said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, How many Military firearms have been sold during the past year, and how much was realized by the sale; whether he knows by whom and for what purpose they were bought, and what was their destination; whether facilities are not given by this system for providing with arms insurgents and others hostile to our own Government at home or in the Colonies, and to friendly Governments; and, whether it would not be better to render all Military weapons not required for the public service unserviceable, instead of selling them and being parties to their being used for purposes of legitimate or illegitimate warfare?

said, in reply, that the number of military firearms sold by the War Office during the past year was 18,850, and the amount realized £4,258. The purposes for which they were bought were known to the Department. He was not of opinion that facilities were given by that sale for providing with arms insurgents and others hostile to our own Government at home or in the Colonies, or friendly Governments, beyond what were given by ordinary trade. Indeed, he was of opinion that if we had an enemy in the field against us the best thing we could wish was that they should be armed with those weapons. He did not think it would be better to render all military weapons not required for the public service unsaleable, instead of selling them; because that would diminish the price received, without conducing to the general advantage of the State.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Why rifles have not yet been issued to Volunteer Corps in Districts 6, 8, and 10, although, in answer to a Question on the 25th of February, they were promised "immediately;" when they will be issued; and, whether he is aware that any further delay will very much reduce the Capitation Grant in many battalions, and will stop the course of annual instruction in all?

Sir, I am sorry that the arms have not been delivered, earlier; but the reason is that it is necessary to examine them carefully, with the view to substitute better ones for the old ones called in. They are now being issued at the rate of 2,000 per day, and 55,000 will be in the hands of the Volunteers before the end of April. Considering the improvements that have been made in the weapon, I do not consider that the issue of them will tend at all to diminish the efficiency of the force.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether our Ambassador in Paris has received instructions to make any representations to the French Go- vernment concerning the revision of the Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and France, for the mutual interest of the two Countries; and, if so, whether there is any objection to stating the nature of such representations?

replied, that no representations had been made to the French Government against an inquiry being instituted into the operation of the commercial treaty between the two countries. Such an inquiry was a matter entirely within the discretion of the French Government. The French Government had, however, been informed that we were ready, if invited, to supply a Committee on the subject with oral or written evidence, if they should require it. Lord Lyons, our Ambassador at Paris, had also been made acquainted with the views of the Government on the matter; but it was not expedient that the instructions given to him should be stated at present.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether men are still being discharged from Sheerness Dockyard; and whether it is true that, in consequence of the want of labourers in the yard, barges and other craft bringing stores from Woolwich are detained from eight to ten days before they can discharge their cargo; and whether, when discharged, the iron and timber stores are placed in the yard exposed to the weather, from the want of labourers to store them or stow them away under cover; and, if application has not been made from the Dockyard for more labourers for this work, and been refused?

said, in reply, that it was true that reductions were being made, and that they would be continued; but no representation had been made to the Admiralty of any want of labour in connection with the proper storing of the large amount of timber that had recently arrived at Sheerness from Woolwich. The supply of labourers was quite sufficient to stow it away gradually, but not rapidly; and after the contemplated changes had been carried out the staff of common labourers would be 300 strong, which would be quite sufficient for all the duties required.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the still dangerous condition of the ride opposite Knightsbridge Barracks; and, if not, whether he will give instructions to have the holes filled up and levelled?

, in reply, said, he was quite alive to the great importance of keeping Rotten Row in proper order. As soon as his attention had been called to some defects on the ride he had given directions that they should be corrected. The difficulty in the matter arose from the circumstance that the surface beneath the earth could not be seen, and that the defects could not, as a consequence, be perceived. As they were discovered, however, they were removed. It should be borne in mind that the ride had been only recently re-made, and that, unfortunately, while hon. Members were in the country a considerable number of persons remained in town who continued riding up and down while the ride was in a wet state, and wholly unfit for equestrian exercise. A good deal of mischief was done in that way; but every effort was being made to restore the ride to good order.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to his statement that Admiral Sir Spencer Robinson did not consent, as a Lord of the Admiralty, to the new scheme of Naval retirement, Whether Sir Sydney Dacres was consulted in the preparation of that scheme; and, if so, whether he approved of all its provisions?

Sir, in reference to the first part of the Question, the hon. Gentleman has not quite correctly represented what I said. I did not state that Sir Spencer Robinson did not consent to the scheme; but that in regard to certain particulars, which I enumerated, he differed from me, while he entirely approved of the greater part. As to the second part of the Question, I am authorized by my gallant Colleague, Sir Sydney Dacres, to say that he entirely and heartily approves of the scheme in all its details.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of such Letters, Correspondence, and Enclosures from Governor Douglas (at one time supposed to have the full title of Colonial Governor of Her Majesty's Possessions on the Pacific Coast of North America) or his Secretaries, and from the Secretary to the British Commission on the Water Boundary question, as were received by the Colonial Secretaries, warning Her Majesty's Government of the apparent intentions of General Harney, or the United States Forces, to invade a part or parts of Her Majesty's dominions on the coast of the Pacific, before and up to the year 1859 inclusive; and, why a Question, of a similar nature yesterday, addressed to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, upon Colonial affairs, should be answered by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as he the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies then stated?

Sir, as my noble Friend desired to receive an answer from me, I put myself into communication with my noble Friend, Lord Clarendon. He has authorized me to state that it would be ascertained what Papers have already been given, and what, if any, can be added to them without prejudice to the public service. I can only repeat, in substance, what I said yesterday—that the matter, though no doubt relating to territory which, if belonging to Her Majesty, would form part of a Colony, is one which is the subject of a dispute between this country and a foreign Power, that such disputes are treated by the Foreign and not by the Colonial Office, with whom, therefore, it rests to determine whether the various Papers on the subject which they received through the Colonial Office can or cannot be laid before Parliament without injury to the public interests. In point of fact, all Papers that have been presented on the subject have been presented by the Foreign Office.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any steps have been taken in compliance with the prayer of the Petition from certain inhabitants of New Romney, presented to this House on the 26th July 1867, in accordance with which inquiries have been subsequently made, by order of Government, regarding the municipal property of the town?

said, in reply, that certain inhabitants of New Romney had asked for a charter of incorporation; but inquiry having been made in the usual manner, the Committee of the Privy Council had determined against the application. It was not usual to give the reasons upon which the Privy Council decided these questions, but the fact was that, apart from the smallness of the population of New Romney, it appeared that the establishment of a new corporation would not abolish the old corporation, who would have existed side by side with the new body, and have retained the control and management of the property.

, in rising to call attention to the present distribution of our Foreign Squadrons, and more especially to the number of vessels now stationed on the West Coast of Africa, said, he had no wish to reflect on the conduct of the present Board of Admiralty. On the contrary, he had a strong sense of the services which the First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty had rendered to the country since their connection with the Department. In carrying out the recent reductions in expenditure, the right lion. Gentleman had been exposed to much annoyance, and had undertaken a painful task. It must be always painful to curtail public expenditure, and, on the other hand, it was pleasant to spend public money, and so gratify the large number of persons whose interests were served by such an expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, deserved the thanks of the country for reductions of £1,750,000 effected, not only without diminishing, but really adding to the efficiency of the Navy. Even now, however, this year's expenditure would be considerably in excess of the expenditure a few years ago. In 1849–50 the naval expenditure amounted to £6,260,740, being £3,000,000 less than the existing expenditure. He selected that year, because in 1850 Mr. Cobdon made an important Motion, and called upon the Government to reduce the expenditure considerably, reminding the House that in 1835–6 the naval expenditure was £4,000,000, or less than half the present reduced Naval Estimates. He (Mr. Rylands) would not compare this year with 1835–6; but the comparison might fairly be made with 1849–50. The great excess of the present expenditure arose in consequence of the much larger number of blue-jackets and Marines now in the service as compared with 1850. In that year the number of sailors, boys, and Marines afloat and ashore was 39,130, the Vote for wages being £1,355,420, and for victuals and clothing £538,642, making together £1,894,062. This year the number of men, boys, and Marines voted was 61,000, the wages were £2,692,631, and the victuals and clothing £968,957, making £3,001,588. Considerable reductions had been made in the cost of dockyards, victualling yards, and clothes; but these reductions were now approaching their limit, and no great impression on the amount of the Navy Estimates could be hoped for if the present force of blue-jackets were maintained. If we were to maintain our present system, the country must be prepared to pay for it. The cry for economy out of doors could not be answered unless the public were prepared to call upon the Government to withdraw from distant parts of the globe the costly squadrons that were maintained on almost every coast. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), when moving the Navy Estimates in 1868, put this question before the House very clearly. He said—

"The possibility of effecting any material reduction in the number of seamen to be voted for the service of the year depended in a great measure upon the strength at which the foreign squadrons ought to be maintained. …… I am quite ready to admit that, if these squadrons are useless, if they are kept up merely for the sake of giving patronage to the Admiralty, as some insinuate, or for any other such unworthy motive, then they ought to be at once suppressed; and, if they were so suppressed, millions of public money would be saved. You would save the wages of 10,000 or 15,000 seamen, and a large proportion of the cost of building and repairing ships, and various other charges."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 36.]

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone on that occasion strongly advocated the maintenance of our foreign squadrons, which he considered the pivot upon which our whole naval policy turns; and in that respect he somewhat differed from the opinion of his Colleague the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord H. Lennox), who, as Secretary to the Admiralty, in moving the Navy Estimates the previous year (1867), made an able and remarkable speech. The noble Lord said—

"It is, in my opinion, a grave question whether the time has not come for the House of Commons and the country to consider what is the absolute necessity or advisability of keeping up large squadrons in all parts of the world of small unarmoured ships, which, when a more formidable ship than they approaches them must, what is vulgarly termed, 'cut and run.'"—[3 Hansard, clxxxv. 1838.]

On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister expressed his disapproval of

"Maintaining a system of manning every part of the globe with vessels that have no force of resistance, and which, instead of being a force of security, would either have to be defended, or else run away at the first menace of danger."—[Ibid. 1853.]

In 1868 the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty brought the question of the distribution of foreign squadrons before the House in a speech of remarkable ability, in which he contended that they should be considerably reduced beyond the reduction then contemplated by the Government. His speech called forth some weighty observations from the present Prime Minister, who said—

"I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend is inclined to reduce the foreign squadrons. That is a reduction which I believe ought to be made with a very strong hand; the old notion of arming all over the world being, as I believe, totally unsuited to the present state of things, and nothing more or less than a gross superstition. There is not a shadow of justification for the system in matters as they now stand."—[3 Hansard, cxcii. 86–7.]

The Secretary of State for War had adopted the same principle with reference to the reduction of the Army Estimates; and in explaining the means by which he reduced our Army without affecting the efficiency of the force, he said that scattered troops were a source, not of strength, but of weakness and anxiety. These arguments applied as much to the Navy as to the Army. Why should we not concentrate our naval forces at home, and so avoid the waste which arises from a scattering of power which not only does not assist in the defence of our shores, but which would be a source of danger and anxiety in case of a European war? He did not overlook the argument in favour of foreign squadrons—namely, that they were schools for keeping officers and men in training; and his reply was that the First Lord of the Admiralty had given us the alternative of flying squadrons, which maintained the efficiency of the Navy while they secured us a force which was so much in the hands of the Government that it could be called upon for service if required without the necessity of sending all over the habitable globe. He knew the Board of Admiralty was placed in circumstances of great difficulty in making reductions, and that great pressure was put upon it; indeed, it was impossible to look at the long list of officers seeking active employment without feeling that it must be a godsend to the First Lord to have foreign squadrons to which he could draught off a score or two of urgent claimants; for it must be a painful thing to have at any time to refuse active service to men who were worthy of it. But we could not keep up a costly establishment at the expense of the British taxpayer in order to find employment for patriotic officers; and we must reduce the employment if we wish to reduce the expenditure. The Foreign Office represented an influence all over the world, which, he ventured to say, had been an influence for evil. Men who wanted to back up their personal and selfish interests asked for Consuls and gunboats. The Foreign Office granted them, and the Admiralty was expected to find the gunboats. His right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty would no doubt contend, and with perfect truth, that he had already considerably reduced the foreign squadrons; but" the question was, whether that reduction might not be carried much further? He admitted the First Lord had gone far in the direction of the Resolution he moved, and much credit was due to him for what he had done; but still he had not gone so far as in 1868 he proposed to go. In 1846 the number of men employed in the foreign squadrons was 12,000. The public being asleep, and the spending department awake, to use the words of a high authority, the number gradually rose, until, in 1867, it was 17,785. Great credit was due to the right lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corry) for reducing that number, and the present First Lord had carried the reduction further, until the number of men now was 12,100—still considerably in excess of the number fixed upon by the right hon. Gentleman in 1868. The squadrons of the United States were much less than ours. In the East Indies, China, and Australia we had thirty-nine vessels and they nine; at the Capo of Good Hope and on the West African Coast we had fourteen vessels and they none. On the whole, they had twenty-two vessels to our ninety. We could not be expected to find vessels to protect Canada. It was unreasonable to keep up such a number as we did for the defence of the West Indies; and the Pacific Squadron, which was engaged in visiting our Consuls in a number of little islands, seemed to be entirely useless. We had been involved in a number of wars with China, brought about by the fact that we had planted in China this armed hand of force, which had caused feelings of hostility and antagonism in that great Empire. These wars arose out of keeping up a large force in China; and yet it was the people of this country, and not the China merchants, who had to pay the expense of them, amounting to millions of money. Our interference had made the name of Englishman detested in China, where an Englishman was looked upon as the representative of brute force. Though they might talk about trade, he said that in the long run trade was not promoted by these proceedings, and when it was said that the coast of China was opened up, he replied that they did not know how much might have been effected by a different policy. He had been told by a gentleman, whose name was not unknown to many Members in that House, who had been long in China, and who, at the present moment, had large interests there, that if he went back to China he would leave behind him the name of Englishman and pass under that of an American. [Laughter..] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but if they read over the China Papers presented to the House last year, they would find that the manner in which the Chinese had been treated was a disgrace to Englishmen. He would give one or two instances of what had occurred, not in barbarous times, but not longer ago than in 1868. He would call their attention, first, to the occurrences that had taken place in the island of Formosa. A British merchant having bought a lot of camphor, a dispute arose oat of the transaction with the Chinese authorities. The British Consul then appeared—the representative of the Majesty of Great Britain—and because, amongst other grounds of offence, he was not treated with all the respect he conceived his due, he demanded from the poor islanders compliance with certain terms as a recognition of British rights. That was refused, and then the Consul, whose name he would mention, as it ought to be handed down to posterity—it was Mr. Gibson—called on the senior naval lieutenant commanding the Algerine—a suitable name—to vindicates British rights, and the result was that the town of Amping was bombarded for a couple of hours. Immediately it was dark the lieutenant entered the town, surprised the guards, shot down several of them, and in the morning, when a number of Chinese soldiers were seen approaching, he fired into them and drove them away. He then proceeded to destroy the ammunition and arms, and to blow up the magazine. From a deputation of Chinese merchants who waited on him, he required a deposit of 40,000 dollars as a guarantee, and upon that demand being agreed to, he next required a further sum of 10,000 dollars to be applied as follows—namely, one-half to repay the expense of bombarding the town and destroying the property in Amping, and the other half to be distributed as loot, or prize money amongst the officers and men engaged in these disgraceful proceedings. The House might, perhaps, excuse these proceedings on the ground that they were the acts of young men without experience and judgment; but they received the sanction of the Admiral on the station, as in the blue book would be found despatches from Admiral Keppel, in which he stated that—"Lieutenant Gurdon merited praise for the promptitude and gallantry with which he surprised the place at night." He spoke of it as a "brilliant success," and "warmly solicited their Lordships' fa- vourable consideration of his gallant and judicious services." Even the Plenipotentiary at Pekin—Sir Rutherford Alcock—looked upon these transactions with no great disfavour, for in his despatch to the Foreign Office he said—

"If the means adopted by Mr. Gibson were somewhat sharp and unauthorized, it would seem that they were, at all events, eminently successful, and brought all our difficulties with both authorities and people to a very swift and satisfactory termination, while nine months had been wasted in previous futile efforts by negotiations and remonstrance."

However, it was satisfactory to know that Lord Clarendon entirely condemned the conduct of these two subordinate authorities in committing any acts of hostility whatever. He considered the Consul's conduct rash and inexcusable, and that it proved him totally unfit to be entrusted with any discretionary power whatever. Lord Clarendon also condemned the conduct of the commander of the Algerine in requiring the payment of the 40,000 dollars as a guarantee, and of the further sum of 10,000 dollars, which he ordered to be returned immediately to the Chinese authorities. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his speech in 1867, referred to China, and said that the main cause of the increase in the number of vessels in the Chinese seas was the fact that the British Navy were maintaining the entire police of those waters, and that he described as a Quixotic duty. In reference to that point he would give another instance to show how matters were conducted there, and it also had reference to the same gunboat Algerine, commanded, however, on this occasion, by Lieutenant Domville. In 1868 Lieutenant Domville fought an action with thirteen armed junks, which he chose to call piratical; and in a despatch he gave a full account of the action. After describing the efforts he made to destroy the junks, he said that at length he passed three times alongside the line of the junks and poured in grape at close quarters. It must, he added, have told with fearful effect by the yells that ensued. One vessel was injured and captured, while the others escaped into shallow water. Now, the House would, perhaps, be surprised to hear that these junks were not pirates at all, but armed trading vessels, and the captured junk was afterwards released on that ground. He was backed up by the Admiral, who spoke in his despatch of the skill and gallantry displayed by both officers and crew in engaging and dispersing a force so vastly superior, and expressed a hope that Lieutenant Domville would meet with some mark of their Lordships' approval. But, fortunately, the Foreign Office again condemned the proceeding of the Algerine and the conduct of the lieutenant in command. He would trouble the House with only another instance, which occurred in the same year. A party of the men belonging to the Cockchafer went up a creek at Swatow; the villagers were known to be hostile, and they yelled at the barbarians, as they called them, and threw stones at them. What was the consequence? The blue-jackets resorted to their arms. They said they were the first attacked; but no doubt the Chinese would say the contrary. The Consul called for "summary vengeance" by means of gunboats, and the Commodore chastised the villagers. He fired into a number of the villages, and burnt several. The villagers sued for pardon, and the usual naval despatches were written. The Commodore praised the acting Consul, and the acting Consul praised the Commodore, and Admiral Keppel, as usual, came in at the end and reported the conduct of all engaged as worthy the approval of the Admiralty. The correspondence would not be complete without the notice of our Plenipotentiary at Pekin, and accordingly Sir Rutherford Alcock sent home a despatch in which he said that, although the object had not been effected without a good deal of damage to the offending villagers and many of their piratical forces, there was not much to regret, and he went on to praise the gallant spirit which had been displayed by the naval force. He was glad to say the authorities at home had condemned both the naval and consular officers; Admiral Keppel no longer commanded in those seas, and he hoped the Admiralty would take care that he had not a similar command given him elsewhere. He had alluded to the questions of trade and piracy, and he would not dwell on disputes in connection with the missionaries. He hoped they were all anxious to see the doctrines they believed, of peace and goodwill, carried to the ends of the earth; but when these doctrines were backed by gunboats, they did much to prevent the spread of Christianity. It was a serious question how they were to remedy these evils in future. On this subject Lord Clarendon, much, to Ms honour, in a despatch to Sir Rutherford Alcock, said—

"The active interference of Her Majesty's naval force should only be had recourse to in cases of sudden emergency and of immediate danger to lives or property."

But these cases of emergency were to be judged of by their Consuls Gibson and Lieutenants Gurdon, as in their justification of the outrage committed on Formosa, which Consul Gibson said was necessary for the "bare existence of British subjects." And it must be remembered that in China the public opinion upon those matters was very different from the feelings entertained in this country. As an instance of this, he might refer to some proceedings which took place last year at Hong Kong. At a dinner given to Admiral Keppel on leaving, and at which the whole of the leading merchants and officials seemed to have been present, a certain English Colonel responded for the "Army." One of the China papers thus reported his speech—

"As regarded China, he contended that the Chinese were an inferior nation, and should be brought down and shown that they were the inferior nation. [Loud cheers..] He strongly objected to the tampering policy followed by the present economical Government, and styled it a most pernicious policy, and a policy which would not have been tolerated for a moment 200 years ago."

The Overland China Mail, of the 19th of October last, spoke thus—

"Let us say to China 'This must be done because we choose.' There is no other way of appealing to the nation. … What can avail but threats? We may be thankful that just at this moment the hollowness of their pretended desire for progress has become apparent. Should another war, as is most probable, occur, the peace-mongers will no longer be able to weep over the injuries inflicted upon a 'meek and progress-loving people.'"

