech to advocating the claims of that country as a whole to a largely increased number of representatives. But, as he proceeded, he was good enough to withdraw that proposal from their present consideration, and did not ask them to involve themselves in a debate which he knew well would be one of no little difficulty and no small dimensions, if the question of a general re-distribution of seats were to be once more re-opened as between the three kingdoms in the first Session of the Reformed Parliament. He, therefore, understood the hon. Gentleman to limit his Question to the subject which appeared on the Notice Paper—namely, the re-distribution of seats in Ireland. Well, the circumstances in which that part of the Bill of the late Government fell out of sight in the course of its progress were familiar to most of them, and had, he thought, been correctly stated by the hon. Gentleman. As to that he would only say he believed the re-distribution clauses of that Bill were dropped by a sort of general consent on both sides, mainly for two reasons—first of all, because they were deemed by most of them extremely unsatisfactory, and certainly did not meet with favour from the Irish Members on that (the Ministerial) side, nor, he thought, with much favour from Irish Members on the other side. In the second place, the question of the re-distribution of seats in Ireland could not, after all, be one of very great magnitude. Important, indeed, as every such question was, still in the nature of things in the case of Ireland it must be confined within pretty narrow limits. It seemed to him that the greatest reform which could be made in the representation of Ireland would be one which he was afraid was not in the competence of that House, and that was the creation of a considerable number of large and important towns in that country. They might trust to her future progress in wealth, prosperity, and population to remedy that defect; but the truth was that if they were to have boroughs at all in Ireland, they must, for the most part, be boroughs of a small class. And when he heard the proposal of the hon. Member for Chester, made on the plea of justice to Ireland, he felt convinced that it would be met, as it had already been met by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. M'Mahon), with very great disfavour. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was that there should be a very considerable transfer of seats from the boroughs to the counties of Ireland. Now, that was not a process which he was prepared to adopt. He did not believe that any considerable increase—he would not say none—of the county representation at the expense of the boroughs would be acceptable to the public opinion of Ireland, or would put the representation of that country on a proper footing. It was true there were in Ireland several important counties, large in size and numerous in population, with only two Members. But at the same time every county in Ireland possessed two Members, which was not the case in all parts of the United Kingdom; and, moreover, many of the Irish counties were small. Again, in the Irish counties there was a great degree of uniformity in the character of their population, which might be said to be divided almost entirely between landlords and tenants; whereas the population of the English and Scotch counties contained much more varied elements. Those facts afforded an additional reason to his mind why they should take care not, to any considerable extent, to impair or diminish the amount of the borough representation which Ireland now enjoyed, small as, he regretted to say, many of the boroughs were. But he was asked whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce in the present Session a measure for the re-distribution of seats in Ireland. Well, that subject had not formed a part of the programme of Her Majesty's Government. He could not admit that it was a subject which urgently required to be dealt with, and he must say he thought that of all times the first Session of a New and Reformed Parliament was about the time least fitted for dealing with it. But events were happening at this moment which might possibly make some difference in the course to be taken on that matter, because, without prejudging what might occur, it was impossible to shut their eyes to the fact that proceedings were now going on before the Election Judges in Ireland which might impose on the House and the Government the necessity, in some limited degree, of considering that very question of the transfer of representation from one community to another. But the hon. Member for Chester asked another question on a point on which, however, he had not dealt at much length in his speech—namely, whether, in the opinion of the Government, it was not premature to enter upon legislation affecting the welfare of Ireland until they had carried a measure for the redistribution of seats? Now he had no hesitation in giving a positive answer to that part of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry. He was decidedly of opinion that it was by no means premature to introduce the measures of which the Government had given Notice; and that the defects, such as they were, which he did not deny to exist in the Irish sys- tem of representation, formed no reason whatever for any delay in carrying out that policy which Her Majesty's Government had announced. On the contrary, speaking with some knowledge of Ireland, he would venture to say to the hon. Member for Chester that while that policy had received the adhesion of a great majority of the Irish people, as expressed through their present representatives, the only effect of substituting for the present system of representation in Ireland one still more perfect and more capable of expressing the views of its people would, he believed, be largely to increase the support accorded to the policy announced by Her Majesty's Ministers.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Trades Unions Commission is expected; and if it is the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session any measure for the regulation of Trade Societies? He did not put that question from more curiosity, but because it related to a real grievance. The Commission on Trades Unions, presided over by Sir William Erie, ex-Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, had sat for many months, and had had its martyrs, as the Benches on the other (the Ministerial) side of the House too painfully showed. It had been stated some time since in the public prints that the Report of the Commission might be shortly expected; and just when they were looking for that Report there appeared a little book, written and published by the learned President of the Commission, purporting to be the substance of a memorandum which he had presented to the Commission, giving an exposition of the law as it now stood affecting Trades Unions. That work was a very full, clear, and conclusive statement of the law bearing on that subject; and it was not surprising that, when the members of those societies, who were counted by tens of thousands, read that exposition, they were extremely anxious to know what verdict the Commission over which its distinguished author presided intended to pronounce on them. According to the declaration of the law by the ex-Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, it would seem that the very legality of these trades unions was questioned. It was, at least, difficult for them to know how to act without infringing the law. The unions were consequently placed in a very inconvenient position, and it was not surprising that, having had something in the nature of a judgment passed upon them before the verdict had been given, they should be extremely anxious to learn what that verdict would be. In the event of the legality of the unions being doubtful, he would ask the Government to introduce, without a moment's delay—within a week from the time when the Report of the Commission was laid upon the table—a Bill for the purpose of extricating them from the difficulty in which they would be involved; for, although there might be great difference of opinion as to the nature of the legislation in reference to trades unions, all would, he believed, agree that the existence of the unions must be recognized, although it might be necessary to surround their legal status by certain safeguards.

As I stated to the House the other day, the Report of the Commission may be daily expected. I have had the advantage to-day of communicating with one of the Commissioners, and I have been told by him that the Report is on the point of being sent in. I believe, however, that, although the Report will soon be made public, some little time must elapse before the whole of the evidence is printed; but I have no doubt that it will be ready in time to be fully considered with a view to legislation during the present Session. When the Report has been submitted to the Government we shall lose no time in legislating on a question the importance of which, I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, cannot be over-estimated.

, in rising to recall the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the subject of Portpatrick Lighthouse, said, he must apologize to the House for taking up their time with a subject which would be uninteresting to them generally; but if he was enabled to make the few remarks which he hoped to do, he believed they would agree with him that he was only doing his duty in bringing forward the subject of which he had given Notice. He must preface his observations by thanking the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bright) for the very full amount of information he accorded him in answer to his Question on the subject a week ago; but he could not say that he was obliged to him for the substance of that information. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was the present intention of the Board of Trade to discontinue the light in question; but that, if it could be shown that the light was of utility to passing vessels, he would not sanction its abolition. Now, with the permission of the House, he would give a short resuméof the history of that Lighthouse. It was in the year 1790, some fourteen or fifteen years after that port had been first selected as the station for the transmission of mails from Great Britain to Ireland, that a lighthouse was first erected in the harbour. That continued until the year 1836; and in the interim the harbour was very much improved, and during that year (1836) the pier on the south side of that harbour was considerably elongated, and so important was the station considered that a new lighthouse was erected at the end of it. In that same year the charge of the Lighthouse was given to the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners, and they kept it burning until the year 1850, when, he imagined, it was discontinued in consequence of the mail service, which had been conducted by that port for seventy years consecutively, having been abandoned owing to there having been no railways at that time laid down to the ports on either side of the Channel. For two or three years, he must admit, that no accident happened on that part of the coast which could be considered to be mainly attributable to the want of that light; but in the year 1856—he thought it was—that a wreck occurred, entailing both loss of fife and property: and it was on that account that the Board of Admiralty—in whose hands was at that time intrusted the charge of the harbour and works—ordered the resuscitation of the light, which had continued to be burnt ever since. Now, he had been engaged himself for the last few years with others in trying to re-establish a short sea communication between that port and the nearest port on the Irish coast; and it was during his interesting himself towards that end that he learnt from the persons who had practical knowledge in such matters, that that Portpatrick light was more beneficial than any other on the Scotch coast for all vessels from the English or Irish coast which were making for the entrance to the Clyde. Having given those facts, he would not trespass farther upon the time of the House; but he omitted to mention that a few days before the re-assembling of Parliament, he learned by a side wind that it was intended to extinguish that light by the first of March; and the answer he received from the right hon. Gentleman a week ago seemed rather to confirm that intention on the part of the Board of Trade. He must therefore speak, and with some confidence, to the right hon. Gentleman, who had hitherto, he believed, prided himself upon being outdone by no one in advocating the cause of humanity, not to signalize his advent to power by sanctioning the abandonment of alight, the maintenance of which he believed to be necessary to ensure the safety and preservation, not only of the property, but also of the lives of a large and deserving class of Her Majesty's subjects.

said, that, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could only speak once on the Motion before the House, he would now interpose and ask the Question of which he had given Notice. He would, indeed, have been content with simply asking the Question, had he not thought it desirable to explain briefly the nature of the change which he should recommend as to "the rule of the road at sea"—the term usually applied to certain regulations issued by the Board of Trade for the purpose of showing vessels passing each other how to keep clear and avoid collision. Those rules had been translated into various foreign languages, and had been accepted as the rule of the road by almost all maritime nations. It would, therefore, undoubtedly be undesirable to meddle with those rules without sufficient cause. There were two rules with respect to steamships passing each other which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of many persons conversant with the subject, had occasioned collisions, and not secured safety at sea. The two rules to which he alluded were those contained in Articles 13 and 14 of the regulations. Article 13 was as follows:—

"Two ships under steam meeting.—If two ships under steam are meeting end-on or nearly end-on, so as to involve risk of collision, the helms of both shall be put to port, so that each may pass on the port side of the other."

