said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to a recent charge against three young men at Marlborough street Police Court, and to the published comments of Mr. Knox, the magistrate, upon the conduct and evidence of the police, and, whether he intends to direct any proceedings to be taken in the matter?

Sir, the facts of this case have received my very careful consideration. It appears that on the night of the 1st of July there was a disturbance in the Haymarket, between the hours of one and two o'clock, a large number of prostitutes being present. Certain persons were arrested on the charge of having taken part in the disturbance and of having assaulted the police. The magistrate before whom the case was brought dismissed the charge, believing the statements of the persons accused rather than the sworn evidence of the police. The constables were men of good character and of long service, and were especially selected for the very arduous task of keeping order in the Haymarket at night. Undoubtedly the decision of the magistrate throws doubt upon their veracity and trustworthiness. The rule established by the Home Office, after much experience in such matters for the guidance of the Chief Commissioner of Police, has been that, in all charges against members of the force where the evidence is conflicting, and is supported on either side by witnesses who are not members of the force, the case should be left to the decision of a magistrate. The Chief Commissioner of Police has no means of conducting a judicial inquiry, without which no decision affecting the character and interests of the members of the force could be properly made. The proper course, therefore, in the present case would seem to be that the gentlemen aggrieved should either summon the policemen for assault before a magistrate, or should proceed against them by way of indictment Should the result of either of these proceedings be unfavourable to the policemen, it would be the duty of the Chief Commissioner to inflict such punishment by dismissal or otherwise, as might seem adequate to the offence.

I should like to ask, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman intends to recommend that the Government should indict the policemen, or whether it is to be left to the persons who have been injured?

I see no particular reason why the Government should undertake the prosecution. The policemen adhere to the truth of their statement; hitherto they have borne excellent characters in the force. The occurrence took place in a part of the town, and at an hour of the night, which rendered the circumstances suspicious; and the remedy being so cheap and so easy— namely, that of summoning the men for an assault before the magistrate, it seems to me unnecessary for the Government to interfere.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, What sums have been expended in placing a Light Vessel near the Little Basses Rock, off the Coast of Ceylon, and what is the annual cost of lighting and maintaining that vessel; what is the estimated cost of erecting a Lighthouse on the Great Basses Rock, as proposed in the Bill now before the House; what rate per ton is now charged upon vessels for the maintenance of the present light, from what vessels and where is it collected, and what is the total amount annually collected; and, what toll per ton will be imposed under the Bill now before the House, and if that toll, or any toll can be imposed without the concurrence of the authorities at Ceylon? He would like also to ask the hon. Member, if he will postpone the second reading of the Bill on this subject to Monday?

said, in reply, that the sum expended on the Little Basses Rock Lightship was £12,000, and the annual cost of maintaining it was £2,000. The estimated cost of the Lighthouse on the Great Basses Rock was £65,000. At present a toll of 1d. per ton was paid on all vessels passing the light, and it was collected in the United Kingdom, in India, in the Mauritius, and at the Cape. This produced an annual income of £6,500, and it was proposed to increase the toll by ½d. per ton. It was the intention of the Government to proceed that evening with the second reading of the Bill.

I rise, Sir, un-der a heavy sense of responsibility, but with profound satisfaction, to move that this House do agree to the Irish Church Bill, as re-amended by the House of Lords, without any exception or reservation. It is my duty, considering what has passed before, briefly to state to the House what are these Amendments to the Bill, I do not mean as technically expressed on the Paper printed for the use of Members, but according to their substance and effect; and I have likewise to sketch the manner in which we have arrived at these Amendments. Sir, in the Amendments to the Bill, there are six points which call for particular notice. In the first place, we, the Government, assent to the excision from the Preamble of the entire words which were struck out by the House of Lords on the first occasion when the Bill was in Committee in the other House. That portion of the Preamble is cast out which related to the application of the surplus in a negative sense, specifying that it was not to be appropriated to religious uses; and also that part of the Preamble which declared in a positive sense that it was to be appropriated to the benefit of the people of Ireland. We could not have consented to part with those words, had there been no provision in the Bill relating to the surplus; but inasmuch as there will be a provision—passed by the House of Lords last night—relating to the appropriation of the surplus, we feel that it would be invidious and unnecessary to require a theoretical or abstract declaration in the Preamble of that which will be found briefly and simply, but sufficiently, indicated by enacting words in the latter portion of the Bill. The next point necessary to be noticed is the date. I am quite satisfied, after what has passed "elsewhere," that those Gentlemen who considered that we evinced an undue tenacity in replacing the date of the 1st of January will not be inclined to persist in any charge against us on that score, for we have the gratification of knowing, or of at least believing that we know, that it was declared last night by a person who is a most influential organ of political opinion in the House of Lords that, provided the other enactments of the Bill were reduced to a satisfactory condition, he was of opinion that the earliest date for disestablishment would be the best. The date of the 1st of January, therefore, stands in the Bill, not as a token of contest and victory, but as indicating the joint and harmonious opinion of both Houses of Parliament. The third point that requires notice relates to the deduction of the stipends of curates from the incomes of the incumbents. As the Bill last left this House the majority of the House had introduced into this portion of the measure a change which, I think cannot have been understood, or it would have received an earlier and more favourable notice. We had assented to the framing of clauses in such a way that none of the poorer incumbents in Ireland—none the income of whose benefice amounts to less than £300 a year—would, under any circumstances, be liable to a deduction of a curate's salary from his clerical income. When the Bill reached the House of Lords, it was found that other provisions, and particularly those which related to the certainty of the criterion for determining who was and who was not a permanent curate, admitted of further consideration and amendment; and it was suggested that it would be extremely hard that the rector who, from some accidental cause, had, within a particular and limited period, employed a curate, contrary to his usual habit and to the absolute necessities of the benefice, should, on that account, have the stipend of the curate deducted from the income of the benefice. Acceding to the justice of that representation we cheerfully proposed two things — in the first place, that no man should be adjudged a permanent curate simply on the ground of having been employed within the stipulated time, but only after the terms which would give a statutory definition of a permanent curate should have been found to have been fulfilled; and, in the second place, that the period of service for which a curate's stipend should have been allowed for in reckoning the income of the living for taxation should not be one year, but should be extended to five years. The next provision I would notice is that which relates to the glebe houses, and with respect to that important portion of the Bill I will simply say that in substance it has not undergone alteration. A change has been introduced—and here again with the perfect good-will of the Government —to the effect that any person desirous to commute may, if he likes, commute as to all his other interests, but except from the commutation the house which he occupies, and likewise any land of which he may be himself not only the landlord, but the occupier. That change is one which I think can cause no possible offence. With respect to the moderate charge which this House consented to leave on the glebe houses as the Bill originally stood, it was possible that in the last resort, so far as the view of the Government was concerned, that might have been a subject for consideration; but the discussions which have arisen both here and "elsewhere "have established so close a relation between that moderate arrangement and the question of the maintenance or non-maintenance of the principle of religious equality in the arrangements of this Bill that I think it is generally admitted, as it has been conceded by the vote of the House of Lords, that these provisions ought no longer to be the subject of discussion or change. Then, with respect to the surplus clause, that will be reduced to a very simple form. It will declare that it is expedient the proceeds of the property of the Irish Church, remaining after the satisfaction of all equitable claims, shall be appropriated mainly to the relief of inevitable calamity and suffering, yet not so as to cancel the obligations attaching to property under Acts of Parliament for the relief of the poor; and it will also enact that the appropriation of the surplus shall be effected in the manner which Parliament shall hereafter direct. And here I may be permitted to add a few words of explanation, in order to say that to us this enactment is perfectly satisfactory. Upon the introduction of the Bill I hinted to the House that in all likelihood the 68th clause might require some subsidiary legislation before the money could be astually appropriated, but we had no desire to retain in the hands of the Executive the appropriation of the money. At no time have we made it an essen- tial portion of our proposal, or desired to treat it as a subject of conflict. It was quite enough for us to ask, and all we could ask, that Parliament should make a solemn legislative declaration of the general purpose to which the money should be applied, and should reserve to itself all other discretion. Of course even that discretion is likewise reserved. We, who are modifying the Act of Union, could not and should not wish to set up any higher claim for ourselves than we allow to others; but we did think it a great and important object that this large sum of money should not be suspended as it were before the eyes of every party, of every section of a party, of every local community, of every candidate at an election, to become the subject of promises, bargains, and intrigues, which would tend to corrupt both the representative and the constituencies. We have been censured, and perhaps not unnaturally—for I will admit that the case is open to observation both ways—for the introduction of some minute and careful specifications into the clause which are said to be open to objection; but I ask those disposed to criticize us—what would have happened, how should we have fared, and, what is more important, how would the Bill and the public interest associated with the Bill have fared, if we had introduced the Bill in the condition, as regards the surplus, in which it came down to this House from the House of Lords? I do not think any man would deny that in that case we should have laid ourselves open to the gravest charges, and interposed the gravest obstacles in the way of the passing of the measure. I would call on the man who thinks that we could have presented a Bill for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, which would have wholly and absolutely relegated to the future the question of the application of the surplus, to recollect the history of the Reform Bill of 1866, and what happened when the proposal was made to separate the questions of enfranchisement and disfranchisement. Sir, this is not, so far as I am concerned, intended to be more than an explanatory and apologetic plea. Not one word have I said, nor will I say, conveying the slightest reproach to any one. My task is one far more agreeable. I am sure it must be the desire of all who hear me, now that we have arrived at this solemn point in the history of the nation, that every man should discharge from his recollection whatever words may have tended, be it much or little, needlessly to embitter this great controversy. And, Sir, to support by practice that which by precept I have suggested, I call to my own mind that I used an expression in the discussions of last week that gave offence "elsewhere," when I described, perhaps, by an ungainly figure, not, as those who recollect my words will know, any general unacquaintance on the part of the Lords on the subject of public affairs, but their necessary comparative unacquaintance with the details of the engagements and obligations between Members of Parliament and their constituents; but the expression has given offence, and I therefore regret that I used it. Sir, I have now gone through the Amendments, excepting, advisedly, the main one, which I am desirous of placing in that position of prominence that in every way belongs to it. The main Amendment is the Amendment in the commutation clause. We have agreed to accept as our own, to make part of our policy, and earnestly to recommend to this House, with whatever urgency we may presume to use, the adoption of provisions which will materially alter the operation of the commutation clause. The changes to which I need refer, I think, are only two. One of them is that the proportion of clergy in any diocese who are to agree to commute before certain effects can follow is to be altered from four-fifths to three-fourths. We do not see the advantage of that arrangement, but we can understand the motive by which it has been dictated; and this is palpable, as we think, that it in no way adds to the burden likely to be imposed on the funds by the alterations in the commutation clause. We therefore have adopted it because it was desired. But the main alteration is this — that subject to the same condition of working by a large majority within the limits of each diocese, and, of course, with the perfectly equal application of the principle to the Presbyterian Church in its various and separate divisions, the sum of 5 per cent shall be added to the sum of 7 per cent which was the increment of commutation which the House sanctioned when the Bill was last before it. The pecuniary effect of this change it is not easy to compute with precision. I think its operation will probably be somewhat reduced by the change from four-fifths to three-fourths; but if it is largely acted upon, it will lead to an additional charge upon the fund for the disestablished Church to an extent somewhat exceeding £250,000, and there will be a corresponding sum, though my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derry (Mr. Serjeant Dowse) may not admit that it will be a corresponding sum, but there will be a corresponding percentage laid on the fund for the benefit of the Presbyterian Church. Now, Sir, this is the important change, as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, to which we have assented. And. I ought, in recommending such a change to the House on the part of my Colleagues and myself, to acquaint the House with the grounds on which we recommend it, and the manner in which we have arrived at it. Sir, from the first moment of the conception and of the introduction of this Bill, our dominant idea, to which every other has given way, has been the sense of our duty of keeping strict and loyal faith with the people who have sent us here. The engagements at the last General Election were no ordinary engagements. In general, a candidate goes before a constituency with general declarations of opinion, which are liable necessarily to very large varieties of application. It rarely happens that an issue perfectly distinct on a question of primary national importance is submitted to the country at a General Election. Such an issue was submitted at the beginning of 1784, when Parliament was dissolved upon the question between supporting George III. and the Ministry of Mr. Pitt against the coalition of Mr. Fox and Lord North. Such an issue was submitted when, in the spring of 1831, the country was asked whether it would rally round and sustain the Reform Bill of the Government of Lord Grey. Such an issue was again submitted in the November of last year, and these three occasions of questions so put with such distinctness, and upon interests so vast, before the country, are the only three, so far as I know, that the Parliamentary history of an entire century affords. Sir, we had no choice— whether as persons engaged together in government, or as persons actuated by a sentiment of individual honour—we had no choice, except to make strict fidelity to our engagements, the cardinal consideration to govern our course. Subject to that, we were desirous to make every concession to the Irish Church about to be disestablished that was compatible with the principles of religious equality which we desired to run like a silver cord through the whole tissue of the Bill. That being so, when the Bill came back from the House of Lords to be discussed in this House, we carefully reviewed and severely tested the provision we had made, and asked ourselves what were the points on which it would be possible for the House of Commons, without derogation from the principle of the Bill, to make further concessions either to the Church or to any other religious body. The result of the conclusion at which we arrived was exhibited in the Amendments which we recommended, and which the House was pleased to adopt in the debates of Thursday and Friday last; and the pecuniary effect of those Amendments, so far as we could judge, was to grant to the disestablished Church a sum of money little short of £800,000, besides the sum corresponding in respect to the commutation which was granted to the Presbyterians. These were our overtures towards the settlement of the question, and I refer to them now because they form an essential link in the chain of the transactions. Other overtures were made to us; and after we had concluded the process in this House we again considered what our course was to be in the event of such overtures being made, and whether it was still possible for us to make any step in advance. We still concluded that we had done all that the principle of the Bill, strictly considered, would admit—nay, that in respect of private endowments we had done more than the principle of the Bill, strictly considered, would admit. But, notwithstanding, we at once arrived at this conclusion, that considering all the great interests involved in the case, the benefits of passing the measure, the mischief of its rejection, the value of peace, the desire we entertained for it, and lastly the deference which none of us should be ashamed to own that he owes to the other branch of the Legislature—the combined force of these considerations, we at once concluded., would lead us, provided the question ever reached that issue, to recommend strongly to the House to make some one further sensible and substantial concession in order to bring about an agreement with the House of Lords. Now, Sir, that is a plain, unvarnished tale; and it is upon that tale that we wish our case to stand. I have no doubt that considerable collateral benefits will arise from accelerating commutation by increased inducements, for every commutation where the clergyman is a landlord, puts an end to his position as a landlord; and that, in Ireland, we think to be no small or secondary benefit. But still the main grounds on which we recommend the concession —as it is certainly in our view a concession beyond the principle of the Bill —are those I have briefly detailed— they are the immense public interests involved, the great objects we have in view, and the desire to defer to and concur with the House of Lords in the exemplification of that harmony of our institutions which, perhaps, has rarely been more severely tried than during the discussions of the present year; and which, I thank God, has stood the trial. Sir, I know not that I need add anything in explanation of these Amendments, excepting to say that, immediately that we found that a disposition existed which gave us hope of a common basis, my noble Friend, Earl Granville, in that spirit which all would desire, and with that capacity which I think all admit, entered into the detailed communications which have resulted in the settlement which we now recommend. And, Sir, it is but fair that I should repeat, what I have before gladly said, that I owe my acknowledgments to the Opposition in this House for the manner in which— abstaining from every effort to clog the course of this Bill, whether by open or by secret obstruction—they allowed the issue to be taken fairly, and while fighting the battle with the courage that becomes them as English Gentlemen they stooped to no unfair advantage. And further, Sir, I must refer to "another place," and must acknowledge with satisfaction and thankfulness, not only the ability which I grant to be a great ornament and glory of the other House as displayed in debate, but that comprehensive sagacity and forethought, that power of realizing the future and of preparing for it, which alone, I think, has brought about on the part of the House of Lords the recommendation of the settlement which I am now authorized to urge upon this House. Sir, we have arrived indeed at a great period. When this Bill receives—as I trust it will receive within a very few days—the Assent of the Crown, every man must be conscious that a change has begun to pass over the moral atmosphere of Ireland. I think, too, that, quite apart from the differing views which we have taken of this measure, every man will feel that, at the introduction of this new period, it is a solemn duty for each of us, in his sphere, to labour to accomplish his own prophecies, if they have been sanguine, and to defeat his own predictions, if they have been gloomy and unfavourable. And, moreover, I am confident that this will be the spirit in which this measure will be ushered into the world. So far as we are concerned we have urged it as a remedy, in part, for the diseases of Ireland, because we are convinced that in equality, as it is understood in this country—and it is here a term of far different import from that which the corresponding phrase bears across the Straits of Dover—that in equal laws and equal rights there is a potency of charm for healing political and social wounds, and for creating that concord which is the strength and glory of a nation. On such grounds it is our duty to test to the utmost the power of that principle, and as a portion of that process it is that we have urged this Bill. But, Sir, in endeavouring to put an end to a state of privilege for the minority, it is not, I hope, to introduce a state of tyranny on the part of the majority. I trust that the majority will disclaim that tyranny both in word and action, and indeed if they should not we should be compelled to admit that although it might exhibit a condition of things less odious than that which we have put down, yet it would still be a condition of odious and intolerable wrong To the Roman Catholics by this Bill we offer nothing but that which we believe to be their strictest due. With the Presbyterian community we have endeavoured to deal on principles of equal justice. To the Church that is now disestablished, and towards which not one of us can ever feel a sentiment other than that of earnest good-will—to the Church now about to be disestablished we simply record our wish and prayer that there may be de- veloped in her, according to her means, those masculine qualities by which a great crisis can be met. And we bid her God-speed on her new career. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Lords' Amendments be now considered and agreed to.