A similar feeling appeared to animate all our officials in China. It was no doubt very well to talk of 300,000,000 backs to be clothed with English calico; but we had no right to compel men to take what they did not want. We were in danger from this state of feeling of being lugged into another war with China, and he, for one, was very much afraid of it. It was said the Chinese were so broken in spirit, so sat upon, that there was no chance of their going to war; but the feeling in Pekin was different. He would read an extract from a letter which had appeared in The Times. It was written by a correspondent of The Times in Pekin, and, judging from what they knew of the correspondents of The Times, they might fairly believe that the writer was a man of intelligence, on whom reliance might be placed. The correspondent, speaking of the China merchants, said—

"The opening up of the country is their cry, 'progress' is their motto, war is their object. Trade is slack at present. It is necessary to live, and, Micawber-like, they hope for something to turn up in the general disruption it would infallibly produce. Nor is it wholly impossible that an Abyssinian expenditure in China might be to their advantage; while, at the same time, it is evident they would not have to contribute to it. House rent would go up, old steamers he chartered, and older stores find a ready market, and the Chinaman would be treated like the dog they think him to be for presuming to imagine that his own country belongs to him."

Under the present system he complained they were placing the honour and power of the British nation in the hands of people like Consul Gibson and Lieutenant Gurdon, and involving the country in all the chances of war. It might be said they could not change their policy in a moment; but they ought to proceed on the principle of concentrating their forces and. concentrating the trade in China in certain entrepôts, and leaving those who created disputes to settle them as best they could, without backing them up by Consuls or gunboats. They should withdraw the Consuls from the distant ports, and lessen very considerably the number of their gunboats. If a man, from a love of enterprize or a desire for increased profits, chose to go beyond the region where there was a certain amount of British support and of commercial civilization, he ought to feel that in doing so he went there on his own hook, and that with the advantage of extra profits he must be prepared to take the extra risk. If an Englishman, under such circumstances, felt that he had no Consul or gunboat to rely upon, he would be much better disposed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The general question of the distribution of squadrons was one on which such different opinions were entertained, and such important issues depended, that he had not ventured to move any substantive Resolution upon the subject, though it was one upon which it would be well that the country should be enlightened by a discussion in Parliament. But on both sides of the House there was such a concurrence of opinion as to the West African Squadron, that he felt himself justified in challenging a vote upon that subject. In 1867 the noble Lord the Member for Chichester, then Secretary to the Admiralty, said he should feel the greatest satisfaction if the moment should arrive when Her Majesty's Government deemed it to be consistent with the interests of humanity and the public service to modify or remove altogether the African Coast Squadron. By that means numbers of our seamen and officers would be saved from being devoured by the frightful pestilence which is so destructive on those shores. The noble Lord, till lately Member for King's Lynn, whose removal from the House of Commons they all regretted—both in itself and from the cause to which that removal was owing—speaking in 1865, said—

"If the people of this country knew what has been and what is the waste—I do not say of money merely, but of what is much more important, valuable lives on that coast—that African squadron would very shortly be numbered with the things of the past."—[3 Hansard, clxxvii. 550.]

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire obtained a Committee upon this subject, and though that Committee did not adopt the draft Report which he proposed, its terms were fully borne out by the evidence which was given. One passage from the draft Report ran as follows:—

"Your Committee deprecate the needless employment of English officers and military on such a shore as costly to this country, not only by actual mortality, but by the numbers invalided in mind and body and rendered unfit for other active service. … The scattering of forces, both naval and military, in such parts of the world ii an additional evil, which in case of general war would be of serious consideration."

No doubt the West African Squadron was established originally with the most humane and benevolent intentions; but the evil which it was intended to sup press had practically ceased to exist, and there was not sufficient trade to justify the maintenance of so large a force. Tin whole export trade to the West Coast he found from the official Returns amounted to less than £750,000. Mr. Tobin, an African merchant of high standing, was examined before the Select Committee of 1865, and stated that, sup posing the slave trade were to cease, only a very small force indeed would be re- quired to visit the different parts of the coast—nothing like the present squadron. In former years, both France and America joined in keeping up large squadrons on the West Coast of Africa. The Trench were bound, under a Convention, to keep up twenty-six ships; but since the Russian War these had been entirely withdrawn. The American Squadron also since the Civil War had been entirely withdrawn. Why should this country be the only Power to keep up a large naval force upon that coast? The unhealthy nature of the service had been conclusively shown in a Return obtained in 1860 by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes). From this it appeared that the number of vessels stationed on the West Coast during ten years, from 1858 to 1867, inclusive, averaged about twenty - two vessels. During those ten years the cases of sickness amounted to 33,713, invaliding to 865, and deaths to 448. The pay for ten years was £740,875, and the number of slaves captured 8,330. He gave the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty credit for reducing the ships upon that station, though not to the full extent which he had given the House reason to expect. From a Return published as to the health of the Navy for the last thirteen years, it appeared that the relative proportions on the Home and West Coast Stations were—for every 1,000 of the force—at home, 1,027 cases of disease and injury, twenty-five invalided, and eight deaths; while on the West Coast the ratio was 1,966 cases of disease and injury, fifty-seven invalided, and twenty-six deaths. Efficient sailors were costly of production, and he appealed to the House no longer to allow the lives of these men to be exposed unnecessarily on this pestiferous service. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the African Squadron ought to be materially reduced at the earliest possible date.

seconded the Resolution.

said, he felt bound to remonstrate strongly against the course which the hon. Gentleman opposite had taken. Nobody could have supposed, from the terms of the Notice placed upon the Paper, that the House was to be launched into a China debate without an opportunity being afforded to hon. Members of refreshing their recollections as to facts, or of preparing themselves to reply to the arguments which might be used. In the main, he agreed with the policy which the hon. Gentleman had sketched out as the right one for the House to pursue; but that lion. Gentleman had brought a heavy bill of indictment against more than one public servant and several gallant officers; and it was not fair to hon. Members that charges, which would grate harshly and cruelly upon the feelings of officers engaged on distant and arduous services, should be made in the House without the possibility of their being met in debate, unless hon. Members ventured to trust to memory, which, in cases of this kind, was often a delusive support. He complained of the course adopted by the hon. Member in bringing into debate without notice, charges against the character and conduct of officers who were absent on foreign service, and he hoped this course would not be taken as a precedent. Last year, in the debate upon Chinese affairs which occurred, almost every circumstance which had been alluded to came under the view of Parliament, and the matters were fully explained by the Minister. References were then made to the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon, and he took occasion to express approval of the conduct of that noble Earl in reference to his Chinese policy. He might also remind the House that Consul Gibson, who had been frequently mentioned in the speech of the lion. Gentleman, was removed by Lord Clarendon by a summary act of authority, which, in his opinion, his Lordship was perfectly justified in exercising. The hon. Gentleman had also alluded to Admiral Keppel and Lieutenant Gurdon. Now, Admiral Keppel was an officer who was an honour to the service, and who, if he had been so minded, might, probably, have been able to adduce evidence, derived from public documents to justify his conduct in many particulars. As for Lieutenant Gurdon, it must be a painful thing for him to have his character attacked without being able to defend it. Lieutenant Gurdon, it should be remembered, was a young officer. Now, a young officer, when called upon by a Consul to do a thing, had very little choice but to obey the summons; and all must admit that Lieutenant Gurdon performed his duty with the utmost gallantry and success. He merely referred to these matters with the view of showing the inconvenience of the course taken this evening by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The House had been already deluded by the terms of the Motion, and he had no doubt that many hon. Members had come down to discuss the question of which notice had been given. In regard, however, to the maintenance of the African Squadron, he concurred in the line of policy which the hon. Gentleman had sketched out. The hon. Gentleman had very ably and forcibly stated the reasons why that squadron should be reduced to a minimum. The policy of maintaining the police of foreign waters and coasts was a policy which, in his opinion, the House ought to condemn. We had far too long pursued that policy, which he trusted, however, a Reformed Parliament would absolutely refuse to support.

remarked that the I hon. Gentleman's speech had no reference whatever to his Notice of Motion, which was headed "Navy—African Squadron." That had nothing what ever to do with our Chinese policy—the substance of his speech, which was entirely out of place on the present occasion. When, however, the subject came to be discussed, he (Colonel Sykes) would undertake to prove that all the hon. Member's statements were misapprehension of facts. For example, the hon. Member had spoken of Lieutenant Domville attacking the vessels; but the truth was that, in doing so he was acting under the express orders and superintendance of a Chinese mandarin, who was on board his gunboat. The vessels were conveying opium surreptitiously along the coast, and the mandarin knowing that very well, ordered Lieutenant Domville to attack them as pirates, which he did with distinguished gallantry. There was no failure of duty on the part of Lieutenant Domville, for everything was done in conformity with the treaty. To revert to the Notice of Motion: the loss of life on the African Station had no doubt been very great between 1858 and 1867, as the Parliamentary Returns moved for by him had shown, and the squadron was main- tained at a very heavy cost, although years had latterly elapsed since a slave ship was captured. Twenty-five of our vessels were formerly kept there; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) had reduced the number to eleven. The right hon. Gentleman could not, therefore, be fairly accused of having done nothing; but, on the contrary, he was entitled to the thanks of the House and of the country for what he had done during the last two years. He should, however, like to see a further reduction, as, in his opinion, eleven vessels were not required on the African coast now that the slave trade had been abolished. All we wanted now was sufficient protection for our trade, which was much more considerable than the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine.

, having been referred to by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion (Mr. Rylands), wished to say a few words upon it. In the first place, he might mention that he himself had no intention of again bringing this subject forward, as he was quite satisfied with the assurance given last year by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. He agreed with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Members for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) and Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), that the Mover of the Resolution had travelled out of the original question, and that the hon. Member had passed strictures on the naval, military, and civil authorities of a somewhat unusual character. Whilst he agreed in the condemnations which had been passed with regard to our policy in China and other distant countries, he thought the hon. Member had hardly placed the blame on the shoulders of those who were really responsible. He ought rather to have addressed his observations to those who inaugurated the mischievous commercial foreign policy which had for so many years prevailed in this country, and not have cast the blame on those officials whose duty it had been to carry out that policy. As to the maintenance of the squadron on the West Coast of Africa, he thought the hon. Gentleman hardly laid sufficient stress upon what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) said last year. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the future disposal of the squadron regard would be had to the trade of this country; but that the supposed existence of that defunct institution—the slave trade—woiild not be taken into account. He confessed he was strongly of opinion that the horrors of the slave trade in former days were actually caused, in a great measure, by the maintenance of this squadron, in addition to the great sacrifice of the lives of our sailors. He looked upon the entire policy of these slave squadrons as a mischievous Quixotism, and he cordially rejoiced that the reckless waste of British lives had been brought to an end. The slave trade had ceased to exist as an institution, not in consequence of the exertions of the squadron, but because there was now no demand for slaves from the West Coast of Africa. He had every reason to believe that his right hon. Friend had faithfully carried out the assurance he gave last year to the House.

said, that had it not been for the extraordinary remarks which had been made on worthless authorities he should not have taken any notice of this subject; but as negotiations were proceeding at the present time, with the view of improving the relations of this country with China, he was anxious that the House should not take for granted all that had been said for the want of a specific and distinct reply. The hon. Member (Mr. Rylands) had revived an old but unfounded calumny; and because he was not personally acquainted with the circumstances of the case, he had quoted The Times' Commissioner and Admiral Keppel—neither of whom was qualified to speak on behalf of the China merchants—and on their authority had stated that war was the object of the China merchants, who wished to force their goods upon the Chinese. Although the hon. Member might not be aware of it, yet it was a fact that merchants were not in the habit of sending their goods into the interior of a country when a warlike expedition was being carried on, and, from an extensive experience, he (Mr. Magniae) could state that a war caused merchants to lose in one year more than ten times as much as they gained during the same time of peace. China merchants were not unknown to this House, while out of it they were distinguished for the noble manner in which, during very difficult times, they had discharged their obligations, and one of them had been rewarded by Her Majesty for the noble manner in which he sustained the lives of thousands of his fellow-countrymen. With regard to the "good behaviour" which had been alluded to by the hon. Member, he (Mr. Magniac) might inform the House that, since the date of the treaty by which British merchants with passports were allowed to travel into the interior of China, not an instance of misbehaviour had occurred, nor had there been the slightest difficulty with the Chinese authorities. That fact he had occasion to represent to the Government when he recently asked them to endeavour to obtain an extension of the privilege, to which the China merchants attached great importance, and he repeated it to the House without fear of being contradicted. This subject would probably come before the House again, when what he and hon. Members near him had stated would be fully sustained; but they did not desire to embarrass the Government in the negotiations which were now going on. He left the matter with confidence in the hands of the Government, and asked the House to suspend its judgment, except as to those statements which he could confidently allege were made in utter ignorance of the subject.

said, that when the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) gave notice of his intention to move a Resolution in reference to the squadron on the West Coast of Africa, he had no idea that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to cast a severe censure on the conduct of those officers who, in recent years, had been employed in the service in China. As, however, the hon. Member had spoken in harsh terms about a young officer (Lieutenant Domville, of the Algerine,) who was nearly related to him, he asked the House to allow him to make some remarks in that gallant officer's defence. Without fear of contradiction from either side of the House, he asserted that from the day Lieutenant Domville entered Her Majesty's service to the present time he had borne as high a character for steadiness, discipline, bravery, and good conduct as any officer that had ever held a commission. His gallant relative, when a very young lieutenant, had the command of Her Majesty's ship Algerine in the China Sea, and with that vessel only he encountered thirteen war junks in a remarkable action, the result of which was that Admiral Keppel, under whom he served, wrote home to the Lords of the Admiralty in these terms—

"The skill and gallantry shown by Lieutenant Domville and by the officers and crew of the Alqerine, in engaging and pursuing a force so vastly superior, will, I trust, meet with some mark of their Lordships' approval."

He might add that Lieutenant Domville engaged those junks at the request, and with the concurrence of the mandarin, who was on board the Algerine, and with respect to that matter he submitted to the House that it would be useless to put a mandarin on board one of Her Majesty's vessels, in order to advise officers as to what course they should take, if those officers were not to be guided by the advice which the mandarin might give. Prior to that action, the Chinese junks had fired upon Lieutenant Domville's ship, and after the high terms in which Admiral Keppel had spoken of the engagement, the Board of Admiralty thought proper to promote Lieutenant Domville to the rank of commander. He submitted that that promotion for his gallantry was a fact which ought to shield Lieutenant Domville from anything like censure, especially when it was remembered that he had risked his life and the safety of his ship. He could not help adding a remark upon the despatch which the Admiralty sent out in March, 1869, because he thought that in that despatch there was language which endangered the contentment of our naval service abroad. He alluded particularly to these words, which were addressed to Admiral Keppel—

"Looking to the foregoing considerations, my Lords have no hesitation in expressing their inability to concur with that part of your despatch which lays it down that, when a number of armed vessels fire on one of Her Majesty's ships on the high seas, rather than permit their papers to be examined, that act is primâ facie evidence of piracy."

The despatch proceeded to state that Chinese merchant vessels were, by law, entitled to navigate the high seas armed with heavy guns; but he (Sir John Pakington) contended that they were not entitled to use those guns on Her Majesty's ships. He should be glad to hear the explanation of the First Lord of the Admiralty on this point; but he submitted that it was a dangerous doc- trine to say that a young officer, who was guided by a mandarin, was not to be at liberty to regard as pirates vessels which, fired on him under such circumstances as those which occurred to the Algerine. Such a doctrine would much embarrass officers in command of ships abroad in discharge of the difficult and delicate duties which devolved upon them in dealing with the piracy which was well known to prevail in the China Seas.

could not forbear saying, in reply to the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther), that no other nation had ever pursued such an unselfish, generous, and noble policy as that which England took with regard to the suppression of the slave trade. Although that course might not have been exactly in accordance with the principle of political economy, it had been sanctioned by some of the most distinguished statesmen which the country had produced, amongst whom were Mr. Pitt, Lord Aberdeen, and Lord Palmerston; and he was therefore sorry to hear any expressions which seemed to indicate that the present generation would not accept the policy which their fathers carried out. The slave trade might not have been abolished by squadrons on the West Coast of Africa; but there could be no doubt that it was thereby repressed, and would otherwise have attained such proportions that England would not have been able to suppress it. The hon. Member for York tad said that it was the attempts which were made to suppress the slave trade which gave rise to incidents of a horrible character; but having heard that statement made elsewhere he (Mr. Buxton) had made inquiries, and had found that when Wilberforce first brought forward the subject, the condition of the slave vessels was quite as bad as they had ever been since that time. There was no doubt now that the slave trade was extinct, or all but extinct, that the reasons for the maintenance of that squadron had disappeared. Indeed, it might have been reduced, in his opinion, of late years far more than it had been, and it was, he believed, only because the Admiralty once they got into a groove were liable to remain in it that it had not more rapidly diminished. Under the energetic rule of his right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers) a waste of money and life, which everyone must deplore, would, he felt sure, be put an end to.

said, he desired to join the general protest against the remarkable course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Warrington in bringing forward a Motion on a general subject, and then going out of his way to attack two gallant officers, whose names were very dear to the inhabitants of Norfolk. When officers were intrusted, in times of difficulty and danger, with the honour and the interests of Britain, hon. Members should, he thought, speak of their deeds with pleasure and admiration, rather than subject them to what must be regarded as false accusations. One of the officers mentioned by the hon. Member (Lieutenant Gurdon) was a rising young officer, who had been frequently mentioned meritoriously by his superior officer, and who was bound to obey, on the occasion in question, the instructions of the Consul, and who executed his task with ability and success. As to Admiral Sir Henry Keppel, it would be impertinent in him to say anything in defence of that gallant officer, whose distinguished career was, he felt assured, not in the slightest degree tarnished by what had fallen from the hon. Member.