The 14th rule, which related to two ships under steam crossing, was—

"If two ships under steam are crossing, so as to involve risk of collision, the ship which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way of the other."

The rules, he thought, required no change so far as vessels meeting each other end-on were concerned, but when they were slightly or a great deal to the right of each other it was inexpedient that they should alter their course, so as to incur the risk of collision, which had occasionally occurred, from the desire that the vessels should pass to the left of each other. Instead of continuing on their course and passing each other on the right hand side, they turned their bows towards each other with a view to passing on the left, and many collisions and much loss of life had in consequence occurred. He was aware that the Board of Trade had issued certain explanations of the regulations, with the view to point out to those in charge of vessels that it was undesirable on such occasions as those to which he referred to pass to the left; but the Judges had asserted that those vessels which did not attempt to pass to the left under the circumstances and got into collision must be held to have broken the law. In the case of the Thames v. the Stork, the Court said—

"In order to excuse her from porting it must be quite clear that there are three points of difference and not less; for surely it would never do to contend, where they were so nearly meeting end-on, that if the evidence should be that it was one or two points only in the direction they were meeting, that that would be sufficient to dispense with the observance of this rule?"

In another case, the Fruiterer v. the Fingal, the Court said—

"Part of the evidence says that they were within two points of meeting end-on. I should consider that if they were within two points of meeting end-on, they would fall in with the latter part of the statement,' nearly end-on.'"

There was, he might add, a valuable little handbook which was very generally accepted as a guide by officers in command of merchant ships, in which the author, Mr. Oliver, explained the law thus—

"The expression 'keep out of the way' used in the foregoing regulations has been held to mean, as a general rule, going astern of the other ship; but under some circumstances it is otherwise. In all cases of doubt the safer course is to port the helm."

Now, if vessels happened to be at all to the right of each other it must be very unsafe to cross each other's bows at the risk of collision, with a view to fulfil the letter of the law, if not its intention and spirit. He was confirmed in that opinion by a statement of a late Colleague of his, Sir Alexander Milne, who said—

"I have always thought that in the regulations some recognition of the starboard helm should have been made; but starboard helm is not mentioned, and persons are therefore led to assume that the starboard helm must not be used, whereas it is quite clear that when a green light is seen on the starboard bow, or nearly ahead, the starboard helm should be used."

He thought he had sufficiently indicated the reasons why it was undesirable that vessels already to the right of each other should cross each other's bows and pass to the left, and a very simple rule substituted for Rules 13 and 14 would, he believed, meet the difficulty. The rule which he would propose would require that steamers nearing each other should starboard the helm to a ship on the starboard bow or side, and port the helm to a ship on the port bow or side. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would see the expediency of adopting that view.

said, he was of opinion that, although no regulations could altogether avert collisions at sea, they yet might be, to a great extent, avoided by the establishment of proper rules. He entirely concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) as to the propriety of the change which he suggested. There was another matter connected with the subject, on which, in his opinion, sufficient stress was not laid in the regulations, and that was the stopping of the engines. In the collision between the Osprey and the Amazon, which had recently occurred, it appeared that the Osprey had gone down with her engines at full speed.

The noble Lord the Member for Wigtonshire (Lord Garlies) is quite right in the interpretation which he has put on the Answer which I gave him the other evening. He is probably aware that the Northern Light Commissioners have, on past occasions, expressed it to be their opinion that the light at Portpatrick, though it might be required for the purposes of the harbour, was not necessary for passing vessels. There is no disposition on the part of the Board of Trade—there could be no disposition on the part of any public Department to put out a light which was shown to be in the least degree useful; and I have now to state, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, that nothing will be done in the matter to which it relates until further reference has been made to the Northern Light Commissioners, and their opinion taken upon it. If it should be found that the light is of use to passing vessels—a point on which I am not competent of my own knowledge to form an opinion—the Board of Trade will take care that it is not extinguished. As to the correspondence on the subject, I have no objection to its production, beyond that which is often a very good one—the expense which its publication would involve. If the noble Lord wishes to see the correspondence he can have access to everything which the Board of Trade has written on this matter, or if he thinks any public advantage could be gained by taking that course, I have no objection to lay the correspondence on the table. This answer will, I hope, be satisfactory to the noble Lord. With respect to the Question which has been put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay), the House will hardly expect that I, who am not a sailor, should enter into the minute and technical points to which he has drawn its attention. It is, I think, better that I should read a little memorandum which I made this morning, which will prevent me from being inaccurate, and may, probably, be regarded as containing a sufficient explanation on the subject. I understand that the present rule of the road at sea was adopted in this country after the very best professional assistance in framing it had been obtained, and after full discussion with the French Government, I also understand that the advisers of the Trinity House, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Judges of the Admiralty Court in England, and the advisers of the French Government were unanimous on the subject. This agreement was come to in 1862, and since then it has been considered by the advisers of the various maritime States on the face of the earth, and adopted by them all. The rule of the road, therefore, which was agreed to in 1862, is at this moment the rule for the ships of all nations, and England cannot now of herself undertake the responsibility of altering this international law. That, I think, must be obvious to every one who examines the question. But with respect to the particular point to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has more especially invited attention—the alteration which he would wish to see made in the ride bearing upon the position in which ships are when they are said to be nearly end-on—I would say that the matter has been considered since 1862, and another Order of Council explanatory of it issued in July, 1868. I am not sure whether both of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who spoke on this subject were not members of the Board of Admiralty at the time. Probably they have forgotten what was then done; but I understand that their own Board of Admiralty wrote to the Board of Trade, giving their entire assent to the explanatory clause to which I have referred. That being so, I think I may fairly ask why, when at the Board of Admiralty, the hon. and gallant Gentlemen did not discover those imperfections in the law of which they now complain, and attempt to remedy them? I may state further that the Board of Trade have received many pamphlets and suggestions on various branches of this subject. No two of those pamphlets or suggestions, however, I believe, agree in the recommendations which they make. The rules now in force are, I may add, very simple. They are such that any person may learn them, as a child does a nursery rhyme, in a very short period; and it is impossible that a man sober, in his senses, and not panic-stricken by the events of the moment, should not be able to remember and apply them. They are taught to all masters and mates of ships, who cannot obtain their certificates until they thoroughly understand them. As to the correspondence on this subject, I may say that there are some Papers with respect to it which will shortly be placed on the table, and which will, I believe, include the correspondence on this particular point. If they should not be satisfactory, he will have the opportunity of bringing the matter before the House again. The House must excuse my further entering into the subject. I have given information which I believe to be correct, and I shall be very glad it it will meet the case which the hon. Baronet has mentioned.