I do not think it would become those who, to the best of their power, have maintained the opinions of the minority during this long, anxious, and arduous discussion, now that they think the course taken is, under all the circumstances, wise, and right, and creditable to all concerned— I say I do not think it would become them to be silent, and not to accept the responsibility of declaring that opinion upon the present occasion. In all human affairs there is a point at which persons must accept an adverse decision, and bow to the superior force and power of those with whom the practical control of affairs remains; and it is not the course of true wisdom when that point has been reached, to refuse to see and to acknowledge it, or, without a hope of improving the position of any class, to maintain a struggle against public opinion, simply for the sake of that conflict and that struggle. If here or "elsewhere" it had appeared to any who had the responsibility of judgment that, by keeping this question open and deferring a settlement, better results for the country—or, speaking on the part of those who had the interests of the Church at heart, better results for the Church—would have been likely to be obtained, that belief would have justified a corresponding course of action. But, for my part, I cannot conceive that anything would have justified a deliberate choice of policy which would have kept this question, having attained to its present position, longer open and unsettled, to be a constant source of irritation and mutual recrimination and excitement, inflaming the passions and feelings of large classes of men both in England and Ireland. Nothing could possibly have justified that but a strong and, I venture to say, a reasonable opinion, that by so doing some good practical result was likely to be attained. I, therefore, cannot blame as if it were an ignominious surrender—I rather applaud the wisdom and generosity of those who, having done all that they could, felt that the limit had been attained, and that by persisting in a fruitless opposition they should be doing harm and not good to the very interests they desired to protect. And I must say it appears to me that on the side of the Government there has been substantial concession, both of feeling and of something of real practical value, to the disestablished Church. Of feeling, because all men have their feelings, and when a Minister is in the position of my right hon. Friend, supported by so great and so loyal a majority, sure to be able in this House to carry by a great majority anything on which he thinks fit to insist, and having no reason to doubt that he would be supported out-of-doors in any course that he might adopt— when such a Minister, conducting a measure like this, has taken a strong, strict, and severe line, and has from time to time spoken as if any deviation from that line on the side of greater liberality to- wards the disestablished Church might be, perhaps, a deviation from the principle of the Bill, it did require some courage in himself, and some confidence in the generosity and wisdom of this House, before such a Minister could make up his mind, under the influence of those considerations—which my right hon. Friend has so worthily spoken of to-day—to make the concessions for the sake of peace which he has announced to the House. And I venture to say that the motives for making those concessions which my right hon. Friend has mentioned are such as increase their value, such as are honourable to himself, and, I may add, are motives the absence of which from the mind of anyone occupying so high a position I should have thought matter to be deplored almost more than any calamity which could happen to the country. If there be any duty of a Minister so powerful as my right hon. Friend—I venture to say none can stand higher than this—to contribute what is in his power to the maintenance of the authority of all the branches of the Government, and of the Constitution under which we live, and do his best to avoid conflicts and irritation between the two branches of the Legislature, and to bring into harmony all the parts of our system of government. To that responsibility and to that duty my right hon. Friend has shown himself not insensible. He has been met in a corresponding spirit by what appears to me to be the unanimous sense of this House. And I must add that the disestablished Church could not certainly have had a worse fate before it than to become disestablished, not now, but some years hence, perhaps, after a prolonged period of conflict, and after other great interests in the country had been endangered unnecessarily for her sake. In the interest of the disestablished Church it is better that she should go forth into the world with something less than than what her advocates consider justice, than that she should get more as the price of such perils and dangers as otherwise might have been incurred by those other great interests. I cannot conclude without saying one word to express my personal feeling as to the way in which my right hon. Friend has conducted this measure—in a way in which all of us must, I think, appreciate. He has referred to an unguarded expression which was used by him upon one important occasion, not with the intent of conveying any species of disrespect to another Assembly, but which, having been so taken and so understood, he has, in disavowing the construction put upon that expression, retracted it with the best possible grace. I feel bound to say, as far as I myself am concerned, not only that from the very beginning I have been certain that my right hon. Friend, in the course which he has taken in this matter, has been actuated by the purest motives, but that it seems to me that, from the beginning to the end of the discussion, he has conducted it with temper, moderation, and dignity, with courtesy towards his opponents, and respect towards this House.

said, that, the supreme moment of the political death of the Irish Church having arrived, he was anxious it should die with dignity. The principles which the Church held were true, and it would take far more than any measure that had ever passed the Legislature to do them harm. He deeply regretted the injustice and injury which had been done to the Church; and he was more satisfied than ever of the impolicy of the arrangement which had been made. But he rejoiced with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken last, that if the passing of the Bill were inevitable, and if they were simply to retain through its rejection a respite of a few months, or possibly of a year, the period of suspense had been put an end to. Nothing had been more painful to him, and he was sure to most if not all of those who sat behind him, than to have mixed up with what to them was a great religious question subjects of a pecuniary and humiliating character. But, situated as they were, it would have been wrong in them had they neglected to support, as far as lay in their power, the just claims of all persons concerned to liberal compensation. It had been freely asserted that the Church, though disestablished and disendowed, would still carry off a very substantial portion of its endowments. He entirely denied that assertion, and he could not comprehend the arguments by which it was supported; and he must say that if there were any one thing more unfavourable to the future of the disestablished Church than another it was to carry off the sem- blance of endowment without the reality. He ventured to offer his thanks, and those of Members sitting around him, to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Roundell Palmer) for the sincere and valuable assistance which, all through these debates, he had given to the friends of the Church; on all occasions, perhaps, they had not been able to agree, but they felt that the support given them in his advocacy was that of a just and powerful friend. The fact should also be recalled to mind that all through these debates not one word had been uttered in any way reflecting on the character or energies of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland; that would be a pleasing memory which would remain with those who had advocated the cause of the Church. And, looking back on the brilliant display of eloquence which had been made in "another place," perhaps the most ornate and effective speaker of all who had addressed the House of Lords was one who, though his title was Bishop of Peterborough, owed his origin to the soil of Ireland, and his training to the Irish Church. While he regretted the change, he would say, speaking for the great body of the Irish Churchmen, that into the future, however black or dark for themselves, they would not carry any resentment towards those individuals of differing faiths in Ireland who would be the gainers by the change. He could hardly bring himself to believe that it would do so, but he hoped that out of the present trial and depression might grow the materials of a better understanding among all classes in Ireland, conducing to the peace and prosperity of the country.