said, he hoped the House, before he entered upon the general question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), would allow him to dispose of some remarks which he had made with respect to our naval officers in China—the late Admiral in command of the squadron in that quarter and one or two officers of lower rank. He (Mr. Childers) must, to some extent, join in the remarks which, had been made as to the inconvenience of going into particular questions affecting individual officers on general Motions. If he had had any idea of the course which would have been taken, it would have been his duty to have carefully perused the Papers, and to have ascertained precisely what were the views which had been expressed by the Admiralty; but he had received no notice on the point, and he hoped the House would, under those circumstances, excuse him if his reply, so far as the officers in question were concerned, was not so full and satisfactory as they would desire. Anyone who had read the Papers which had been published last year, could not have failed to perceive that the Government felt it to be their duty to state that they could not in all respects concur in the wisdom of certain proceedings which had occurred in China. When that judgment was challenged—and it had been, to a certain extent, challenged last year—the Government would be prepared to meet any charge which might be made in connection with it. He must, however, remind the House and his hon. Friend that the Government had by no means indulged in a general censure of the conduct of the officers engaged in the proceedings to which he (Mr. Childers) referred. As to Sir Henry Keppel—the Admiral on the station—there was no more gallant officer in the service; and it would be his duty, if that gallant officer's conduct was called in question, to be very precise in stating that, while there were some things which, as the published Papers showed, he could not endorse, he, at the same time, entirely approved the course which Admiral Keppel had taken in a great number of cases which had been brought under the attention both of the Admiralty and the public. With respect to another officer—Commander, then Lieutenant, Domiville—he might observe that he had been first promoted by his predecessor in Office; that there was no more distinguished young officer in the service; and that he entirely endorsed what had been said of him by his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington). The Admiralty despatch of the 8th of March, 1869, did not, he might add, bear at all the interpretation which his right hon. Friend had put upon it. The facts of the case were that some Chinese junks had fired on a British ship-of-war under circumstances of a very provoking character. After the junks had fired on the ship she succeeded in cutting one of them out, and it was found that the junk thus seized was a merchant vessel and not a pirate, as had been supposed. But having discovered that she was a merchant vessel, there was good reason to believe that the other junks were merchant vessels also. So that the mere fact of their having fired upon Her Majesty's ship was not primâ facie evidence of their being pirates sufficient to justify her on the second occasion in firing upon them, or to justify Lieutenant Domville in commencing a sanguinary engage- ment. That was the view taken by the Admiralty, and they accordingly issued orders that Chinese vessels were not to be attacked, or their fire provoked, unless from previous information there was no reasonable doubt they were pirates. That was the whole meaning of the despatch which was written, after the usual consultation with those who were the advisers of the Department in these matters. He had not, however, had an opportunity of referring to the Papers on the subject, and he could, therefore, only trust to his memory in giving this account. Another officer—Lieutenant Gurdon—had been alluded to, who had since been promoted to the rank of commander; and so far as he was concerned the Admiralty had felt it to be their duty also to state very clearly that they thought he had committed a very serious error of judgment—as, for instance, in having called for a ransom; but of his great gallantry and ability as a naval officer there could be no question. Though, he might add, the Admiralty refused to promote Lieutenant Gurdon at the time, he had since been promoted, and would, he hoped, long continue to be an ornament to Her Majesty's service. Having said thus much with regard to personal matters, he should, in the next place, advert to the general question which his hon. Friend had raised. No one who had heard his hon. Friend's speech could complain of the manner in which he had spoken of the original proposals which had been made by himself in 1867—proposals which had, he might say, been initiated by the statement of his noble Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord Henry Lennox), who, in moving the Estimates for that year, though he did not provide for a reduction in this matter, yet hinted that the subject was well worthy the consideration both of the Admiralty and of Parliament. The facts of the case were that the force on the foreign stations to which he alluded—that was to say, North America and West Indies, South-east Coast of America, East Indies, Cape, and West Coast of Africa, the Pacific, China, and Australia—was, exclusive of ships ordered home, 17,400 in 1866; 17,300 in 1867; and 17,500 in 1868; giving an average of 17,400. In 1868 his right hon. Friend who preceded him in Office commenced, in accordance with his statement to the House, the gradual reduction of that force. He had not by him at the moment the Papers showing the extent to which the reduction was carried; but he believed he was right in saying that it did not go beyond 2,000 or 3,000. In 1867 he himself, sitting on the Opposition side of the House, had proposed that the strength of the force at the stations which he had mentioned should be 10,600. He stated at the time that that proposal could not, of course, be based on official information, but only on such information as a non-official member could procure, and he believed he added that he intended the reduction should be spread over a series of years. On taking Office, less than a year and a-half after, the present Government had come to the conclusion that the force should be reduced to 11,800, with the prospect of still further reductions, and at the present time they had been enabled to reduce it to 11,500, or only 900 above the number at which he had stated in 1867 it was desirable it should stand. He hoped this result would be considered satisfactory. Certainly he did not anticipate in 1867 that within three years the reductions he then spoke of would be carried out, but it had been to the extent of 900 men less than he anticipated, and he hoped before long to carry the reduction still further. Now, with regard to what had been done at the particular stations named by the hon. Gentleman, he proposed last year to bring the force on the China station down to 2,750 men, and it now stood at exactly that strength; but he had no hesitation in saying that a further reduction was not only feasible but would be advantageous. His hon. Friend had quoted expressions of his about the Quixotic idea that we alone were to keep the police of the seas. Curiously enough, the Government had quite recently received proposals from foreign Governments for combined action as to the suppression of piracy in the China Seas. Those proposals had been warmly received by the Admiralty, and the effect of them would be that the strength of our squadron there would be still further reduced. He could not say to what extent this reduction would go. We had out there a considerable force of gunboats. It would not probably be advantageous to bring them home, but their number would be diminished; they would not be replaced, and probably one or more of the larger ships would also be withdrawn. At any rate, the reduction of the China Squadron had reached the point he anticipated, and would still go on. On the East Indian Station we had a larger force than he anticipated last year, for reasons he explained the other day; but an arrangement had been made with the Indian Government, under which they would contribute £70,000 a year, being the cost of 400 out of the 1,200 men kept there. He was sorry to say that there was an additional source of expense on that station, for on the East Coast of Africa the slave trade was rapidly increasing, and an increased force was required to keep it down. This was not, however, the time to go into a question on which more would be known shortly, and Papers relating to it would have been placed before Parliament; but undoubtedly this cause led to an increase of force on the East Indian station. On the Australian Station they had kept their word, and the reductions which he previously announced had been made; but there again, as the House would remember, a very nefarious traffic had sprung up in the South Seas in connection which the deportation of natives, and a vessel would be put upon the station during the fine weather season to assist in putting an end to this traffic. This would temporarily add one vessel to the force which would otherwise be necessary upon the station. With respect to the ' North American Station, his hon. Friend said the Government no longer wished to incur much expense on account of Canada, while the loss of life in the West Indies rendered that a calamitous station. No person could be more alive than the Government were to the inexpediency of an unnecessary detention of Her Majesty's ships in West Indian waters; the tendency to yellow fever and the loss of life on the station made the Admiralty most anxious to keep down the number of ships in the West Indies. But owing to the serious disturbances in Cuba and Hayti, it had been found impossible to make the reductions that might be desired in these waters; while in the North it was not merely a question of defending Canada, for while technically Canada was part of a dominion that reached the sea, it could hardly be called a maritime colony. But we have serious duties in connection with the fisheries on the Newfoundland Coast and elsewhere, and it would be ill-advised, and, indeed, impracticable, in the present state of things, unduly to diminish our naval force in North America, at any rate during the fishing season. On the Pacific Station and (South-eastern Coast of America, our force had been very greatly reduced. He had anticipated that it would be possible to bring down our force on the South-east Coast of America from 1,100 to 800; but it had been brought down to 550, and on the Pacific Coast it had been reduced from 2,700 to 1,800, or 150 less than he stated last year it was intended to keep there. In all these cases, therefore, the reduction nearly came up to his suggestion in 1867, and was larger than he proposed in 1869. He now came to the "West Coast of Africa, and he was much obliged to his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) for pointing out that upon the figures quoted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands), he had more than fulfilled his promises last year. The squadron on the West Coast of Africa used to be separated from the Cape Squadron, and the result was that the men employed on the West Coast had not the advantage of being able, after a certain amount of service in that fearfully hot climate, to go to cooler quarters, unless the ship came back either to the Mediterranean or to this country. The Admiralty had made a beneficial change by combining the two stations, and vessels might now, after short service in the West Indies, be sent to a cooler station in the neighbourhood of the Cape. That change caused some additional expense by increasing the number of men and ships; but the effect upon the health of the crews was a beneficial one, and in the long run it was an economical change. The combined squadron now consisted of two corvettes, five gun-vessels, which acted as cruisers, three stationary ships, a paddle-steamer used for transport service at the Cape, a small steamer used for river purposes, and a store ship. The line of coast from the Gambia down to the Southern Tropic, over 2,000 miles long, was kept by only three cruisers and one senior officer's ship. He did not think it possible to do less in the present state of things, though it might eventually be possible to reduce the force by one ship; but, meanwhile, the effect of keeping only these ships in the hot weather part of the station, and two cruisers and one senior officer's ship in the cool weather station, added greatly to the health of the officers and men. To accept the Motion would be to say that it would be possible to look after British interests along the line of coast he had mentioned with less than three small gunboats; but he thought the House would hardly be inclined to say that the existing force was too large. He should deprecate, therefore, the adoption of the Motion. At the same time, he was quite prepared to give this assurance. There was no one who was more anxious than he was to reduce the West Coast Squadron to the smallest possible extent, and he would leave no stone unturned, no effort untried, to reduce it within proper compass. He thought he saw his way to a still further gradual reduction, and after this assurance he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion.

said, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he should not trouble the House to divide; but, at the same time, he wished to say that he did not think he was liable to the charge which had been brought against him in reference to what he had said as to certain officers employed on the China Station. He had simply quoted the facts as he found them in the blue book which was issued last year, and he had not meant to make any personal attacks upon individuals; and, upon the wide terms of his Motion, he thought he was quite justified in pointing out that our naval operations there were sometimes detrimental to the interests of the country.

rose to call attention to the hardship and injustice inflicted on the Ratepayers of certain parishes by the present system of partial abolition of Turnpikes, and to move a Resolution on the subject. The hon. Baronet said, that the grievance to which his Motion referred had been so often and so fully debated that he would not weary the House with going over the old ground. It was a subject upon which numerous Committees had sat, and upon which many valuable Reports had been drawn up. He need not travel into those Reports, for they were familiar to the House, and, at all events, were easily accessible to those who wished to consult them, and it was a remarkable fact that they all concurred in the opinion as to the expediency of the abolition of toll-gates. His sole object at present was to state the grievance which was inflicted upon parishes of providing the cost of maintaining the turnpike roads of which the trusts had expired. In the month of October, in the year 1866, the question was, for a second time, brought by him under the notice of the quarter sessions of his own county, Gloucestershire, and the following resolution, moved by the Earl of Ellen-borough, and seconded by the Earl of Ducie, was unanimously passed:—

"That having taken into consideration the grievance arising from the present management of the roads and the expense that will be thrown upon certain parishes by the partial and immediate abolition of tolls in certain districts, we respectfully desire to press upon the Government the necessity of giving their attention to the whole subject, with the view of submitting to Parliament some wise and general scheme of abolishing tolls."

Since that year another Committee had sat upon the subject of toll abolition, and in their Report they acknowledged the hardship of the case he was submitting to the House. That Committee were of opinion—and he shared their belief to the full—that as the diminution of tolls and a consequent divergence of traffic increased, the evil of which he was complaining also increased, and the means for meeting it diminished. Furthermore, the Committee were of opinion, that although the present turnpike system was arbitrary and unsatisfactory, still, in the present state of the highway laws, to abolish turnpike tolls until the trusts became free from debt would only be throwing a new and heavier burden upon the parishes that were to maintain the roads, unless some legislation took place which would adequately and fairly provide for the payment of the charges for which the individual parishes through which such turnpike roads passed would now alone be liable. What he wished specially to impress upon the House was, that a very great evil was caused by the partial abolition of tolls. It was quite impossible to reimpose tolls that were once taken off. It was equally idle to expect to remove the evil by a gradual decrease. If the grievance was to be removed at all it must be by a total and simultaneous abolition of all tolls; because unless they could reimpose all turnpike tolls that had been taken off—and to do which was of course utterly out of the question—they could not hope to go back upon or diminish the evil. In the year 1868 the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) wrote a letter upon this subject, which so completely expressed his own views, that he would read from it one or two sentences. That hon. Gentleman said—

"If no legislation takes place within the next twelve years, the great majority of the trust Acts will have expired, and unless renewed at great expense, the trusts will come to an end, and the repairing of the roads will fall upon the individual parishes in which the roads happen to be situated. …. Within the last eight years a great many Acts have expired every year which has tended further to complicate the system, and the promoters of the present Bill believe that the time has come when a general measure to provide for the gradual abolition of turnpike trusts upon an equitable principle should be introduced."

Those opinions were expressed by the hon. Gentleman when he was in Opposition; and he (Sir George Jenkinson) now begged to ask how it was, seeing that the hon. Gentleman was now a Member of the Government, that no legislation had been attempted to remedy the evils complained of? He was quite aware, in the present circumstances of Ireland, that it was a very difficult thing to hope for any legislation upon an English subject, more especially if it related to agriculture; but, at the same time, he could not help expressing the opinion that the time had come for the question to be taken up. He would briefly explain the manner in which the grievance he was talking of pressed most harshly. One highway district in his own county was made up of thirteen parishes, and there were twenty-four miles of turnpike road, which fell only upon certain parishes of the district. Only seven of the parishes out of the thirteen, in fact, actually paid for the maintenance of these roads, at a yearly aggregate expense of £584 10s., which increased their rates to the extent of 1s. 6¼d. in the aggregate or 2½d. in the pound upon the rates of each. That, it would be admitted, was a very hard case, for there were six parishes which also used the roads that paid nothing towards their repair. That was one strong reason why he anxiously desired to see an alteration of the present system. Complaints were made that the Turnpike Act did not work well; but the reason of that was that the application of the Act was partial instead of universal. Failure was the fate of all permissive legislation. As long as men—and especially farmers, knew that a law was absolute and must be adhered to they obeyed it; but if they knew the law was permissive they would not fulfil what they disliked. One word with respect to the working of the Highways Act. It appeared that 208 districts had reported favourably respecting its working, ninety-nine had reported un-favourably; thirteen had been formed too recently to give an opinion; and twenty-one had given in no report at all. It was, therefore, unfair to say that this Act had not worked well, seeing that so large a preponderance of districts had reported in its favour. The surveyor of his own district referring to the working of this Act said, with reference to the expense, that that included £120 for improvements, of which five-sixths would never have been effected under the old system, and had been forced upon the parishes in the interests of the public generally. He considered that was good testimony in favour of the Highways Act. Good roads were a great desideratum, and the highway boards had increased the goodness of the roads, although it was true that they had also increased the expense. He might be asked what remedy he would propose. He would propose something like the following:—Wherever the Highway s Act is in operation, and wherever within such a district the cost of maintaining any turnpike road of which the trust is extinguished has been thrown or may be thrown upon a particular parish through which it passes, the expense of maintaining such a turnpike road shall be borne by a rate to be paid proportionately by a common charge upon all the parishes within the district, instead of by the parish through which the road passes. He had not inserted such a proposal as this in the Resolution he had moved lest it might not be agreed to; but he thought that anything which would make the adoption of the Highways Act more universal would in itself be useful. He believed that the remedy he proposed would do more than any- thing else to reconcile the country classes generally to the Highways Act if they saw that the Act would make the expense of turnpike roads of which the trusts and tolls might be a bolished, would fall equally upon the whole district, instead of upon the particular parish through which such turnpike road passed. Another point which he wished to impress upon the House was the excessive partiality which trusts out of debt seemed to have for amalgamating with trusts that were heavily in debt. In his own district, for instance, there were, as he had stated, twenty-four miles of road to maintain. But on the other side of the turnpike road between them and the railway was a trust which was entirely free from debt. Now the one that was out of debt, for the purpose of keeping up the staff of the trust, actually amalgamated with another trust which was £2,000 in debt. He called that nothing else than robbery of the ratepayers of the parishes which had already paid off their debt. That was one part of the subject demanding the most careful consideration. He should have no objection to see the county made the area on which to place the cost of the highways, and with respect to a proposal previously made by him to place a portion of the cost for the maintenance of the turnpike roads and for the payment of the debt on the Consolidated Fund, though he agreed in a remark which had been made regarding it, to the effect that it was easy to apply to the Consolidated. Fund, but not so easy to get the application attended to; still, he conceived that after turnpike roads had been made to their present extent, and used in days past for Imperial purposes, some slight assistance might be afforded from the Consolidated Fund as to the future maintenance of those turnpike roads—with regard to their present width—and looking to them as the main arteries of the road communications of the country. He would not meddle with this point, however, because it was mixed up with the larger question of local taxation. But he would urge the Government to consider the very great grievance which he had brought under their notice, and to provide some machinery for relieving particular parishes through which turnpike roads passed from the whole cost of maintaining them, while other parishes, equally benefited by them, paid nothing. He trusted the Government would take a favourable view of what he had urged. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he was glad of the opportunity of calling upon the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) to fulfil the natural expectations that were entertained that he would, as soon as he assumed the responsibilities of Office, legislate on this subject in the spirit which he had advocated whilst sitting in the cool shade of Opposition. That hon. Member had proposed a Bill upon the subject in the year 1868. In introducing that Bill he had declared that the question was a very pressing one, and if the remark was true at that time, it was surely doubly so now, He (Mr. Sclater-Booth did) not so much complain that the Government had refrained from introducing a Bill for the abolition of turnpike tolls as that they should not have brought in a measure for extending and amending the Highways Act. The House would agree with him that this latter question was a very pressing one indeed. The hardship complained of was one that was increasing year by year, and as the various turnpike Acts had not many years to run, if a remedy were not soon provided there would be no remedy at all. Parliament would not go back when turnpikes were abolished and relieve parishes from the burdens to which they had become liable by the common law of the country. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would speedily introduce a short Act for the compulsory adoption of the Highways Act. He would not enter into the question of the policy of that Act, because it was one which he did not approve of. He thought that the maintenance of the roads might have been provided for by the parishes to which they belonged, under the administration of some machinery such as a county inspector. Spite of all protests, it had pleased Parliament to pass the Highways Act, and that having been done, he held that the Act ought to be made compulsory in all counties, and a district rate substituted for the parish rate. If Government would take some such step as he had hinted at a great deal of hardship would be got rid of, and future legislation on the subject would not be prevented. He hoped that this would be done.

, having been a member of the Select Committee which considered this subject, and which placed on record their opinion that the present state of things was exceedingly unsatisfactory, expressed his opinion that the present was an opportune moment for the moving of the Resolution of the hon. Baronet. There was, no doubt, a grievance to be remedied, and he trusted that would be done, if not this, at least next Session. Two other matters, he thought, also ought to be taken up at the same time—namely, the question of the desirability of removing the exemption from rates of property which at present enjoyed that exemption, and the question of local taxation and its incidence. These matters would have to be considered, because when they came to consider the question of abolishing tolls, a serious question would arise, not as regarded the maintenance of the roads, but the payment of the debt. It appeared to him that the system in Scotland was preferable to that in England, for in Scotland, while the maintenance of the roads was divided between the owner and the occupier, the rates for the payment of the debt were thrown entirely on the owner. With respect to the maintenance of the roads in England there would not be much difficulty, because if highway districts were made throughout the country, then with great fairness these rates might be thrown on them. He hoped when Government took up this question they would take a large and thorough view of the whole matter. On looking back to the Reports of some of the Committees of both Houses on this subject he found an expression of opinion that public roads were not established on any principle, and that many which were now turnpike roads should be treated as parish highways, and many highways as turnpike roads. This he found in the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Committee in 1833. No doubt, the ratepayers in some places were very averse from any legislation on the subject or any extension of the highway districts; yet, when they considered that it was a large question, dealing with roads all over the country, they might become reconciled to it, and the system would work much better.

said, he might, perhaps, be allowed to make a few observations on the Motion of his hon. Friend, as he was a Member of the Select Committee which sat upstairs on this question last Session. He quite agreed with the Motion, for it coincided with the Report of the Committee. A great quantity of evidence was brought before them, and it certainly showed the evils of the present system of dealing with turnpike trusts; it showed also the great necessity there was for a general measure relating to roads—a measure to deal with the whole question of the maintenance of all roads in the country—including turnpikes. It had led them to the conclusion that the hardships on parishes in many instances were very great under the present system, that it largely increased the rates—very often in maintaining roads that were of little use to the parishes themselves. The hardship would be particularly felt in manufacturing districts in agricultural parishes between large towns where there was a mineral traffic, which, but for the tolls, would pay nothing towards the repair of the road. In purely agricultural parishes, too, these roads, laid out originally for national rather than local purposes, were often not wanted for parish roads. If they were the hardship was not so great; but, even if they were required, they were not wanted beyond the usual width, 30 feet; still they had to keep them up to the full width, 60, 70, and 80 feet, and sometimes more. This, surely, was an unnecessary burden to throw upon the rates. Then, again, the very same parish had, perhaps, to keep up a road on the other side of the parish for public traffic to a railway station—traffic that had been diverted from the very road they were required to keep up to the full original width. There was no necessity to go into any evidence on this point, a passage from the Report of the Committee would show the House the conclusion they came to after full consideration of the evidence—

"The evidence brought before your Committee has led them to the conclusion that, although the present turnpike system is vexatious in its mode of collection, in many eases costly in its management, as well as arbitrary and partial in its operation; still, in the present state of the highway laws, to abolish turnpike trusts singly as they become free from debt is a course often attended with injustice to the parishes on which the liability for future repairs falls, and one which, in some instances at least, leads to the deterioration of the roads. A new and heavy burden is frequently imposed on the ratepayers of the parishes through which the road passes, without relieving them from the obligation of paying tolls on other trusts in their immediate neighbourhood."