, in rising to call attention to the destitution at Portsmouth consequent on the discharge of Men from the Dockyard; and to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he intends to take any measures to alleviate that distress by promoting emigration or otherwise, expressed his concurrence in the remarks which had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay). What, however, he now desired more particularly to call the attention of the Government to was the great distress existing in several portions of the kingdom in consequence of the very large reductions which had been made in the dockyards. Into the causes which had led to the discharge of so many of the workmen he had no desire to enter, but the result was very great and wide-spread distress. At Portsmouth last year 1,118 men had been discharged. Against the character of these men nothing had been urged, and after parting bit by bit with their clothing and furniture they had to trust to the assistance of their neighbours for relief. They were too respectable to go into the poorhouse. £1,500 had been subscribed at Portsmouth for the purpose of alleviating the distress which the reductions had occasioned, and those who had been discharged were employed upon public works—the money being found by the municipality and the citizens combined, but this was insufficient for the purpose. During the continuance of the distress in Lancashire these men, then the possessors of comfortable incomes and happy homes, came forward with no sparing hand, and they now trusted that the Government would entertain their case with equal consideration. Indeed this was a duty which, in his opinion, the peremptory mode of dismissal that had been adopted rendered imperative upon the Government. His own acquaintance with working men was of a very intimate character, and he did not believe that it was at all consonant with the feelings or wishes of the working men of this country that so many of their brethren should be reduced to distress by being so suddenly and so unexpectedly deprived of their employment. The Mayor of Portsmouth, in a letter which he had written, described the distress which the discharge of so many workmen had occasioned as "deep, dire, urgent, and most heart-rending." It was indeed heart-rending to see gangs of workmen in the prime of life, standing at the corners of the streets with nothing to do. What was desired was this—in Portsmouth alone there were 200 or 300 men who with their families would be glad to emigrate if they had the means of so doing, and he did not think it an unreasonable request if he asked that these men should be assisted to emigrate to Canada, where, according to intelligence they had received, there was every reason to believe they could obtain ample means of subsistence.

said, that as the representative of Devonport, he could fully endorse the statement which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir James Elphinstone) as to the great distress which had been occasioned by the discharge of so many of the dockyard employés. Last year no less than 1,500 were discharged from the Government establishments at Devonport, and he believed he could safely assert that such a wholesale and reckless system of dismissing workmen had never before occurred in the borough. These discharges were attributable solely, he would not say to the fault, but to the act of the late Government, and he was, perhaps, exhibiting some ingratitude in referring to the subject, inasmuch as it was quite possible that, but for what had occurred, he should not have had the honour of addressing the House that evening. He did not mean entirely to blame the late Government in this matter, for when persons got into difficulties they were occasionally obliged to reduce their establishments. Though, however, the servants so discharged, might possibly have no legal claim against their late masters, the latter would not be favourably regarded by society if they altogether turned their backs upon the wretched people who by the loss of their employment had been reduced to distress. He was sure his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would not fall into any such mistake, and it was with great satisfaction he heard last night that there was to be no further reduction in the number of men employed at Devonport and Portsmouth. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated, that of the 4,629 men who had been discharged 2,000 had been employed only from the preceding October, and that they must therefore have known their services were liable at any moment to be dispensed with. But that would still leave more than 2,600 who had been working at their employment for some years, and who, if discharged in so unexpected a manner, were certainly entitled to some slight consideration at the hands of the Government. He trusted that the Answer of his right hon. Friend would be calculated to give satisfaction in this matter.

said, he was unwilling it should be supposed that the reductions complained of affected solely the localities more immediately concerned. With regret he must say they affected the shipwrights and other artizans connected with the shipping trade throughout the kingdom. This particular branch of the trade of the country was generally pretty well regulated by the law of supply and demand. On the whole, however, the supply might be said to be greater than the demand, and therefore the effect of 2,600 men being suddenly thrown upon the country would be greatly to increase the supply, and thus, to a certain extent, to increase the pauperism of the country. His object in rising was to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, in his reply, to give the House some idea of the terms of the engagement of these men. He had always been under the impression that those engaged in Government Dockyards received lower wages than those who were employed in private yards, and that in consequence they were entitled to the receipt of some pension or gratuity on superannuation or on leaving the service after some time. If that were so, he certainly could not help thinking they had some claim to consideration at the hands of the Government. It might be proper that the Government should wish to carry out a reduction, but it was clear that they ought to avoid anything like a breach of public faith.

said, he was glad that his hon. Colleague (Sir James Elphinstone) with whose sentiments he thoroughly concurred, had confined his remarks to the distress existing in Portsmouth, and that he had not gone into any matters relating to those who were responsible for this distress. It might be asked how it was that men who were discharged last year had not long before this taken steps to obtain employment elsewhere, instead of remaining to be a burden to the rates? but the answer had been supplied by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves), and it was that the depression in the ship building trade was not confined to the dockyards, but was general throughout the country. Therefore there was no opening for those men in their own employment in any other part of the country, and it was of no use their going elsewhere. It might be said that these men took employment with the distinct understanding that they were liable to be discharged at any moment, and therefore they had no legal claim on the Government; but there was a difference between the discharge of one or a few men from one out of other establishments and a wholesale discharge like this from all places where the men could find employment. There was another matter to which he wished to refer, namely—the position of the Government in dockyard towns in connection with the poor rate. The question was whether the Government should not contribute their fair share to the rate in a crisis like this? A great many persons in the towns suffered from the diminution of trade and the increase of the local rates; and although the Government within the last few years had made a contribution to the poor rate in respect of the premises they occupied, they paid a fixed sum, so that their contribution did not vary with the amount which was required to be spent in the place. When the Government increased the rate levied upon the town, by discharging their men, they did not, like private employers of labour, increase their payment to the rate. All he asked was that the Government should recognize these facts and afford help in some way or other.

said, he could assure the House that the distress was as great in the South of England as it was in the West, He would abstain from speaking particularly of the borough which he had the honour to represent (Rochester), although in that place there were men who had served the Government for thirty years and who were now walking the streets in search of employment. He would, however, remark that at Woolwich the distress was extending from the late employés of the dockyard to the poorer class of shopkeepers in the town; and unless the Government would give some assistance, he was afraid the increase of the local burdens of the counties of Hampshire, Devonshire, and Kent would countervail any reduction of the public burdens.

said, he wished to call attention to the general subject of the employment of workmen in national establishments. Those who had been connected with dockyards, or had represented constituencies which included dockyards, must have observed the critical position in which workmen were placed from time to time. When the idea prevailed that Government dockyards were the proper places in which to build ships there was a demand for workmen. Then there followed a period in which economy was required, which, was generally just before the Estimates were proposed; and, to the great injury of the industrial classes, a large number of workmen wore discharged, and the greatest distress was produced. It had been his misfortune to see this distress in its horrors and miseries, and it was impossible to describe the effects of it on the families of the unfortunate men. It led him to think it was desirable that these sudden changes should, if possible, be avoided by the adoption of some fixed rule. Was it not possible to employ the men in some other way than in the building and repairing of ships? He had before advocated their employment in breaking up old vessels as preferable to discharging them, and he still considered that desirable. Extraordinary statements had been made in the late Parliament of the loss in which the country was involved by the sale of wooden vessels to be broken up by private ship-breakers. Two, which were originally valued at £80,000 and £40,000, were soldrespectivelyfor£28,000and£26,000, and the stores were re-purchased by the Government for£32,000and £30,000. If workmen, instead of being discharged, had been employed in breaking up these ships, their distress might have been greatly mitigated. The late Government, after this suggestion, and when the elections were coming on, employed discharged men at Sheerness and Devonport to break vessels up. He was informed that the distress at Devonport had been much alleviated by two small vessels being broken up in the dockyard at that place. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would ascertain how many vessels that used to be in ordinary were still to be disposed of; and whether he did not think it would answer the purpose of the Government to employ men in breaking them up. Although he hoped that something might be done to assist emigration, he must also observe that when he visited Keyham factory lately, he was informed that men had been discharged from that establishment, while the necessary work upon which they were employed remained unfinished. The same thing, it was alleged, had happened at Devonport Dockyard. He could not understand how that could be called economy. He thought it would be very desirable forthwith to investigate what work there was on hand, with the view of ascertaining whether it would not be true economy to take back some of the men.