said, he rose to express a hope that the assurance given by the First Minister of the Crown that the Bill would be a means of conciliating differences and restoring peace and harmony in Ireland would be verified. On former occasions similar assurances had been given by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but time after time those assurances had not been fulfilled, and further concessions had been called for. He trusted that those who presided over the Church of Rome would not now violate the pledges which had been given on their behalf by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government; and that they would stand them in better stead than the obligations on which they relied in vain during the last sixty or seventy years.

said, he hoped it might not be considered unbecoming in him, as some Irish Catholic of more importance had not risen, to tender to Her Majesty's Government his sincere and hearty thanks for the result at which they had arrived upon that day. Indeed, he thought that the thanks of the country were due to both sides of the House for the manner in which they had borne themselves during the long and exciting struggle which was now about to close. The Government generally, but especially the Prime Minister, deserved the highest praise for the earnestness and intelligence which they had manifested from first to last in grappling with this momentous question. He did not think it would be becoming if they were to separate without bearing testimony to the great services of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. Throughout the whole of that trying time he did not think any hon. Member could recall one instance in which his right hon. Friend was not to be found at his post; ready against all comers, with untiring energy and thorough acquaintance with the subject, from the great principle of the Bill down to its minutest detail. He could assure his right hon. Friend that he had watched him with pride since the time they were at College together grasping one after another the honours of his profession until he had capped them all by the honour of that day. He wished to be allowed to include his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his tribute. He felt rejoiced in being one of that band of Irish Members who had been lately described by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as having supported Her Majesty's Government all through "almost unanimously and with great fidelity," although, in so doing, they only obeyed the wishes of the country. He reciprocated words of conciliation spoken at the other side of the House by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry, and he trusted this might be the beginning of an era when Irishmen would be drawn closer together. The First Minister of the Crown might well feel proud of the great occasion for which they were assembled that day. Looking back along the line of history an event stood out to his view which he thought bore some analogy to his position. When Columbus returned to Spain after the discovery of America, by the favour of his Sovereign and amidst the acclaim of the nation it was granted to him to bear upon his escutcheon the proud legend, "For Castile and Leon Columbus found a new World." The policy which the right hon. Gentleman had inaugurated towards Ireland would, he believed, yet entitle him to a greater fame than that of having, by just legislation, changed an integral part of this United Kingdom from a weakness and a danger into a glory and a strength.

said, he had honestly and sincerely opposed the Bill in its progress through the House, and deeply regretted that it had ever been introduced. He should not, however, hesitate to admit that he had listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that day with pleasure, seeing the tone and spirit in which it was couched. He trusted that the silver cord which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of as running through the Bill would extend to the working of the measure, and that those happy results would flow from its operation which he (Mr. Lefroy) had not been sanguine enough to expect. So far, at all events, as he personally was concerned he should do everything in his power to make it work for the benefit of his country.

said, he wished, in the name of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and not only to them but to that rank and file of Members for England, Scotland, and Wales who supported him and his co-religionists in the endeavour to secure an act of justice for their country. Though the day might be called one of triumph he desired to say that Irish Roman Catholic Members did not desire to treat it in any manner as a triumph over their Protestant fellow-countrymen. In the great struggle which had taken place their only idea had been to break down the barrier which had so long separated different classes in Ireland. He hoped the time was now nearly approaching when Irish struggles would no longer be of a religious character. Religious dissensions were responsible for creating a strange set of circumstances in Ireland; but he hoped they would all be wiped away by the passing of the present measure. The time might come when great polilitical changes might occur in Ireland. As a Catholic he might become Conservative, although he did not think that was likely to be the case; and, on the other hand, perhaps some of the friends of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Frederick Heygate) in Derry might be inclined to relinquish some of their long-cherished Conservative opinions. He had risen in no feeling of triumph, but simply to express the joy he felt that the great difficulty which had so long kept Protestants and Catholics disunited in Ireland had been removed. For that great event they had to thank the right hon. Gentleman who presided over Her Majesty's Government.

said, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for the uniform courtesy which he had extended to him personally in the course of these debates, and he must bear testimony to the admirable good taste which had characterized the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman had just addressed to the House. If he (Mr. Charley) had on any occasion used strong language, it had been under circumstances of great provocation; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would believe him when he said that there were Protestants in Ireland who had gone so far as to request him to impeach the right hon. Gentleman at the Bar of the House of Lords. For the admirable good taste which the right hon. Gentleman had displayed on this occasion, and the lenient way in which he had used his oratorical dictator ship, he bogged to thank him. At the same time, he deeply regretted that the House of Lords had read the Bill a second time, and that they had assented to the present compromise. If the House of Lords had thrown themselves unreservedly on the Conservative democracy of the country, they would have been supported in throwing out the Bill. He had hoped that they would at least have adhered to their Amendments, and, on the Prime Minister refusing to accept them, have given the country another opportunity of considering the question. He believed that if Parliament had been pro- rogued, and the Bill had been sent to the Lords a second time they would have thrown it out on the second reading. As a representative of the Conservative democracy, which was totally opposed to the Bill, he felt functus officio, and would gladly resign his seat, did he not feel that so long as the oratorical dictatorship of the right hon. Gentleman continued, no part of our Constitution was safe. It was the Church of Ireland that was attacked to-day. It might be the Church of England to-morrow. And he regretted that the most reverend Prelates who presided over the Church of England had, by abstaining from voting against the second reading of the Bill, admitted the most pernicious principle that the State could seize upon and secularize property which had been solemnly dedicated to the service of Almighty God. Against that principle he entered his emphatic protest, and if it should be applied to his Dissenting friends opposite no doubt they would be happy that he should retain his seat to assist them in combating it. What had the House done by means of the present Bill? Disunited two Churches which had taken sweet counsel together for centuries. The homes of the clergy, their glebes, and their tithe rent-charges they had devoted to secular purposes, and had told Protestant Christianity in Ireland to go forth bare and naked, as if Ireland were still the Pagan country that she was when Patrick first set foot on her benighted shores! The time would come when the Presbyterians of Scotland and the Dissenters of England would regret the union which they had effected with the Church of Rome in order to strike down a Church which was apostolic in her discipline, and which, although episcopal, was the least prelatic and the most evangelical Church in the world.

said, he had been returned to that House to support the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and to effect, as far as possible, the equality of all religious sects in that country. He objected to the present settlement, therefore, inasmuch as it did not secure that equality; for while the disestablished Church was to have £250 to £800 a year for each of her clergy, the clergymen of the Presbyterian Church would receive not more than from £36 to £30 a year. He felt, therefore, that his pledge to his constituents was not fully redeemed by the Bill, but at the same time he did not wish to disturb the unanimity which seemed to prevail in all parts of the House on the present occasion.

Sir, I think it quite unnecessary, and certainly inconvenient, that, on an occasion like the present, we should enter into any discussion of the principle of this Bill. My opinions on the subject remain the same, but it does not appear to me that this is an occasion that requires an expression of opinion from any hon. Member on that important point. If there was a difference between the two Houses as to the principle of the measure, I could easily understand, though the consequences might be of a grave character, that a delay in the settlement or further consideration of this question might have been advisable, and not only expedient, but, upon the whole, wise and. politic. But, when the difference between the two Houses has resolved itself into what we all must acknowledge to be matters of detail, I must say that I have always felt that delay in the settlement of this question, while bringing with it very doubtful advantages, might lead to difficulty and disaster to no inconsiderable extent. We should therefore remember that we are called on to consider to-day, when differences between the two branches of the Legislature have taken place on this question of the Irish Church, whether it is possible to come to an agreement with respect to details, and not in the least with respect to any principle involved in the Bill. Both the House of Lords and the House of Commons have accepted that principle. Now, I hear some talk of unconditional surrender, instead of amicable compromise in this instance; but I cannot help thinking that those who use expressions of that kind must really associate the acceptance of these Amendments with the acceptance of the principle of the Bill. I can easily understand that if an hon. Member is of opinion that by dissenting in some very small points of detail the defeat of the measure might be secured, he should wish that course to be taken; but it can be owing only to a confusion of ideas of that character that the phrase ''unconditional surrender" can be applied to the settlement which is proposed for our con- sideration to-day. Let us see whether this is a just view of the case. The points of difference between the two Houses are really reduced in number to four. Considerable modifications have been agreed to by the Government in three of these— modifications, indeed, in a very important proposal, which amount, I might say, almost to a total change of its character. If that be the case; if, when there are only four points of difference between the Houses, points of detail, Her Majesty's Government has consented to a scheme which in three of these points introduces considerable modifications—I cannot understand how any hon. Gentleman can be justified in describing an arrangement of that kind on our part as one of unconditional surrender. It appears to me, on the whole, to be a wise and conciliatory settlement of the points of disagreement, and, although I do not wish to introduce my own opinion upon the subject—for it is not necessary —if I had really to decide which party had the best of the arrangement, I should think it, for the purposes of debate, more prudent to hold my tongue. Very likely the same feeling may influence Gentlemen on either side, and if, therefore, there is a reciprocal feeling of that nature respecting the settlement, I think we may arrive at this conclusion—that the compromise is a fair and just one. If the differences between the two Houses involved, as I ventured to observe before, the principle of the measure, I could understand hon. Gentlemen expressing, in terms of becoming indignation, their opinion of what they considered an unconditional surrender. But, even from their own point of view, it could only be an unconditional surrender of points of detail, not of any principle of policy, and when you come to examine into the terms of arrangement, you find at least, to use the mildest phrase, that as many of these points of controversy are conceded to us as have been conceded by us to the Government. If any arrangement was to take place upon this matter I cannot understand how it could have been brought about in any other way. I know there are some who very much regret that the point as to the glebe houses has not been insisted on. But allow me to say that that has been considered by some of the best judges at all times a questionable demand, and that, if conceded, it might involve conditions as regards the future right of the State to interfere with the general property of the disendowed Church, which might he inconvenient and, perhaps, even dangerous hereafter. There is no doubt whatever that the strong feeling that exists upon the subject of the glebe houses and the necessity of that concession being made to the disendowed Church of Ireland, arose from certain expressions of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his Colleagues upon that subject during their canvass last year. They have frankly admitted that those views were then held by them and those expressions used, and I have no wish whatever to enlarge upon the subject further than to repeat what on another occasion I did mention, merely because it is a political truth which ought not to be forgotten — that I trust this will be the last occasion on which political questions will be dealt with on abstract principles. If the right hon. Gentleman had not laid down so broadly and abstractedly the principles on which he would settle this business he would have been able to have settled it more easily and in a manner which would have conciliated the feeling of powerful classes now much —I will not say outraged, but certainly much pained and offended, and we might have brought about this settlement in a way that would have been infinitely more satisfactory and more advantageous to the country. It must be remembered that there is not a single principle that was laid down on which this legislation was to take place from which, in practice, the right hon. Gentleman has not been obliged to deviate. It is not merely in certain cases where, contrary to his principles, he has been obliged to do something for the disendowed Church. Take, for example, the case of vested interests. Every vested interest and every personal position was to be respected in this settlement. But what was the first thing you did? You were obliged to attack some of the most important vested interests, and deprive individuals of some of their highest offices, such, for instance, as the ecclesiastical baronies. I do not say you were not justified in doing it. I do not say it would have been a wise thing to leave the Bishops of the disestablished Church in the House of Lords, but their expulsion from that House was a complete violation of the principle of respecting all vested interests and personal rights. It shows you, therefore, that you could not adhere strictly to your abstract propositions; and that being so, I wish the right hon. Gentleman had deviated from them a little more, and had been a little more liberal to the clergy and laity of the disestablished Church of Ireland. He would have made a more satisfactory settlement if he had not been hampered by the enunciation of abstract principles by which, practically, he has not been able to abide. I only wish to impress upon the House that we really were on the eve of circumstances in our political life which we ought most to dread and avoid—namely, collision and misunderstanding between the two branches of the Legislature, and that at a moment when both Houses had so comported themselves that they really deserved and possessed the respect and confidence of the country. We have assembled here to-day to sanction and ratify upon matters of detail the settlement proposed by the Government, which will terminate the chances of such a collision not by sacrificing any principle, not by giving up any great doctrines in politics which we have supported under difficult circumstances in the face of the majority that has asserted them, but by assisting in a conciliatory and, I hope, satisfactory adjustment of points of detail which, on the whole, have, I think, been arranged with due consideration to the claims of both parties. Let us view what we are doing in that light. Do not let us consider what we are sanctioning this morning under the perverted and erroneous supposition that we are settling and deciding great principles of policy, and particularly the principles upon which this measure is founded. That is finished. The House of Commons has agreed to disestablish and disendow the Church of Ireland. I regret it. The House of Lords has agreed to it, and by no mean majority, and the affair is at an end. But when hon. Gentlemen regard what after all should be looked upon by both sides of the House, under the circumstances, as a statesmanlike and satisfactory settlement of a most difficult question from an erroneous and perverted point of view — namely, that we are now settling the principles of the measure, whereas we are only arranging in an amicable and conciliatory manner for all parties certain details of the measure — they may believe with my hon. Friend (Mr. Vance) that there has been an unconditional surrender of principle, although there has only been, I repeat, a satisfactory and statesmanlike settlement of detail.