He, however, objected on another ground—the increase of local taxation to such an extent—particularly when the whole subject was about to be looked into. Fifty-three trusts would fall on local rates this year in June; and every year, in the same way, some would fall on them. He regretted that the Government could not bring in a Bill this Session, even if it were only laid on the Table of the House for consideration, as an earnest that they intended to take the matter up as soon as it was possible to do so. No doubt a good reason for delay for one year was the hope that a measure of this kind would be made a part of a general measure on the subject of a local taxation; but he hoped it would not be delayed beyond that time. Meanwhile, he trusted that as few turnpike trusts as possible would be abolished. He hoped that a general measure, dealing with all roads, would be brought in, for it was impossible to deal satisfactorily with the question by piecemeal legislation. It was with the idea that a measure would be brought in this Session, at all events with as little delay as possible, that the Committee drew up their Report, and under these circumstances he thought that either the large majority of the trusts ought to be continued in view of a general Road Bill, or that the Committee should be re-appointed. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department might think he wished to interfere with the powers of the Home Office. Such was not his wish. The Committee was originally appointed to avoid the practice of bringing in the Continuance Bill at the close of the Session, when no one paid any attention to it, and he thought that if only for that reason it ought to be re-appointed. At all events, he hoped the Government would come to some distinct understanding with the House on the subject.

said, the peculiar circumstances of some of the roads rendered it impossible to deal with the trusts except by means of a general measure. The Committee tried to deal as fairly as they could with various trusts; but some it was impossible to keep up for any reason whatever. There were cases where the salaries of the officials ate up the collection; and the trusts were kept up for no other purpose that the Committee could discover. In some of the cases the trusts were out of debt; and yet there was the clerk, there was the surveyor, and there was the treasurer. The Committee put an end to the existence of these cases as soon as possible. There were others in which there existed the slightest possible reason for keeping up the trusts. In these instances they assigned a special term to their existence—they were put in the Schedule for a certain period and no longer. But a general measure was wanted on the subject. It would be unjust, however, to throw the expense of the roads on the radius of the parish, since another parish might run side by side with the road and use it, without contributing to the expense of keeping it in repair. One of the faults of the present road system was that the Highways Act was not made compulsory. He was not an advocate for that measure when it was first passed; but he thought the only reason which prevented its success was that its operation had not been uniform throughout the country. If carried out on an extensive, uniform system it would, no doubt, prove more successful. He hoped the Government would deal with the question. They should not confine the expense of the roads to a narrow area; the area, in his opinion, should be the whole county. The roads should be divided into different classes, and rules and regulations laid down for the maintenance of each class. That system existed in Prance, and was found extremely successful. It was unfair to throw the rates on one species of property; contributions should be made from the community in general towards extinguishing the debt and maintaining the roads.

said, he was in the fortunate position of being able to agree with nearly every word which had fallen from the previous speakers. He had been reminded by his hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and other hon. Members that when he was in "the cold shade of Opposition" he had brought in a Bill dealing with this subject, and that now he was a member of a powerful Government he ought to do the same; but it did not follow that the same freedom of action which he then possessed was now within his reach, for upon the Treasury Bench a man got into an atmosphere where Irish Church Bills, Irish Land Bills, and other measures jostled one another, so that a measure even of the importance of a Bill dealing with the turnpike roads of Great Britain was obliged to be postponed. The hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) had stated very fairly that there was a hardship to parishes under the present system, and he wished that the area of taxation should be enlarged. He quite agreed in this. The only fault he saw in the Motion of the hon. Baronet was that perhaps it did not go far enough, and hon. Gentlemen who had urged upon the Government propriety of action were probably not aware they were using his own thunder. As far back as 1867 he had suggested that the best and simplest solution of the question would be to make the Highways Act of 1862 compulsory, and to put the repair of the whole of the roads of the district on the common fund of the highway district, where such existed, as a general rule. Parochial management of roads was a system of a bygone age. At the same time he admitted that there might be cases when, for instance, roads had been formed for Imperial purposes, or were subject to exceptional through traffic from one great town to another, or formed a route for mineral traffic, (the owner of the minerals contributing nothing to the rates) in cases such as these the roads perhaps might fairly be classified and dealt with in some other manner than by the machinery of district rates. As a general rule, all roads should be repaired by a district rate; but certain other roads of an exceptional character should be repaired by a wider area. But which were those roads? He would devolve the task of making the selection on a County Financial Board, properly constituted, with an appeal, if this were thought desirable, to the Home Secretary. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Henniker Major) had expressed a wish that the Committee of last Session should be re-appointed; but, it should be borne in mind that it had been appointed for a special object, a sort of promise having been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. G. Hardy) that the question of the manner of dealing with turnpike trusts should be looked into by some authority outside the Department. That Committee investigated a great number of cases, and he believed in every instance their recommendations had been adopted. Those trusts of which the non-continuance had been recommended by the Committee were invited by circular to assign any special reasons for their continuance, in default of which they would be discontinued; but he did not think, unless the Committee were disposed to undertake a new and very much wider field of inquiry that their revival this year would be attended with advantage, or that from their inquiries any principle of general application would be evolved. He was inclined, on the contrary, to believe that the matter might be safely left in the hands of the Homo Office, whose full intention it was to introduce a general measure as soon as the pressure of other business would allow. A new Road Bill, embracing turnpike roads and highways, was wanted, and he had prepared and sketched out a scheme, which he thought would sooner or later become the law of the land. He thought it was the duty of the Government in all these matters to settle, after due consideration, what was desirable, and then, the Parliament having given it their sanction, the whole community should be called on to obey it as part of the law of the land. To make the Highways Act compulsory would be fair and just, and he regretted that this was not done when it was passed. If the hon. Baronet would omit the last clause of his Resolution, he would relieve him (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) from the necessity of opposing any part of the Motion. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would, no doubt, bear him witness that he had given him no peace upon the subject, but had continually pressed for leave to deal with the subject. He was glad that the discussion had taken place, because it had shown an amount of agreement as to the principle on which the new measure should be framed.

said, he could fully understand the great difficulty which anybody had to encounter in proposing to deal with turnpike roads. This present Resolution, however, called attention to a limited and specific grievance; whereas Motions upon this subject generally contented themselves with confirming the expediency of abolishing turnpike roads, without providing any remedy acceptable to the country. Nothing was more easy than to obtain a general concurrence of opinion that a certain tax should be taken off; but when they came to the means they by no means found the same kind of unanimity. He had interested himself in the subject of roads for more than twenty years, and he would be very sorry to affirm positively in the House a Resolution that, under no circumstances, should tolls be maintained. Nothing was fairer than tolls in principle, because by them people were made to pay for what they used; but rates fell upon all, on the assumption that, in some mysterious way, all were benefited by the roads. Looking at the gigantic frauds of the last twelve years, he could not help thinking that the maintenance of tolls might be very useful as a memento to people that they must pay for what they used; but the difficulties surrounding the subject were such that no apology was needed from the Government for not rushing into it.

said, the grievances attending the turnpike trust and toll system were as great to the north as to the south of the Tweed. He had been one of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the system, and could testify that no species of taxation operated more injuriously. The towns, which paid the great bulk of it, were excluded from all control over the administration of the trust, and renewal Acts were passed from year to year. The trustees could not venture to apply to Parliament for a real renewal, because more liberal constitutions would be framed by Parliament for the protection of the public. Although the trust for the county of Edinburgh, had expired several years back, no steps had yet been taken to remedy the state of things which had grown up under it, and which was perpetuated by this sleight-of-hand Act of Parliament passed every year. The proper course was to say to those who applied for the benefit of this Act—"Prove your case before a Committee of the House of Commons, and if you can make out a good case, you shall have your Act renewed for once and for all; if not, it must cease." The present method of managing the roads in Scotland was unconstitutional, and should not be continued. The principle of the Resolution would meet with the hearty support of a great majority of the people of Scotland.

said, he had heard with satisfaction the statement of the Under Secretary of State on the question; but he thought it only right to warn the hon. Gentleman that when he did come to deal with that question, he must face the question of Imperial taxation as connected with it. Public highways were not so much a matter of local interest as of the general benefit and advantage of the entire community, and should be maintained accordingly.

, in reply, said, with regard to one remark made by the noble Lord the Member for Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish) he wished to say that his Motion had only reference to places where debts had been paid where the trust was extinct, and the Highways Act had been adopted. He certainly thought those localities where the Acthad been adopted, and where turnpike trusts and tolls had been since abolished, were entitled to some indulgence at the hands of the Government. With regard to one remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Suffolk (Mr. Henniker-Major), who objected to piecemeal legislation, he begged to say that the whole course of legislation with regard to turnpike roads at present was piecemeal, including the annual Continuance Act, and it was to meet that evil that he had put forward his Resolution. He took exception to the statement from the Treasury Bench expressing a disposition to put upon a whole district the charge for maintaining the parish roads, because this would make the thrifty parishes pay for the careless, and those parishes whose roads were in the worst state would have them put into a good state at the expense of their neighbours. He desired to see a general rate for the whole of the turnpike roads of which the trusts had expired levied on all the parishes of any highway district. He would gladly accept the offer made by the Under Secretary for the Home Department, and would withdraw the last few words of his Resolution.

said: ^* On introducing the Notice which stands in my name, I wish to request that, in the last line but one, the words "have been acquired and," should be omitted so as to leave the word "are" in the same line; the Notice would then run—

"Select Committee to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of Conventual or Monastic Institutions or Societies in Great Britain, and into the terms, upon which income, property, and estates belonging to such Institutions or Societies, or to members thereof, are respectively received, held, or possessed."

Sir, I desire that the Notice should be altered in this respect, because I have been told that an inquiry into the manner in which this property has been "acquired" would be considered invidious; my object is a genuine object—it is an object in which I am supported by a great number of persons out of this House, who have testified their concurrence by Petitions which have been presented to the House by myself and other hon. Members. My object is the same, in a great measure, as that which I pursued in the last Session of Parliament; and perhaps I may be allowed to advert for a moment to what occurred on two occasions, when I brought this matter under the attention of the House. On the 26th of February last year I moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the operation of the Roman Catholic Charities Act, as it is termed, which was passed in the year 1860, and also into the operation of the Burials Act, which was passed in the year 1864. The Roman Catholic Charities Act of 1860 was originally proposed by my late lamented Friend Sir Charles Jasper Selwyn. He had made some progress with the Bill when, as I well remember, the late Sir George Lewis, being then Home Secretary, came across the floor to this Bench, and said to Sir Charles Selwyn—"I rejoice at the progress you have made. The purport of your Bill is exactly the same as the object which I have in view with reference to Roman Catholic charities; and if you will permit me to take up the measure, as Home Secretary, I have no doubt that we shall be able to pass it into law." Sir Charles Selwyn cheerfully acquiesced, rejoicing at this manifest concurrence on the part of Sir George Lewis; in this he was supported by Sir William Bovill and other Members of the House, including myself, and eventually the Bill became law. Well, Sir, what was the necessity for this legislation? It arose after a long and careful previous inquiry, the movement for which was originated as far back as the year 1818, by the late Lord Brougham. This movement was renewed in the year 1835, when Parliament at length determined to investigate the condition and to regulate the application of all charitable property. In the year 1843 a Committee was appointed to inquire into all charitable property, especially that which belonged to Roman Catholics in Ireland. That Committee reported, and in 1844 what is called the Bequests Act passed, and that Act, amended by subsequent statutes, has regulated the charitable property of Roman Catholics, including their places of worship, and other places connected with their religion, over since. Under that Act a Board was established, which was empowered to record the nature of the trusts under which this property was held; in fact, the Board became a party to all trusts holding such property; the principle of that statute, and the system of administration which it established, have worked most satisfactorily. In the year 1851 this House decided that a further inquiry should be undertaken with respect to all charity property in England; all properties given or bequeathed for charitable and religious uses, except those held directly by the Church of England, an inquiry into which has been otherwise provided for by the appointment of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Committee of 1851–2 was specially appointed to inquire into the law of Mortmain, as to how far it might be found necessary to alter the statutes declaratory of that law, and in what respects these statutes needed improvement or development of their provisions, and whether it was desirable to modify their provisions so as to render the continuance of those charitable institutions generally, including such as belonged to the Roman Catholic body, more advantageous for the future—one great object to be attained being to bring all property connected with charitable and religious objects within the purview of the English law, so that the administration of all such property and all legal questions connected with that administration, should be brought into the courts of this country, instead of the parties interested in Roman Catholic charities being induced or forced to resort to the courts of the Papacy at Rome for the decision of matters in dispute, arising out of such property in this country. Because, in consequence of what are in law termed "superstitious uses" being connected with these Roman Catholic trusts—such as bequests directing the application of the proceeds of real property, and legacies to payment for perpetual prayers for the dead, and such other offices of the Roman Church as the law of England has declared to be "superstitious"—the greater part of that Roman Catholic property, if not the whole of it, was held under secret trusts; and owing to those trusts being secret from the law of England, though in accordance with the laws of the Papacy, the persons who were interested in that property were driven, contrary to the principles of many ancient statutes of this realm—the Act of Richard II. against provizors, and the like—for decision, in cases of difference, to the Courts of Rome. The Mortmain Committee made their Report in 1852, and in the year 1853 the Government of Lord John Russell took this matter out of the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, who had been the Chairman of the Mortmain Committee, and undertook to legislate not only for the Roman Catholic charities, but to propose a general enactment, which should empower a Commission—the Charity Commissioners—to aid in and control the administration of all charitable property, whatever the denomination to which it might belong. The Bill for this purpose had made considerable progress. It came down from the House of Lords, and had passed the second reading in this House, when suddenly there arose among the Roman Catholic Members of this House a stern opposition to such of its provisions as included Roman Catholic property. Little reason was given for that opposition, and few arguments were used; but a positive demand was made that property held for Roman Catholic charitable purposes should be exempted from the authority of the Commissioners to be appointed under the clauses of that Bill. With the permission of the House, I will read a few words which were spoken by Sir Frederick Thesiger—now Lord Chelms-ford—on that occasion, and which express the feeling of at least a very large minority in this House; for, notwithstanding the exigency in which the Government found itself placed, this House was scarcely persuaded to allow the separation of Roman Catholic charitable property from the charitable property of other denominations, so far as the authority under which the administration of such property was to be regulated was concerned. In fact, this separation extended to the total exemption of the whole of the Roman Catholic charitable property from the authority of the Commissioners, who regulate the charitable property of all other denominations. We on this side of the House were very much opposed to that exemption. Sir Frederick Thesiger was then seated on these Benches, and well I remember his using the following expressions, while remonstrating against the exemption of this charitable property from the authority of the Commission—in fact, of the Parliament:—

"He wished to remind the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) of the Bills which had been introduced from 1844 downwards for the purpose of establishing a Board for the administration of charitable trusts. In 1844, 1845, 1846, Bills were introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst. In 1847,1848, 1849, and 1850, Bills were introduced under the Government of the noble Lord by the late Lord Cottenham. In 1852 another Bill was introduced by the noble Lord and his Government, which Bill was taken up by Lord Derby's Government, who endeavoured to pass it into a law. Now, he would ask the noble Lord if any of these Bills contained any exemptions respecting Roman Catholic trusts? If these Bills never contemplated such exemptions, surely that was an argument more forcible than any which the noble Lord had drawn from the exemption in the Acts passed, not for the purposes of legislation, but merely for the establishment of preliminary inquiries."—[3 Hansard, cxxix. 1256.]

And he went on to say, owing to the necessity for this legislation—

"An hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Chisholm Anstey), formerly a Member of that House, who, in 1847, proposed to introduce a Bill for the regulation of Roman Catholic Trusts—on that occasion the hon. and learned Member said—'The trustees of the Roman Catholic charities may be guilty of any amount of mal-administration without the Roman Catholics—for whose benefit the trust was created—daring to ask relief, because the issue of an application with that object may be a declaration that the charity was ab initio illegal, and continued illegal.'"—[Ibid. 1258.]

Although Lord Russell admitted that, in his opinion, Roman Catholic charitable property, for the purposes of their religion, should be brought within the control of the laws and courts of the country; yet he yielded to the pressure brought to bear upon his Government, and the consequence was that administration of the whole Roman Catholic property continued illegal. Parliament was most unwilling to create this exemption of Roman Catholic property from the general law, yet for seven years up to the year 1860 the purpose of the Legislature, which had been carried out with respect to the charitable property of all other denominations in the United Kingdom, which had been carried into effect in Ireland by the passing of the Bequests Act in the year 1844, with respect to Roman Catholic charitable property in that country—was totally defeated with respect to the Roman Catholic charities in this country. As I have stated, Sir, an Act was passed in the year 1860 which was intended to mitigate, if not to remove, this anomaly; yet it so happened that, in Committee on that Bill, the 5th clause was introduced by the present Lord Westbury, then Sir Richard Bethell, and Attorney General. Sir Charles Selwyn warned the House that this clause was likely to defeat—and it has, I believe, contributed to the defeat of—the intention of the statute. That 5th clause is to this effect—That the possession, or, in legal terms, the use of any property for Roman Catholic purposes, whether such use had been and was contrary to the Supersti- tious Uses Act, or any other law of England, or not—whether the administration of the particular uses or application of the particular property had been honestly carried out or not—no matter what the administration might have been, twenty years' possession of such property should give a good title. The whole of the provisions of the statute of 1860 are most liberal, manifesting, on the part of the Legislature, every desire to secure and facilitate the possession of this property by those for whom it was intended. But, unfortunately, instead of that provision having been held to be only retrospective; instead of having been held—which I believe to have been the intention of the House—that twenty years' possession up to the year I860 should give a good title, no matter how that possession had been obtained—that provision of the statute has been construed as having a prospective intention. The whole object of the Act was to secure enrolment. The Committee who reported in 1852 reported in the sense of the Mortmain Act of 1829, and of the earlier statutes—some of them oven of the Saxon times—that no unlimited amount of real property ought to be permanently devoted to a corporation with perpetual succession, because that property would be looked up; it could not be disposed of; it could not be sold; it might be used unprofitably; but it stood beyond the law, as if it did not belong to the country. That is the meaning of the objection of the Legislature of England before the Conquest, and of the objection of the Legislature of every country throughout Europe, to the locking up property in Mortmain or by the dead hand; to the devising in perpetual succession to certain persons for certain objects—whether religious or even social objects—of property which would otherwise come into the market, or be distributed among families, or be made useful to the State by being rendered fruitful to the Commonwealth, profitable to the Exchequer through its liability to taxation upon the same principle that it would be liable to taxation upon mortgage upon being devised, or upon its division amongst families. For remember this—if you allow that property to go into Mortmain—and I refer to it only as an illustration—the succession duty is paid once, and is never paid again. Thus the property becomes positively untaxable for national purposes. It pays nothing in the ordinary manner that other property pays in the shape of stamps and other taxation upon devolution, division, sale, or the like. I hope the House will forgive me for having touched upon this subject in connection with the law of Mortmain. I cannot better describe the defects of the statute of 1860 than in the words of a legal friend of mine; for I should not be so presumptuous as to trespass upon the attention of the House with regard to this matter if I had not the advice of the most competent lawyers—one of whom, very eminent as a lawyer, has thus written to me—

"The Roman Catholic Charities Act, 1860, loses sight of these principles of our law and legislation—that is, the principles of the law against Mortmain, and without inquiry has made valid large and unascertained dispositions of land in Mortmain, much of which is vested in unknown persons upon secret trusts created by parole, and has even given effect to dispositions of land actually void in law (being given for superstitious uses), by declaring that, such dispositions shall be held upon such of the trusts of the charity as are valid in law. The quantity of land now held in Mortmain by the Roman Catholic Church can only be known by a searching inquiry into the number of deeds enrolled under the Act of 1860, which there is every reason to believe, from the enrolments which have taken place, and particularly during the first year after the passing of the Act, is of considerable amount. It is true that enrolment is necessary to give validity to deeds of trust; but this affords no security against the acquisition of land by Roman Catholic institutions, through the medium of trustees, for the benefit of monasteries, convents, &c., the deeds relating to which are never registered, the trusts upon which they are held being secret. The trustees, it is true, may die; but upon the death of each of these another person is chosen in his place, so that ultimately the property is dealt with and governed by persons who have not, and care not to have, the legal estate vested in them."

He next proceeds to say—

"They can lease and let as owners, and there is no one to dispute their title; but even if upon the death of the trustees, or any of them, a conveyance were made to any new and surviving trustees, or to the new trustees only, as the case might he, no enrolment of any such deed is necessary, as has been directed in the case of' Ashton v. Jones,' 28 Beaver's Reports, 460; nor would any lease to be granted by the trustees for the time being require enrolment." ….."'—v. Glyn,' 12 Simons's Rep., 84 (a case in equity), and 'Walker v. Richardson,' 2 Meeson and Wilsby, 882 (a case at law). The fiscal aspect of the subject is of no little importance as regards the welfare of the country. Lands acquired in Mortmain, whether under deeds enrolled or by secret means, are taken out of the market for ever; they cease to be the subject of conveyance, mortgage, settlement, and testamentary disposition, and thus the revenues of the country are, and will be, continually lessened. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that after the first payment of £10 per cent under the Succession Duty Act, in the case of gifts to charitable uses, there will be no further duty payable; so that, in respect of the several duties before referred to, the land may be said to be abstracted from the country."