The last time it was my duty to engage in a debate of this kind—when some of the same speakers took part in it as have spoken this evening—was in 1866, when I think six or seven gentlemen representing dockyards declared with one voice how absolutely necessary it was to raise the wages of the dockyard men, because, if their wages were not raised, the men would leave the yards and the Government would get no work done. I was at the Treasury at the time, and I ventured to resist that Motion, and gave good grounds for it. I must say that, having listened very patiently during the last hour to what has been said about the dockyard labourers, and in the light of that discussion reviewed the past, I feel grateful that the Government came to so wise a conclusion in 1866. There is no doubt that if Government had listened to the demands of the hon. Members who urged an increase of pay, the attractions of dockyard towns would have been proportionately increased, and we should at this time have been more loudly called upon to provide from the public revenue compensation to the dockyard towns because labourers have been thrown out of work. Before I answer the specific Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), let me say a word in reply to what has been stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves). I thought I had anticipated the inquiry he addressed to me when replying to a Question last evening on this subject. I then stated very precisely how many men had been discharged from the dockyards, what were their rights to compensation or superannuation, and whether those rights had been respected; and I stated as clearly as I could that everybody who had rights to compensation had had those rights respected. I think I also gave the numbers of those who had been discharged with compensations, and the average amount of compensation, whether in the shape of annual payment or gratuity, they had received. In reply, therefore, to my hon. Friend I would say that the persons who were discharged last year, with a few exceptions, were persons who had been hired on the expressed condition that they would be discharged at short notice without any gratuity if their service was short, and with a certain limited gratuity if their service was long. Having looked into the matter I believe the late Government, under whom the whole of these proceedings occurred, acted justly with respect to these men and the terms upon which they were engaged, and therefore there is no occasion for the apprehension under which my hon. Friend (Mr. Graves) labours. Now, Sir, I will come to the precise Question which has been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. He has called attention to the destitution existing at Portsmouth consequent upon the discharge of men from the dockyards, and he has asked whether the Government is prepared to take a certain course with the view to relieve it. Let me state the nature of this discharge. I have looked very carefully as far as Portsmouth is concerned into the figures with respect to these discharges, and the fact is simply this—According to the Estimates in force before 1868 there were, in round numbers, some 4,800 or 4,900 usually employed in the Portsmouth Dockyard. These numbers have now fallen to about 4,000. The difference, therefore, is not very much if you merely look upon it as a question between the former amount of employment in Portsmouth Dockyard and the present amount; but what really happened was that towards the end of 1867 the late Government decided to engage for a specific purpose—whether wisely or unwisely I will not now inquire—an additional number of men beyond those provided for by the Estimates. Somewhere about 300 or more were so engaged for a short time at Portsmouth, and I understand that a considerable number of these men, attracted by the chance of work, came from the North through the distress in the shipbuilding trade there; we have no official Return, however, to show how many of those men came from distant parts. During the financial year ending with March, 1868, this extra employment continued; but the Government came to a somewhat sudden decision to reduce the number of men, and the numbers in Portsmouth Dockyard between March, 1868, and June, 1868, were reduced altogether by somewhere about 1,650 men. In June, 1868, two months before the close of last Session, the reduction practically ceased, and in fact there are now more hands employed than there were in June last. It is clear, therefore, that the Questions I am now called upon to answer should have been addressed to the late Government in July last, rather than to the present Government, who are not only employing the full number of men employed last June, but are providing in the Estimates of 1869–70, for an additional number beyond those employed last year at Portsmouth, as well as at Devonport, and Chatham. I repeat, that distress which my hon. Friend has brought before the House was occasioned by the discharges of eight months ago, and not at all by anything which has occurred during the latter part of the year. But hon. Members from dockyard towns ask us to consider whether the destitution is of such a character as to justify the Government in resorting to special provisions, involving a charge on the public, for the workmen at these towns. Now, one word as to the cause of this destitution. I do not think the reduction in the numbers at the dockyards such as I have described during the last eighteen months before the increase, in any respect abnormal. Reductions have been made on previous occasions quite as large, but have attracted no special notice. The real fact is, that the reduction in the shipbuilding trade connected with the Government is only a fraction of the reductions in the shipbuilding trade throughout the country. The number of men employed in the Government yards is very few when compared with the number in the trade as a whole, and these discharged men are very few, indeed, as compared with the numbers reduced to absolute poverty by the sudden change which has come over many branches of our trade, especially the shipbuilding trade, during the last few years. It would be altogether wrong to suppose that the former or the present Government are in the least responsible for the present state of things, which is really almost entirely the result of a great wide-spread and well-known distress which has come over the whole of the shipbuilding trade. With respect to Portsmouth, my hon. Friend will forgive me if I am not able to go into much detail, because, although I saw him some short time ago on the matter, I received the explanatory papers from the Mayor of Portsmouth only last Tuesday. But the distress at Portsmouth is by no means solely due to any reduction of the number of dockyard men; on the contrary. I found three very distinct causes of distress at Portsmouth at this moment. The large contract works connected with the fortifications have been suspended, to a very great extent, during the past two months; the extension works at the dockyard, in which men are employed in large numbers by a contractor, have been slack during the winter; the Corporation of Portsmouth, too, has been employing a very large number of men whom they have recently discharged, and these causes have largely contributed to the destitution deplored. That is the general statement I have to make as regards Portsmouth. Then my hon. Friend has suggested that Government should help the men to emigrate; but I am quite sure he will not expect from me anything like a complete reply, considering the matter was brought under the consideration of the Government only three days ago. To any general system of emigration carried on by the Government I should entertain very strong objections. The colonies are coining forward themselves for that purpose. Hon. Members may have seen by a letter in The Times this morning that there has been a very considerable change of opinion on the subject of emigration in a colony of which I once knew something. But considering the whole course of our policy towards the colonies, nothing, I think, could be more unwise than that we should suddenly embark in a large emigration scheme. Besides, at this moment the Poor Law authorities have power, under an Act of Parliament, to assist emigration; whether that system is workable or not I do not pretend to say, but the power itself exists. I must, therefore, decline giving any positive answer to the Question which has been put to me, beyond pointing out the two considerations to which I have already adverted. I think it is the duty of the Government to exercise its power of discharging men in large numbers from the dockyard with discretion and moderation, and upon some very plain principle. Whether the large discharges last year fulfilled those conditions it is not for me to say. I shall not attempt to go into that question. But my own opinion on the subject generally is perfectly clear; it is, that those who employ large bodies of men, while resisting claims inconsistent with the terms of employment, should, on the other hand, have regard to the time, the manner, and the circumstances in which it is proposed that labour should be thrown back upon the country. That is the only answer I can give to my hon. Friend, stating distinctly at the same time that this is the policy by which I shall be guided as long as I have anything to do with the administration of the Admiralty.

:^* Sir, the Motion of which I have given Notice, which is, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the present operation of the Roman Catholic Charities Act of 1860, and into that of the Burials Registration Act of 1864, has been somewhat misapprehended out-of-doors. It has been thought by some persons that this Motion of mine is analogous to the one I made four years ago, and was for a Committee to inquire into the increase of Monastic and Conventual Establishments in this country, into their character and their discipline, with a view to the institution of some system of inspection. At the outset, then, I beg to state that my present Motion is proposed with no such intention as that. The object which I have in view is a very simple one; it is that this House should appoint a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining how far the provisions of the Act of 1860, with respect to Roman Catholic Charities, have been acted upon by the Roman Catholic community; whether the enrolment of trusts, which that Act contemplates, has been carried out in such a manner as to fulfil the intentions of the Legislature; and whether the system of enrolment and the entries in the Rolls Court are such as to afford reasonable security to the public, and the necessary amount of information to those who are desirous of informing themselves with regard to the disposition of the property held under those trusts. In the first place, then, I will deal with that Act; having given my support to Sir Charles Selwyn and Sir William Bovill, when Members of this House, in assisting the then Government, represented by the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, in passing it through this House. I will go hereafter into the history of that measure; but I would here observe that this statute is of a most liberal character. It removes the difficulties which were formerly interposed between intending donors of property for Roman Catholic religious uses by the Superstitious Uses Act, an Act that forbids the devising of property for prayers for the dead and other purposes, by means of which the Church of Rome, and I believe other Churches also, have accumulated pro- perty to such, an undue extent in every country in Europe, as indeed was the case formerly in this country, that Legislatures generally have been unanimous in their efforts to limit these devises in mortmain. I shall be prepared to show that the Government of France in particular has had to struggle against this difficulty. The Church of Borne in that country has received endowments and accumulated property contrary to the law; and M. Dupin, having in 1861 reported upon the evasions that were practised by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in France, M. Persigny, at that time at the head, of the Home Office, issued a decree and exerted himself greatly to abate that which had become a growing evil—namely, the locking up in mortmain of a very large portion of the property and wealth of the nation. The evasions of the law in France took a singular turn. In that country, there are certain congregations and societies connected with the conventual system, and particularly la Sociétié de St. Vincent de Paul, who are employed largely in collecting this property, and after having been pursued by M. Dupin and the French Government from one evasion to another, they came to this—instead of creating any trusts, which might fall under the cognizance of the Government, they invested the whole of the property in a certain M. Baudin, who held the securities, and perpetually changed the coupons so as to prevent the property being traced. I do not know what measures have been recently adopted by the French Government, but I refer to these facts as showing, at all events, the need of supervision which is felt in that country. The other statute which the Motion embraces is that for the Registration of Burials, respecting which I may say that it is in pari materia, because it relates to cemeteries which are held by the Roman Catholic community on the same terms as other property; and it has been proved before the courts of law, in the case of "Smee v. The Oratorians at Brompton," that they not only omitted to register the burials in Roman Catholic cemeteries, but had positively refused to do so. It is a principle laid down by the Bank of England, and by other great institutions having the charge of property, that it is essential not only that the death but the burial of the former owner of the pro- perty should be registered, inasmuch as the details afforded by the register of death are not always sufficient to convey the information necessary for the proper devolution of the property. Now, the Burials Act passed through both Houses of Parliament without a division; and last year, at the instance of an hon. and learned Friend, I moved an Address to Her Majesty for Returns with regard to its operation, in order to ascertain how far it had been complied with; but although eight months have since elapsed, and the obligation to furnish Returns, as resting on the public officers, survives the Parliament, the Returns have not been any thing like fully made. I find, in short, upon inquiry at the Home Office, that not more than one-third of the proper number of Returns have been furnished, and that these prove a noncompliance with the provisions of the statute. I may venture to assert this because I am prepared to prove it before a Committee. There are, therefore, two Acts which have been passed in recent years, and in reference to which I can show that in the case of neither have the intentions of the Legislature been carried out. It is obvious that legislation is a farce unless the laws which are passed be complied with; and there is no doubt that the enrolment under the Roman Catholic Charities Act, to which I will now refer, is not sufficient to afford to persons who may consider themselves interested in the property held under those trusts the requisite information as to its extent, or as to the ownership, or, in fact, as to who the trustees really are; because I find that a provision of that Act which, in the most liberal sense validated existing trusts, whether the property was held contrary to law or, in accordance with the law of the Roman Catholic community, after twenty years' possession by the trustees; by mere possession or by mere virtue of use, whether the title was originally a good title or not; that the provisions of this statute have been so construed that persons now say that the words of this clause are prospective, that they were not merely intended to validate existing trusts which I believe to have been the purpose of Parliament; but that any one in possession of such property has only to wait twenty years, and whether their possession of the property be in accordance with law or not, they have a good, title at the end of the term. This provision, therefore, operates as a direct premium against enrolment, although enrolment is the object of the statute. Now this is, in a certain degree, speculative; but I have pretty good reason for relying upon my information. I understand that although under this Act, in order to gain a good title to the trust property, enrolment must take place in the first instance; no sooner has one set of trustees been enrolled than they may either all resign, except, perhaps, one, and he, being a Roman Catholic Bishop or priest most likely, who would thus become sole trustee, or they may appoint entirely new trustees without the necessity of a fresh enrolment. It is manifest that the intention of enrolment is that there should be a record kept of the existing trustees; but, by means of the proceeding to which I have referred, I am informed that the object of the enrolment is defeated. I have explained to the House that the intention of the Act was to validate possession in Roman Catholic trustees, however they may have acquired the property prior to the year 1861; and there is in the ninth Report of the Charity Commissioners—the only Report which refers to the operation of the Act—a passage which, with the permission of the House, I will read, because it speaks with greater authority than I can. Adverting to the previous state of things, the Charity Commissioners in that Report say, that the temporary exemption of Roman Catholic charities from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act ceased in 1860. And I should remind the House that the Charitable Trusts Act, which is applicable to the charities of every other denomination, was passed in the year 1853; and it was under this Act that the Charity Commissioners were incorporated, and that the powers granted to them by the Legislature over the charities of other denominations were confirmed. Through the pressure put upon Lord John Russell's Government in that year, the Roman Catholic charities were exempted from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Act, and that exemption was to continue for seven years. The passage in the Commissioners' Report of 1862 is in these words—