said, that upon any other occasion but the present he should have felt it necessary to dissent from some of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) as to departures by the Government from principles which they had laid down on this question. He might also have protested against the tone of some part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he appeared to undervalue the enormous importance and gravity of the questions of which the House was now disposing. Upon this happy occasion, however, he had no wish to enter into matters of controversy. He hoped he should not be violating the rule he had laid down for himself, if he asked his hon. Friend the Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk) to re-consider the remarks he had made, and he thought it would become clear to him that the Presbyterians of Ireland had been treated in a spirit of the utmost impartiality. There was no point affecting them which had not been anxiously considered by the Government and settled upon terms at least equal to those given to the Established Church. As to the statement that the compensations given to the Presbyterians were far inferior to those of the Established Church, it was not inequality in the true sense of the word, but it was an inequality arising out of the inevitable circumstances of the case, for compensation must bear a strict and equitable relation to the endowment of which it was to take the place. He knew the candid mind of his hon. Friend, and hoped he would explain to his co-religionists the principles on which this Bill was founded. And now a word upon the termination of this great and memorable contest. No one sitting on that Bench could possibly have taken a deeper interest in the measure which had now reached its final stage in this House, and of which, for many years, he had been an advocate. Now, he agreed in what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite— that this was not a case of unconditional surrender, and that a settlement had been arrived at, creditable to both sides, and to the other House of Parliament; and it was a triumph, not of abstract principles, but of the great policy which the Government and the Liberal party had been pursuing. He held this to be a great satisfaction. He regarded the spirit both of the majority and the minority, with the best hope for the future, when he recollected the tone of the speeches which had been delivered, and he would particularly refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Lefroy). He looked upon the measure which was now brought to a successful issue, as one of the greatest acts of justice and wisdom ever adopted by any legislative assembly in the world, and he trusted that an era of constantly increasing peace, prosperity, and concord in Ireland might date from the period of this great historic event.

said, he thought the country had much cause to be satisfied with the issue of this great conflict; and he could tell the Members of the Free Irish Church, from the experience of Scotland, that she had nothing to fear, and might throw herself boldly and with reliance on the Christian sympathies and support of those who belonged to her communion.

said, he had no desire to prolong the discussion, but he was unwilling to remain silent after having heard the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk) in disparagement of the great measure now about to be completed. He would, therefore, however unwillingly, ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in order emphatically to express his dissent from those observations. He would remind his hon. Friend, who so efficiently represented Presbyterian interests in that House, that while the Presbyterian community, who number about 600,000, obtained something, and that a very considerable something, under the Bill, the 5,000,000 of Irish Catholics, to whom originally belonged all the Church property now being dealt with, got absolutely nothing. He would ask the House to mark the difference— the Presbyterians complained because having got much they did not get more, while the 5,000,000 of Catholics, who asked nothing for themselves and who got nothing, were content because they saw in the great act of the hour a recognition by both Houses of Parliament that they were entitled to stand on the same platform of equality as their Protestant fellow-countrymen. He (Sir John Gray) regretted that even one Irish Liberal Member expressed dissatisfaction at the results attained. He rejoiced, however, that the dissent did not come from a Catholic representative, for he believed the whole Catholic party were content with the signal advance made. ["No!"] He heard one voice say "No;" but he would ask who ventured, when the demand for religious equality was made in 1866, to hope that in 1869 that demand would be conceded with the concurrent assent of both Houses of Parliament? He (Sir John Gray) could at least speak with authority, and, more important still, with authority based on recent communications, for the great Catholic community he had the honour to represent; and with that absolute and recent authority he would say that his constituents in Kilkenny, most of whom were Catholics, would accept the great act of justice with gratitude and with entire contentment; while for himself he would say—and possibly it would be conceded that he had some right to offer an opinion in the matter—that it far exceeded the most sanguine hopes entertained three years ago as to what might be obtained in the direction of religious equality within so brief a period. The right hon. Gentleman who led the Opposition, with that personal caution and political prudence which he invariably displayed in all cases of party difficulty, stated, when addressing the House, that he would abstain from expressing any opinion on the question as to which party had the best of it in the adjustment arrived at. He (Sir John Gray), standing in a sense apart from both parties, would not hesitate to express his opinion, though he might have to use somewhat of a paradox, and say that both parties had the best of it. He never looked upon and never treated this question as a mere party question. He looked upon the act now about to be completed as a great act of national justice about to be accomplished by the public assent of all parties for the benefit of the Irish nation, and from this great national measure of right and justice all parties in the State and all sections of the community would reap signal advantages. Men interested in party may dispute as to who has the best of it. It ought to be their duty to see the great good that will come to all parties from establishing in Ireland content and confidence in the wisdom of Parliament. He would say of the House of Lords that the course adopted by them at that critical moment was most creditable and generous, and from it they would reach the rich reward of securing the confidence of the Irish people by demonstrating that the Lords as well as the Commons of this great Empire are willing on cause shown—on a fair case being clearly and conclusively made out—to lay aside the cherished prejudices of centuries—bow to the public opinion of the nation, and by a great act of retributive justice redress at any personal sacrifice the grievances and remove the wrongs of the Irish people. The Lords and Commons then had both "the best of it," for from that day forth the Irish people would judge of the Imperial Parliament by the great act of conciliation now being adopted by all, and would feel that one by one all the wrongs they complain of will in a similar spirit of justice be removed, when calmly and fairly brought under discussion. The Bill now about to become law would heal the wounds of centuries; and he felt bound to add that the tone of the last debate in the House of Lords—the kindly and generous tone and the conciliatory words used in that House that day, but more especially the language of conciliation and forbearance in which the Irish Conservative representatives accepted this great revolution, would sink deep into the Irish heart, and he hoped be imitated by all public men in Ireland so as to prepare the way for future co-operation in securing peace, prosperity, and unity amongst all classes of his countrymen.

Sir, I cannot part with this subject without one word of farewell. I will not, however, detain the House for long, for after all that has passed my emotions are too deep to admit of my addressing the House at any length. But this is a question on the settlement of which I really think it becomes some representative of the Nonconformist Body to say one word. I cannot but rejoice that one great and important principle of the Nonconformist Body has now received legislative adoption. I believe it to be a principle of justice, and I think that in regard to Ireland the consequences of its adoption will soon appear, in greater harmony, greater social confidence among the people, and truer and more earnest exertions for the promotion of their religious ends. I trust, Sir, that the religion to be henceforth propagated in Ireland will be far less political and polemical in its character than it hitherto has been; and I wish to say, so far as I can say it on behalf of the body whose sentiments I represent on this occasion, that now that the Church of Ireland ceases to be a political body, we shall on our part be ready to afford her any assistance that we can in promoting her views and in placing her in a strong position. There never has been any feeling in our minds which would tend to the destruction of that body as a spiritual institution. We never have wished it to occupy a position of disadvantage. We do not believe that the money which has been left with it now will be of essential service to it in the future, but that the only way in which that Church can triumph over the difficulties of her position will be by putting forward the true spirit of self-sacrifice which our common Christianity demands from all Churches. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having conducted this great controversy to a successful issue, and I trust that the end of it will be the initiation of a new era of peace, harmony, and prosperity for Ireland.

said, he had taken a great interest in this great question, never having been absent from a single division having reference to it. As an Ulster man he wished to say that he believed the glorious settlement which had been arrived at would be satisfactory to all the Irish people. During his canvass of the city of Londonderry, the Roman Catholic electors never asked for anything more than perfect religious equality; the name of Maynooth was never mentioned, and he was convinced that they would have abandoned all claim on account of Maynooth rather than forego that glorious settlement. He believed the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland would also approve of that measure. It might appear to them at first sight that there was some inequality in the mode of dealing with them and the members of the Established Church; but it should be remembered that the principle of the Bill was compensation, and the amount of the compensation must, of course, depend upon the nature and value of the life interests. He thanked the Government and both Houses of Parliament for having brought to a final issue that great question by a settlement which, in his judgment, was thoroughly and entirely satisfactory.