Sir, this is contrary to the principles not only of the English law, but of the laws of every other nation in Europe. In France, in the year 1861, great exertions were made by the Government of the Emperor, through M. de Persigny, to induce the monastic and conventual institutions of that country to become authorized—that is, that they and their property should become legal within the sense of the laws of France. And how was that met? Why, by every kind of evasion. In the report of M. Dupin he has written that he found the old difficulty of dealing with this monastic and conventual property revived; that, as his predecessors for hundreds of years had had to contend with attempts on the part of the monastic bodies to exempt themselves from the operation of the laws of France—as they had attempted to defy the laws of every country in which they were located with a view to exempting their property from the law—so, in 1861, he found a growing determination amongst the monastic and conventual orders in France to exempt themselves and their property from the operation of the law. This disposition has recently assumed a new phase in France. Last Session, when speaking upon the Bill for the abolition of the Irish Church, I brought under the notice of the House a Papal letter which M. Emile Ollivier, the present Prime Minister of France, had discovered in Switzerland, and subsequently published, and this letter was, in the opinion of the Emperor, of such importance, that he sent for M. Ollivier, and, it is believed, consulted him respecting it. This letter is dated October, 1865, and was addressed to the Archbishop of Paris. What was the purport of the letter? The Archbishop of Paris, as a Senator of France, had spoken strongly in defence of the French laws, which claim jurisdiction over the Roman Catholic Church in France, particularly of the property of that Church, and laid down very properly, that no property ought to be held under the protection of the law, unless the disposal and administration of such property were rendered amenable to the law—that is to say, the law of the country in which such property is situated. It appears that the Archbishop of Paris had remonstrated with the Franciscan and Jesuit Orders upon some of their practices, and that these regulars, these monks, had defied the authority of the Archbishop and appealed to Rome. The Archbishop maintained the authority of his Church as Gallican, and of his country. The Archbishop stood by what are termed the Gallican liberties of the Church of France; by the laws of France; and in the letter to which I have referred, a copy of which I have beside me, the present Pope condemned this action on the part of the Archbishop of Paris in terms of such severity as to be scarcely sweetened by the affectionate opening of the letter. His Holiness more than hinted, that he, in the event of the non-compliance, would suspend or excommunicate the Archbishop. Why? Because he had ventured, in his capacity of Archbishop and Senator of France, to visit these Franciscans and Jesuits, with the view of establishing his authority; these are the same bodies or orders which had defied the authority of M. Dupin and M. Persigny with respect to the holding and administration of property in the year 1861. This letter was written by the present Pope in 1865. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General is napping. The Solicitor General is seldom caught napping. The Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman are at this moment the only occupants of the Treasury Bench who seem inclined to dose. I have no doubt that the Solicitor General deserves his repose; and I feel that an apology is due from me for disturbing it. But it happens that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not long since professionally engaged in a very remarkable case—that of Saurin v. Starr; and that in that case there arose a question as to conventual dower, and as to conventual property. The case was this—Miss Saurin had been admitted a nun into a convent in Dublin, and from thence she came to a convent at Hull, where she was treated with very great severity. I shall not trouble this House with the story at length; but it is undoubted that there this lady was treated with very great severity. The circumstances of this cas are known to everyone; but there is one incident in the ease which bears upon the point which I am now bringing before the House, and I will read an extract from a letter written by Bishop Cornthwaite, which will contribute to my showing the resemblance between that which is occurring in England and that which has occurred in France. The question was whether the Bishop, Dr. Cornthwaite, could and would absolve this lady from her vows. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General described this lady, this nun, and he said this of her—

"The plaintiff is a person of very good family and connected with good families in Ireland; herself a person of great devotion, having two sisters nuns in different Roman Catholic Orders, having a brother a Jesuit priest, and an uncle a parish priest in Ireland; and brought up among Roman Catholic associations, and surrounded in every way by Roman Catholic influences of the best sort."

The Court of Queen's Bench in this country has decided that this lady was the victim of a conspiracy; that she had suffered most undue severity; she appealed to the justice of English law, and having been aided by the known ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, compensation has been awarded to her. Whether she has been released from her vows or not I do not know; but this I do know, that the Roman Catholic Bishop did not treat her case, when submitted to him for decision, in a manner which commanded the respect of the Lord Chief Justice of England. The Lord Chief Justice said that the Bishop, after having undertaken to settle the matter of dispute, appeared to have remained in a somewhat melancholy position. His Lordship observed—

"He did not disclose his object nor pursue a regular inquiry, but pursued the usual course of seeing each of the sisters separately, thinking that the truth would come out. He found himself only in a state of doubt and hesitation, and he simply let things go on and take their course. Such was the way in which the Bishop thought it right to exercise his visitatorial powers."

The Bishop, in fact, did not try the case; and why? The Bishop assigns, as a reason, that he could not do otherwise unless he had authority from Rome; this is the passage in his letter, dated the month of August, which he ad- dressed to the Superioress of the convent, Mrs. Starr—

"I hope that you are quite certain about the thefts and other things"—which were alleged but not proved—"and that the facts are prove-able. I was unable to move efficaciously in the matter without facilities from the Holy See. I asked for them long ago; they were unfortunately mis-sent, and have only reached me this morning. In case of expulsion, will Bagot Street"—meaning the convent in Dublin—"do anything in the way of dowry?"

In other words, will the Irish convent restore any portion of the something more than £360, which had been paid upon the entrance into it of this nun? It was never stated exactly what was paid; but the Rev. Hobart Seymour has ascertained that about £500 is the sum usually paid by nuns on their admission to convents in Ireland. The Bishop, Dr. Cornthwaite, was unable to move in the matter without direct authority from Rome; and yet, after I had raised the question about convents and nunneries in this House in 1865, Dr. Ullathorne, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Birmingham, told me in a letter, a copy of which I have here, that he was the Superior of the convents of Colwich, Atherstone, and Princethorpe. It seems strange; but the Bishop Corn-thwaite appeared incompetent to act. Why could he not act? Was it—and I ask the attention of the House to this—because this young lady's brother being a member of one of the Regular Orders of the Church of Rome—this Jesuit brother, acting upon the principle which his order is endeavouring to establish in France—may have advised resistance to the authority and jurisdiction of the Bishop, just as the Jesuits, not long since, resisted the authority of the Arch-bishop of Paris? I think the presumption is that it was so; and, if it was so, I certainly cannot account for Dr. Ullathore's letter to me, otherwise than that his power is derived from the fact that he is a Regular—a Benedictine monk, and that it is in this capacity, and not as Bishop, that he is absolute over the convents I have mentioned. It appears that this case could not be solved by the authority of the Bishop, involving as it did the question of power and jurisdiction, and this is consistent with that which appeared in the letter of the Pope to the Archbishop of Paris. The result was that the appeal of this illused nun was made to the law of England; but, let the House observe, for what purpose was this appeal thus made? Not to relieve this lady from her vows, but to declare her vows perpetual; for that was the indirect but real effect of the decision. Her complaint was that she was about to be excluded from her order and absolved from her vows. That was her complaint; and the laws of England were appealed to in order to enable her to defeat the intention of the Bishop, which was to relieve her from those vows. I do not say that this decision inflicted individual hardship because this lady desired to remain a nun; but it is a singular fact that the Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster should have supported, what is virtually the dictum of the Council of Trent, that a nun is perpetually bound, and cannot be absolved from the obligation of her vows. I do not believe that her brother, being a Jesuit, would have helped her to obtain a release from her vows; he is bound by the traditions and vows of his own order. Remember this, that the perpetual obligation of these religious vows is contrary to the laws of France, and I hope that it is contrary to the letter of English law, or will become so, as it certainly is contrary to the spirit of our laws; yet I have shown you how the secular power of this country has been used in this case to confirm conventual vows as being of perpetual obligation. Sir, this is a matter of considerable importance, because one of those vows is a vow of poverty. I have an extract from them here, and it tends to this—that, after her reception into a convent, a nun so completely abdicates all right to property that she can accept of no casual gift, however trifling, for her own use; but that all property which comes to her, through whatever channel, is absorbed by the community in which she lives, and becomes its property. If, then, the capital of the dower of these ladies, as Mr. Hobart Seymour has shown, in the case of the convents in Italy, Spain, France, and Ireland, exceeds the amount absolutely necessary to provide for their maintenance during the usually short period of their lives—for nuns are short-lived—and it usually does, the difference forms a fund accumulating in the hands of these convents; and the consequence is that by forming these convents large funds accrue to the monastic orders, which funds have materially aided in the results which I will now describe to the House. The attention of the public has, of late years, been strongly directed to the enormous increase of these establishments, and I am not surprised at this. I will advert to the increase which, of late years, has taken place in these conventual and monastic houses; most of them are becoming gradually possessed of property in this country. The late Cardinal Wiseman, in a speech which he delivered at the Roman Catholic Congress of Malines, in the year 1864, made the following statement as to the increase which had taken place in the number of convents in this country:—

"From 16 (convents)" said he, "which we possessed in 1830,"—he is speaking as Cardinal Archbishop—"we have now in Great Britain an increase to 162. In 1830 we had not a single religious house for men; but in 1850 there were 11, and to-day their number is 55."

Since 1863, the date which was given by the Cardinal, the convents, according to the authority of the Roman Catholic calendar, have increased to 233, and the number of monasteries or religious houses for men has increased to 69. So now, we have this result: that the increase of convents, from the year 1830 to the year 1846, was 146, or about 4½ convents per annum were added to the number on the average of that period. But how does the increase stand in the last seven years since the date to which the Cardinal referred? From the year 1863 to the year 1870 no less than 71 convents were added to the number previously existing; so that the rate of increase, instead of being 4½ per annum, as in the previous period, rose to 10 per annum on the average of the last 7 years. Then, with regard to monasteries, from the year 1830 to 1863 the increase was 55, or about 1½ per annum on the average; and, let it be remembered, that before 1830 there were none; but from the year 1863 to 1870 the increase was 14 upon the 7 years, or, on the average, 2 per annum. Now, what I have said respecting the increase of these monastic establishments from 1830 to 1863 shows only the average of the whole period, and does not show the fact that the great increase has been almost entirely towards the close of that period. Thus we see an increase of these establishments up to the present time, such as has never been witnessed in this country certainly for 500 years. And this, Sir, is the more important, because during the same periods there has been a great increase of chapels and of priests, as well as of monasteries; in reference to which fact the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said last Session there was a justification for the increase, because they were required for the active practice of their religion by the Roman Catholics. Yet the rate of the increase of these, as Cardinal Wiseman explained, greatly exceeded the increase of the general population, and, I believe, also of the Roman Catholic population; still, there may be a justification for this increase of priests and chapels such as the Home Secretary assigned. But with reference to these monasteries and convents, it must be remembered that in many cases they do not provide for any active religious ministrations whatever, though they do provide for this—they provide in this country, as I have shown the House, from the example of France, establishments, the possessors of which are very much inclined to defy the laws of this country, while they consider themselves the direct servants and tributaries of the Pope. I ask the House to inquire into these circumstances, and ascertain how many of these institutions really exist; what is the character of these institutions, what their discipline, and how far the property, on which they exist, conforms to the laws established for the regulation of the properties belonging to the other denominations in England. Because, Sir, you will observe that in the Charity Commissioners' Report for 1852 they declare that a number of Roman Catholic trusts had been enrolled under the provisions of the Act of 1860; but about that time a defect in the statute appears to have been discovered, and since then the number enrolled, and thus brought within the provisions of English law, has dwindled away until I hear from a Charity Commissioner this morning that, during the last year, there were almost none enrolled. So complete has been the failure of the statute of 1860—a measure which was devised in the most liberal spirit by this House for the purpose of enabling those Roman Catholics, who might be interested in such property, to ascertain for themselves how far it has been applied to the objects for which it was intended; and, among other things, whether any of it has been improperly withheld from Roman Catholic or other families by these religious orders, or by the Roman Catholic Church. Do not let hon. Members of the Roman Catholic persuasion suppose that I am speaking without proof; for it was clearly proved, before the Select Committee of 1851–2, that there were many cases of abuse and hardship, and of property having been taken from Roman Catholic families and from Roman Catholic priests, contrary to every principle of justice. And why? Because this property was then beyond the law of England; its devolution was not regulated, as in Ireland, under the Bequests Act, by a national authority; but the jurisdiction over it had been driven to Rome. The object of the Legislature in passing the Roman Catholics Charities Act of 1860 was to bring this property within the jurisdiction of our courts, to provide for the enrolment of the trusts, and thus to secure equal advantages to the Roman Catholic families with those possessed by the families of every other denomination, under the general statute of 1853, with respect to charitable property. At the instance, Sir, of my late Friend Sir Charles Selwyn—himself a Judge professionally versed in the administration of Roman Catholic property, and therefore perfectly cognizant of the whole of the circumstances,—on the 26th of February last year I brought these circumstances under the attention of the House, and moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject. What was the answer with which I was met by the Government? The First Lord of the Treasury was present. Poor as my means of expressing myself might be, I was stating a necessity that was patent to Sir Charles Selwyn and patent to Sir William Bovill; and what did the right hon. Gentleman do? He waited until I had reached that "witching hour" when hon. Members mostly refresh themselves, and then, instead of saying one word in answer to my statements and my appeal, he called for a division, and secured the defeat of a Motion promoted by no mean legal authorities. Again, on the 30th of July following, I moved for Returns to show how many of these Catholic trusts had been enrolled by the Rolls Court under the provisions of the Act of 1860. I had been informed by an eminent lawyer that such was the confusion pervading the Rolls Court, that it would give great trouble to furnish these Returns. Still, the object of the discovery was deemed to be essential, no less by the high legal authorities to whom I have referred than by the Committee on Mortmain in 1852. I hoped, therefore, as the House was about to separate for the Recess, that the Government would consent to the production of these Returns extending only over a very limited period—such as I thought the House might well demand, not upon my authority, but upon the advice of most competent persons. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, however, came down to the House, and declared that the preparation of these Returns would be very troublesome. I proposed to shorten, and did shorten, the period over which the order for these Returns should extend to three years; but the right hon. Gentleman said that it would take eight months to prepare the Return. If that be so, I ask the House what must be the condition of things at the Rolls Court? Eight months to produce such a Return! Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to assign some other reasons. He said that—

"Every good citizen must wish that every religion should experience just and equal treatment, and be allowed to develop itself in its own natural course."

Now, so far as the practice of any particular religion is concerned, God forbid that I should object to that; but can the right hon. Gentleman have meant, does he mean, that the monastic orders ought to be at liberty to accumulate as much property in Mortmain as they like? There would be no equality in that. No other denomination is allowed to devise property to the uses of its worship, or the practice of its religion, except within the restraints of the law against Mortmain. [Mr. BRUCE: Nor is the Roman Catholic Church.] I can scarcely believe that the right hon. Gentleman meant what he said last Session; and if he does not mean what he has said, why did he refuse the inquiry for which I now ask? I have never been able to account for the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. But last Session he went on to say—

"His hon. Friend (meaning me) had shown, or at least, attempted to show, that our legislation in respect of enrolments of deeds in England was less perfect than that in regard to Ireland."

I had quoted the evidence of the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, given before the Committee of 1852 to that effect; and I believe I read it distinctly. At any rate, if the Home Secretary had referred to the evidence before that Committee he would have found that the operation of the Bequests Act is very superior to that of the Roman Catholic Charities Act of 1860; but he said—

"Possibly this might be the case; but, if so, the way to remedy the evil was to introduce a Bill to assimilate the English law on the subject with that of Ireland."

Why, that is exactly what I desire; but knowing that I am only an independent Member of the House, and on the wrong side to do very much, all I could do, at the instance of the eminent persons to whom I have alluded, was to propose the inquiry which they had suggested, and to ask for information. The Home Secretary, however, unlike the late Sir George Lewis, was inexorable, and would not allow the House to have any information of the kind. He proceeded to say—

"He hoped, however, that the House would never consent to put the Roman Catholic and Protestant endowments on a different footing."

Sir, the whole object of the Act of 1860 and of my Motion is to put these as nearly as possible on a par—to bring them within the operation of the same category of law—

"Good reasons (said the right hon. Gentleman in conclusion) might perhaps be adduced in favour of assimilating the laws of the two countries; but, in the meantime, he objected to the Motion of his hon. Friend on account, not only of the vast amount of unnecessary labour which it would entail, but also, and chiefly, on account of the injustice it would inflict on our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen."

If the Legislature had decided that it was just to the Roman Catholics, especially the laity, and had so decided, after full inquiry, that these charitable trusts and property should be brought within the law of England, upon the principles he seems to hold the Home Secretary ought to have proposed the repeal of the Roman Catholic Charities Act of 1860. My object is the same as that of his predecessor, Sir George Lewis; the same as that of the late Lord Campbell, and other eminent statesmen and lawyers; the same as that of the Legislature itself; that object is to secure a good title, and publicity of title, for this property under the English law, for the sake of Roman Catholic and other families, by securing for the use all who are interested in such property that public enrolment, which was recommended by the Select Committee of 1851–2, and which was sanctioned by the Act of 1860, although in practice that statute had been defeated. In order to avoid giving any unnecessary trouble to the Rolls Court, I now consent further to limit the scope of my present Motion, and instead of asking for an inquiry into all Roman Catholic charity property, I move simply for an inquiry into that which is possessed by the monastic and conventual institutions in this country; and only so far as to ascertain the terms of actual possession; for I have omitted the words relating to the circumstances under which property has been acquired by these monastic and conventual orders. In making this request, I find myself supported by a vast number of persons outside this House; and why? Because they desire that the conventual institutions in this country should be inspected. They have seen this vast increase of convents. They have seen them grow up in numbers from sixteen, in the year 1830, to 233 in 1870; they have also seen the monasteries increase to sixty-nine, and they desire that the character and operation of these institutions should be clearly ascertained. Nor is this surprising. I have the statement of a case before me here, in which the daughter of a respectable person in this town was persuaded to go into a convent at Hammersmith before she was sixteen years of age. Her mother, being a Protestant, persuaded her to return home, and she did so; but subsequently she went back, and soon after—this was in the autumn of 1865, and I have all the facts here—the mother, to her great surprise, received a letter from her daughter, dated from a French convent, and praying that she might be assisted to escape from it and to return home. The mother procured the aid of a friend, and they proceeded at once to France. ["Name, name!"] I shall not give the names; but I have them here. Fortunately, in the same packet they met with a person of influence, who, being made acquainted with the facts of the case, applied, I believe, to the highest authority in France. The prefect of the town in which the convent is situated was at once communicated with. The inspection of con- vents in France is the duty of the prefects; the result was, that the mother and her friends were admitted to the convent in which the poor girl had been for nine days; and when this girl was brought to them, she threw her arms around her mother, and begged to be taken from a convent so different from that which she had left in England. She said that she had been happy in the English convent, and had been told that she would find the French convent an equally happy abode; but instead of that she had witnessed great severities inflicted upon the inmates of the French convent—in short, she had found it a prison. It was only through a happy accident and the kindness of a stranger that her letter had reached her mother. This was a rescue from prison; and proves, as was asserted by Mr. Hobart Seymour, in 1852, that some of the convents in this country are affiliated or connected with convents abroad. The latter are sometimes very different in their discipline from the former. The late Cardinal Wiseman objected to Mr. Hobart Seymour's statements, yet admitted the facts, for he said that those who enter these convents enter into an engagement, by which, whether they understand it or not, they were strictly bound. The vows taken by Miss Saurin, as recited by the Solicitor General, afford an illustration of the fact, that the nun engages to go to any of the branch homes of the convent she enters. This girl, who entered a convent here in London, where she was well treated, was transferred to another on the Continent, where, it appears, a most austere and cloistered discipline prevailed, which was practically a prison, and from which she was by good fortune rescued. One reason why the English public are so anxious on this subject is, that they know there is a vast difference between these convents; that the cloistered convent is a dungeon, that the houses inhabited by Sisters of Mercy are generally homes as comfortable as nuns may be allowed. Not very comfortable, it is true, as was proved in the case of Saurin v. Starr; but comfortable as compared, with the cloistered convent in which this poor girl found herself in France. The late Cardinal Wiseman admitted that there were some cloistered convents in England; but he said that these were few. I have the same admis- sion here, on the authority of a Roman Catholic newspaper, which speaks with some contempt of my humble efforts. After referring to the number of Petitions which I have presented to the House on this subject, The Weekly Register of last Saturday writes—

"There is something most intolerable in the idea that convents, monasteries, or other Catholic establishments, built and supported with the money of Catholics, should be subjected to 'inquiry' and legislation at the instigation of such wrongheaded creatures as the Member for North; Warwickshire. The Catholics of England are not ashamed of their convents; far from it, and they would always be glad to obtain admittance for persons who wish to see the interior of such establishments;"

but then comes an exception—"as are not cloistered!" So there is an exception—"as are not cloistered."—

"But (proceeds the writer) this perpetual interference with our affairs must be put down, and we hope that some one or other of the Catholic Members will take the matter in hand on Tuesday next."