"The temporary exemption of Roman Catholic charities from the operation of the Charitable Trusts Acts ceased in 1860. The Roman Catholic Charities Act of the same year created special facilities for supplying the enrolment of existing Roman Catholic endowments, which, though necessary to their legal validity (when comprising real estate), had been omitted during the prevalence of laws specially affecting the Roman Catholic body. Although numerous grants have been enrolled, as in compliance with that Act (approaching to 400 in number), yet the trusts, on which these assurances were made, or which were intended to be attached on the grantees, appear only on a very inconsiderable proportion of the enrolments; and it may, perhaps, be concluded that the administrators of the properties which they comprise have prepared to rely on their practical dedication to public purposes rather than by legalizing their settlement to subject them more directly to the general law, or that the means of making more sufficient enrolments may have been wanting. No Returns have yet been made of the income and expenditure of any such charities, but the time allowed for the transmission of such Returns for the year 1861, the first complete year since the termination of the exemption referred to, has not fully expired."

The House might have expected, after empowering the Charity Commissioners to validate these trusts by purging them of any expressions that might be held to be contrary to the Superstitious Uses Act, and after directing them to send schemes in all cases to the Court of Chancery, by which—if not the whole, a portion at all events—should be validated in law; that, after making such a concession as that, these powers would have been used by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholic community. But I have been to the office of the Charity Commissioners, and asked why there is no Return in their subsequent Reports of the operation of this Act of 1860; and the answer I have received is that since the Return, from which I have quoted (that of 1862), only in a few trifling cases have the powers conferred by that Act ever been used. I wish to show in as few words as I can the importance of this subject, because the increase of this Roman Catholic trust property has attained a rapidity which has not for centuries been known until within the last twenty years. The accumulation of the property is going on from day to day and hour to hour in mortmain, and as it appears from these Returns, without the proper authorization of Law, as recommended by the Committee on Mortmain in 1852; beyond the purview of the law, and without the facilities for the acquirement of information on the part of persons who may consider themselves heirs, or who are otherwise interested, which the Committee of 1852 deemed to be most desirable, and which have been required, as conditions of possession of every other denomination than the Roman Catholic by the general statute of 1853. I will now proceed to show to the House that there is reason for the exercise of some care in this matter, and that the laws of England do not secure the due enrolment and description of this trust property; that they do not afford the publicity and security against fraudulent misappropriation of such property which the Bequests Act has secured to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. I have in my hand the evidence which was given by the Master of the Rolls for Ireland before the Committee on Mortmain in 1852, and with the leave of the House, and to avoid misunderstanding, I will read one paragraph. He said that he considered the act of 1844 a great improvement, investing as it did this property in a body of Commissioners, and this is his description of the method of enrolment which the Legislature then sanctioned, and which has since been maintained—

"Do you get a Return from the Courts where wills are deposited of all bequests?—Yes, a Return is made regularly under one of the sections of the Act, the 19th section.

"Does that Return state the amount of property bequeathed and the purpose of the bequest?—The Returns that have been made to the present Board are fuller than the Returns which were made to the late Board; rather fuller than the Act required. I may mention to the Committee that a Return was made last Session to the House of Lords by the Board of Charitable Bequests and Donations, in pursuance of an order of that House, containing a copy of the Returns made to us from the original constitution of the Board on the 1st of January, 1845, down to last June or July. I can give the Committee the form or Return which has been furnished to the House of Lords. The first column contains the testator's or testatrix's name and late residence; the second column contains the date of the will; the third column contains the date of the death; the fourth column contains the date of the probate; the fifth column contains the name of the executors; the sixth column contains the amount of effects sworn to; the seventh column contains a short abstract of the charitable bequests; and then there is a column for observations. If the Committee will refer to that Return they will get full information on the subject."

It is quite clear, therefore, that these Commissioners possessed an accurate knowledge of all those bequests, and of everything connected with, the property under them, which should come within their cognizance, and we have it on the authority of the Charity Commissioners that the Act of 1860 has not provided anything like such accurate specific enrolment. I fear that there is a disposition on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy not to comply with this law, and, in order to prove that this is probable, I will quote the statement, contained in a protest, made by the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy of Ireland against this Roman Catholic Bequests Act about four months after it was passed into a law. In that protest they say—

"We, the undersigned Archbishop, Bishops, and priests of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, having studied with attention the provisions of the Act of Charitable Bequests take the earliest opportunity which the unavoidable delay of consultation allowed us to declare our conviction that the measure is fraught with the worst consequences to religion, and it carried into operation will finally lead to the subjugation of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland to the temporal power."

That is to say, the power of the State. But here comes the most remarkable passage—

"Instead of a concession it is a new penal law of the old leaven."

And why?

"By forbidding the dying sinner in his most sincere moments—the time of his last sickness—to redeem his sins by the bequest of a single acre of landed property for any religious or charitable purpose in our communion."