^* I owe, Mr. Speaker, the position which the Notice standing in my name occupies to the arrangements of Her Majesty's Government, because I had attached that Notice to Class III. of the Civil Service Estimates—the class in which the expenditure connected with the administration of the law in this country is proposed to be voted, and the arrangement of the business of this House connected with Supply rests with the Government. Considering the nature of this Motion, I cannot help thinking that it is somewhat appropriate that the subject of my Notice should occupy the attention of the House immediately after the House has come to an agreement with the House of Lords upon the Irish Church Bill, for the substance of my Motion portends the future of Ireland. A great measure has just passed both Houses, by which there will hereafter be no Established Protestant Church in Ireland. The Motion which I have now the honour of submitting to the House is intended for the defence of freedom of speech, particularly in the enunciation of religious opinion. I may remind the House that there is no Established Church in the United States of America. The position of the United States is in this respect, therefore, analogous to that which will be the position of Ireland. It is known, Sir, that up to the period of the late civil war in the United States there was a system of persecution—too often with the sanction of the official authority—directed against those who ventured publicly to express Protestant opinions. It was inevitable, from the nature of their religion, that these men should also be the defenders and promoters of freedom. Many of these persons were persecuted, some of them were murdered, and John Brown was executed. At whose instance were these persecutions carried on? I have ample details here, with which I shall not, however, trouble the House, but which show that it was invariably at the instance of the Roman Catholic clergy, that these persecutions were carried out by Irish Roman Catholic mobs, at the instance of the Roman Catholic clergy, with the late Archbishop Hughes at their head. I am fully alive, Sir, to the difficulty of the task I undertake, but I believe, in proposing this Motion, that I have the same right of reply as you sanctioned lately in the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), when he brought before this House a Motion with respect to some abuses which he conceived to have taken place in the Coventry Election. The Motion which I now propose impugns the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the directions which he has issued through the Law Officers of the Crown or with their advice, for the exercise of certain powers which, by Act of Parliament, comes within the province of his Office. Mine, Sir, is no light undertaking, and considering that I have been a justice of the peace for nearly thirty years in the county of Middlesex, and the City of Westminster, it is a task which I would not lightly undertake. I have lately presented a Petition to this House from a meeting that was held in St. James's Hall. At that meeting I presided, at the request of the secretaries and other persons connected with various Protestant bodies existing in this metropolis. I was present during the whole of the proceedings, but I did not attach my signature to the Petition as chairman, because that would not have been conformable with the usages of this House. Their meeting was attended by never less than 1,000 persons; when the meeting was fullest, about 1,300 or 1,400 were present. There is a very singular circumstance connected with that meeting. No full or fair account of it has appeared in any of the daily papers. I saw the reporters before me. I saw them taking notes; but in The Times there did not appear one word with reference to this meeting, whilst the notice in the Standard contained little more than a list of the principal persons present. It really seems to me to be rather extraordinary that a meeting such as this should have been ignored by the public press to the extent that it was. Hon. Member are aware, however, that a full report of the proceedings at this meeting has been published, and I believe it has been placed in their hands. That publication arose from the circumstance that I would not consent to preside at a meeting for such an object without having a competent reporter present, in order that I might be able to testify to this House that nothing occurred at this meeting of which I, as chairman, might have any reason to be ashamed. I now proceed to the subject-matter of that meeting. It has been stated that the meeting was called for one purpose, and one purpose only— namely, to defend or promote the interests of Mr. Murphy, the Protestant lecturer. Sir, if that had been the object of the meeting I should not have taken the chair, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lancashire (Mr. Holt), and my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Joshua Fielden) would certainly not have attended; for we are not prepared to accept the title of "Murphyites" in any sense whatever. But, Sir, it is always necessary, in order to illustrate the infraction of a principle, that some individual ease of grievance should be brought forward, and it must be clear to every hon. Member, who bears in mind what has occurred with respect to this person Murphy in this House, that his case could not be ignored by anyone who believes that the right of free discussion has been violated in his person. I know very well the danger of alluding to individuals. Three or four years ago I brought under the notice of the House a Motion with respect to the conventual and monastic establishments of this country, and moved for a Committee to inquire whether there was not occasion for some inspection of these institutions. It happened that in the Session preceding I had made a Motion in a matter connected with the death, the disposition of the property, and the circumstances attendant on the burial of a Mr. Hutchinson, of whose property the late Father Faber, the head of the Oratorians, became possessed. This person, Mr. Hutchinson, died in the house belonging to the Oratorians at Brompton, and a relative of his, a Mr. Smee, petitioned this House with reference to the circumstances connected with the death of his relative and with respect to his funeral. When my Motion came on the next Session—in 1865—it happened that this Mr. Smee, who is the medical officer of the Bank of England, chose—without my knowledge—to write a letter to the Duchess of Norfolk with reference to one of her daughters, who was in a convent in France. I never heard anything about this letter until I received a printed copy of it, and found that it had been circulated. I deprecated that letter. I thought it in bad taste, and did all I could to prevent its circulation; but when my Motion for the consideration of the conventual question was before the House, up got three or four Roman Catholic Members in succession, who delivered themselves strongly against Mr. Smee and his letter, and endeavoured to connect me with it, although I had done all I could to stop its circulation. Some of my Friends were thus deluded into the belief I had something to do with it, just when they were entering the House to support my Motion; and under this they said delusion, it was a "blackguard business," and, although they had come down with the intention of voting for my Motion, they went away without voting at all. It is very probable that, in reference to the case, which I am now about to bring before the House, it will be said, that there is nothing in it but Mr. Murphy, and that I am come here for the purpose of setting Mr. Murphy up against the Secretary of State. Sir, if I thought I held a brief for any such purpose I would abandon it at once. But such is not the object of my Motion; and, in illustration of it, I think I cannot do better than read to the House a letter that was addressed to me by Mr. Roebuck, whose absence from this House I consider one of the greatest losses we have suffered during the late elections. I have been for twenty-six years in this House with Mr. Roebuck; he had been thirty-five years a Member of the House; and I know no one who, as a Member of the House—though I was opposed to him for many years, and we sat on opposite sides of the House—did more to elevate the character of this Assembly. What, then, does Mr. Roebuck say in reference to this matter? He was unable to attend the meeting in St. James's Hall, but he addressed the following letter to me as chairman of that meeting:—

"My dear Sir,—For the reasons I stated to you when we met, I shall not be able to attend your meeting. I am, indeed, sorry that this should be so, as I heartily concur with you in thinking that such a meeting is much needed under present circumstances, and that, if it be properly conducted, good—aye, much good—may result from it. As I understand you, the meeting has been called to express disapprobation of certain acts of the Home Secretary, which you believe to be—some of them illegal—all unjust and alarming, and forming mischievous precedents for the future, In this opinion of yours I concur; and I am the more alarmed, first, because the Home Secretary bears a high character for probity, kindness, and intelligence; and, secondly, because the arguments he uses to justify and palliate his conduct are just those plausible pretences which have always been employed to defend and excuse the beginnings of tyranny and oppression. Tyranny has not seldom begun in breaches of the law, which, though acknowledged to be breaches of the law, have been sought to be justified by necessity. Salus populi suprema lex is a favourite and convenient phrase upon such occasions. By it the first attacks on freedom are supposed to be justified, and the excuse accepted. But this is a step in the direction of illegality and despotism; another step soon follows; and by degrees, and these not slow degrees, freedom and safety are undermined, and despotism usurps the place of law and justice; certainty and security disappear; alarm, jealousy, and suspicion take possession of the public mind. Careless and confiding people will deem these fears frivolous and uncalled for. But if these consequences do not follow such proceedings as those of which we are speaking, it will be because the nation is watchful, and resents and marks with disapprobation these first hasty and unstates-manlike deviations from the frank, loyal, straightforward course of a Constitutional Minister. By what I have said here, do not suppose that I am defending the conduct of Mr. Murphy. Of his doings, indeed, I can give no opinion, not knowing what he has done. I had learned by the papers that his speeches have not seldom been followed by violence and tumult. Mr. Murphy, it appears, has undertaken the task of explaining his own opinions of the Catholic religion, and of the conduct of some of its professors. As his views are unfavourable to that which he undertakes to de-scribe, I can easily understand that his sayings are very disagreeable to Catholics generally. But though he may be rude of speech (I do not say that he is so), still there is no justification for a violent personal assault upon him—neither is it an excuse for that breach of the law by which it was attempted to silence him. For my own part, I very much dislike acrimonious religious discussion, and I frankly own I can sympathize with those who feel disgust and shame, when they hear of such scenes as are said to have taken place on the occasion of Mr. Murphy's lectures. This, however, is just the state of mind in which a powerful Minister should be most careful of his conduct and jealous of himself. I have no doubt but that Mr. Bruce thought Mr. Murphy a pestilent agitator."

["Hear."] Well, that seems to be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Roebuck proceeds to say:—

"That, too, I suspect, was the state of mind of Leo X., when he thought of Luther. I know that I here am comparing small things with great, but the comparison is apt, and renders us all a very useful lesson. One observation more, and I have done. It may be said, that in the case of shutting up the lecture-rooms of Mr. Murphy and preventing his meetings no law was broken, as an old obsolete despotic law sanctioned the proceedings. This is true. But the acting upon this obsolete law was in reality a breach of the law, as it has been acted upon ever since the now obsolete law was passed: The law was passed in time of great danger and alarm, and has always by that party to which Mr. Bruce belongs been deemed a gross violation of constitutional freedom. And it must surprise and strike every thoughtful man, that in these palmy days of liberality, when we have a Prime Minister who is par excellence a Liberal, that despotic law of a Minister should be dug up from the grave, to which public prudence, shame, and indignation had assigned it, for the purpose of silencing a speaker whom you could not or would not answer.—I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,

"J. A. ROEBUCK."

Now, Sir, it does strike me as very singular, that a Liberal Home Secretary should have availed himself of this law, the 9 & 10 Vict., c. 33, which contains the substance of the Act of 1795, though limited in its operation to such cases as the Law Officers of the Crown will undertake. Mr. Fox and every Liberal of his day denounced, the restrictions upon freedom of discussion, or rather of lecturing, which the statute of 1795 imposed; all those who inherit Mr. Fox's opinions have declared that this statute had been very properly consigned to oblivion. I believe they would have repealed this statute long since had it been remembered by these Liberals. By whom was that Act of 1795 modified? By whom was the administration of it limited to the Government? By the late Mr. Buncombe, a man of undoubted Liberal principles, an adherent of the opinions of Mr. Fox. But what has occurred! The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department has declared, that recently there has been an emergency. He seemed, indeed, to imagine that there was a parallel between some emergency which the riots that attended some of Murphy's lectures had created, and the circumstances which preceded the passing of the Act of 1795. What, Sir, were the circumstances of that period? It occurred about two years and a-half after the King of France had been beheaded; about two years after the commencement of the Reign of Terror in France; and when the principles of the French Revolution had obtained considerable hold, not only among the Roman Catholics but among the Presbyterians of Ireland. In those days there was a real rebellion brewing in Ireland; England herself was in a most unsafe position. Really dangerous opinions were propagated throughout the country in lecture-halls, and infected the minds of the people, who were subjected to a heavy pressure by the circumstances occasioned by the external war then raging, and by the seasons, which were unfavourable. Some of the English people, stimulated by foreign agents, gave way to disloyalty, and George III, when coming down to the House of Lords to open Parliament, was fired at in his carriage. Under these circumstances was it that the Act of 1795 was passed, simultaneously with an Act for the protection of the Crown and person of His Majesty. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there is any parallel between the circumstances of last year, between the emergency which he supposes to have lately existed, and the emergency which induced Mr. Pitt to pass this law?—notwith- standing which emergency Mr. Fox and the party with whom the right hon. Gentleman is now supposed to be connected denounced the measure as an act of tyranny? But these are not the whole of the circumstances of the case. And here, Sir, permit me to observe that I speak in disparagement of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. with regret; for there is no Member of the Government for whom, personally, I entertain a higher respect than I do for the right hon. Gentleman; and I am convinced that some very urgent pressure must have been put on the right hon. Gentleman to induce him to act as he has done. I have reason for thinking that some influence must have been used to bias his better judgment, or he would never have recourse to this obsolete Act for the suppression of—what? Of sedition! Will any man come forward and produce in this House the record of any lecture ever delivered by Mr. Murphy in the sense of the lectures against the dissemination of which this Act was originally directed? Will any man in this House, or elsewhere, produce proof that, whatever this man's imperfections in other respects may be, he was ever guilty of sedition? And yet the Preamble of this statute, which has been used against Mr. Murphy and his lectures, declares that it is an Act to be applied only against seditious, nay, treasonable meetings. A Question was put to the right hon. Gentleman in this House by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Aytoun) this Session, inquiring whether it was true that the right hon. Gentleman, as Home Secretary, had ordered the closing of these lecture-halls, or rather had authorized the virtual closing of them against Mr. Murphy and his audiences; for it rested with him only to authorize the local authorities to threaten the infliction of a fine of £100 upon any owner of a hall who opened it, and the infliction of a fine of £10, I think, upon any person who might attend the lecture therein; and this, mind you, in some cases, without any sworn information of an apprehended riot. Well, the right hon. Gentleman, in answering this Question, spoke of Mr. Murphy as "delivering one of his inflammatory lectures at Tynemouth, and the result was much violence and some bloodshed." One might have supposed that it was one of those lectures which were delivered in 1795. But no; it was a Protestant lecture, and that was the offence! Then the right hon. Gentleman said—

"That being so, I did not hesitate to put in force an Act which I quite admit is one only to be used in extreme cases."—[3 Hansard, cxcv. 759.]