Sir, I shall be rather curious, when I see any Roman Catholic Member rise in his place, to hear what objection he can urge against an assimilation of the laws of this country to the laws of France, with regard to the inspection of convents. Having shown that the necessity for inspection is felt in France, will it, now that convents have so increased in this country, be said that there is no necessity for such inspection in England? Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may remember the case which, in 1865, I brought before the House, arising out of circumstances connected with the convent at Colwich. On that occasion I adduced the substance of sworn affidavits to show that a nun, who had escaped from the convent, was discovered and taken back; that when she had escaped she was known to have appeared much terrified; that subsequently she was removed from that convent, and was found in a convent at Wimborne, in Dorsetshire. She never would admit that she had been well treated in the convent from which she had escaped. Nor would she deny any of the facts, upon which the inquiry directed by Mr. Justice Wightman had proceeded. In the correspondence which ensued upon my Motion, I was taken to task by Dr. Ullathorne on the subject; but he could not dispute the escape of that lady. If the convent at Colwich was a place of such severity as to induce that lady to make her escape, taking that case alone, why should Roman Catholic Members object to an inquiry in order to ascertain whether there are not other convents in this country which are conducted upon principles so severe as to have in other countries met with the reprobation and precautions by Legislatures and Governments, even in Roman Catholic countries? Why should England be more careless or indifferent in these matters than France? I have shown you that it was the temporal authority, put into action, at the instance, as I believe, of the highest personage in France, which secured the rescue of an English girl from a French convent. Is it not natural, then, that the English people should wish that some such precautions should be taken by law here as those provided by law in France? I have shown the necessity which exists for inquiry. That a Committee shall be appointed is all I ask, and I may, at all events, test and prove the circumstances to which I have referred. Perhaps it may be thought that I am travelling beyond the limits of my Notice. But at the close of last Session the hon. Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) gave notice of a Motion for the present Session, and I desire to clear myself from the appearance of having interfered with or obstructed the hon. Member. His Notice is to this effect—

"To call the attention of the House to the number of conventual and monastic institutions existing in the country; and to move a Resolution, that, in the opinion of this House, conventual and monastic institutions ought to be made subject to Government inspection."

Upon this I gave Notice of the following Amendment:—

"That, whereas the history of this country in former times, and the recent history of other I countries, prove that the unlimited increase and establishment of conventual and monastic institutions is inconsistent with social welfare and national progress it would be inexpedient and impolitic to encourage, by the appointment of inspectors, or otherwise to legalize the increase of such establishments in this country, without previous inquiry, a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the existence, character, and increase of conventual and of monastic institutions or societies in Great Britain."

It seemed, for experience had shown, that it would be rash to attempt to pledge the House to inspection of convents without previous inquiry. I have therefore adopted the course I am now pursuing for two reasons. In the first place, I wish to ascertain how far the property belonging to these institutions—and I know that in the Midland Counties it is considerable—has been brought within the purview of the law; and. in the second place, what is the character of those institutions. I have seen estimates of £20,000 for one monastery here, and of £15,000 for another monastery there. I see those places rising in different directions at a great expense, and I am told, that such and such property belongs to them; the tenants say they believe it is so, and that they pay their rents to certain agents. I ask, then, that these places should be brought within the purview of English law. That is my object; but at present I only ask you to inquire what is the nature and character of the property held for these institutions, and into the tenure of this property; and, further, what may be the character of the discipline in these convents respectively. The House having ascertained these facts, connected with this new element, affecting, as it must, the social organization of the country, then being in possession of knowledge of the subject, you will be able to decide whether the same precautions should not be adopted for the inspection of those institutions in this country as are applied, in one form or other, throughout the whole Continent—for example, in Prussia, where the system of inspection is exercised by the direct authority of the Crown, and in France, where it is enforced through the prefects or mayors. In Italy they have had enough of convents. Spain, too, appears now to think she has had a surfeit of them; the experience of these countries verifies my assertion, that a vast increase of monastic and conventual establishments does not contribute to the national welfare. Is it not time, then, that the Legislature of this country should inform itself in some degree upon this subject, pledging itself to no particular measure in the first instance, but seeking to ascertain whether laws, which it has passed, have been complied with, and what legislation may be desirable hereafter? I have heard it said by some hon. Members that these institutions promote education, and I do not deny that some of them do; but I bring this fact to bear upon the other side—that in Italy, where monastic and conventual institutions were till of late years most rife, and in Naples, particularly, there was found the densest ignorance amongst the great body of the people. The Prime Minister, I am sure, must be acquainted with this fact. I think I have heard him applaud the Italian Government for having taken funds from those institutions, and for having applied them to the purposes of education. I should have been surprised, indeed, had the right hon. Gentleman entertained any other view, when I remember that he is a bright ornament of Christ Church, Oxford, of which I am a humble member; and whence, I ask, came the funds which provided for the education of the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but from suppressed monasteries? That suppression was effected, not without Papal authority, but under the powers of a Bull, or Brief, obtained by Cardinal Wolsey for the very purpose from the Pope. With such a chapter in our own history, then, as the suppression of the convents and monasteries affords, and knowing that Lyttelton, that accomplished author, that Hallam, that Black-stone, and other eminent historians and jurists all record the necessity for a due observance of the principles of the law of Mortmain, thereby preventing an undue absorption of property in the hands of these monastic and conventual institutions; knowing all this, and sitting in a House which, only ten years ago, passed an Act which was most liberal in its provisions towards the Roman Catholics, yet still with the intention of establishing the principle of the laws against Mortmain, in the case of Roman Catholic institutions, I ask the House to consent to the inquiry which I now propose, narrowed and limited as its sphere is to be. I ask them, at the instance of my late Friend Sir Charles Selwyn; I ask them at the instance of high legal authorities, to inform themselves upon a subject which has become deeply interesting to this as it has been to every other country in Europe. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

seconded the Motion.

said, he had the greatest difficulty in connecting the speech of the hon. Gentleman with the terms of the Motion on which the speech was founded. That Motion consisted of two distinct and independent points. Now, so far as the House had to deal with the first part, which related to "the existence, character, and increase of Conventual and Monastic Institutions," it was necessary to bear in mind that such institutions were the natural and inevitable result of the spread and increase of that religion of which they were an essential and important part. The great majority of the Members of that House did not belong to that religion; but they ought to exercise principles of fairness and common sense, and the moment that the Roman Catholic religion was a tolerated religion the members of it ought to be allowed to exercise their faith in accordance with the rules and principles of their religion. It was inevitable that certain persons who had more ardent feelings of devotion than others would betake themselves to conventual establishments as the natural consequence of the toleration of the faith which they professed. In a country like this, to which large numbers of Roman Catholics came from Ireland and elsewhere to establish themselves, it was easy to understand the development of monastic institutions, which was the obvious concomitant of the spread of the religion itself. If he could for a moment believe that among the great mass of the population of England, among the intellectual classes, or in general public opinion or feeling, the Roman Catholic religion was making considerable progress, there might, he would admit, be some pretence for the fears which the hon. Gentleman had expressed. But as he (the Solicitor General) maintained a totally different opinion as to the real progress of that religion, he entertained no fears on the subject, and could see no good ground for the institution of any such inquiry as that which was proposed. With respect to the second part of the Motion, he apprehended there was no sufficient foundation for the assertion which the hon. Gentleman had made in the course of his speech. In law, whatever partizans—Whether lawyers or otherwise—might assert to the contrary, he (the Solicitor General) laid it down without hesitation that, with a qualification which he would pre- sently express, the Roman Catholics in this country were upon exactly the same, footing with regard to money bequests left to them for the purposes of their religion and as to the holding of property as any other subjects of the Queen. The law of Mortmain and the law of Trusts as regards them were the same; the Courts of Common Law and of Equity applied the same doctrines to them; and there was no ground for the suggestion that there was any difference whatever in the power which Roman Catholics had of acquiring, holding, or maintaining property held for the purposes of their religion, and the power which Churchmen, Wesleyans, Independents, or any other body of Christians or non-Christians might exercise in this country. There was no doubt a qualification. It was perfectly true that, as regarded the operation of the Charitable Bequests Act and the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, Roman Catholics were practically though no longer technically exempt, and it would be extremly un-just if they were not. Three hundred years ago, at a time of great political and religious excitement, certain uses and certain practices of their religion were proscribed by Parliament, and were denominated superstitious uses; and, no doubt, property left in terms for the maintenance of these particular forms of the Roman Catholic religion would, if brought into a court of law under that name, be confiscated under that old, unrepealed law, and all such uses would be declared superstitious, and, by consequence, illegal. At present, however, most people were of opinion that Roman Catholics should be at liberty to follow out the principles of their religion, where these did not interfere with the general well-being of the State, and should be responsible to the Almighty alone for the particular forms which their belief might take. To emancipate them, therefore, from what would be the unjust and harsh though necessary operation of the courts of law while the old law remained unrepealed we remedied by one exemption an injustice created by another; but there was no ground for saying that any distinction was made between them and other sects by a law passed of late years in favour of Roman Catholics. True, there was a distinction, but it was a distinction made necessary by the state of the law, which pressed very hardly and prejudicially upon Roman Catholics. Having answered shortly the two conditions upon which the Motion was founded, he did not desire to follow the hon. Gentleman into the long argument which he had addressed to the House, being most honestly unable to appreciate how nine-tenths of it bore on the questions to be found within the four corners of this Motion. But perhaps the hon. Member would permit him to say that, as to the case of Saurin v. Starr which he had alluded to, he had fallen into very considerable mistakes as to its legal bearings. It was not the duty of a lawyer to express in this House his private opinion on matters in which he had been concerned professionally elsewhere. The duties of an advocate were one thing, those of a Member of Parliament were another, and he had always taken due care to distinguish between the two. But, without expressing any opinion upon the particular case referred to, he might be permitted to suggest that it afforded no foundation for the position of the hon. Gentleman, who assumed that the Roman Catholic-Bishop could not interfere with regard to the dowry which the plaintiff was anxious to take out of the convent, because no authority for this purpose had been received from Rome. That was a total misapprehension. The question of the dowry, the money question, never arose in the course of any investigation by the Bishop from the beginning to the end. Nor could it arise, because, as there had been a voluntary passage by Miss Saurin from one conventual institution to another, the two institutions being distinct, the dowry received by the convent in Dublin had never belonged to the convent at Hull. Therefore, when driven out of the latter institution, Miss Saurin could have no claim upon the Hull convent for money of which it had never received a shilling. The real question the Bishop had before him was whether he could absolve a nun from her vows in invitam, and it appeared that it would be necessary for that purpose that he should receive faculties from Rome, and in order to absolve her, whether she would or no, he would have to wait for these faculties. No question of property was or could be raised from first to last in any of the proceedings to which the hon. Gentleman ad- verted. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, in his (the Solicitor General's) opinion, had not succeeded in making out any case for his Motion, because, first, conventual institutions, which were the mode in which this body of Christians developed its belief, formed no proper subject for Parliamentary inquiry; and, secondly, because there was no foundation for the statement that the law was different, or was differently administered, in the case of Roman Catholics, except so far as the qualification he had adverted to altered the law, or varied the administration of it. The hon. Gentleman was probably aware that a largo proportion of Roman Catholic property was held simply on the honour of English and Irish gentlemen, without the shadow of a trust either direct or implied in the terms of the bequest. The trust was not expressed either verbally or in deed, and, therefore, no court of law or equity could deal with it. The fact that Roman Catholics were contented to trust to the honour of those who thus held property dedicated to the uses of their religion was a fact which lay outside the law, with which the law had nothing to do, and which no law could alter. A very large amount of this property was held in Protestant hands; but these Protestants were gentlemen, and there was not, so far as he was aware, a single instance in which the trust had ever been abused, and he hoped, for the honour of English gentlemen, there never would be.

said, he agreed with the Solicitor General only in his statement that the question should be approached with fairness and common sense. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had used that expression with the view of drawing the inference that the Motion, if carried, would not be consistent either with fairness or common sense. He begged, therefore, to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that in 1853 and 1854 the House had by majorities over and over again agreed to take the course which the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) now invited them to take. He had never heard anyone impugn the decision of the House in this matter, either in regard to fairness or common sense. He had listened with extreme surprise to his hon. and learned Friend laying down, in the face of the English law, the assumption that the Roman Catholics stand upon precisely the same footing in every respect as the other denominations of the country. The fact was, there was the most striking and startling contrast between the position of the Roman Catholics in relation to the law and the position of all others. There were now 216 convents and sixty-nine communities of men. In 1829 there were no communities of men, and only six convents. It was well known that when the Roman Catholic Relief Act was passed, convents were not expressly forbidden, the communities being Sisters of Mercy; but under the same Act institutions for men were declared illegal, and their existence was therefore an infringement of the laws. If anyone chose to move for a Bill to render them legal, well and good—that was a fair subject for discussion; but so long as they were allowed to multiply and to accumulate property, in defiance of the terms of the statute, how could it be said that Roman Catholics stood on the same footing with the members of other denominations? What other denomination would be allowed so to violate the law? The Solicitor General said conventual institutions were the inevitable development of the religion of Catholics, the natural outcome of their religious life. Was that a reason why the law should not take cognizance of them? This was a country in which the Roman Catholic religion was only tolerated, and therefore the case was not so strong as in the countries where it was endowed and established; but in none of those countries was it on that account considered to be exempted from all social obligations. There never was an argument so inconclusive as that of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. The very reverse of it was true. It was because conventual life was the natural outcome of the religious life of Catholics, in such a form as affected in the most intimate manner the well-being of every State, that conventual institutions had been brought within the control of the law in the most highly-civilized Catholic communities. He drew an inference precisely the reverse of that of the hon. and learned Gentleman from the admissions he had made; and he maintained that, because these institutions were the natural and necessary effect of the Roman Catholic faith, therefore it was exceedingly important, especially in a country where monasteries were an infringement of the law, that some inquiry should be instituted respecting them, and some control exercised over them. The House thought so in 1853 and 1854, and it was not much wiser or more charitable now than it was then. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the law made no distinction in respect of property between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and then he proceeded to name one striking distinction. The charitable property of all other religious denominations had been exposed to the most severe, the most searching, and the most jealous scrutiny any Commission could possibly exercise; but the Commission did not touch the Roman Catholics, and was that being equal before the law, and standing in precisely the same relation to the law? The hon. and learned Gentleman found that would not do, and then he said it was true the Roman Catholics were not exposed to this scrutiny, but they were exempt from it. There was another point, and it was that all other charitable property was inquired about and determined upon in the Courts of Chancery; but here again Roman Catholics were not touched; their property was not brought into the courts, they were exempt not only from the inquiries of the Commission, but also from the ordinary tribunals of the country. His hon. and learned Friend said this was so in point of fact, but not in point of law; then it was not lawful, but it was illegal; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to justify it. Of course, if the Roman Catholic charities were to be brought under the jurisdiction of the courts, so far as they were established to maintain superstitious uses, they must be declared null and void; and, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman was landed in this conclusion—these charities being wholly contrary to English law, they were protected because they could not be taken into the courts, and their validity be there questioned. That might be a right state of things; the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right in saying that times had changed; it might be that we ought to allow the property of any man under any circumstances to be given, upon any kind of religious trust, and for any religious uses, whether superstitious or not; but until this was the law it was impossible to say that all stood upon the same footing; indeed, it was impossible to say otherwise than that Roman Catholics stood upon a footing the reverse of that occupied by others. Was it expedient that the State should take some cognizance of these communities thus practically excluded from the operation of the law? Roman Catholic States had taken cognizance of them, and within the last thirty or forty years these institutions had been put down wholesale in consequence of the mischief they did to society. These were not things to be argued, they were facts; they were matters of history which no one could dispute. When Roman Catholic States, one after another, had put down these institutions on the grounds stated, how could we hold that they had done so on insufficient grounds, and that they had acted wrongly? On the contrary, we were pretty nearly unanimous that these States had acted rightly. Again, could we be indifferent to the manner in which property, and especially real property, passed into Mortmain? Had there not been in every State the utmost jealousy on this head, and was it not justified by the history of Europe, our own country included? That history showed that, without perpetual vigilance, the property that would pass into Mortmain would be so large as seriously to interfere with the prosperity of the State. Again, these were not arguments; they were matters of history. If it were true, as was alleged, that the monastic institutions stood in this country upon a footing such as they did not stand upon in any other country of Europe; if it were true that their property stood, in relation to the law, in a position entirely the reverse of that occupied by the Church property of all other denominations; and if it were yet true that the Charities Act did not reach the Roman Catholic body and that the required enrolments were not made, what could be said but that the law was evaded? The statute was passed to enable us to ascertain not what property passed to these charities, but whether there was any reasonable ground for supposing it was applied to purposes contrary to the law; the State did not obtain the information which the statute intended to secure; and, what is more, the people did not get that protection in relation to family property which they were entitled to claim. The property was disposed of without any formal declaration of trust, or anything but an understanding upon honour, and a more perilous state of things could hardly be imagined in any community. This state of things could be carried to any extent, and the consequence would be that the Roman Catholics would always be liable to suspicion. He did not wish to say a word offensive to any Roman Catholic; but purely on grounds of State necessity and of justice to the whole community there was reason for inquiry, with a view to obtaining the information sought by this Motion.

said, he would support the Motion, as it was of the utmost importance that information concerning the property held under Mortmain should be obtained. The Motion was not directed in any invidious spirit against members of the Roman Catholic community, as the members of every other community would be willing to submit to such an inquiry. But that part of the Motion which referred to the existence and character of monastic institutions was even more important, because as these institutions existed at present there was no safeguard afforded By the law of this country for the liberty of the persons who were resident in them. This was a state of things not creditable to the people of England and exceedingly discreditable to the liberal party. He had referred to the debates on this subject recorded in Hansard, and he could not find that the insecurity of persons resident in monastic institutions had been disputed by any Member of a Liberal Government. It might be said that the Habeas Corpus Act was effective in providing that protection, but practically that was not the case. So far as any person engaged in any ordinary occupation was concerned, the very fact of his disappearence from his residence was primâfacie evidence on which a writ of Habeas Corpus could be applied for, but in the case of a person in a convent there were not the same facilities. We were told that we must trust to the honourable feeling of the Roman Catholic community. He did not doubt the honour of Roman Catholic gentlemen in the least degree; he would place the same reliance upon thorn that he would place upon Protestant gentlemen, but he would, place no more. He hoped the lion. Gentleman would go to a division upon his Motion, and that he would be successful in procuring an in- quiry, which would show whether it was possible for inmates of a convent to be confined there against their will.

pointed out that the hon. and learned Solicitor General, while he seemed to think that the existence of conventual and monastic institutions in this country was a necessity as part of the vitality of the Roman Catholic faith, had overlooked the important word in the Motion before the House, which sought an inquiry into the "character" of such institutions. The existence and increase of such institutions were important in proportion as they might regard their character to be important or otherwise. When the hon. and learned Gentleman told them the Roman Catholics must be at liberty to follow and practise their own religion he scarcely meant them to draw the inference that Roman Catholics were to do that without regard to their neighbours' liberty. There was a feeling abroad in the country that the character of these institutions was not by any means in harmony with the liberty of the subject. It was supposed that persons were forced to enter them, and that when there they were forcibly detained. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not saying that was the fact; but it was reasonable for his hon. Friend to ask the House to institute an inquiry so that these suspicions might be either set at rest or, if there was any foundation for them, that it might be known what amount of truth there was in them. The Roman Catholic Members of this House seemed to oppose anything like an inquiry into the proceedings connected with their religious opinions and convictions; but he would remind them that in proportion as they obtained the rank in this country of free citizens they must be content to submit themselves to the action of the law of the land. But in proportion as they demanded equality of privilege they claimed exemption from the law, and in proportion as they enjoyed all that Protestants enjoyed they demanded to be free from the restraints which Protestants had to submit to; and that was not right or fair. He should support his hon. Friend if he pressed the Motion to a division.

said, the hon. and learned Solicitor General had told them that he had been unable to find any connection between the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the Motion with which he concluded. No doubt that was quite true, for the hon. and learned Gentleman was asleep for the greater part of the time during which the hon. Gentleman was speaking. He (Mr. Greene) had noticed that whenever the question of the English Church was brought forward there were many professing to be members of that Church who were always ready to join in any attempt to pull her down. If he were to speak of "the Upas tree of Romanism spreading its deadly shadow over the land" he knew how he should be received; but he would say advisedly that whenever a question affecting the Roman Catholics was brought forward it was received with great shyness and tenderness on the opposite (the Ministerial) side of the House, and sometimes, he was sorry to say, even on this side. That was sufficient to show the country that this House was not independent, and that it did not act in an independent spirit. When the House went to a division, he had no doubt that Members of the Dissenting communities would be found joining with Roman Catholics in opposing a fair and honest measure of inquiry. If the monasteries were not afraid of daylight, why should a Committee of Inquiry be refused? It was notorious that these institutions were increasing in power, and it was for the people of England to look that power in the face, and not to be led by a party. If the First Minister of the Crown asked his party to follow him—he had almost used a strong expression; but he would say quite close to the deep abyss—they would follow him there. There was always danger in stagnation, and it was quite time that the country should be alive to the fact that this House had been too much governed by a pressure from the opposite Benches, where the power of the Romish priest was brought to bear upon every act of legislation. The very Land Bill which was now before Parliament was to throw more power into the hands of the priesthood. He had heard very much said about this being a Reformed House of Parliament; but he doubted that very much, for, according to his experience, it wanted a great deal more reform. He appealed to the electors of England to narrowly watch the House. There was a want of straight-forwardness in the Members. They would sit there quietly, and then they would go into the Lobby to vote against this Motion; but out of doors they would tell you that it was the priests who had done all this evil. Any Government that denied a Motion of this kind showed that the people were not alive to the state of things. It was time that England should be awoke to the present condition of affairs. He would vote for the Motion of the hon. Member if he went alone with him into the Lobby.

said, he should like to know whether the Solicitor General would deny that by the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act these monastic institutions were made positively illegal? He admitted that the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was mellifluous and harmonious, but that did not touch the fact of illegality, and he should have no hesitation in supporting the Motion, though for party purposes, as he believed, the Government were going to support the Roman Catholics in acting against the law.