This, Sir, although the quantity specified is "one acre," which in many cases the Law allows, and even a large quantity, seems to me a distinct denouncement of the law of mortmain. The protest goes on—

"It enacts that Roman Catholics—perhaps Bishops, should they be found to consent—shall be the persons to carry out the spirit, indeed the letter, of a penal clause in the late Act of Catholic Emancipation, which excluded the religious orders throughout Great Britain from the benefits of that Act, and against which the secular clergy in a petition to Parliament solemnly protested. It provides for the nomination by the Crown of five persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. They may be laymen, who have neither practical religion nor faith to recommend them, and whose province shall be to judge of matters vitally connected with our doctrine and discipline. If Bishops they will be called on, in the exercise of their functions as Commissioners, to interfere and pronounce in spiritual matters belonging to the jurisdiction of other Bishops, which is a flagrant violation of the canons of our Church. In cases within their own especial jurisdiction they will have to decide, not in virtue of the inherent powers of their holy order, but by the licence and authority of the Crown, which would be a virtual surrender of their sacred office and jurisdiction to the authority of the State. We beg leave, therefore, most firmly but most respectfully to protest against a Board so constructed, whether lay or ecclesiastical. If it is to be composed of laymen of state nomination, we must view it as a step towards the introduction of faithless and interested politicians to tamper with the independence of our Church, for the purpose of forwarding the anti-Catholic views of men in power, and of promoting their own personal interests. If the Board is to be composed of Bishops similarly appointed, we must regard the novel project of selecting ministerial favourites from the hierarchy as most calculated at once to create divisions in our body, to the well-being of which union and harmony are so essential, and to weaken and finally destroy the confidence of our faithful people, who having expressed so much feverish anxiety at the mention of their clergy being pensioned cannot fail of being alarmed at seeing them accept places and patronage under the Crown. For these and other reasons, which could not be crowded into a short form of declaration, we protest against the Act of Charitable Bequests, and declare our determination to oppose it by all legal and constitutional means in our power."

Let the House consider, then, to what this protest amounts. It is signed by fourteen Roman Catholic Bishops and a thousand priests, and it is a protest against the exercise of the temporal power of the State in any degree over Roman Catholic charitable or conventual property, and is a direct defiance of the law of mortmain, which forbids in this country the validity of any will, made by a dying person within twelve months of death bequeathing property to a religious foundation. The law also invalidates any deed of appointment or gifts to trustees if signed within three months of death for the like purpose. It was a protest signed by the greater part, if not the whole, of the Roman Catholic Bishops and a thousand priests, and it denounces a law passed by this House for Ireland, a law which has been in operation with beneficial effects ever since the year 1844. I am sorry to say that the non-effect or insufficient effect of the Roman Catholic Charities Act passed in 1860, and the non-compliance which we find with the provisions of the Burials Act seems to me to indicate the same determination on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to reject and to repudiate the authority of the State in everything which relates to the property devolving upon that Church. They speak in the protest I have quoted—these Roman Catholic Bishops and clerical protesters—of interference with discipline. Well, Sir, the Legislature of this country has always disapproved of "discipline" being exercised upon the dying for such a purpose as the acquisition of property by a Church, or indeed by any corporate body in the last hours of expiring mortality. Yet to use these means for acquiring property is what these Roman Catholic Bishops claim as a right, and they denounce the law because—like the law which exists in France and throughout continental Europe, aye, and existed in this country, too, from before the Conquest—it imposes a limitation upon the acquisitiveness of clerical bodies, and especially of the Church of Rome. So very liberal were the provisions of the Act of 1860 that I thought, as the then Government and the House thought, there would be a ready compliance with them; but I confess that I am disappointed, for instead of availing themselves of that enormous boon, the validation of all the property held by them in trust, on the ground of twenty years' user, simple possession of it, whether rightfully or wrongfully, up to the date of the Act, it appears that after the first year subsequent to the passing of the statute there is scarcely any evidence of enrolment; that the enrolments are at all events scanty, and that the system of enrolment in the Rolls Court is such as to create and interpose confusion and difficulty when persons, believing themselves interested, seek to ascertain whether the property is vested in trustees who are amenable to the law. I need hardly quote more of this Report of the Committee of 1852; still there is one passage to which I should like to direct the attention of the House with respect to the original Mortmain Statute of George II.—

"It appears that the fourth requisition which compels enrolment of the deed of gift in the Court of Chancery, is very defective as a means of ensuring publicity, and that there is great difficulty in obtaining evidence of charitable trusts when information is withheld. The general opinion of every witness of importance, with the exception of Dr. Wiseman, who declined to express any opinion on the subject, is that the greatest publicity should be given to all deeds or instruments, settling property for charitable purposes, and to the mode by which the trusts declared by such deeds or instruments are carried into execution. In this opinion your Committee fully concur; and they would suggest that it should be incumbent upon all persons to whom real or personal property is given or bequeathed upon any charitable or religious object, to make a Return either to Commissioners or to some public Board of the nature of the gift and the particular purposes to which it is to be applied."

The Committee then proceeded to show the manner in which secret trusts are created, and other methods, by which the law against mortmain is evaded. A general law, the Charitable Trusts Act, founded upon the recommendation of this Committee, was passed in 1853, and ensures compliance with this recommendation by every religious denomination, with the exception of the Roman Catholic, who claimed to be exempted from the law, and obtained the exemption. That exception, Sir, does not seem to be very much like a love of equality. And it strikes me, that, at a moment when we are contemplating something more stringent than a law of mortmain with respect to the Protestant Church established in Ireland—when we are told that the minority in that country is to be deprived of so large an amount of property, which they hold by an undoubted title, it is especially incumbent upon this House to take cognizance of the operation of the Roman Catholic Charities Act of 1860, and to see whether it has not proved the means of accumulating property in the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country to an extent that is not permitted to any other denomination, and by means which enable them to evade the law of mortmain. I will now show you that there is reason to suppose, from the enormous and rapid accumulation of this property, that the relaxation of the law has in practice led to that accumulation of property in the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that this accumulation has been unprecedented, and that this state of things has been by favour of the law, or rather by an evasion of the law, which restrains all other religious communities in the acquisition of property. I cannot see that there is equality in this. In the year 1864 I brought before the notice of the House the Petition of Mr. Smee, to which I have before referred, who complained that during the last illness of his relative, Mr. Hutchinson, influence was used over him by the late Mr. Faber, the Principal of the Oratorians at Brompton—a society which Mr. Hutchinson had joined—by means of which Mr. Faber obtained a sum of money amounting in all to £40,000, that is to say, by the last bequest, coupled with previous gifts. At that time I quoted an extract from a speech then lately delivered at Malines by the late Cardinal Wiseman, which was to this effect—

"Allow me now to present to you, by means of statistics, a rapid view of the effect produced by these different measures. The Census gives the population in England—for the year 1831, 13,896,797; for the year 1841, 15,914,148; for the year 1851, 17,927,609; for the year 1861, 20,906,224; an increase of about 2,000,000 in each decennial period. From 1831 to 1841, the population, therefore, increased 14 per cent. In the same period the number of priests increased about 25 per cent, or nearly double. During the following ten years the population increased 13 per cent, the number of priests 45 per cent. Lastly, from 1851 to 1861, while the population increased 12 per cent, the number of priests increased about 37 per cent. Here, again, are the precise statistics which will allow you to judge of the continued increase of the Roman Catholic Church in England. In 1830 we numbered but 434 priests for the whole of England. At present we have 1,242, that is to say, three times as many. The number of our churches, which was 410, has now increased to 872; from 16 convents which we possessed in 1830 in the United Kingdom, we have now, in 1863, 162. Lastly, in 1830, we had not a single religious house of men, in 1850 there were already 11, and to-day their number is 55."

Such, is the account, which was given by Cardinal Wiseman, and he, I suppose, must be held an unimpeachable authority; but I have some other statistics here which are not taken from Roman Catholic sources, and the accuracy of which I have no reason to doubt. These represent that—

"The increase of Roman Catholic institutions has recently been very great. In 1829 there were no monasteries nor convents publicly announced, and there were but 477 priests, and 449 chapels and stations. In 1841 there were but 1 monastery, 16 convents, and 9 colleges. In 1851 there were 17 monasteries and 53 convents. In the present year there are in England and Wales, 1,122 churches, chapels, and stations, 18 colleges, 214 convents, and 67 communities of men, altogether illegal, with inmates probably amounting to 3,000 males and 13,000 females. In connection with such institutions, real or personal property to a very large amount is, no doubt, fast accumulating, as well as for masses for the dead and other superstitious uses of the Romish religion. If each inmate of a convent bring a dowry of say £250, this would amount alone to upwards of £3,000,000."