What are we to consider an "extreme case?" It seems that the right hon. Gentleman considers it an "extreme case" when a lecture is delivered in a hall with closed doors — a lecture, the substance of which may be distasteful to some persons, who need not enter the hall, who have no business in that hall, if they do not like the announced substance of the lecture. Is that to be considered an "extreme case?" The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say—

"The case here was one which, in my opinion, justified its application—that of the Statute 9 & 10 Victoria, Here is a man, who, for no good purpose whatever, goes about exciting the peaceful inhabitants of these towns in such a way as to lead to acts of violence, creating dissension and disorder wherever he appears; and as long as there are means of repression known to the law"—

These words have been taken as of peculiar signification, and I beg attention to them—

"as long as there are means of repression known to the law, I think it is the duty of those charged with the preservation of the peace to use them. It was therefore under my directions and on my responsibility that the Mayor of Tynemouth made known that all persons attending these lectures would be liable to a penalty."—[Ibid.]

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to say that these Protestant lectures do no good; and that may be his opinion. But there is no such definition as that in law. If there were, the substance of these lectures would be actionable; but there has never yet been an attempt made to prosecute this Mr. Murphy for anything he has uttered. Then, again, when this man had been arrested in Birmingham, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene), who has written to me — but I fear he will reach town too late for this Morning's Sitting—put a Question with respect to the arrest of Mr. Murphy at Birmingham to the right hon. Gentleman, who, in reply, said—

"Murphy was arrested, bail was taken for him, and he appeared before the magistrates, who dismissed the case. No information was laid, and consequently none could be produced."—[3 Hansard, cvcvii. 411.]

I did not know, and it was not known in Birmingham, with certainty, that there was no information, until the right hon. Gentleman declared there was none. None was produced before the magistrate. There was a charge on the police sheet of an intention on the part of Mr. Murphy to disturb the town's meeting, which he desired to attend; but no attempt was made to support that charge. The stipendiary magistrate asked whether or not there was a sworn informa- tion; and the right hon. Gentleman informed us that there was none. He then proceeded to say—

"He had been unable to discover that the Mayor of Birmingham acted under any Act of Parliament or had legal sanction for what he did; he appeared to have acted on the basis of Salus populi suprema lex, and to have undergone some considerable personal hazard for the purpose of averting a popular danger."—[Ibid.]

Why, Sir, the justice of the peace who ventures to act upon the doctrine Salus populi suprema lex, and to arrest a person against whom there is no sworn information ought to have under his personal view the danger of an insurrection or riot, and that the person he arrests is promoting that riot. I have had to act as a magistrate in very tumultuous times. During the year 1842 I was acting in the presence of mobs, amounting to 5,000 and 6,000, and many of them strangers to the locality; I knew that I could not order the arrest of any person in them, unless I myself saw and was prepared to swear that there was immediate danger of a breach of the peace, owing to the presence and action of such person. Now, there was nothing of the sort at Birmingham. The arrest of Murphy was contemplated some days before. And what happened? Before this man could enter the Town Hall—though he was a rate-payer and had a ticket for the meeting—he was arrested in the lobby by an order, which, it appears, came from the Mayor. What right had the Mayor to assume that there was danger of a breach of the peace in the meeting from the presence of this man, who had never entered the meeting? This arrest constitutes an act which I should not have supposed the right hon. Gentleman would think of justifying by quoting the maxim Salus populi suprema lex. That is a maxim which has been used to cover acts of tyranny of the blackest dye. This is a kind of language which the Home Secretary ought to be very careful in using, when he knows that his words go forth with authority to officials who are not deeply versed in the law, many of whom have had little experience in dealing with assemblies which they may mistakenly consider to be illegal. I do not deny there was a great disturbance in the Town Hall at Birmingham; but I believe that this arrest of Mr. Murphy aggravated, if it did not create, that disturbance. This arrest virtually excluded a considerable num- ber of persons from the Hall, and created in the minds of others a sense of oppression on the one side, and of undue favour and of exultation on the other. There never was such a scene in the Town Hall at Birmingham as took place on that occasion. The meeting had been called in support of the measure which the House has just passed relating to the Irish Church. At that meeting a letter was road from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, upon which I will only say that the expressions it contained with regard to the House of Lords and their functions were not analogous to those which have to-day fallen from the Prime Minister. Sir, that letter was of itself quite sufficient to excite a breach of the peace; but Mr. Murphy was not the author of that letter. He was not even in the hall. He was only in the lobby, and the Mayor could not possibly have known what would be the effect of his presence. Mr. Murphy was not seen there, and the Mayor could have formed no judgment by personal view of his conduct on the occasion. I should not have thought that the Mayor would have been alarmed at the entrance of any person into the Town Hall of Birmingham whilst he occupied the chair. But the Mayor of Birmingham acting upon the timid policy which has been recommended by the Home Secretary, but in the sense of Salus populi suprema lex, ordered Mr. Murphy to be locked up, from the fear that he would come into a town's meeting of which his Worship was the chairman! Such conduct on the part of a municipal officer, however, is not after all so surprising as that the Home Secretary, in his place in Parliament, should quote such a maxim as this in justification of conduct, that I cannot think either wise or lawful. This person, Mr. Murphy, was I understand, at the meeting to which I have referred, and over which I presided. He sat I believe, behind me somewhere, but he took no part in the proceedings, and to this hour I do not know the man by sight. Now, that which particularly concerns this House is, what has been the conduct of other Home Secretaries in analogous cases? Have we any precedent in the action of other Home Secretaries for such an extraordinary stretch of power; any precedent for this extraordinary departure from the usual rules of constitu- tional law, which guard the right of freedom of speech, freedom of meeting, and freedom of discussion? It does happen that the case of this person has been frequently brought before the notice of this House. In the year 1867, this person, who is now a resident in Birmingham, desired to deliver some lectures there and to hold religious services; and there was a great deal of opposition, to his doing so. His friends erected a temporary building for his accommodation. But on the Sunday morning, when he and his friends were going for the first time to use this structure for Divine worship, they were attacked in the streets and assaulted by an organized Roman Catholic mob, and, in anticipation of this, some of the Roman Catholic priests, it appears, manifested their discretion by closing their chapels. Mr. Murphy was attacked. His friends, too, were wounded on that Sunday morning. When the matter came to my knowledge, I went to the President of the Board of Trade and asked him if he knew anything about it; but he said he knew nothing. A friend of mine, in whom I could place reliance, then went down to Birmingham, and reported to me by letter what was the commencement of that disturbance; I have found that his report was perfectly accurate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was Home Secretary; and a Question was put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonial Department (Mr. Monsell) upon the subject. It was a leading Question, leading up to some such conduct as has been unhappily pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State. And what did the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) answer? He said—

"No legal proceedings could, however, be taken in respect of the language which had been used, because it would not of itself necessarily lead to a breach of the peace; but he could not say how much he regretted that such language had been used."—[3 Hansard, clxxxviii. 88.]

This was an attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies to induce the late Home Secretary to admit that there was danger to the public peace; and that was the reply he got. This took place in this House on the 19th of June, 1867. Again, on the 20th of June, 1867, being the day after the Question had been put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) put a Question, and the reply, which I take from Hansard, was in these terms. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"I do not think, that he (Mr. Murphy) is deprived—I do not think that anything I have said could justify the inference that he is to be deprived of the right of protection in a place built by him and others for the purposes of these lectures; because the words were not criminal words in themselves, or words that could be legally taken notice of."— [Ibid. 175.]

We find, too, that on the 3rd of July, 1867, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, the late Home Secretary said—

"The other question was as to any steps which might be taken with respect to the discourses delivered at Birmingham. Upon that point he said he did not think that there were any grounds for criminal proceedings."—[Ibid. 925.]

Subsequently, on the 15th of May, 1868, a Question was put to the right hon. Gentleman by a person who was then a Member of this House, Mr. Rearden. We all remember Mr. Rearden—who was supposed to be a man of very advanced opinions—

"Mr. Rearden said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it be his intention to introduce a Bill this Session for the purpose of preventing lectures upon the religious profession of faith of any of Her Majesty's subjects in any part of the United Kingdom, except in Churches and Chapels licensed for that purpose, and during Divine Service in such Churches and Chapels, without first submitting a copy of such lecture for the approval, revision, and consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?"

Such was the suggestion made in the form of a Question by Mr. Rearden. To this the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) answered—

"Sir, I have no intention of introducing such a Bill; and I must protest against adding to the duties of Secretary of State for the Home Department the approval or revision of lectures upon religious subjects."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 346.]

The present Home Secretary does not appear to have undertaken the consideration or revision of Mr. Murphy's lectures. What he has done was to go beforehand and stop the mouth of a person not in the act of delivering a lecture, but who, as he has said, he feared would deliver an irritating lecture. Sir, the contrast between the conduct of the late Home Secretary and that of the right hon. Gentleman who has succeeded him with regard to this matter of freedom of discussion is very marked. But it does not stop here. What we have now to do with is the question of personal freedom. Some riots had occurred at Ashton-under-Lyne and other places. These riots were made by Roman Catholic mobs, incited, in several instances, by Roman Catholic priests. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) made a speech in this House with a view of commending the subject in the most stringent form to the attention of the late Home Secretary, and this was the reply, as I find it reported in Hansard, of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy). The date is the 25th of May, 1868—

"Now, as I understand, the mode which is adopted by Mr. Murphy when he is going to lecture at a place is either to hire a room for the purpose, or to make use of a building which belongs to him, and to which persons are admitted by ticket. There is no analogy in such proceedings to meetings held in the open air, and I am not aware that there is any law in existence by which a person can be prevented from delivering controversial lectures, either in a room which he takes or a structure which he carries about for the purpose. The hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) said he should be averse from any interference with free discussion; but I am afraid, unless you were to impose a limit with regard to the language used, which would be found intolerable, you must rely, under the present law, on the moderation of those who lecture, and on the authority of persons of influence on their side, whether in religion or politics, to make them temperate in the language they employ. I am not able to say, therefore,"

—and this is the point to which I would particularly call the attention of hon. Members—

"I am not able to say, therefore, that I contemplate any mode by which persons going to deliver controversial lectures, which in themselves are not wrong, in buildings which are their own or are hired, can be prevented from doing so."—[Ibid. 823–4.]

This is a most clear and distinct declaration, and I believe it to be thoroughly sound in law. I will assign my reasons for thinking so hereafter. Again, on the 29th of May, 1868, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) said—

"Everyone, so long as he did not commit a breach of the peace, being entitled to the protection of the law. As regards controversy, no one would protect its freedom in religion and politics more thoroughly than I would do so. I think every man has a right to put forward his own creed, and to support it with such arguments as he may think proper; but I do not think it advisable to put forth inflammatory placards, containing language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace—language insulting, and no doubt, in many instances, meant to be insulting, to people professing other creeds."—[Ibid. 1094.]