, in reply, said, he was sure that if the Solicitor General had been more minutely acquainted with the facts he would not have said that this property was in a safe condition. Parliament had considered the matter in 1853 and in 1860. He had proposed this inquiry, actuated by those who were fully cognizant of the whole legal effect of the ease, and who assured him of the absolute necessity of some inquiry, with a view of carrying out the intentions of the Legislature. With regard to the legal question, he thought he might leave the Solicitor General in the hands of the Common Serjeant (Mr. T. Chambers). But, as to the other aspects of the question, he must remind them that Petition after Petition had come to the House praying for protection to the inmates of those convents. He was prepared to show that girls when they entered them did not know to what discipline they would be subjected, and that they had not the means of communicating with their friends. He was also prepared to show that English women were inveigled out of this country and placed in convents, which deserved to be termed dungeons, abroad. He had made out his case; but the difficulty was, contract it as they might, the inquiry must be extended. He had offered the Government this—if they held him to be prejudiced, as he had been represented elsewhere, and if they could not trust him in the Chair of the Committee, he should only be too happy if the right hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam), who was Chairman of the Mortmain Committee in 1851 and 1852, on whose Report the Legislature had acted, would serve on this Committee and take the Chair. He now submitted to their decision a grave and weighty question. He asked them humbly and respectfully, with a view to the estimation in which that great Assembly should be held elsewhere, not to turn a deaf ear to the Petitions which had been addressed to them, not to leave the law of this country different from that of every other civilized community, on a question which deeply touched the tenderest feelings and affected a mass of property accumulated beyond the control of the State.

rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances connected with the dismissal by the Irish Government of Mr. John Madden of Hilton Park, Clones, from the Magistracy. His apology for taking this course was the importance of the questions it involved. Mr. Madden, a resident on his property, a model landlord and a loyal subject, had acted up to December last as a Deputy Lieutenant for the counties of Monaghan and Fermanagh, and justice of the peace for Monaghan, Leitrim, Fermanagh, and Cavan; and, during the twelve years he had been engaged in the administration of justice, his actions had been characterized by the strictest impartiality. Although a Protestant and a Conservative in politics, he had hitherto entirely abstained from taking any part in political or party meetings. On the 25th of November last Mr. Madden received a communication from the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland directing him to make all necessary preparation for assuming the office of High Sheriff for the county of Leitrim for the year ensuing. On the 6th of December following Mr. Madden replied as follows:—

"Hilton Park, Clones, county of Monaghan,

"December 6, 1869.

"Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th ult., informing me that I have been appointed High Sheriff of Leitrim, and ordering me—without any previous warning, which is contrary to the usual practice—to make the necessary arrangements for undertaking the duties of that office. While I am fully aware the law enables the Lord Lieutenant to give such an order, I feel it my duty to enter my formal protest against being called upon to serve under the present Administration, 'who have conducted the affairs of my unhappy country in such a way that, in less than a year, we have been reduced from a state of comparative prosperity' to a condition when law, order, and security for either life or property may be said to have practically ceased to exist, and the very fabric of society itself seems threatened with dissolution, when 'no man can tell whether he will be allowed to reap the fruits of his own industry,' or 'enjoy the property which his own money has purchased on the security of titles granted under the guarantee of the State;' when, too, I find myself, 'as an Irish Protestant landlord, in common with the rest of my brother landlords, held up by Members of the Government to the hatred of our Roman Catholic neighbours as 'oppressors of the poor' and 'exterminators of the people,' enriching ourselves by the 'spoils wrung from a defenceless peasantry'—when I consider these things, I can only say I solemnly protest being called upon to act as the chief guardian of the peace in the county of Leitrim, and I call upon the Government to recollect that this 'honour' has not been of my seeking.—I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, JOHN MADDEN.

"To the Under Secretary for Ireland,

Dublin Castle."

He (Lord Claud John Hamilton) did not stand there to justify the terms of that letter. He would not himself have written such a letter under the circumstances, and he thought its general sense might have been conveyed in terms more moderate and more dignified. But it was not a question for the House whether the letter was wise or not; but whether the action of the Government following upon that letter was just. On the 22nd of December, Mr. Madden received a reply from the Chief Secretary, in the following terms:—

"Dublin Castle, Dec. 21, 1869.

"Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th inst., and to state that you are quite in error in supposing that your appointment as High Sheriff was contrary to the usual practice, there being no deviation from the course invariably adopted of sending the usual printed letter, which you received, to the gentleman first on the list for the office of Sheriff. His Excellency cannot permit anyone to serve Her Majesty as High Sheriff who thinks proper, in reply to a communication appointing him to an office executive and non-political, to use language of studied insult to the Government of the Queen. I am further to state that for the same reason his Excellency has, under the powers vested in the Lord Lieutenant by the 8th section of the Act 1 and 2 William IV., cap. 17, signified to the Lieutenant of the county of Monaghan his pleasure that you should be removed from the office of Deputy Lieutenant of that county, and has requested the Lord Chancellor to consider the propriety of retaining your name in the Commission of the Peace.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, C. P. FORTESCUE."

And on the following day, the 23rd of December, Mr. Madden received the following letter:—

"Lord Chancellor's Secretary's Office,

"Four Courts, Dublin, December 22,1869.

"Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Chancellor to inform you that a copy of a letter addressed by you to the Under Secretary, in reply to a communication appointing you to the office of High Sheriff of Leitrim, has been submitted to his Lordship, at the desire of the Lord Lieutenant, with an intimation that his Excellency cannot permit you, in consequence of the studied insult conveyed by that letter to the Government of the Queen, to serve in the shrievalty of Leitrim, or hold the deputy lieutenancy of Monaghan; and a request that the Lord Chancellor may consider the propriety of any longer retaining you in the Commission of the Peace. The Lord Chancellor has accordingly given the matter his best consideration, and he has no doubt that such a letter, written on such an occasion, makes it his duty to remove you from the list of the magistracy. His Lordship cannot, with a due regard to the interests of the administration of justice and the maintenance of respect for legitimate authority, allow a gentleman to remain in the Commission who solemnly protests against being called upon to act as chief guardian of the peace in the county Leitrim, and scoffs at the 'honour' of serving the Queen in the important office to which he was nominated by Her Majesty's Judges and appointed by her representative. The Lord Chancellor has ordered that a writ of supersedeas shall be prepared for your removal from the Commission of the Peace for the counties of Monaghan and Leitrim.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, "CHARLES TEELING."

Thus in two days Mr. Madden was removed from the office of Deputy Lieutenant of the county of Monaghan and from the magistracy of the county of Leitrim and Monaghan. But he (Lord Claud John Hamilton) would endeavour to show that the pretext on which this was done was merely imaginary; that the allegations made against him by the Chief Secretary, on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, were wholly untrue; and that the peculiar circumstances of the case justified his making the solemn protest he did. The Chief Secretary said the Lord Lieutenant could not permit anyone to serve as a magistrate who thought proper to address himself in terms of "studied insult to the Government of the Queen." Now, before going further he wished to say he had no charge whatever to make against the Lord Lieutenant, whom he entirely absolved from all share in this transaction. Lord Spencer, as an Englishman but slightly acquainted with the affairs of the country over which he presided, was bound in matters of this kind to listen to the advice of his chief official. Lord Spencer had filled the office of Lord Lieutenant during a most critical time, and under circumstances made doubly difficult by the acts of the Cabinet on this side of the water, and ranked second to none in the long list of Lord Lieutenants who had governed Ireland. With regard to the pretext that Mr. Madden had offered a studied insult to the Crown, anyone who read the letter carefully would see he studiously confined his remarks to the Government and the Irish Executive, and did not in any way refer to Her Majesty personally. Doubtless all Governments in this country were Governments of the Queen; but as criticisms on the conduct of a Government were made entirely apart from any reference to the Crown, he was sorry that the Government had sought refuge in such an excuse. In his protest Mr. Madden stated that he could not serve under a Government which had found Ireland comparatively peaceful, and had brought it to the state in which it at present exists, and he further stated that he could not conscientiously exercise the duties of his office under such an Administration. Considering that a High Sheriff was the chief executive officer of the Crown in his county during his term of office, who could wonder that Mr. Madden should enter his solemn protest against being called upon to serve under the present Administration? Why, within three months he had seen a Protestant High Sheriff insulted and degraded by the Irish Executive, and a gentleman who was avowedly a partizan of the Government, a Liberal and a Roman Catholic, appointed over the heads of two gentlemen who were in the Judges' list. He therefore contended that Mr. Madden was perfectly justified in protesting against being called upon to serve under the present Administration. Then, was there any truth in the allegations in Mr. Madden's letter against the Government? The Royal Speech delivered at the opening of last Session was sufficient to show that Mr. Madden was perfectly justified in stating that "the present Administration found Ireland in a state of comparative prosperity." Mr. Madden also stated that "the Government had reduced the country to such a condition that law might be practically said to have ceased to exist," and he asked the House whether there had been any law in Ireland during the last six months? Could law be said to exist in a country where the Chief Justice on his way to court was stoned by a seditious and rebellious mob; when one of Her Majesty's Counsel, conducting a case on behalf of his client, was threatened with death if he fulfilled his duty; when the High Sheriff on the road to the courthouse to swear in the grand jury was fired at, and when the very jurors themselves were threatened with death if they did their duty and did not perjure themselves? The Solicitor General for Ireland had been unable to obtain verdicts against seditious and disloyal papers; and at the trial of Barrett, in Galway last autumn, the Attorney General said that—

"It is, unfortunately, too true that a feeling had been excited and maintained in this county respecting the trial of the prisoner of such an extraordinary character as renders it almost unreasonable on the part of the Crown to call on the gentlemen of this county to incur the risk—for such it unquestionably is—of discharging their duties as jurors. How and by what means this feeling has been engendered it is not now for me to say, but I believe that the agents of terrorism and intimidation have not been idle. A juror of the highest respectability, a magistrate of the county, was almost immediately after he left the jury-box, at the conclusion of the late trial, pursued through the streets of the town and grossly maltreated, because he was supposed to have entertained an opinion adverse to the prisoner upon the evidence adduced by the Crown at the trial, according to which he was sworn to find his verdict. He was guarded from his place of refuge to his hotel by a magistrate and a force of constables, who were themselves assailed by missiles; while the prisoner himself, in his passage to and from the gaol to the court, was greeted by crowds of no insignificant numbers in a manner and with a demeanour which must give rise to the most serious reflections, as indicating a sympathy with the crime with which the prisoner is charged."

After that, was not Mr. Madden justified in stating that law had practically ceased to exist in Ireland? With regard to Mr. Madden's statement that there was no security for life or property in Ireland, he had not to go outside the walls of Parliament for evidence. The speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on moving the second reading of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, and the monstrous provisions of that Bill itself, showed what was the state of Ireland. For evidence in support of Mr. Madden's statement, that—

"No man can tell whether he will be allowed to enjoy the property which his own money has purchased on the security of titles granted under the guarantee of the State,"

he referred to the way in which the Land Bill dealt with the property which every man had bought in Ireland since the establishment of the Landed Estates Court, and the security on which he had bought it, and contended that anyone reading the Bill would see how rotten that security was. Mr. Madden proceeded to say that as an Irish Protestant landlord he found himself, in common with the rest of his brother landlords, held up by Members of the Government to the hatred of their Roman Catholic neighbours, and in respect to that allegation it would be unnecessary, after what had been said in the recent debates, to do more than refer to the letter of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in November, 1866, and to his speech at Edinburgh in November, 1868, to show Mr. Madden was perfectly justified in stating that Members of the Government had held him up, in common with his brother landlords, to the execration of the people of Ireland? All Mr. Madden's allegations could be proved to be perfectly true; and the only pretext which the Government had for passing upon him the tremendous sentence of dismissal was the sense in which he used the word "honour" at the end of his letter. With regard to the Lord Chancellor's letter of dismissal, he complained that he did not even write to Mr. Madden for an explanation, or for an assurance that the protest had actually come from Mr. Madden. He simply, upon the ipse dixit of the Lord Lieutenant, erased Mr. Madden's name from the commission of the peace with almost indecent haste. The presumption the Government wished to raise was, that Mr. Madden had offered an insult to the person of the Sovereign, and not to the Irish Executive. Those who were in the House in 1868 would remember how the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, on the occasion of his defeat on the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, then Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), proceeded to Osborne to have an audience of Her Majesty, and how, upon his return, he stated the substance of what had passed, and naturally in so doing was compelled to refer to Her Majesty. Thereupon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire, followed by the Commissioner of Works, the Secretary of State for War, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, commenced a series of bitter taunts at the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire for sheltering himself under the sacred name of Her Majesty, and things culminated when an hon. Gentleman, now a right hon. Gentleman, accused the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire of "pomposity and servility," and offered a studied insult to the Government, which was as much the Government of the Queen as any Government, by accusing them of having crept into Office by unworthy dodges, and asserting they were nothing better than a party of cricketers. The dignified reply of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire would be long remembered, and from that time they had heard nothing of "pomposity" and "servility." But it happened that the present Government had done precisely what they unjustly accused their predecessors of having done. He had it on the authority of Sir Thomas Larcom that it was entirely unusual to apply the term "the Government of the Queen" in Irish official correspondence; the term used was "the Government," or sometimes "Her Majesty's Government." The letter from the Lord Chancellor was a very clever letter. "Studied insult" against whomsoever directed was a matter of deep regret; but if Mr. Madden had been guilty of using "studied insults" to the Government of the Queen, it should be remembered he was only copying the example set by those who had now constituted themselves his schoolmasters. He believed there was no precedent for the conduct of the Government under similar circumstances since the reign of Charles II., and that was in the case of Sir David Powlys, who, for a supposed insult to Lord Strafford and the Council, was treated in precisely the same manner as Mr. Madden, except that he was also confined in the Old Bailey during His Majesty's pleasure—an additional punishment which the right hon. Gentleman would probably be pleased to adopt in Mr. Madden's case also if he could. Why had not the Government adopted the ordinary course of fining Mr. Madden for his refusal to act? And why was Mr. Madden especially selected for dismissal? Other magistrates had been committing offences in open day by uttering inflammatory speeches which had been duly reported; and foremost among them stood the nobleman who was not only a magistrate, but also a maker of magistrates. The Earl of Granard, a nobleman who was as much distinguished by the irritability of his disposition as by the comeliness of his appearance, was Lord Lieutenant of Leitrim and Custos Rotulorum, duties which he discharged with diligence and ability. He was also a Knight of St. Patrick, and a faithful disciple of Cardinal Cullen, a warm friend of Chancellor O'Hagan, and an enthusiastic admirer of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Lord Granard, by virtue of his offices, his birth, and ancient lineage, was looked up to by the gentry of the county of Leitrim as their natural leader. He presided at a meeting, held at Enniscorthy on the 16th of November, consisting of the usual enthusiastic "tenant-righters," many of whom were green round their hats. Lord Granard, in his speech opening the proceedings, said, he was proud to address them on that

"Classic ground, teeming, as it does, with the associations of the past and the aspirations of the present, within view of that historic hill where your fathers, lashed into armed resistance by the injustice of the times, made their last gallant stand."

Were hon. Members aware of the glorious associations of Vinegar Hill? Why, according to Maxwell's History of the Rebellion in Ireland in 1798—

"Not less than 400 Protestants were massacred in Enniscorthy and on Vinegar Hill, the bodies of whom lay unburied during several days; and such was the cruelty of the 'rebels' that they would not suffer their female friends to perform the last act of humanity, nor even look at them, on pain of death. To increase the horror of the scene, the swine were suffered to prey upon the bodies."

Upon the same occasion the Rev. Mr. Doyle, a parish priest, made a speech in which he quoted extracts from an American newspaper, the purport of which was, that if landlords hid themselves in London to prevent themselves being shot, they were to shoot their agents, and if they could not get at them, they were to shoot their bailiffs; but that if they could they were to shoot all three together, and then, he added, that he foresaw that unless a radical change were made there would be terrible work in the country. On that very occasion the Earl of Granard hailed that clergyman as a patriot. [Sir JOHN ESMONDE: Was that after the speech?] It was after the speech. On another occasion, at Carrick-upon-Shannon, Earl Granard attended a meeting, at which landlords were denounced, and afterwards wearing his star of the Order of St. Patrick at a banquet to which the more select of the party were invited; and, in returning thanks, the noble Earl said that in presiding at that meeting he was, after all, doing that which was his duty as the Queen's representative in the county. At that hour, however, he would say no more than to ask whether it was fitting that Earl Granard, the Lord Lieutenant of his county and a magistrate of his county, should have taken this prominent part in, and have acquiesced in all that was said at this public meeting, at which revolutionary and incendiary language had been used? It appeared, however, that sedition might be spoken with impunity at all these meetings, whenever they were held in support of the Government; while the moment an unfortunate Protestant magistrate thought fit to call the Government to account for the state to which he conscientiously believed his country had been reduced by the acts of the Government, he was immediately dragged from his office, and the whole country was called upon to applaud the vigorous administration of the law by the Executive. In conclusion, he begged to move for Copies of Correspondence between Mr. John Madden, of Hilton Park, Clones, and the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in October 1869, relative to the proposed illegal party procession in Dublin, on Sunday, October 10th, and, of all Correspondence between Mr. Madden and the officials of Dublin Castle, including the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in the months of December and January last.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that Mr. Madden was by no means to be confounded with a demonstrative gentleman of the same name—he was a quiet country gentleman residing on his property and attending to his duties; but he had dared: to join, issue with Her Majesty's Government, and therefore they had dismissed him from his office. Taking into consideration that Mr. Madden was smarting under the overthrow and plunder of his Church, and taking into consideration that he had been insulted by being invited to serve as High Sheriff of his county, of which Earl Granard was Lord Lieutenant; and, taking into consideration that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had not noticed the "studied insult" of Mr. Butt, nor the conduct of the junior Member for Tipperary, who had made use of language on the hustings which he should repeat by-and-by to the House—he contended that it was not consistent with the rules of justice, equity, impartiality, or liberal policy, that Mr. Madden should have been deposed from his magistracy. The gist of the accusation against the Government was, that they did not administer the law impartially—that they meted out one measure of justice to the Ultra montane party, another to the National party, and another to the Protestants of Ulster. Had not Mr. Butt written a letter to the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which was couched in the terms of "studied insult?" Was not the language used by Mr. Butt in that letter as much a "studied insult" to the Government as anything that had fallen from Mr. Madden? But what had the Lord Chancellor done in his case? Next came the junior Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron). The hon. and learned Member had been Law Adviser to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he was the Ministerial candidate for the county of Tipperary. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared on the hustings wearing a large green scarf, and on it a harp without the Crown, and it was reported, and he believed it had never been denied, that at the hustings he called on the mob to give three cheers for the Fenian prisoners.

rose to Order. He asked the Speaker whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House—as it certainly was to propriety—for an lion. Member to accuse a Member—in this case an absent Member—of having used language which he had denied in his place in that House?

said, that as the language referred to by the hon. Baronet had been denied in that House by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, the hon. Baronet would be out of Order in persisting in his reference to the statement.