It is perfectly clear that all these communities must have property to sustain them; and I think it is but fair to infer that their property has increased in something like the proportion of the number of priests and of the inmates which these establishments have to maintain, if not in a greater ratio; because it is a well-known fact that the conventual property, held by the Church of Rome is generally of a profitable nature, because the sum required with each nun represents on an average a larger amount than the capital required to provide for her, and that there remains a surplus over and above the expenditure on the maintenance of the establishments. I have adverted to the declaration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland that they claim the right of obtaining from persons, who are languishing on their death-beds, a large amount of property, and that they denounce the law, which places a restriction upon them, in common with the clergy of every other denomination. But there are other means by which the Church of Rome obtains property. I have another case here; and if the House will allow me, as it is very brief, I will state it in the words in which I have it—

"In January, 1855, a lady of the name of Thompson became a Roman Catholic, was received into the Romish Church by Father Faber

—the same person who obtained the property of Mr. Hutchinson, to whom I have referred—

who became her confessor, and in November, 1859, she entered the Carmelite Convent at Paris. Father Faber made all the arrangements; the lady paid £1,000 as dowry, she took the vows of obedience, chastity, and poverty; and subsequently she assumed the black veil, and executed a deed, by which she assigned the whole of her property to Mr. Hope Scott and Mr. Sergeant Bellasis for the benefit of the Oratory at Brompton. Lord Romilly decided, that Miss Thompson being under duress was not a free agent,

—I think we have had some illustrations of this hard by within the last few days—

and that the Court would not use its control over the property, until it was satisfied that she had not been influenced by her vows in the disposal of it."

Now, when we find such a vast amount of property accumulating in the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy; when in our courts of law such cases as this appear; when we observe a systematic determination evinced to evade the provisions of the law which we have passed; when we are informed, that the system of enrolment is defective—and we are so informed by the Charity Commissioners; when it appears, that the Law of England is more relaxed, and unduly relaxed, to the detriment of the families of Englishmen, than the Law of Ireland, although that to a great extent is a Roman Catholic country; surely all this demands and requires careful investigation, and I am not unreasonable in asking the House to accede to my Motion for the appointment of a Com- mittee to inquire into the subject. Were I to adopt another course, and move for Returns, I should be told that I was entailing upon the officers of the Rolls Court an undue amount of labour; and I know that that would be the case, owing to the confused manner in which the trusts are registered; and perhaps I should not have better success than I had upon the Address to Her Majesty requesting that directions be sent to those whose duty it was to afford information with regard to the registration of burials, and whose non-compliance with the Order of the House I have already adverted to. This matter, Sir, has many bearings. I cannot help thinking that this House in 1860, in its anxiety to meet the objections raised by the Roman Catholic Members of the House, adopted words, particularly in the fifth clause of the Act, which afford a loophole for the carrying out on the part of the Church of Rome, in defiance of the Law of Mortmain, a system, to which this country should no more submit than the Government of France or Italy, or any other Government in Europe. There is nothing new in these attempts on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to accumulate this property. No doubt they consider it to be their duty to do so; but unfortunately in the process they bring themselves into collision with the temporal power in every State in Europe. Indeed it seems as if the doctrine they put forth on this subject were adverse to the common sense of mankind. Even our Roman Catholic ancestors resisted much more sternly and much more effectually than we do now all such attempts. If hon. Members would only look back at the statutes passed in the reigns of Edward I. and Richard II., through the dynasties of the Houses of Lancaster and York, centuries before the Reformation, they will find one perpetually renewed catena of statutes forbidding this abuse. In arguing, therefore, that we should take means to inform ourselves as to the operation of our own law, I do it for a purpose, which I have in common with the laity of the Roman Catholic Church in the past and in the present, and in every country in Europe. Look, for example, at what has happened in Italy. There, under the influence of the Papacy, the laws of mortmain were left unenforced, and the result was that such an amount of pro- perty accumulated in the hands of monasteries, not profitable to the State, that at last the time came, in 1850, when the Siccardi law was adopted, and I shall be prepared to show—["Oh!"]—though I do not wish to annoy any Members of the House, the enormous amount of property which the State has recovered for the benefit of the people. Not only was the law of 1850 carried out in 1855, but in the year 1861 another law was passed appropriating to the State a still larger portion, almost the whole of the remainder of the monastic and conventual property; not to be employed for the ordinary uses of the State, the purposes of defence or the requirements of commerce, but to provide for the education of the people. For one of the most remarkable circumstances in Italy was that, although there were thousands of priests who ought to have been the teachers of the people, there was no country in Europe in which the people were so untaught. In Italy, then, the State has, by a violent and convulsive effort, had to make up for its past neglect, a neglect of centuries, in not enforcing the law of mortmain against the undue accumulation of this property by the Roman Catholic Church; and after much pain and trouble, after placing itself in a position of hostility to the Church of Rome, and after being in an antagonism to it that has rocked society to its foundations, the time has come when this abuse of accumulating a large amount of property in the hands of those who do not use it for purposes which are profitable or beneficial to the community, has been put an end to. For, in their case, they did not teach the people; and I can show from statistics that ignorance prevailed most where the monasteries had the largest portion of the property in their possession; in fact, that in proportion to the accumulation of property in their hands did popular ignorance prevail. That was reported to the Italian Parliament, and now the State has resumed possession of the greater portion of the property. I need scarcely say any thing more to prove that the law of mortmain ought to be enforced as much against clerical bodies as against secular. Why, so jealous has the Legislature been on this subject that there is an Act in existence which prevents any lay corporation, associated for the purpose of promoting literature or the fine arts, from holding more than two acres of land, and the Board of Trade is bound to see that they do not acquire more. There is nothing peculiar, therefore, in the restriction. In feudal times the State found that the possession by monastic houses and conventual establishments of these enormous properties had the effect of depriving it of the services of its subjects, and of weakening the defence of the realm. And now, when a trust is created for religious or charitable uses, 10 per cent is charged at first under the succession duty; but never after that is any succession duty paid; whilst, if the property were held by individuals or a family, upon every devolution of the property that tax would be levied. Thus the property in mortmain pays 10 per cent once for all, and never pays again. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister appears to have felt this, for, two or three years since, he proposed to make charitable property liable to the income tax, although he was met with such opposition that he was obliged to abandon the proposal, Wherever this accumulation of property in mortmain has taken place, it has been found to be detrimental to the nation alike materially, financially, and morally; and, although I am unwilling to detain the House, I am desirous of showing why the House has reason to be careful. When the law of 1861 had passed in Italy, for this disposal of conventual and monastic property, Cardinal Antonelli issued a circular, in winch he warned all purchasers and intending purchasers of that property, that where property had ever belonged to the Church of Rome, no adverse title would ever be acknowledged by the Church; against the acquisition of that property by any layman he proclaimed the doctrine nullum tempus occurrit Ecclesiœ to its full extent; and it was but the other day that Dr. Manning, the head of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country, was in Rome; and whilst at Rome, on St. Thomas's Day, he is reported by the Weekly Register, a Roman Catholic organ, to have said—

"We are so used to hear the phrase of 'national property,' to hear sacrilegious spoliation spoken of as a matter of State necessity, that we have ceased to be shocked at it as we should. We forget that all that the piety of the faithful has laid at the feet of the Apostles belongs to God, and that no worldly hand can lawfully touch it."