Now, Sir, I adduce these extracts, because I heard the answers myself, and it was in consequence of my having watched the effect of these answers upon the late House of Commons, and the approbation with which they were received by the House, which induced me to feel extreme surprise when I heard the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the question of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Greene). I then conceived that it would be my duty to bring the matter under the notice of the i House. I have consulted with no mean authorities on constitutional law. I have already laid before the House the opinion of Mr. Roebuck, and I might state the opinions of other lawyers; but Mr. Roebuck is a Queen's Counsel, and all whom I have consulted agree that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in using this Act of the 9 & 10 Vict, for the suppression of these lectures, is not only the perversion of an Act of Parliament, but is virtually, if not literally, an infraction of the law. I cannot believe, indeed, that the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman are not conscious in some degree of the accuracy of what I say. For it is a significant fact that when the Newspaper Bill went up to the House of Lords it was found to contain a clause for the re-peal of this very statute. I say this on the authority of Lord Cairns, the late Lord Chancellor, who expressed his surprise that this House should have seemed to countenance the exercise of arbitrary power under this Act, and that the Ministry, who had sanctioned the exercise by their officials of this arbitrary power should, within four days of doing so, have introduced a Bill for the repeal of the very statute under which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been acting. This led to some discussion in the House of Lords, and the present Lord Chancellor endeavoured to apologize for the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman; and a very lame apology, I am sorry to say, it was. Because, whether it was right or wrong to use this statute; whether it was a law that was properly applicable to the circumstances; whether the emergency was sufficient to justify the use of such a law, and whether the lecturer, Murphy, could be considered guilty of sedition or not, this at least is clear, that if it were a law, and a useful law, it ought to have been preserved for the use of other Home Secretaries. But what did the present Government do? They used this statute, and then immediately afterwards repealed it. I have never been a Member of any Government; but if I were, and I had Colleagues who induced me to first abuse the law and then within four days proposed to repeal that very statute under the powers of which I had acted, I should not, I think, be much inclined to submit to such treatment. This one fact seems to me enough to condemn the proceedings of the Government. Why should they propose the repeal of a law which they had just enforced, if they considered it a just law? That proposal on the part of the Government was, to my mind, a confession that the invocation of that statute was an action that they cannot justify. I wish to speak without any disrespect of the authorities at Birmingham—they seem to have been incited by this strange conduct on the part of the Government. I have been told that what occurred at Birmingham is sub judice, and, as an action for false imprisonment has been threatened, I ought not to refer to it. But, Sir, I have ascertained what is the actual position of the case. The case was brought before the stipendiary magistrate of Birmingham after Mr. Murphy had been locked up all night in a cell in the principal establishment of police. He was next morning taken before the magistrate, who happens fortunately to be a very good lawyer, Mr. Kynnersley. The first question put was—"What is the charge?" The police sheet was produced. "Charged with attempting to disturb a public meeting." Why, the man had never entered it! No wonder, then, that there was nobody to support the charge. "Where is the information?" asked the magistrate. The police said they did not know. "Then," said Mr. Kynnersley, there is no charge;" and he ordered the prisoner to be immediately liberated. As I have before remarked, the meeting at Birmingham was very tumultuous, but it could not have been so on account of Mr. Murphy's presence but rather on account of his absence. ["Oh," and "Hear!"] That, at all events, is the information given to me. His arrest produced intense irritation amongst many of his friends who were in the meeting, and a corresponding degree of exultation amongst the other party, to whom it imparted the feeling that they might do just as they pleased; and the result was that they overpowered the Mayor. They listened to the Mayor from the first with impatience, they heard Mr. Thomas Lloyd, the proposer, and they heard the seconder of the Resolution in favour of disestablishing the Irish Church; but from that moment the meeting was one continued scene of uproar and disorder. Previous to the meeting Mr. Sampson Lloyd, one of the most distinguished citizens of Birmingham, eminent in position and education, and capable of speaking in a manner of which I sincerely wish this House had an opportunity of judging, had communicated with the Mayor and. arranged that he should move an Amendment to test the opinion of the town meeting. He also sent to the Mayor the names of those who were to speak in support of the Amendment. The Mayor acceded to the arrangement, but the excitement of the audience, whether increased by the unjust arrest of Murphy or not—and I have a right to say it was an unjust arrest when no information was produced, and although a charge was entered on the police sheet no attempt was made to support it—aggravated, I think, by that unjust arrest, the meeting utterly repudiated the authority of the chairman, and for two hours there was a continuous scene of hubbub and tumult. Can it be said, that such a scene of hubbub was favourable to freedom of discussion? This tumult was caused by the mob, which afterwards attacked Mr. Murphy in the street, as they had attacked him before. It was this mob which broke the windows of the house in which he lived—it was this same mob, I say, which set the Mayor of Birmingham at defiance after he had ordered the arrest of Murphy. I have here the details and a full catalogue of the attacks which have been from time to time in various localities made on this man and his friends, but I will not trouble the House with them. I find, however, in these accounts that there were Roman Catholic priests who urged their congregations to attack this person and those who were with him as well as other Protestants who attended his lectures. I have heard the details of a very questionable act committed by the stipendiary magistrate at Manchester. I have been much struck by the analogy between these attempts at the suppression of free discussion, these violent outbreaks to prevent persons from lecturing in public, and those which occurred before the civil war in the United States. The other day there was a similar occurrence in Ireland. One Sunday some Methodists met for Divine worship in a gentleman's private park, when they were attacked, outraged, wounded, and hunted from the place. In Scotland, also, there have been two cases of the like kind within the last three weeks— one at Dundee and the other at Glasgow. Judging by what has happened in Ireland, and what has happened in the United States, I have no hesitation in declaring, that if encouragement is given to this system of outrage by Roman Catholic mobs—if these matters are allowed to grow, we shall have to do just what our American cousins did—turn out and put them down ourselves. If the authorities will not stay a riot, then the inhabitants of the neighbourhood have a right to take the part of the persons assailed. I am lawyer enough to know that. If you see a man put in danger of his life, or suffering outrage, it is your duty as one of the Queen's lieges to protect him, and this is a duty which we should not neglect. I hope the House will forgive me for bringing this matter under its consideration, because, whether the right hon. Gentleman can justify the course he has pursued or not, I am sure the House will agree with me, that the conduct of the Government in these matters is unprecedented; that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of this statute—or late statute, as I believe it to be by this time, and the conduct of the Government, of which he is a Member, in inducing or permitting him to abuse the power given by that very questionable law, ought to be held, to say the least of it, exceptional. Judging of the effects produced in my own district by the declarations made in this House and published upon the temper of the Roman Catholics, especially in Birmingham, and from what I hear of the probable action of civic authorities who believe that they will be supported as the Mayors of Tynemouth and other places have been supported by the right hon. Gentleman, I deem it to be my duty, though I am a Tory and the right hon. Gentleman is the Home Secretary of a Liberal Government, to submit my Motion to the House in terms of the Notice.

seconded the Motion.

said, he entirely approved of the course which had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in reference to the matter introduced to the notice of the House by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). With regard to the first declaration in the Resolution of the hon. Member, it was unnecessary with reference either to the Mayor and authorities of Birmingham or, he should hope, to any part of this country. The Resolution further stated that the Mayor of Birmingham had caused the arrest of an innocent person for the purpose of preventing, what to him, was a distasteful discussion. Now he (Mr. Dixon) was not present at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and he had had no communication with the Mayor of Birmingham on the subject; but he thought, from the knowledge he had acquired, that the hon. Gentleman was under an entire misconception as to the facts of the case. The sole object the Mayor of Birmingham had in the course he took was to prevent what seemed to him likely to lead to a disturbance of the peace. A more impartial and fair-deal- ing man as a politician, as well as a private individual, than the Mayor of Birmingham, he (Mr. Dixon) was not acquainted with. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the proceedings which had taken place at Birmingham in 1867 with reference to Mr. Murphy. The disturbances which had occurred were well known to the whole country. Mr. Murphy was known before he came to Birmingham to have caused breaches of the peace elsewhere, or, at all events, what he did and said was known to have preceded breaches of the peace which would not otherwise have occurred. It was apprehended, therefore, that the same breaches of the peace might happen in Birmingham, and what occurred was a justification. There was a breach of the peace and a riot of no small dimensions. He (Mr. Dixon) was Mayor at the time, and had to read the Riot Act in the presence of 100,000 persons. Mr. Murphy had built a place in which to deliver lectures which were highly objectionable to many persons, and. a number of Roman Catholics had thrown stones at a house occupied by one of the friends of Mr. Murphy, but he believed the main damage which ensued from the disturbance was caused by those who took Mr. Murphy's part. Not unnaturally, when Mr. Murphy made his appearance again in Birmingham, it was thought that such a firebrand appearing at a meeting called to consider the Irish Church Bill might lead to a breach of the peace. It was not till Mr. Sampson Lloyd got no to speak that the disturbance really commenced. The alleged disturbance of the meeting, in spite of the arrest, was simply an indisposition on the part of the meeting to listen to Mr. Sampson Lloyd, those present knowing well what his opinions were. He thought the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was entirely misinformed as to what took place at this meeting, and he felt persuaded that there was an entire misapprehension as to the course taken by the Mayor of Birmingham.

expressed his satisfaction that this outrage had been brought under the attention of the House by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). The House had now for the first time heard of '' Mr." Murphy. Formerly he was Murphy the firebrand, Murphy the agitator, and so on; but now he was treated with some little respect. Some two years ago Mr. Murphy appeared in Birmingham as a Protestant lecturer, and the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon), not content with protecting the Town Hall, set the police to prohibit, by all the influence and power of the Corporation, the use by Mr. Murphy of any other public building for the delivery of his lectures. A building, however, was erected by Mr. Murphy at his own cost, and afterwards riots of a disgraceful character ensued. Instead, however, of their being "Murphy riots," he was in no way responsible for them, because they began even before he had opened his mouth. They were got up by Roman Catholics, who were liberated from their chapels on that particular Sunday for the purpose of creating a riot; and after two or three days of saturnalia, the Superintendent of Police reported to the Mayor that but for the intervention of Mr. Murphy and the people over whom he possessed an influence, the town of Birmingham would probably have been sacked and set on fire. Therefore, those riots, originating with Roman Catholics, were suppressed by Protestants acting under the direction of Mr. Murphy. He (Mr. Whalley) had felt it to be his duty to stand by the side of Mr. Murphy before the magistrate at Birmingham, and to ask for the ground of complaint against him. He received no other answer except this—that he] (Mr. Whalley) would be held responsible if Mr. Murphy remained in the town. Be it recollected that though Mr. Murphy had been denied the use of the Town Hall, a fortnight previously Dr. Manning had been allowed to lecture in it, and had received no interruption, though he uttered many things which were calculated to excite the anger of Protestants. He (Mr. Whalley) did not suppose that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would justify a proceeding calculated to suppress freedom of discussion, on the ground that the principles advocated by Mr. Murphy were opposed to those of the Government. It was not true, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, that Mr. Murphy was a person who went about the country for seditious purposes. He had known Mr. Murphy for years, and he believed him to be honest and truthful. It was true that the newspapers of the metropolis tried to make him out to be a dangerous agitator, but it was now tolerably well known that the newspapers of the metropolis were all more or less under the influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood. It was the boast of the Weekly Register that every gentleman in the Reporters' Gallery, every writer in the newspapers, was completely under that influence. Why was Mr. Murphy to be branded as an agitator, when he never spoke a word which was not loyal and patriotic? The right hon. Gentleman had said that Mr. Murphy was going about for no good purpose; but who, he should like to know, constituted the right hon. Gentleman a judge as to what was or was not a good purpose? He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had estimated the gravity of the question. It was not Mr. Murphy who ever created disturbances; he merely quoted from Roman Catholic books the doctrines which the Roman Catholics were bound to believe, and then came the row, then the riot. He called upon the Secretary of State to prove what he had stated— namely, that Mr. Murphy went about for no good purpose, and that any one who attended his meetings was liable to a penalty of £20.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) what were the expressions of which he complained as used by Dr. Manning, and which he said were usually applied by Roman Catholics to Protestants. He should also be glad to know what the hon. Member intended by the phrase, '' the Roman Catholics were let loose from their chapels."