said, he would have been the last man to repeat the statement if he had been aware that it had been publicly denied. He now begged to withdraw the accusation. He knew that hon. Members on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side of the House were of opinion that what had occurred on the Tipperary hustings was derogatory to the dignity of the Government. He next came to Lord Granard. The noble Earl, in spite of the oath he took when he entered on the important duties of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Leitrim, and when he was elected a Knight of the illustrious Order of St. Patrick, had mounted a platform erected advisedly within view of Vinegar Hill. It was his sworn duty to maintain order and peace and the majesty of the law; but on that platform, in most significant terms, he alluded to the rebellious associations of Vinegar Hill; and he was president of the meeting at which Father Doyle used words which he thought every hon. Member would admit to be treasonable. He sat by while that reverend gentleman quoted an epistle from the other side of the Atlantic favouring landlord assassination. He was present ten days after when the landlords were held up to execration. Everyone had supposed that Her Majesty's Government would take some notice of this conduct on the part of Lord Granard, and he believed that by no other Government in the world would such language have been tolerated. But those who had so supposed, waited in vain. Her Majesty's Government appeared to be in a state of somnolency—they seemed to remain in a state of quiescence while language was used that almost drove the country into a state of rebellion. Sir Robert Peel, when in Office from 1841 to 1846, was at the head of a strong Government. The right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government had a majority equally strong as that which Sir Robert Peel commanded at that time; but he could not say that the Irish Government was equally strong. Sir Robert Peel was a great rhetorician; but he never made indiscreet utterances. He never had been obliged to publish a preface to tone down and explain his speeches. At one time he dismissed from the commission of the peace one of his best supporters—the Ven. Sir William Verner—because at a semi-private dinner he alluded to the Battle of the Diamond, which was one at which, in 1798, the rebels were worsted by the Protestant party. What did the right hon. Gentleman opposite do? He maintained in high, important, and influential office a nobleman who had alluded, and alluded, he might say, in laudatory terms, to the atrocities of Vinegar Hill, where the rebels held that post against the troops of the King for upwards of six weeks. But if Sir Robert Peel dismissed Sir William Verner, he also dismissed those magistrates who advocated the repeal of the Union and a severance between the two kingdoms. But what did Lord Chancellor O'Hagan? He merely exercised his energy and vigour against the loyal and the true. In seconding the indictment brought by his noble Friend against the Government, he thought he could not do better than adopt the language of an able Irish journalist who, referring to their conduct, described it, in terse and vigorous terms, as—

"Cringing before treason, intriguing with disaffection; the Irish officials never using authority except against loyal men, and even then in the indirect, treacherous manner of self-conscious guilt."

said, there was one peculiarity which struck him about the speech of the hon. Baronet who seconded this Motion, that he had not, in the course of his observations, made one single allusion to the case before the House. He had talked about all kinds of matters relating to Ireland, some of which had been disposed of already, and others of which were not worth disposing of; but he had not made one solitary reference to the case of Mr. Madden, which, in a way of which he certainly had no reason to complain, had been brought before the House by the noble Lord (Lord Claud John Hamilton). He (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) had been rather curious, when the hon. Baronet rose, to ascertain whether he was about to put to the Irish Government that portentous Question which some weeks ago he placed on the books of this House; but which he never put, rather to my regret—that Question, which was described by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government as the longest and most complicated Question ever put by one human being to another; and if the hon. Baronet had put it to-night—at all events, if it had been at an earlier hour of the evening—he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) probably would have thought it his duty to answer it in detail. As it was, he was happy to say that he should spare the House altogether, or almost entirely, that infliction. He would not trouble the House with the question of the personal letter written by Mr. Butt to the Under Secretary in Dublin Castle, with which they had nothing to do; nor need he trouble them with any other point outside the question of the dismissal of Mr. Madden from the magistracy; except one question on which he would for one moment touch—the conduct and language of Lord Granard at Ennis-corthy—though this also had nothing-whatever to do with the dismissal of Mr. Madden from the magistracy—an act which it became the painful duty of the Irish Government to perform. There seemed to be an idea—which had been very prominent indeed in the speeches and publications in Ireland on behalf of Mr. Madden and against the action of the Government—that the dismissal of that gentleman from the magistracy was an invasion of the independence of the Irish magistracy—was an attack on their freedom of conduct and of action; and a great deal of language of that kind had been held. He could not enter even for a moment into this case without protesting in the strongest terms against any such idea as that. The Irish Government had had no wish or idea—as they had proved in many respects during the last twelve months—of interfering with the perfect freedom of speech and action of any gentleman in Ireland, whatever his politics, or of any magistrate or official in that country, within the bounds of the Constitution. The question relating to Mr. Madden was one not of speech, or of writing, addressed to the public, but of an official letter addressed by way of answer to an official communication from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But if, without the slightest shadow of reason, the language and conduct of Lord Granard at Enniscorthy must be connected with this case, all he had to do was to inform the House why the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland did not deem it his duty to take any official cognizance of the language or conduct of that noble Lord on that occasion. Lord Granard, like other men in public positions, must abide the criticism of the public. That criticism was a very wholesome and very useful process, from which Lord Granard had no reason to expect that he would escape, and he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) was not here to say he thought he could altogether escape from it. All he had to say was, that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on a careful consideration of the matter, did not deem it his duty to enter into an official correspondence with Lord Granard with respect to the circumstances of that Enniscorthy meeting—a correspondence which he wisely and prudently—and a prudent man he is—determined not to engage in unless he saw his way to take further action in the matter; which he did not think, under the circumstances, was possible. As to the language of Lord Granard itself, he was not there to say that it was prudent or discreet, or such as anyone would recommend to a person in his position on such an occasion. At the same time, he was bound to say, in the strongest terms, that, on the very face of that language, it was evident that any notion of anything approaching to sedition, or opposition to the law, or disloyalty to the Sovereign and Constitution, was absolutely wanting from the beginning to the end of that language. Nor did this rest upon his own interpretation of that language; for, fortunately, there was a letter in which Lord Granard gives the interpretation of his own words. After the speech at Enniscorthy, the Lord Lieutenant of the country of Westmeath addressed a letter to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland referring to the speech of Lord Granard, and calling upon the Lord Lieutenant to consider whether Lord Granard should continue to be lieutenant colonel of the Westmeath Militia, and what action ought to be taken in the matter. The Lord Lieutenant, in his letter in reply, said that whatever might be the opinion as—

"To the prudence or good taste of the allusion to the 'historic hill,' your Lordship's opinion that the speech was seditious could not be maintained, nor do I think that I can pursue the matter further with advantage to the public service."

That letter of Lord Spencer's was forwarded to Lord Greville of Clonyn, who was then acting as Vice Lieutenant of Westmeath, and by Lord Greville it was also forwarded to Lord Granard. Lord Granard's answer to Lord Greville was couched in these terms—

"My Lord,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th instant, enclosing to me copies of a correspondence between his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and the Marquess of Westmeath, relative to the commission I hold in the regiment under your Lordship's command, and to thank you for making me aware of an accusation which, if I conceived it necessary, I should repel with the utmost indignation. I never made, nor intended to make, a 'seditious' speech at Enniscorthy, and I have yet to learn that an historical allusion, contrasting the mis-government of former days with happier days under the beneficent rule of Her Majesty, is to be construed into 'sentiments utterly disgraceful and unbecoming to anyone wearing Her Majesty's uniform and holding a commission in Her Majesty's service.'"

He (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) referred to that to show the interpretation placed by Lord Granard on his own words, because, without for a moment defending the prudence of those words, the meaning of them could not be questioned for an instant by anyone; and it was his conviction that it was absolutely impossible that any question should be raised upon it by the Irish Government. It was true that a speech was subsequently made in his presence by a rev. gentleman which it was impossible to read without deploring and condemning. He (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) was not there to excuse or defend that speech; but the whole matter resolved itself into this—whether, because a speech of an objectionable characters as made by an excited individual at a huge excited open-air meeting in the presence of Lord Granard, without any interference on his part, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was under compulsion to interpose, and to call that noble Lord to account because he had not sufficient presence of mind to call the speaker to order, if, indeed, he had heard the particular words which are now well-known to the world from news-paper reports. The Lord Lieutenant did not think it was incumbent on him or that it would be useful for the public service in the case of a nobleman of whose entire loyalty no question could be entertained by anyone in that House, or out of it, whose attachment to the Crown and Constitution was beyond the very shadow of suspicion—he said his noble Friend did not think it would have been useful to the public service to take any notice of the matter. As he had said, Lord Granard's words at the meeting had nothing whatever to do with the question of Mr. Madden. Mr. Madden was not removed from the magistracy on account of words used by him at a public meeting, or of any letter to the public or anyone else. Mr. Madden was removed on account of language held upon a strictly official, and not a political, occasion, in answer to a letter addressed to him in the name of the Lord Lieutenant, which it was the Lord Lieutenant's duty to address to him, and which it was Mr. Madden's duty, like other men, to answer in a proper and becoming spirit. He would tell the House what that language was. Mr. Madden having received the ordinary official letter calling upon him, as first upon the Judges' list, to serve in the office of Sheriff, made use of that particular occasion for the purpose of giving expression to the most violent and extravagant party feeling in answer to the Lord Lieutenant. He was not now going to enter into the truth or falsehood of the allegations in question, with which he had nothing to do; but he would not pass them by without saying that they were absurd, extravagant, and preposterous to the last degree, that they contained nothing which had not been refuted over and over again, and that their very extravagance in the eyes of all impartial men must refute them. But he did say that the occasion which Mr. Madden used for the purpose of venting those party passions on the representative of the Queen was so totally unfit and improper that it was impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to pass it by without notice. Passing over many violent words, the end of the letter was this—

"When I consider these things, I can only say I solemnly protest against being called upon-to act as chief guardian of the peace in the county of Leitrim, and I call upon the Government to recollect that this 'honour'" (the word honour being in inverted commas) "has not been of my seeking."

Now, he would say, that by that letter of this gentleman, the Lord Lieutenant was put in a position from which there was no escape but by the course that was taken. Was the Lord Lieutenant to allow Mr. Madden to serve as Sheriff? Mr. Madden did not refuse to serve. If he had refused, means might have been taken to compel him to do so, or a penalty might have been inflicted; but he did not refuse. He was ready to accept the office of Sheriff on his own terms. But he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) submitted to the House that it was impossible for the Lord Lieutenant to accept Mr. Madden as Sheriff on these terms. On the other hand, was it possible to allow Mr. Madden to escape the office of Sheriff on his own grounds? It would have been a very agreeable thing for Mr. Madden if the Lord Lieutenant were to say—"Very well, we will not ask you to serve." But in the opinion of the advisers of the Irish Government it was impossible to allow Mr. Madden, merely because he had made an improper use of opportunity given him, to escape from the duty of Sheriff; for, while they decided that Mr. Madden should not be Sheriff on his own terms, they were equally decided that he should not escape, and they considered that if Mr. Madden refused and protested against acting as chief guardian of the peace of the county it was equally impossible that he should act as guardian of the peace in any sense. The Lord Chancellor answered Mr. Madden in these words—

"His Lordship cannot, with a due regard to the interests of the administration of justice and the maintenance of respect for legitimate authority, allow a gentleman to remain in the Commission who 'solemnly protests against being called upon to act as chief guardian of the peace in the county of Leitrim,' and scoffs at the 'honour' of serving the Queen in the important office to which he was nominated by Her Majesty's Judges and appointed by her representative."

That was the view of the Lord Chancellor and the Government, in refusing to allow Mr. Madden to dictate his own conditions and either to serve or to escape from serving the duties of Sheriff on conditions utterly inconsistent with the honour of any Government, and which in Ireland would be fatal to all authority. Now, on this subject the same misapprehension prevailed not only in the language they had heard to-night from the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, but still more in the public Press, and in the declaration signed by a number of magistrates. Mr. Madden said—

"Every British subject, as I take it, has a right to find fault with the administration of public affairs when they think the conduct of the servants of the Crown is open to censure. I presume the Lord Chancellor will not deny that. I have done no more."

Now, who for one moment denied that any man, whether magistrate or not, had the right to criticize and condemn the conduct of the Government? Mr. Madden might have done what a great many gentlemen in the North of Ireland have done with the utmost freedom. But the allegations which were made in this case only showed the entire misconception this gentleman entertained of his own conduct and position—a misconception not confined to him, but, he was sorry to say, shared in by a number of his brother magistrates as to the conduct of the Government. He (Mr. Chichester Portescue) desired, therefore, to state, in the strongest terms, that nothing could be further from the intentions or wishes of the Government than to interfere in the slightest degree with the perfect freedom of speech and action of the magistrates of Ireland, or with the perfect independence of that body; and nothing but the conduct of Mr. Madden, who unfortunately put himself in a position with which the Government believed they could deal in no other way, could have compelled them to take the course they had adopted. But they had been told to-night that such an outrageous act of authority as this was never hoard of before. He did not wish to rest the case of the Irish Government and the Lord Lieutenant upon any accidents; but he did mean to say that so extreme and so excessive was the violence of party passions in Ireland that these cases did sometimes from time to time occur, and former Governments had found themselves compelled to act in a similar way, and their actions had been approved by all parties and by all Governments. A few years since, as those who were acquainted with the North of Ireland would remember, occurred the case of Mr. D'Arcy Irvine, who was removed from the Commission of the Peace for conduct which fell far short of the course taken by Mr. Madden as against the Lord Lieutenant. In consequence of the very violent protest which he addressed to the Government in his capacity of magistrate, he was removed from the commission of the peace by the Government of the day. But, going back a few years further, there was a case singularly on all fours with the present—namely, that of Mr. St. George, a Galway magistrate. The appointment of stipendiary magistrates was very much resented by some of the Irish county magistrates. Mr. St. George, who was one of these, wrote a letter which, while professing the greatest possible loyalty to the Queen, said—

"I have, therefore, to request that you will convey to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant my strong remonstrance against this uncalled for, discourteous, and unjust insult to the magistrates and resident gentry of the neighbourhood. …. The moral injury has been done—the sacrifice to the Moloch of agitation has been made, and the remembrance thereof cannot be effaced."

He continued—

"My first impulse was to have resigned my office into the hands of him who has now, for the first time, thought fit to consider me unworthy to hold it independently; but as, by so doing, I should carry into effect the views of those who have suggested to the Government their present measures, I prefer to await the more distinguished honour of a public dismissal, should I be thought worthy thereof."

Mr. St. George, by his voluntary act, placed himself in the same position as Mr. Madden had done—a position from which there was no escape except by the unpleasant process which the Irish Government had been obliged to take. Some fix or six years afterwards Mr. St. George was restored to the commission of the peace, upon the application of his brother magistrates, supported by the Lord Lieutenant of the county (the Marquess of Clanricarde). Questions were asked in both Houses of Parliament on the subject. The then Chief Secretary (Lord Eliot), in reply, stated that—

"The Lord Chancellor (Sir Edward Sugden), however, was so strongly impressed with the impropriety of the letter, viewing it as an insult to the representative of the Sovereign, that he refused to comply with the application until an explanation had been given. Such an explanation had been given as had satisfied the Lord Chancel- lor; and he, of his own motion, but with the entire concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant, had reinstated Mr. St. George."

And in the House of Lords the Duke of Wellington vindicated the conduct of the Government, saying that, after the letter of Mr. St. George—

"He could not do otherwise than say that, in his opinion, the noble Lord at the head of the Irish Government could not have done otherwise than desire that Mr. St. George might be dismissed from his office."

Undoubtedly it sometimes occurred that questions of the highest character and honour were carried beyond the bounds of public propriety; and when such cases did occur, the painful necessity was laid upon the Irish Government of acting as they had been compelled to act in the present instance. Irish Gevernments—he could, at all events, answer for the present Irish Government—were anxious to avoid adopting such a course if they could do so consistently with the authority and dignity of the Government they were bound to protect. But, in maintaining that it was the duty from which they could not escape to take this course in respect to Mr. Madden, in consequence of the position in which he had chosen to put himself by his own act, he could not sit down without ending, as he began, in declaring in the strongest terms that the act of the Irish Government did not in any way contemplate any interference with perfect freedom of action and speech of the Irish magistrates, and that it implied no attempt or desire to interfere with their perfect independence. They knew that language, certainly of the strongest and sometimes of the most violent character, may have been used by Mr. Madden and others, and was used during the period of strong party feeling that had existed during the past twelve months without any interference on the part of the Government; and nothing but the position in which Mr. Madden put himself by an answer of the most improper kind, directed, upon an official and non-political occasion, to the head of the Irish Government, would have compelled or justified the Irish Government in taking the course they had adopted. That course, in his belief, was not only rendered necessary by a sense of duty, but was necessary for the safety of the authority of all future Irish Governments.

thought it absolutely necessary to say a few words in defence of an absent man. He regretted that the noble Lord who had brought forward this Motion (Lord C. J. Hamilton) with so much ability should not have confined himself more to the question which he had introduced, and should have dwelt upon so much that was irrelevant. One of the statements which the noble Lord made was particularly painful to him, because it related to a friend of his, of whom he had lost sight of for many years, but who he now heard subjected to the accusation of using most improper language. He referred to the Rev. Thomas Doyle, who had been accused of using language which, if correct, he, for one, should be sorry to defend. That gentleman had furnished him with the report of his speech, a copy of which he furnished the day after it was delivered to a Wexford paper. He had asked him to read certain extracts, which were, in fact, the extracts corresponding to those portions of his speech which had given rise to these charges. He would neither assail nor defend, but would simply read the extracts, which were as follows:—

"Was the earth created only for Emperors, Kings, and Governments? [A Voice: No, no!] Was it created for an aristocracy, or for those whom George Henry Moore calls an oligarchy of buckeens? [Cheers, and 'No, no!] God alone has supreme dominion over the land, and he created it that the people might occupy it and live upon. You have just as good a right to occupy the land of your birth as the landlords [Cheers]; and any law made by man to deprive you of that right of occupancy is a violation of the natural law. … My first mission was in New Ross in '46–7, and there I witnessed scenes in the town and in the workhouse that made me proclaim undying war against landlord law. … This tyranny has become intolerable—it can be borne no longer.… [Cheers.] Only a short time since a fox cover was burnt, likely by accident, and there was great commotion about it, and a gentleman made a speech in favour of the fox, and said he hoped the farmers would not grudge him a fowl for his breakfast. … But the poor of Killesk were driven out in the snow; a dying woman, Mrs. Murphy, had to receive the last Sacraments under the ditch; I saw the snow water dripping down into the deathbed of the aged Mrs. Ryan; for them there was no compassion, no protection. ['Shame!'] Yes, the words of our Divine Redeemer are fulfilled to the letter—'The foxes have their holes, and the birds of the air have their nests wherein to lay their young, but the Son of Man has not whereon to lay His head.'.. I say this is an alarming state of things. We may preach, and our Bishops may write pasto- rals; but there are other pastorals—other missives coming across the Atlantic every day, which are read by thousands, which are carried by the penny Press into every cottage in the land. To one of these I beg to call the landlords' special attention, not as a threat—God forbid—but as a friendly, a salutary warning. Mr. John Mitchel has great influence with the Irish race all over the globe. [Cheers.] Only a short time since both branches of the Fenian organization offered to make him their leader. I will read for you the advice lately given by Mr. Mitchel to the Irish peasantry. You may condemn it, but you cannot ignore it; you must deal with it as a fact. He says—'If the landlord evict you unjustly, shoot him like a mad dog.' [Cheers and laughter.] It is not a matter for laughter, but for very serious and painful reflection. 'If the landlord unjustly evicts you (he says) shoot him like a mad dog. Should he hide himself in London, then shoot the agent or the bailiff, or all three. It is a desperate remedy, but it has become unavoidable.' We may deplore, we may condemn, we may denounce this teaching; but there it stands a fact, not to be despised."

New, of course, it might be said, and said truly, that passages like these were to be judged not merely according to the effect they would produce on a reasoning and dispassionate mind, but according to the impression they were calculated to produce on an excited and impassioned assembly. At the same time, hon. Members must recollect that the scones of savage cruelty enacted during the course of the evictions of 1846 and 1847, and of which Mr. Doyle was a witness, were cited in that House with indignant and romantic pathos by the late Sir Robert Peel, and yet neither the Legislature nor the Executive stirred hand or foot in order to prevent them. Therefore, he maintained that when this rev. gentleman thought proper to allude to those terrible scenes of which he had been a witness, alongside with other atrocities committed by other misdoers, it was not with a desire to make light of what he should call the 5th, but what most hon. Members would call the 6th commandment, for he pointed out with great theological accuracy a number of ways in which men might be guilty of its infraction. In regard to what had been said about Vinegar Hill, he would admit that there rebels fought against the Government; but against what kind of Government and what kind of men did the people rebel? He would read a description of those men which was written by the great Lord Chesterfield, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and he called him great because he believed history had not done justice to that nobleman's wisdom and energy. The letter in question was addressed to an Irish Protestant Bishop, and bore date the 1st of October, 1764. It contained the following passage:—

"I see that you are in fear again from your Whiteboys, and have destroyed a good many of them; but I believe that if the military force had killed half as many landlords it would have contributed more effectually to restore quiet. The poor people in Ireland are used worse than negroes by their lords and masters, and their deputies of deputies of deputies. For there is a sentiment in every human breast that asserts man's natural right to liberty and good usage, and that will, and ought to, rebel when provoked to a certain degree."

It was against such men that the people of Ireland rebelled. No doubt it was true that great excesses were committed by the peasantry; but were none committed on the other side? Although he protested against the internecine atrocities which he hoped were about to cease in Ireland, he must confess he felt an interest in every spot on the face of the globe—however illustrious and however obscure—from Marathon to Vinegar Hill, on which men had stood up against oppression.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

wished to state that he had been informed that it was by Lord Normanby, not by Sir Robert Peel, that Sir William Vorner had been dismissed from the magistracy in 1839. Sir Robert Peel dismissed the Repeal-men.