Here, then, we have a distinct enunciation of the doctrine that nullum tempus occurrit Ecclesiœ. Therefore it behoves this House to see that the law is not tampered with; for if once property falls into the hands of the Church of Borne, that Church will never acknowledge a good title in any one to whom the State may transfer it. "We are so used to hear the phrase of 'national property,'" says Dr. Manning, "to hear sacrilegious spoliation spoken of as a matter of State necessity, that we have ceased to be shocked at it as we should." When I read this, I could not help feeling that it would have been well if Manning had bethought him of that opinion before he wrote his letter to Lord Grey, recommending the disendowment of the Protestant Church in Ireland. It appears to me, Sir, that the authorities of the Church of Rome will not accept in their own case the law which is applied to other religious denominations, or acknowledge in others the right which they claim for themselves. It is a spirit against which Parliament has ever had to struggle; and I hope that, by consenting to the appointment of this Committee, the House will inform itself whether the two statutes to which I have referred, and the consideration of which I propose, are not practically insufficient, if not a dead letter, for the purposes contemplated and intended by the Legislature.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for amending the Law relating to Mining Partnerships within the Stannaries of Devon and Cornwall, and to the Court of the Vice Warden of the Stannaries, said, the measure had not for its object to legislate for one part of the country in prejudice to the rest—it had reference to a state of things which existed in Devon and Cornwall alone, and nowhere else. It was not a penal or a restrictive Bill, but an enabling measure to bring the existing law into harmony with local circumstances, and to remove the restrictions which impaired the utility and hampered the jurisdiction of the Stannaries Court. That Court had a jurisdiction of two kinds—a common law and an equitable jurisdiction, and the Bill had reference chiefly to the latter. That equitable jurisdiction extended to all disputes arising out of mining transactions in Devon and Cornwall; mines worked on the cost-book system—as nearly all the mines in those counties were—being entirely under the control and regulation of the Stannaries Court. The House would, therefore, see of what vast importance it was to the mining interests of the West of England that the proceedings of a Court having so extensive and peculiar a jurisdiction should be rendered as cheap, as simple, and as expeditious as possible. The Bill had another object of equal if not greater importance, which was to bring the cost-book system to a certain extent within the general law which regulated public companies. The Acts of Parliament which regulated public companies in England did not apply to mines in Devon and Cornwall, inasmuch as these, being cost-book mines, were not in the nature of public companies, but were private partnerships, and by Section 63 of the Joint-Stock Companies Act of 1844 they were expressly excepted from the operation of that Act. The House would naturally desire to have some information as to the nature of the cost-book system, which was simply this—When it was determined to work a mine the adventurers assembled and divided the whole adventure into a certain number of shares, which they allotted as they thought proper, and then applied for a licence to search for ore, followed afterwards by a sett or lease. They appointed one person to act as manager, who kept what was called the "cost-book." In that book the manager entered the names of the shareholders, the resolutions passed at the meetings, the calls, dividends, and accounts, and generally everything relating to the management and engagements of the mine. The adventurers met at stated intervals—generally of two months—and proceeded to audit the accounts. If the adventure had been favourable, they declared dividends; if unfavourable, calls were made to meet the expenses incurred. The partners had the power of transferring or relinquishing their shares at pleasure, and without consulting their co-partners, and in the latter case the shares became extinct. From what he had said the House would see that mining adventures under the cost-book system were very different from trading partnerships on the one hand, or joint-stock companies on the other, for not only could the partners transfer and abandon their shares at pleasure, but the management of the undertaking was not invested in any Board of Directors, but was under the immediate and direct control of the whole body of adventurers. They also differed from joint-stock companies essentially in this respect, that the adventure alone was divided into shares, and that there was no money capital, subscribed or unsubscribed, on which calls could be made. The system was deficient in many respects. Calls were made at present only after a meeting of shareholders for auditing the accounts, and could be made only to meet expenses already incurred. It was proposed by this Bill to give the shareholders power, with certain restrictions, to make calls in anticipation of expenditure to be incurred. It had been held that accounts could be legally audited and calls consequently made only when a majority of the whole of the shareholders were present; and it very often appeared to be the interest of particular shareholders to prevent a full meeting from being held, and therefore they stopped away themselves and induced others to do so. It was proposed in this Bill to give the majority of the shareholders present at a meeting, either in person or by proxy, power to audit the accounts, and make a call should they think it desirable. A call at present was nothing more than an agreement among the shareholders to pay, and there was no power to enforce payment except on application to the Stannaries Court, which might give authority to sell the share. It was proposed by the Bill to give the shareholders the same authority of declaring the shares of a defaulter forfeited as was possessed at present by joint-stock companies, and, further, a power to bring an action at law against a person whose liability might not be satisfied by the sale of his shares, or for any claim on him by the company. It was in the power of any adventurer at present entirely to relinquish his share, and in that case the share became dead or extinct. The Bill proposed that it should be kept alive, and that it should be in the power of the rest of the shareholders to sell or dispose of the share in the same manner as a forfeited share in a joint-stock company. There was also an important provision with regard to the sale of a mine. At present the majority of the adventurers had power to sell the material of a mine, but it required the consent of every single shareholder to sell the lease. There were sometimes 5,000 or 6,000 shares in a mine, some of whom might be in the name of infants, trustees, lunatics, or residents abroad, and that provision practically operated as a perfect bar towards making a good title to a mine. It was therefore proposed by this Bill that, under certain careful restrictions, a majority of three-fourths of the adventurers being present at a meeting specially assembled should have power to sell the whole mine, lease and all. He believed that if that power had existed, many mines in Cornwall which within the last few years had been stopped would now be working. Another important provision of the Bill related to the winding up of mining properties. It was proposed that, in case of the bankruptcy or failure of a mine, the miners, clerks, and others employed about the mine should have priority of claim for wages, &c., to the amount of not exceeding three months' salary. It was also proposed to limit the liability of shareholders for the debts of a mine, which at present extended to all debts incurred by the mine within six years, to liability for debts contracted within two years previous to the shareholders' name being removed from the cost-book. There were certain other provisions of minor importance in the first part of the Bill, and the second part of the measure related entirely to the interior working of the Court of the Vice Warden of the Stannaries. In Cornwall they did not possess, within their narrow limits, the capital necessary to develope the vast mineral wealth existing below the surface; and it was the interest of all classes there, of the lords of the soil, the merchants who supplied the materials of the mines, and the working miners, to induce capital from other sources to flow towards them, not by holding out illegitimate attractions, but by offering that common security against fraud and dishonesty which it met with elsewhere. This measure had this object in view, and such were the principal provisions of the Bill, which had been framed with a view to carry out the unanimous wishes of the whole district to which it applied. It had been drawn up, not in haste, but after the most careful and elaborate discussion at general and other meetings, and it was conceived in an honest and fair spirit, which he hoped would recommend it to the favour of the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, the law relating to mines, which had been explained by the hon. Gentleman with great clearness, was attended with a great deal of intricacy, and might be simplified with great advantage. Many of the provisions proposed in this Bill were considerable improvements in the Law, so far as he had been able to follow them in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and though it would be premature to express an opinion until they had the Bill itself before them, there could be no possible objection to the introduction of the measure, to the main part of which he was inclined to think they would be disposed to agree when it reached a further stage.

, in rising to propose that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law for Licensing Beerhouses, and to make certain alterations with respect to the sale by retail of Beer, Cider, and Wine, said, that, as he understood there would be no objection offered to the introduction of the measure, he would not then attempt to state the reasons which led him to bring it forward, or adduce the arguments by which he hoped at a future stage to justify his having done so. He might, however, remark that the importance of that question to the social well-being of the country could hardly be exaggerated; and he hoped to be able on the second reading to show that the remedy he proposed would, in some way, meet the evils complained of. The hon. Gentleman concluded by making his Motion.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for the Preservation of Sea Birds, said, it was with much diffidence that he presumed to bring before the notice of the House a measure which sought to give some legislative protection to those sea birds which still remained on our English coasts. The Bill was not only framed in accordance with the strongly - expressed feeling of almost every class of his constituency (East Riding of Yorkshire), but from the numerous letters he had received from all parts of England, evincing the warmest sympathy with its objects, he was led to regard it as one of almost national interest. The sea birds of England were rapidly disappearing from our coasts. That fact had been established at the last annual meeting of the British Association. Prom Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, Norfolk, Devonshire, Cornwall, and Pembrokeshire, the same cry arose. His Bill aimed at protecting those sea birds during the breeding season; and there was a very important precedent for it in a rigid statute passed in the 25th year of the reign of Henry VIII., protecting sea birds at that very season. The grounds on which he brought the measure forward were no mere sentimental or humanitarian grounds, though these were strong enough. He did so in the interest of three very important classes of his constituents, for important they must be to every Member of a sea-board county; he meant the farmers, the merchant seamen, and the deep-sea fishers. A few years ago, the farmers of the East Riding of Yorkshire—not merely those residing in the immediate vicinity of the coast, but as far as twenty miles inland—were accustomed to see flocks of sea birds following at the heels of the ploughboy and from the newly turned-up earth picking up worms and grubs. But he held in his hand a letter from an influential farmer living in the parish of Filey, within a mile of the coast, stating that last summer he did not see a single bird on his farm. He appealed to the House also in the interest of our merchant sailors, for in foggy weather those birds, by their cry, afforded warning of the proximity of a rocky shore, when neither a beacon-light could be seen nor a signal-gun heard. He held in his hand a paper proving that with the decrease of those birds the number of vessels which had gone ashore at Flamborough Head had steadily increased. For the services they rendered to the mariner those birds had earned for themselves the name of the "Flamborough pilots." He appealed to the House, likewise, in the interest of the deep-sea fishers, because, by hovering over the shoals of fish, those birds pointed out the places where the fisherman should cast his net. On that ground alone the Legislature of the Isle of Man had lately passed an Act imposing a penalty of £5 on every man who wilfully killed or destroyed a seagull. Lastly, he made his appeal even in the interest of those thoughtless pleasure seekers themselves who flocked to the coast in the summer months, chiefly from the populous towns of the West Riding of Yorkshire and of Lancashire. Those persons would have themselves to blame if, in a few years, they found that those rocks, which he once remembered as teeming with wild fowl, had become a silent wilderness. In conclusion, he hoped that the importance of the Bill which he moved for leave to introduce would not be overlooked through the insignificance of its advocate.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the further amendment of the Law of Evidence, said, the measure sought to carry out to their legitimate conclusion two great principles—the first being that there should be no incapacity of persons as witnesses merely from their having an interest in the case, and the second, that parties should not be deprived of the evidence of witnesses through some defect in the religious belief of such witnesses.