said, Dr. Manning had called all Protestants "heathens;" and associated them with all the very worst attributes of heathenism. What he meant by saying that the Roman Catholics were '' let loose from their chapels "was that, as stated by the Inspector of Police in his official Report, the chapel 'service was not held at the usual time, being that which Mr. Murphy had advertised for the commencement of his lecture.

said, that any hon. Gentleman who addressed the House in behalf of the right of free speech had a very great advantage. In that sacred right all sides of the House were equally interested. He did not doubt that his hon. Friend who introduced this Motion was a vigilant guardian of the right, but at the same time he might be permitted to suggest that if the interference now complained of had occurred to a Roman Catholic lecturer, who had been going about inflaming the public mind, and leading to violence, destruction of property, and bloodshed, the House would not have the benefit of hearing his hon. Friend for a hour and a-half on the subject. He need not say that in the performance of his duty, as regarded Mr. Murphy, he could have but one motive—that of the preservation of the public peace. It was nothing to him whence the danger came; if the danger existed, and if he was armed with powers to prevent it, it was his duty to exercise them. Let them look at the facts of this particular case in order to see whether he had properly exercised the powers which the law gave him, he admitted, under very peculiar circumstances. Towards the end of March last he received from the Mayor of Tynemouth an announcement that Mr. Murphy had advertised a certain meeting to be held at South Shields, and that the Orangemen were going to have a procession on Easter Monday, which, in the opinion of the Mayor of Tynemouth would probably lead to violence and bloodshed, and he inquired how he should proceed. He gave him the advice of his predecessor in Office—that he should do his best by appealing to those who were about to join in the procession to abstain from doing so. He was happy to say that in that appeal the Mayor had succeeded. With respect to the meeting of Murphy, he informed the Mayor there was nothing in the common law to prevent him from holding it in private rooms, but inasmuch as danger was apprehended he advised the Mayor to have a force of special con-stables and put himself in communication with the military, in case of any serious riot, to have the means of suppressing it. All these means were taken very energetically. On the day when the meeting was held, as the Mayor had apprehended, large numbers of Irishmen were assembled—not only of those residing at South Shields, but others came in trains from several neighbouring towns, and then occurred a scene which was described by the Mayor; but the House must recollect it was not on this occasion that he had interposed in what was called an illegal manner. The first lecture of Murphy was given under these circumstances—

"As Mr. Murphy began his lecture, which was numerously attended, at eight o'clock, there was at that time a large crowd gathered, and at the east end of West Saville Street a large number of Irishmen were assembled. The magistrates, who had had information that an attack was threatened, had a large force of men in reserve at the police station, and were in telegraphic communication with all the military in case they should be needed. All passed off quietly till between half-past eight and a-quarter to nine o'clock, when the Irishmen, who had kept together at the east end of West Saville Street, suddenly disappeared, and immediately after a large body of Irish, 200 or 300 were seen coming up the Borough Road in military array, headed by two leaders. They were all armed—some with sticks, others with hammers—and proceeded shouting into Saville Street—' We'll kill Murphy; suppose we are hung for it,' and uttering other threats. The crowd about the door fled before them, and as there were only four policemen inside the passage leading to the Odd-Fellows' Hall, who believed that the rioters were about to break in upon the meeting, they shut and locked the front door to exclude them. As soon as the Irishmen got in front of the Hall they fell into line. Their two leaders gave a shout, and threw two large stones at the windows of the Odd-Fellows' Hall. Two or three volleys followed, which smashed in the windows, and caused great alarm to those in the interior, some of whom were struck by the missiles, and one man is reported to be somewhat seriously wounded, a large iron slug having hit him. From the outside the assembly in the hall could be heard pouring down stairs; and fortunately, the front door being locked, they could not be attacked by the exasperated Irish outside, who attempted to smash in the doors with sticks and hammers. There being an egress from the back, the large body of the assembly got into a back street and so escaped. The whole of the audience however, did not take flight, but not more than one-sixth remained, Murphy calling upon them to stand firm. The most of them made to the platform, which became crowded, and they broke up the chairs, and armed themselves with the legs and backs to receive the charge. More stones came into the room through the broken windows, but the policemen had effectually barred the entrance of the Irish from the outside, and Murphy and his supporters retained possession of the room in comparative safety. In the meantime a messenger had been sent to the police station for the reserve force, and, on arriving, headed by Mr. Superintendent Hewit, they charged the Irishmen who fled in all directions. There were three contingents of them—one coming by the steam ferry from South Shields and Jarrow, another by the ten minutes past eight train from Howden and Walker, the third men belonging to the town."

That was the result of the first meeting. Murphy then went northwards, intending to address audiences in some of the principal towns of the north; but, on all occasions, he was refused permission to lecture in large places. He returned to Tynemouth, and gave notice that he intended to resume his meetings. It was known that wherever this man had gone, at Ashton, Staleybridge, Birmingham—outrages similar to those described —similar, but much worse — had occurred. In all cases the religious feelings of the Roman Catholics had been outraged, their outbreaks had led to retaliation, and from one cause or another, there had been great danger to life and destruction of property. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked what harm was there in going about to preach Protestant doctrines; and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) said this man's motives were high and pure, and therefore he should not have been interfered with. He hoped both hon. Members were ignorant of the nature of this person's addresses. At first the subjects were simply theological—" The Scapular and the Blessed Virgin Mary coming down from Heaven to release Souls out of Purgatory;" "Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass unscriptural;" "The Seven Sacraments of the Church of Rome unscriptural." The charge for attendance at these theological lectures was 2d. and 4d. Then there was also a series which this pure and simple-minded man delivered at North Shields upon "The Confessional Unmasked; Maynooth and its Teaching," the advertisement being accompanied with the notice that the lecture would be addressed to "gentlemen only, gentlemen under eighteen years of age not being admitted." He quite approved of the Juvenalian maxim—

"Maxima debetur pueris reverentia."

But on Saturday, March 20, the subject announced was "The Confessional Unmasked "—to ladies only. On these occasions this Apostle of Truth appreciated the superior attractions of his subjects, and the charge was 6d. and 1s. Was it to be wondered that lectures on such subjects delivered in such circumstances, impeaching the morality of Catholic priests and people, should have led to proceedings which they must all deplore? On the threatened return of Murphy to South Shields he (Mr. Bruce) was again applied to by the Mayor, who apprehended similar scenes, the Irish threatening to attend in much greater numbers. Such was the state of alarm that the question was whether the Volunteers should be called out. He then found he had a weapon at his disposal, which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) called obsolete, but which was one that the hon. Gentleman had himself assisted in forging, since he was a Member of the House when it passed. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: It was limited in its application.] The difference between the old Act and the one recently modified was that formerly anyone could lay an information against any person who lectured, even on Shaksperian subjects, whereas the powers conferred by the recent Act could not be exercised by any individual, but only by the Crown and the law. On the statement of facts laid before him he took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and asked them whether he should be justified in putting the Act in force. They advised him of the legality of so doing. The hon. Member had argued this case as if it were an attempt to prevent a meeting from being held, whereas the fact was that it was done to prevent the return of Murphy to a place where he had previously been the occasion of a disturbance. On receiving the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown he informed the Mayor of Tynemouth that he would be authorized under the Act to give notice to the owner of the lecture-hall that he would be liable to a penalty of £100 if the meeting was held in an unlicensed room, and that any person who attended it would be liable to a penalty of £20. The law was not put in force, for the threat was effectual. Mr. Murphy disappeared, but re-appeared in other places, where new disturbances arose. He was not there to justify the law—indeed, he admitted that it was altogether unsuitable to these times. The question, however, was whether, being responsible for the peace of the country, he would have been justified in abstaining from using the weapon which the Legislature had placed in his hands, and he could not admit that his judgment ought to have been influenced' by the fact that they were all of opinion that the law ought to be repealed. The hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to connect him with the proceedings of the Mayor of Birmingham. The Mayor had not, however, consulted him, and what the Mayor did was on his own responsibility. The answer he had given in the House, on a recent occasion, was derived from the letter of the Mayor himself. He knew that the Mayor had subjected himself to an action which he believed had since been commenced. He had expressed no approval of the conduct of the Mayor, nor did he say that it had been legal.

said, it was impossible that the Mayor of Birmingham, could have allowed a man to lecture in the Town Hall who had been causing riots in every town in the country. The only mistake made by the Mayor was in not seeing the necessity of having the informations filed before issuing his warrant. Murphy applied for the use of the Town Hall, which, could be granted for the purpose of a public meeting either by the Mayor, or by two magistrates, or by six members of the Town Council. They all refused, and Murphy could not get the use of the Town Hall. Some of the magistrates and members of the Town Council were Roman Catholics. Murphy then built what he called his Tabernacle on a piece of waste land, and the Mayor kept a large body of police and some dragoons in readiness for four days to protect Murphy against the assaults of those who were enraged by his obscene and disgusting language. The fact was that Murphy was a violent agitator, with whom reasonable men, of whatever creed, could have no sympathy.

said, the House must wish to get rid of these acrimonious ecclesiastical discussions. The reason why he and others supported the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was not from any feeling of antagonism to the Roman Catholic religion, but because the right of free speech was involved in this question. He regretted that, on the afternoon when words of peace and conciliation had gone forth to their Roman Catholic brethren, the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have appealed to the religious prejudices both of the Catholics and the Protestants. Of course if a man went into a public place and used insulting language towards persons of other religious or political opinions, the State had a right to interfere, but he (Viscount Sandon) held that people should be free to hold meetings in closed rooms, whatever opinions they desired to express, and this freedom should be equally enjoyed whether by Protestants or Roman Catholics, by Tories or Radicals. He believed that the law of the country protected such meetings. With reference to the arrest of Mr. Murphy, he should have expected that the Minister of Justice in this country would have uttered some expression of his deep regret that the liberty of the subject had been interfered with, and he was sorry that no such expression had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He felt that in supporting his hon. Friend he was standing up for a great constitutional principle, which it was equally the interest of Gentlemen on the other side of the House to support. He should vote for the Motion simply on the ground of the enormous importance of freedom of speech; and because under a very democratic government there was an evident danger that in the future opinions distasteful to the majority might run the risk of being suppressed with the strong hand. Almost every opinion worth having had been the opinion of a minority at one time or other, and but for the law would doubtless have been crushed out by a triumphant majority.

took exception to the language which had been used by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). It was hoped that the proceedings of that day would have been a message of peace to Ireland; but, after the imputations made in the course of the debate upon the Roman Catholic clergy, it seemed hopeless to expect any such result. He asked the hon. Member for Peterborough for the names of those Roman Catholic clergymen whom he had charged with inciting their parishioners to riot. Without knowing any of those rev. gentlemen, his confidence in the order to which they belonged was such as to justify him in using the strongest language in condemnation of the charge.